CourtListener opinion 11199572

QDRO: sting ("Linda"), obtained a judgment against Respondent, James Kesting ("James"), for breach of an alimony/spousal support agreement entered into during their divorce. When that judgment was returned without recovery, the magistrate judge issued a Judgment of Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). The subsequent judgment was intended to allow recovery of the unpaid spousal support and associated attorney fees from James' pension plan. James appealed to the district court, which reversed. The district court concluded that the QDRO was not valid because the spousal support agreement was not merged into the divorce decree and, therefore, the Q


CourtListener opinion 11199572

retirement benefits: itionally, James argues that the QDRO was not made pursuant to Idaho's "domestic relations law" because, in Idaho, a non-merged spousal support agreement is only enforceable under contract law. Both parties agree that while a QDRO is usually used to divide a retirement plan upon divorce, a QDRO may be used enforce a judgment to collect delinquent support payments. We 3 have not previously addressed this issue, but we agree with other courts that have concluded that a QDRO may be entered to enforce a prior support obligation. See Stinner v. Stinner, 554 A.2d 45, 48 (Pa. 1989) (holding that a QDRO may be entered to enforce a


CourtListener opinion 11199572

pension: n that judgment was returned without recovery, the magistrate judge issued a Judgment of Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). The subsequent judgment was intended to allow recovery of the unpaid spousal support and associated attorney fees from James' pension plan. James appealed to the district court, which reversed. The district court concluded that the QDRO was not valid because the spousal support agreement was not merged into the divorce decree and, therefore, the QDRO was not issued pursuant to the State's domestic relations law as required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Linda


CourtListener opinion 11199572

ERISA: ded that the QDRO was not valid because the spousal support agreement was not merged into the divorce decree and, therefore, the QDRO was not issued pursuant to the State's domestic relations law as required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Linda timely appealed. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Linda filed suit alleging that James breached a spousal support agreement entered into by the parties during their divorce. The support agreement was a separate agreement not merged into their divorce decree or approved by the court in that proceeding. The agreement in question dealt only


CourtListener opinion 11199766

CourtListener opinion 11199766 Extracted reporter citation: 303 P.3d 214. Docket: 50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11199766 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11199766

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


CourtListener opinion 11199766

QDRO: ates that withholdings and contributions will be governed by Idaho law applicable to PERSI. PERSI is a state-created retirement plan under I.C. § 59-1301, et seq., and PERSI accounts are an asset that can be 13 split between divorcing spouses pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. I.C. §§ 59-1317, -1319. The magistrate court evaluated all the evidence related to the PERSI Choice 401(k) plan and found that Chris's wages partially funded the account and Chris retained control over the funds in the account. The magistrate court further concluded that although penalties might exist for withdrawal, Chris could access the funds at any ti


CourtListener opinion 11199766

retirement benefits: ount, unbeknownst to Shawnee. Chris preserved this recording for two years prior to instituting divorce proceedings and introduced it as evidence of Shawnee's intent to transmute the EJJTROS account to community property. 2 Chris and Shawnee have additional retirement accounts and other assets. The division of the other accounts and assets is not at issue on appeal. 2 In 2012, the City of Idaho Falls (the City), Chris's employer, and the local firefighters' union negotiated a contract pursuant to federal law that allowed the City to opt out of contributing to Social Security on behalf of its firefighters. Instead of contributi


CourtListener opinion 11199766

pension: rity Act. Id. at 559, 82 P.3d at 841. The Supreme Court noted that the Tier I benefits were not divisible by a court upon divorce. Id. at 560, 82 P.3d at 842. The other component, commonly called Tier II benefits, is an additional annuity that, like a private pension plan, is tied to the earnings and career service. Id. at 559-60, 82 P.3d at 841-42. The Tier II benefit also had a component similar to divorced spouse's benefits under the Social Security Act. Id. The wife sought a portion of the Tier II benefits pursuant to the divorce. Id. Chris argues the Tier 1 benefits are equivalent to the firefighters having their


CourtListener opinion 11199766

401(k): iated a contract pursuant to federal law that allowed the City to opt out of contributing to Social Security on behalf of its firefighters. Instead of contributing to Social Security, the City would contribute an equivalent amount of money into a PERSI Choice 401(k) account. Each firefighter had to affirmatively elect and create a PERSI Choice 401(k) account. Once a firefighter created the account, the City would make mandatory deposits to the account. Once those deposits were made, each firefighter, including Chris, had the ability to move or withdraw the funds. After marriage, Chris moved into Shawnee's house on Nat


CourtListener opinion 11200756

CourtListener opinion 11200756 Extracted case name: K.T. v. E.S. Extracted reporter citation: 89 Cal.App.5th 574. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11200756 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11200756

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


CourtListener opinion 11200756

QDRO: ajwa's motion to dismiss the appeal based on the disentitlement doctrine. She asserts Mateen has failed to pay ongoing child support, refused to cooperate with Najwa to refinance the family home, and failed to pay his share of attorney fees for preparation of qualified domestic relations orders. She also notes the trial court previously sanctioned Mateen for failing to participate in good faith settlement discussions, among other things. She argues Mateen's noncompliance demonstrates an "attitude of contempt" sufficient to warrant dismissal of the appeal. We decline to exercise our discretion to dismiss the appeal. "‘An appellate court has the i


CourtListener opinion 11200756

domestic relations order: ion to dismiss the appeal based on the disentitlement doctrine. She asserts Mateen has failed to pay ongoing child support, refused to cooperate with Najwa to refinance the family home, and failed to pay his share of attorney fees for preparation of qualified domestic relations orders. She also notes the trial court previously sanctioned Mateen for failing to participate in good faith settlement discussions, among other things. She argues Mateen's noncompliance demonstrates an "attitude of contempt" sufficient to warrant dismissal of the appeal. We decline to exercise our discretion to dismiss the appeal. "‘An appellate court has the i


CourtListener opinion 11202293

CourtListener opinion 11202293 Extracted reporter citation: 645 N.W.2d 96. Docket: of monthly checks. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11202293 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11202293


CourtListener opinion 11202293

QDRO: y payments. The district court awarded wife the TD Ameritrade Roth IRA "free and clear of any claim by [husband]," and awarded wife the Northern Minnesota-Wisconsin Area Fringe Benefits Fund pension, "subject to [husband's] marital interest, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)." The district court awarded husband his MSRS pension, "subject to [wife's] marital interest, pursuant to a QDRO" and ordered husband to continue to list wife as a 100% survivor beneficiary while in disability or retirement status. In August 2023, wife's counsel asked the district court to clarify two issues with its June 2023 order. First, cou


CourtListener opinion 11202293

retirement benefits: ge and costs would be paid from the proceeds of the sale, that wife would be 2 paid the amount of the equity balancing payment, and that husband would receive the remainder. As for the pensions, the district court found that wife had an interest in two retirement accounts—the TD Ameritrade Roth IRA and the Northern Minnesota- Wisconsin Area Fringe Benefits Fund. It also found that husband had an interest in a pension with the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) and that wife was listed as a 100% survivor on husband's MSRS disability retirement plan while he received disability payments. The district court awarded w


CourtListener opinion 11202293

pension: the remainder. As for the pensions, the district court found that wife had an interest in two retirement accounts—the TD Ameritrade Roth IRA and the Northern Minnesota- Wisconsin Area Fringe Benefits Fund. It also found that husband had an interest in a pension with the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) and that wife was listed as a 100% survivor on husband's MSRS disability retirement plan while he received disability payments. The district court awarded wife the TD Ameritrade Roth IRA "free and clear of any claim by [husband]," and awarded wife the Northern Minnesota-Wisconsin Area Fringe Benefits Fun


CourtListener opinion 11202293

domestic relations order: s. The district court awarded wife the TD Ameritrade Roth IRA "free and clear of any claim by [husband]," and awarded wife the Northern Minnesota-Wisconsin Area Fringe Benefits Fund pension, "subject to [husband's] marital interest, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)." The district court awarded husband his MSRS pension, "subject to [wife's] marital interest, pursuant to a QDRO" and ordered husband to continue to list wife as a 100% survivor beneficiary while in disability or retirement status. In August 2023, wife's counsel asked the district court to clarify two issues with its June 2023 order. First, cou


CourtListener opinion 11202666

CourtListener opinion 11202666 Extracted reporter citation: 126 P.3d 196. Docket: 24CA1918 Arapahoe County District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11202666 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11202666


CourtListener opinion 11202666

QDRO: 24CA1918 McBride v Johnson 11-13-2025 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 24CA1918 Arapahoe County District Court No. 19CV32302 Honorable J. Steven Patrick, Judge Steven R. McBride d/b/a McBride QDRO Services, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice A. Johnson, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, ORDER AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division V Opinion by JUDGE YUN Freyre and Pawar, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced November 13, 2025 Richard K. Rufner, Maineville, Ohio, for Pl


CourtListener opinion 11202666

domestic relations order: ken from a prior opinion of a division of this court. See McBride v. Johnson, (Colo. App. No. 22CA1074, Aug. 3, 2023) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)). ¶3 Johnson is a licensed Colorado attorney who specializes in the preparation of qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs). Id., slip op. at ¶ 3. McBride, who is not a licensed attorney, is trained and experienced in preparing, filing, and obtaining approval of QDROs. Id. ¶4 In November 2016, Johnson filed a complaint with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel alleging that McBride was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing QDROs on beh


CourtListener opinion 11203817

CourtListener opinion 11203817 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11203817 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11203817


CourtListener opinion 11203817

domestic relations order: urt to "scrutinize[ ]" the "legal merits" 3 See Lawson v. Godderz, Case No. 25-2199-JWB. of "each order" in the state court divorce and child-custody proceedings). Thus, as Plaintiff seeks this court to review or overrule the state court custody and other domestic relations orders, such actions are barred by the domestic-relations exception to federal court jurisdiction. Id. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that overcome the well-established principle that "divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees." Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992). While rare instances exist


CourtListener opinion 11204914

CourtListener opinion 11204914 Extracted reporter citation: 290 U.S. 111. Docket: 4049-23. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11204914 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11204914

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


CourtListener opinion 11204914

QDRO: divorce documents for them because he and Ms. Lopez tried to make the divorce as fair as possible. Paragraph 6 of the FJOD provides: Husband has pension benefits earned while an employee with the State of New Jersey. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be prepared and the cost for preparation shall be shared by both parties. Husband has an application currently pending for a disability pension retroactive to the date of his disability. In the event that Husband receives retroactive benefits, Wife shall be entitled to share in those retroactive benefits; however, the amount of her benefits sha


CourtListener opinion 11204914

retirement benefits: letter dated March 18, 2020 (Decision Letter), the Board adopted the conclusion of an administrative law judge that petitioner was totally and permanently disabled from performing his regular and assigned duties and approved petitioner for ordinary disability retirement benefits effective as of July 1, 2014. When petitioner applied for benefits in 2014, he selected the "Maximum Option" under the PERS regulations which provided him with the highest possible monthly income but with no survivor benefits. On March 22, 2017, petitioner and Ms. Lopez signed a Final Judgment of Divorce (FJOD) in the State of New Jersey. Ms. Lopez was r


CourtListener opinion 11204914

pension: were married from 2005 to 2017. 2 During their marriage and until 2013, petitioner was an electrician employed by the State of New Jersey. In 2013, he sustained a severe injury at work and was permanently disabled. In 2014, petitioner applied for a disability pension claim to the board of trustees (Board) of the New Jersey Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). In a letter dated March 18, 2020 (Decision Letter), the Board adopted the conclusion of an administrative law judge that petitioner was totally and permanently disabled from performing his regular and assigned duties and approved petitioner for ordinary disa


CourtListener opinion 11204914

alternate payee: ports the conclusion that the parties understood that the PERS regulations would be followed, including the PERS regulation which states that "[a]ll withholdings mandated under a matrimonial order shall cease upon the death of either the retired member or the alternate payee." N.J. Admin. Code § 17:1-1.12(c) (2009). Finally, petitioner argues that the Consent Order does not change the analysis that petitioner would not remain liable to make the payment in the event of Ms. Lopez's death because the Consent Order is best viewed as a satisfaction of the FJOD, which incorporated the limitations of PERS. As discussed below, we hold


CourtListener opinion 11206541

CourtListener opinion 11206541 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of DeBenedetti & Ensberg. Extracted reporter citation: 110 Cal.App.5th 1035. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11206541 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11206541


CourtListener opinion 11206541

QDRO: ocation and confirmation, the parties agree that they can both be confirmed all property and assets debts contained on Exhibit 240 [sic]"; and (2) "any accounts, retirement accounts, that have been allocated to the parties in the balance sheet that need to be QDRO[ed] will be QDRO[ed]."2 The parties also asked the trial court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. At issue in this appeal is how the settlement agreement disposed of three retirement accounts listed on Exhibit 240, each of which comprised at least some community property. In the proceedings below, Jeffrey contended the provisions of the sett


CourtListener opinion 11206541

retirement benefits: udgment the court could sign. Two of the terms the parties agreed on were: (1) "as to property allocation and confirmation, the parties agree that they can both be confirmed all property and assets debts contained on Exhibit 240 [sic]"; and (2) "any accounts, retirement accounts, that have been allocated to the parties in the balance sheet that need to be QDRO[ed] will be QDRO[ed]."2 The parties also asked the trial court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. At issue in this appeal is how the settlement agreement disposed of three retirement accounts listed on Exhibit 240, each of which comprised at least some commun


CourtListener opinion 11206541

ERISA: would fall because of this." Regarding the QDRO provision, Jeffrey's counsel explained the parties added that language "only pursuant to discussions we had, which I believe is frequently the case -- there's an article about it -- but the retirement plans or ERISA government plans sometimes require QDRO's either to confirm a retirement plan to 7 the employee spouse so that they're insulated from the unemployee [sic] spouse coming back after them." He added, "it was no harm, no foul to include that provision." Julie's counsel countered that, had the parties intended for each spouse to keep the contents of the reti


CourtListener opinion 11206541

401(k): rty. Each spouse valued the car differently, but both agreed it should be distributed to Julie. A 2008 BMW—also community property—was allocated to Jeffrey. Listed under "RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS" on page 5 of Exhibit 240 are (among other accounts): "Brightsphere 401K Plan," "TCW P/S & Savings Plan," and "Charles Schwab IRA." Under the columns indicating how the parties proposed to distribute the community property portion of these assets, both Jeffrey and Julie stated the entirety of the "Brightsphere 401K Plan" and "TCW P/S & Savings Plan" would be distributed to Jeffrey, with nothing distributed to Julie, and the enti


CourtListener opinion 11216613

CourtListener opinion 11216613 Extracted reporter citation: 211 F.3d 938. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11216613 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11216613


CourtListener opinion 11216613

QDRO: d by $385.26 to cover the cost of the "qualified joint survivor annuity" (the surviving spouse annuity), 1 which provides his former spouse with reduced monthly payments upon Gasper's death. According to Gasper, the "qualified domestic relations order" (QDRO) entered after his divorce required that any "cost" of the surviving spouse annuity be deducted from his former spouse's portion of the plan benefit and should not result in a reduction to his portion of the benefit. Gasper also seeks "statutory penalties" based on the plan administrator's purported failure to provide Gasper with certain plan docume


CourtListener opinion 11216613

retirement benefits: 4-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 1 of 16 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1959 DAVID GASPER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. EIDP, INC., f/k/a E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Company; CORTEVA INC.; THE PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN; THE BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. Argued: September 10, 2025 Decided: December 8, 2025 Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Aff


CourtListener opinion 11216613

pension: A4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 1 of 16 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1959 DAVID GASPER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. EIDP, INC., f/k/a E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Company; CORTEVA INC.; THE PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN; THE BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. Argued: September 10, 2025 Decided: December 8, 2025 Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior


CourtListener opinion 11216613

ERISA: ND & KNIGHT LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 2 of 16 BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge: David Gasper filed the present action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1024, 1132, against his former employer and retirement plan administrator. Gasper primarily asserts that his monthly annuity payment improperly was reduced by $385.26 to cover the cost of the "qualified joint survivor annuity" (the surviving spouse annuity), 1 which provides his former spouse with reduced monthly payments upon Gasper'


CourtListener opinion 11225987

CourtListener opinion 11225987 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of DeBenedetti & Ensberg. Extracted reporter citation: 110 Cal.App.5th 1035. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11225987 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11225987


CourtListener opinion 11226852

CourtListener opinion 11226852 Extracted case name: ET AL. v. THOMAS A. STEWART. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: M2024-01939-COA-R3-CV This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11226852 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11226852

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


CourtListener opinion 11226852

retirement benefits: Briefs October 1, 2025 KENNETH KELLY, ET AL. v. THOMAS A. STEWART Appeal from the Chancery Court for Montgomery County No. MC-CH-CV-CD-20-20 Ben Dean, Chancellor No. M2024-01939-COA-R3-CV This appeal concerns the garnishment of an inherited Individual Retirement Account. Advanced Hearing Aid Group, LLC ("AHAG"), Gary Kelly, Kenneth Kelly, and Matthew Kelly ("Plaintiffs," collectively) filed an application for writ of garnishment in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County ("the Trial Court") against Thomas A. Stewart ("Defendant"). Plaintiffs sought to collect a judgment against Defendant stemming from a lawsuit over AHAG.


CourtListener opinion 11226852

alternate payee: e payable to a participant or beneficiary from a retirement plan that is qualified under the enumerated sections of the Internal Revenue Code—and "any interest" thereon—are exempt from all claims of creditors except the State of Tennessee and "claims of an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order[.]" Additionally, the debtor's records concerning the plan and the plan's records concerning the debtor's participation in the plan are exempt from the subpoena process. Because Mr. Hill's IRA undisputedly falls within section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code, it is exempt from the subpoena process, garnishmen


CourtListener opinion 11226852

domestic relations order: iciary from a retirement plan that is qualified under the enumerated sections of the Internal Revenue Code—and "any interest" thereon—are exempt from all claims of creditors except the State of Tennessee and "claims of an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order[.]" Additionally, the debtor's records concerning the plan and the plan's records concerning the debtor's participation in the plan are exempt from the subpoena process. Because Mr. Hill's IRA undisputedly falls within section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code, it is exempt from the subpoena process, garnishment, and execution by judgment creditors, i.e


CourtListener opinion 11226852

survivor benefits: f the Inherited -12- IRA. They argue that the mere fact Defendant ultimately benefits from the funds in the Revocable Trust does not mean that it and he are functionally the same. For illustrative purposes, Plaintiffs cite 26 C.F.R. § 1.408-8(c), in which a surviving spouse may elect to treat an inherited IRA as her own should she be the sole beneficiary of the IRA, as an example that the distinction between individuals and trusts matters in the context of identifying the rights of beneficiaries: "In order to make the election described in this paragraph (c)(1), the surviving spouse must be the sole beneficiary of the IRA and


CourtListener opinion 11228237

CourtListener opinion 11228237 Extracted case name: MR CHARLES F. HOLDEN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DERWIN L. WEBB. Extracted reporter citation: 578 S.W.3d 356. Docket: 2024-CA-1468-MR CHARLES F. HOLDEN APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11228237 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11228237


CourtListener opinion 11228237

QDRO: ined benefit pensions for both his military service and his civilian employment. The UPS account is a private sector retirement plan, so it falls under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Therefore, equitable division was achieved via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or QDRO. Military retirement plans are not covered by ERISA, however, so the parties addressed the military pension in the property settlement agreement negotiated prior to the divorce. Unfortunately, as the trial court observed, the section dealing with the military retirement was "short, vague, and ambiguous."1 The parties entered into a subsequent


CourtListener opinion 11228237

retirement benefits: ly benefit. The Holdens separated in 2011. Divorce proceedings were protracted due to custody discussions regarding two then minor children, challenges accompanying the sale of a marital home, accounting issues related to the division of Husband's future retirement benefits, and an acknowledged filing error in the clerk's office. Due to these various delays, although the property settlement agreement was filed in 2012, the final decree of dissolution was not officially entered until 2013. -2- Husband has two vested retirements: he is entitled to receive defined benefit pensions for both his military service and his civ


CourtListener opinion 11228237

pension: s under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Therefore, equitable division was achieved via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or QDRO. Military retirement plans are not covered by ERISA, however, so the parties addressed the military pension in the property settlement agreement negotiated prior to the divorce. Unfortunately, as the trial court observed, the section dealing with the military retirement was "short, vague, and ambiguous."1 The parties entered into a subsequent agreement in 2014 to clarify matters. Per this agreement, Husband agreed to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan


CourtListener opinion 11228237

ERISA: d has two vested retirements: he is entitled to receive defined benefit pensions for both his military service and his civilian employment. The UPS account is a private sector retirement plan, so it falls under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Therefore, equitable division was achieved via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or QDRO. Military retirement plans are not covered by ERISA, however, so the parties addressed the military pension in the property settlement agreement negotiated prior to the divorce. Unfortunately, as the trial court observed, the section dealing with the military


CourtListener opinion 11229034

CourtListener opinion 11229034 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 13-24-00256-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11229034 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11229034


CourtListener opinion 11229034

retirement benefits: n a divorce proceeding "in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction." Gillin v. Gillin, 307 S.W.3d 395, 397 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.). However, the trial court may only divide disposable retired pay, which "excludes disability pay, including retirement benefits that may be waived in order to collect disability benefits." Id. at 397–98. "A divorce court cannot apportion military retirement pay which has been waived to receive Veterans Administration disability benefits." Id. at 398. A trial court cannot expressly or impliedly prohibit a retired military member from electing to waive his retirement pay to recei


CourtListener opinion 11229034

domestic relations order: that the military member spouse can agree to reimburse the ex-spouse if he waives retirement pay to take disability. However, no Texas court has made this determination. See Freeman, 133 S.W.3d at 280; Gillin, 307 S.W.3d at 398 ("The first provision of the domestic relations order provides that any election of benefits that may be made by Kevin ‘shall' not reduce the amount of retired pay awarded to Lori, and specifically prohibits Kevin from waiving military retired pay in order to receive disability benefits. The trial court erred in restricting Kevin's right to elect disability."); Loria v. Loria, 189 S.W.3d 797, 799 (Tex. App


CourtListener opinion 11229034

valuation/division: t dispositive. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. 6 III. IRREVOCABLE MSA By her first cross-issue, appellee contends that there was no meeting of the minds when the parties signed the MSA. A. Applicable Law Divorcing spouses may agree to the division of their community property by either executing a settlement agreement "which ‘may be revised or repudiated before rendition of the divorce,'" or they "may choose to execute a settlement agreement" pursuant to § 6.602 of the Texas Family Code that is binding on the parties as soon as it is executed, and each party is "entitled to judgment on the agreement notwithstanding Rule 11,


CourtListener opinion 11231628

CourtListener opinion 11231628 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Teruel De Torres. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 24CA0231 Jefferson County District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11231628 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11231628

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


CourtListener opinion 11231628

domestic relations order: lated to the child's name, the court must then consider whether the content-based restriction or requirement is narrowly tailored to justify it. ¶ 65 As guidance, we turn to how courts in other jurisdictions have analyzed "non-disparagement" clauses in domestic relations orders. We recognize that non-disparagement clauses are not directly on point, but we view the free speech analyses concerning these provisions to be analogous to the free speech considerations concerning the parents' name issue. We do not opine as to the 35 constitutionality of a non-disparagement order generally but look at cases in which the court


CourtListener opinion 11232567

CourtListener opinion 11232567 Docket: 15-25-05 was signed by the parties and the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11232567 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11232567

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


CourtListener opinion 11232567

QDRO: as a 401k account in his name through his employment with Mirka, USA. Wife is to receive $43,000.00 from that account. WIFE shall be entitled to any gains and losses in the market until such time as the funds are removed from the accounts and divided. The QDRO shall comply with the requirements of the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 to establish a qualified domestic relations order, and both parties agree they will make any modifications necessary to qualify the order. (Doc. No. 59). Pursuant to the agreement, a QDRO was to be filed within 90 days after the "final hearing." {¶9} A QDRO was prepared within 90


CourtListener opinion 11232567

retirement benefits: action or the show cause motion. Rather, on August 11, 2021, the parties -3- Case No. 15-25-05 entered into a "Separation Agreement," which was incorporated into the Final Divorce Decree. The Separation Agreement divided the parties' property, including retirement benefits. The Separation Agreement read, in pertinent part: 5.02 HUSBAND has a 401k account in his name through his employment with Mirka, USA. Wife is to receive $43,000.00 from that account. WIFE shall be entitled to any gains and losses in the market until such time as the funds are removed from the accounts and divided. The QDRO shall comply with the requ


CourtListener opinion 11232567

401(k): ment of the trial court. Background {¶2} This matter was initiated when Stacy filled a motion alleging Heath was in contempt for failing to comply with the parties' Final Divorce Decree. The alleged contempt centers on distribution of funds from Heath's 401(k). As there are discrepancies between the parties regarding the 401(k), loans taken from the 401(k), and knowledge of the loans taken from the 401(k), we will trace all the information related to Heath's 401(k) that is present in the record. {¶3} Heath and Stacy were married in November of 2007. In November of 2020, Heath filed for divorce. {¶4} In He


CourtListener opinion 11232567

alternate payee: {¶32} However, perhaps the most compelling evidence against Stacy's contempt claim is the QDRO language that was signed by Stacy in July of 2022. The QDRO stated: 4. The "Assigned Benefit" or the portion of the Participant's Plan benefits payable to the Alternate Payee under this QDRO is: The applicable QDRO distribution which shall be determined based on the complete dollar amount, in full, attributable to the Participant as of August 11, 2021 (less any loan balance owed by the Participant) plus any gain/loss allocation applicable from that date to the date determined under the provisions of the Plan and is continge


CourtListener opinion 11232673

CourtListener opinion 11232673 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11232673 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11232673


CourtListener opinion 11232673

QDRO: nformation about any disability or retirement payments that he was receiving. {¶7} After Strong received information from STRS about payments being made to Powless, her counsel enlisted the assistance of a legal and actuarial consulting firm known as the QDRO Group. QDRO Group determined — after looking at Powless's information from STRS — that Powless was indeed receiving disability benefits in lieu of standard monthly retirement benefits and would continue to receive those benefits assuming that his condition remained unchanged and he did not return to work for STRS. Based on that information, combined wit


CourtListener opinion 11232673

retirement benefits: domestic-relations appeal that the trial court erred by approving Plaintiff Julie Strong's proposed division-of-property order that awarded her — in accordance with the parties' 2003 divorce decree under which Strong was entitled to one-half of Powless's "retirement benefits" — one-half of Powless's disability benefits that the trial court found he was receiving in lieu of retirement benefits. Strong in turn argues that we should dismiss this appeal because the April 3, 2025 judgment entry that Powless challenges was not, in her view, a final and appealable order. For the reasons explained below, we deny Strong's motion to


CourtListener opinion 11232673

pension: d affirm the trial court's judgment. The Key Facts and Procedural History {¶2} Strong and Powless were married for over 20 years before their marriage was terminated by a 2003 divorce decree, which provided that Strong was "awarded one- half of the state pension and/or retirement benefits" that Powless had earned during their marriage. {¶3} Strong alleges that several years after the 2003 divorce in this case, she learned that Powless was receiving disability benefits instead of retirement benefits. (Strong was not then receiving either type of benefit under the divorce decree.) Strong in February 2024 filed


CourtListener opinion 11232673

alternate payee: le order in this case. {¶9} A trial court's decision regarding the division of retirement benefits in a divorce action may be implemented through the issuance of a qualified domestic-relations order (QDRO), which "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits" payable under a retirement plan. Wilson v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 6–7. Such orders dividing retirement benefits payable by one of Ohio's public retirement systems are referred to as division-of-property orders (DOPO) because they must comply with cert


CourtListener opinion 11239633

CourtListener opinion 11239633 Extracted case name: E.R. v. B.R. Extracted reporter citation: 687 S.W.3d 285. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11239633 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11239633


CourtListener opinion 11239633

QDRO: the case had been contested and that the parties had submitted their issues to the trial court to decide. The trial court awarded to Thomas "60% of her retirement benefits with the FDIC or elsewhere" and awarded to Coon "40% of such retirement benefits by Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(QDRO)]."4 The letter ruling did not contain the "past, present, or future 2 In Baker, the supreme court clarified the requirements for a letter ruling to be considered a rendition. 687 S.W.3d at 292–93. Citing Baker, we remanded this case to the trial court in Coon II because the record before us did not show whether the February 15, 1996 letter rulin


CourtListener opinion 11239633

retirement benefits: 10-21 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Introduction This dispute between Appellant Gregory Wayne Coon and Appellee Victoria Jacobs Thomas arises from the division of Thomas's retirement benefits in their 1996 divorce. In 2021, the trial court entered a judgment nunc pro tunc on that division. See Coon v. Coon (Coon I), No. 02-21-00381-CV, 2022 WL 7232163, at *1 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth Oct. 13, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); Coon v. Coon (Coon II), No. 02-23- 00210-CV, 2024 WL 3896084, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 22, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.).


CourtListener opinion 11239633

pension: ng also established the parties' possession of the children, ordered Coon to pay monthly child support, and ordered the sale of the parties' residence. 4 A QDRO is a "species of post-divorce enforcement" order that permits payment to an alternate payee of a pension, retirement plan, or other employee benefits. Pelloat v. McKay, No. 13-15-00456-CV, 2017 WL 2375762, at *3 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that a QDRO is a 3 employment" language included in the decree two months later. The trial court's August 16, 1996 QDROs dividing Thomas's FDIC 401k Savings Plan and her


CourtListener opinion 11239633

401(k): 00456-CV, 2017 WL 2375762, at *3 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that a QDRO is a 3 employment" language included in the decree two months later. The trial court's August 16, 1996 QDROs dividing Thomas's FDIC 401k Savings Plan and her Thrift Savings Plan stated that the date of divorce was February 15, 1996; the QDROs awarded to Coon 40% of Thomas's vested plans as of that date. Neither party appealed either the decree or the QDROs. In 2021, Coon filed a petition for enforcement of the property division based on the decree's language. See Coon I, 2022 WL 723216


CourtListener opinion 11240637

CourtListener opinion 11240637 Extracted reporter citation: 571 U.S. 415. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11240637 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11240637


CourtListener opinion 11240637

QDRO: Fenstermaker's account with the New York State and Local Retirement System? 5. Assuming, as the parties seem to agree, that there was no qualified domestic relations order (or anything similar) in effect as of the petition date, does the absence of a QDRO affect the answers to questions 3 and 4 above and, if so, how? 6. Do (i) specific plan documents creating or governing the New York City Employees' Retirement System and/or (ii) nonbankruptcy law applicable to that system impose a restriction on the transfer of beneficial interests? 7. Do (i) specific plan documents creating or governing the New Yor


CourtListener opinion 11240637

pension: d. These circumstances are not akin to those in decisions relied upon by Ms. Fenstermaker that were unfavorable to debtors. Thus, for the above reasons, the objection to Mr. Fenstermaker's exemption of the life insurance policy is overruled. Retirement/Pension Accounts On his second amended schedule A/B, Mr. Fenstermaker disclosed interests in two additional retirement or pension accounts—"New York City Employees' Retirement" and "New York State Employees' Retirement"—and indicated that these assets were related to his divorce, which remains pending. On amended schedule C, he claimed exemptions under federal


CourtListener opinion 11243871

CourtListener opinion 11243871 Extracted reporter citation: 812 S.W.2d 487. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11243871 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11243871

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


CourtListener opinion 11243871

QDRO: etirement and any other bank accounts that they have. . . . That both parties have withdrawn monies from these accounts and both shall provide statements as of date of separation and current statements and the division of all accounts will be equalized. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was entered by the court in May 2014 stating that Kristy was entitled to 50 percent of the balance, as of December 12, 2012, of two retirement accounts Simon held with Edward Jones. In November 2021, Kristy filed a motion for a renewed QDRO. She alleged that she had been unaware of the entry of the 2014 QDRO and that no one had provided it to E


CourtListener opinion 11243871

retirement benefits: T COURT V. [NO. 04DR-12-2118] KRISTY POCKRUS (NOW SAVOLD) HONORABLE JOHN R. SCOTT, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge Simon Pockrus appeals from the order of the Benton County Circuit Court directing that he equally divide his retirement accounts with his ex-wife, Kristy Savold, as they had agreed to do in their 2013 divorce. On appeal, Simon argues that Kristy's claim is barred by the statute of limitations, that she is not entitled to any gains on the accounts since the divorce, and that the award of attorney's fees should be reversed. We affirm. The parties' September 2013 divorce decree at


CourtListener opinion 11243871

401(k): parties that purported to fully and finally resolve all issues regarding property division, debt division, and alimony. The attached document was titled "Memorandum of Understanding" and stated, in part, as follows: The parties shall each divide 50/50 any 401k, profit sharing, retirement and any other bank accounts that they have. . . . That both parties have withdrawn monies from these accounts and both shall provide statements as of date of separation and current statements and the division of all accounts will be equalized. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was entered by the court in May 2014 st


CourtListener opinion 11243871

domestic relations order: and any other bank accounts that they have. . . . That both parties have withdrawn monies from these accounts and both shall provide statements as of date of separation and current statements and the division of all accounts will be equalized. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was entered by the court in May 2014 stating that Kristy was entitled to 50 percent of the balance, as of December 12, 2012, of two retirement accounts Simon held with Edward Jones. In November 2021, Kristy filed a motion for a renewed QDRO. She alleged that she had been unaware of the entry of the 2014 QDRO and that no one had provided it to E


CourtListener opinion 11244250

CourtListener opinion 11244250 Extracted case name: LLC v. F.W. Extracted reporter citation: 919 N.E.2d 333. Docket: 2-24-0652 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11244250 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11244250


CourtListener opinion 11244250

QDRO: ION ¶3 The instant appeal arises out of post-decree litigation concerning the dissolution of the marriage of petitioner, Curt S. Villadsen, and respondent, Sarah E. Bates. Following the dissolution of marriage, the parties made multiple attempts to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dividing the marital portion of petitioner's pension from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). After the plan administrator rejected the original QDRO, and then 2026 IL App (2d) 240652-U an amended QDRO, respondent filed a petition for rule to show cause alleging petitioner's noncompliance in executing a proposed second am


CourtListener opinion 11244250

pension: on of the marriage of petitioner, Curt S. Villadsen, and respondent, Sarah E. Bates. Following the dissolution of marriage, the parties made multiple attempts to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dividing the marital portion of petitioner's pension from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). After the plan administrator rejected the original QDRO, and then 2026 IL App (2d) 240652-U an amended QDRO, respondent filed a petition for rule to show cause alleging petitioner's noncompliance in executing a proposed second amended QDRO. While the petition for rule to show cause was pe


CourtListener opinion 11244250

ERISA: of this Agreement." But it has not been argued in this court or established in the record that petitioner's signature on the QDRO was "necessary or proper" to effectuate the division of the pension. We note that respondent conceded in pleadings below that "ERISA does not require the parties' signature on a QDRO entered by the court." See Rynn v. Owens, 181 Ill. App. 3d 232, 235 (1989) (noting that any admissions that are not the product of mistake or inadvertence bind the pleader throughout the litigation.); Freedberg v. Ohio -12- 2026 IL App (2d) 240652-U National Insurance Co., 2012 IL App (1st) 110938, ¶ 3


CourtListener opinion 11244250

domestic relations order: e instant appeal arises out of post-decree litigation concerning the dissolution of the marriage of petitioner, Curt S. Villadsen, and respondent, Sarah E. Bates. Following the dissolution of marriage, the parties made multiple attempts to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dividing the marital portion of petitioner's pension from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). After the plan administrator rejected the original QDRO, and then 2026 IL App (2d) 240652-U an amended QDRO, respondent filed a petition for rule to show cause alleging petitioner's noncompliance in executing a proposed second am


CourtListener opinion 11244851

CourtListener opinion 11244851 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Winters. Extracted reporter citation: 481 U.S. 619. Docket: 5-25-0283 Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11244851 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11244851


CourtListener opinion 11244851

QDRO: orth in the court's October 3, 2014, docket entry order. Paragraph J of the order stated, "The gross retirement pay of Respondent's VA pension shall be divided equally between the parties commencing October 1, 2014. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO], if necessary, will be submitted to divide said pension. 3 Further, Respondent shall pay back Petitioner any money she loses if the Respondent opts for VA benefits or does anything to reduce Petitioner's share of Respondent's pension. Petitioner shall be awarded a survivor benefit designation (former spouse and child) for the purposes of receivi


CourtListener opinion 11244851

retirement benefits: protects against that." She further explained that the USAA loan, that was between $10,000 and $12,000, was taken out in both their names with the purpose of being a bridge for the time between Jimmy's retirement from active duty and the initiation of his retirement benefits, which could take several months. Amy's counsel argued, citing Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987), that Jimmy's military retirement of $3,960 was subject to division by the court and asked it to award Amy 50% of his retirement. Counsel stated that they were not asking for a division of the VA benefits but were asking for the VA waiver clause to be place


CourtListener opinion 11244851

pension: support. 1 ¶5 On August 15, 2014, Jimmy filed a pro se answer to the petition requesting joint custody and alleging that Amy had the capacity to work. He further alleged that the parties had already disbursed their assets and liabilities, leaving only his pension for consideration. On September 4, 2014, a hearing was held. Jimmy testified that he was receiving between $3,960 and $3,980 monthly in military retirement. He received an additional $1,900 in VA disability funds but that amount would be reduced to $1,672 after the parties divorced based on the ages of the children. He also received between $150 and $25


CourtListener opinion 11244851

survivor benefits: will be submitted to divide said pension. 3 Further, Respondent shall pay back Petitioner any money she loses if the Respondent opts for VA benefits or does anything to reduce Petitioner's share of Respondent's pension. Petitioner shall be awarded a survivor benefit designation (former spouse and child) for the purposes of receiving her 50% of the pension should Respondent predecease Petitioner." ¶8 On December 1, 2014, Jimmy obtained counsel who filed a motion for rehearing and modification of judgment, noting that credit cards were not addressed by the court. The motion further alleged that Jimmy already reimb


CourtListener opinion 11248468

CourtListener opinion 11248468 Extracted reporter citation: 712 S.W.3d 113. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11248468 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11248468


CourtListener opinion 11248468

QDRO: der constitutes improper modification under Section 9.007 or permissible enforcement of the decree turns on the text of the decree and the scope of the relief afforded in the name of enforcement. In Dalton, for instance, the trial court entered a post- decree qualified domestic relations order granting one spouse an additional interest in the other's retirement accounts to account for arrears in support payments. 35 The divorce decree did not contemplate such an assignment. 36 We held the order void as a modification prohibited by Section 9.007. 37 Had the trial court awarded a money judgment or a lien in the amount of the arrearage, it would not


CourtListener opinion 11248468

retirement benefits: ecree turns on the text of the decree and the scope of the relief afforded in the name of enforcement. In Dalton, for instance, the trial court entered a post- decree qualified domestic relations order granting one spouse an additional interest in the other's retirement accounts to account for arrears in support payments. 35 The divorce decree did not contemplate such an assignment. 36 We held the order void as a modification prohibited by Section 9.007. 37 Had the trial court awarded a money judgment or a lien in the amount of the arrearage, it would not have exceeded the scope of the trial court's continuing jurisdiction to enfo


CourtListener opinion 11248468

domestic relations order: tutes improper modification under Section 9.007 or permissible enforcement of the decree turns on the text of the decree and the scope of the relief afforded in the name of enforcement. In Dalton, for instance, the trial court entered a post- decree qualified domestic relations order granting one spouse an additional interest in the other's retirement accounts to account for arrears in support payments. 35 The divorce decree did not contemplate such an assignment. 36 We held the order void as a modification prohibited by Section 9.007. 37 Had the trial court awarded a money judgment or a lien in the amount of the arrearage, it would not


CourtListener opinion 11248468

valuation/division: rial court properly exercised its jurisdiction to enforce a decree when one spouse failed to maintain property of the community estate. The court of appeals held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction because its order improperly modified the decree's property division. The court of appeals vacated the order and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. The line between enforcement and modification of a judicial decree depends in large measure on the relief granted. The Family Code permits relief to redress a violation of the decree, including a recovery of damages from a breaching spouse's assets resulting from breac


CourtListener opinion 11249459

CourtListener opinion 11249459 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 25-1859 the claim but allowed the Estate to. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11249459 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11249459

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


CourtListener opinion 11249459

retirement benefits: y. The court joined Scholz's Estate (she had passed away after Kleinfeldt's death) as a nec- essary party. Then, invoking the substantial compliance doc- trine, the district court found that Kleinfeldt had successfully removed Langdon as the beneﬁciary of the retirement account and granted summary judgment sua sponte in favor of Scholz's estate. Because Kleinfeldt did not satisfy the substan- tial compliance test, we reverse. I A. PCA's Retirement Beneﬁt Plan PCA operates an employee retirement beneﬁt plan, the Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees ("Plan"), which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("E


CourtListener opinion 11249459

pension: as the primary beneﬁciary of his retirement account. He directed his secretary to send a fax to the PCA Beneﬁts Center requesting the Plan to "remove [his] former spouse" from his "health, vision[,] and dental insur- ance and as a beneﬁciary from [his] 401k, pension[,] and life insurance accounts." Exhibit C. Presumably in response, PCA removed Langdon from Kleinfeldt's health, vision, and dental insurance. As for the retirement account, PCA changed Lang- don's status from "spouse" to "ex-spouse" but did not re- move her as the primary beneﬁciary. Kleinfeldt died on Janu- ary 16, 2023. C. Procedural History Following


CourtListener opinion 11249459

ERISA: tisfy the substan- tial compliance test, we reverse. I A. PCA's Retirement Beneﬁt Plan PCA operates an employee retirement beneﬁt plan, the Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees ("Plan"), which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Plan's governing documents provide the No. 25-1859 3 Committee with full discretion and authority to administer the Plan, including interpreting and applying the terms and conditions of the Plan. The plan documents also detail the method by which a participant can designate beneﬁciaries to the individual's re- tirement account. Moreover, participa


CourtListener opinion 11249459

401(k): angdon as the primary beneﬁciary of his retirement account. He directed his secretary to send a fax to the PCA Beneﬁts Center requesting the Plan to "remove [his] former spouse" from his "health, vision[,] and dental insur- ance and as a beneﬁciary from [his] 401k, pension[,] and life insurance accounts." Exhibit C. Presumably in response, PCA removed Langdon from Kleinfeldt's health, vision, and dental insurance. As for the retirement account, PCA changed Lang- don's status from "spouse" to "ex-spouse" but did not re- move her as the primary beneﬁciary. Kleinfeldt died on Janu- ary 16, 2023. C. Procedural History F


CourtListener opinion 11249986

CourtListener opinion 11249986 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11249986 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11249986


CourtListener opinion 11249986

QDRO: the amount to contribute to the plan without his partners' consent; 3) by failing to find that husband's contributions to the plan were made on behalf of CBH, not by him individually; and 4) by failing to find that any qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") that the circuit court attempted to enforce by order would violate ERISA and federal law. We disagree. When tasked with equitably distributing the marital assets, "the trial court's job is a difficult one, and we rely heavily on the discretion of the trial judge in weighing the many considerations and circumstances that are presented in each case." P


CourtListener opinion 11249986

retirement benefits: reated to have a supplemental retirement savings plan" for the owners and employees of CBH. Burns testified that the CBPP was "a type of plan that provides particularly high earning individuals or business owners with the opportunity to invest in a deferred retirement account at a more significant level" than traditional retirement accounts. He opined that using the plan is "a way that you can invest a significant amount of your earnings in tax-advantage basis that you will be able to access in the future as you reach retirement age." -3- He added that the plan included "limits in terms of how much of th[e] earnings can be


CourtListener opinion 11249986

pension: vorce in the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County ("circuit court"), granting Melissa A. V. Cox ("wife") a divorce from James A. Cox ("husband"). On appeal, husband contends that the circuit court erred: 1) when determining the value of the cash balance pension plan; 2) when finding that husband's income was $75,000 a month; and 3) when setting the amount of wife's spousal support. For the following reasons, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND1 On October 5, 2022, wife filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking a divorce from her husband. In support, she alleged that they had married on July 29, 2000, and that


CourtListener opinion 11249986

ERISA: the plan, the contributions each year would "on average" be "over half the earnings of the company in total." During husband's testimony, he contended that "the funding in excess of the benefit calculation, which is by contract and i[s] governed by . . . ERISA," could not be extracted from the plan and that "[o]nce it is in the cash balance plan it is there." He agreed that "the plan can be overfunded from time to time" but also stated that the term "overfunded" was a "technical definition" that could be "cherry-picked to whatever date that you want to determine funding." He further asserted that "you have to


CourtListener opinion 11252354

CourtListener opinion 11252354 Extracted reporter citation: 697 F.3d 858. Docket: 45 at 7. The 8. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11252354 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11252354


CourtListener opinion 11252354

QDRO: ined as, "[a]ll persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the 17 Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any 18 time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [qualified 19 domestic relations order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. 20 Excluded from the Settlement Class are the current and former members of the John Muir Health 21 Retirement Committee during the Class Period." 22 ii. Adequacy of Notice 23 "The court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class member


CourtListener opinion 11252354

ERISA: against Defendants John Muir Health ("John Muir") and the Board of Directors of John Muir 26 Health ("Board") (collectively, "Defendants"). Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) ("Compl."). Defendants 27 are fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 1 they sponsor and provide to their employees. Compl. ¶ 1. Nado alleges that during the class 2 period – March 15, 2018, through the date of judgment – Defendants breached the duties owed to 3 the Plan and Plan participants by paying excessive recordkeeping and administrative service fees 4 and misallocating Plan forfeitures. Nado as


CourtListener opinion 11252354

alternate payee: eby affirms 16 the Settlement Class, defined as, "[a]ll persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the 17 Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any 18 time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [qualified 19 domestic relations order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. 20 Excluded from the Settlement Class are the current and former members of the John Muir Health 21 Retirement Committee during the Class Period." 22 ii. Adequacy of Notice 23 "The court must direct notice in a reasona


CourtListener opinion 11252354

domestic relations order: ons who participated in the Plan at any time during the 17 Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any 18 time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [qualified 19 domestic relations order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. 20 Excluded from the Settlement Class are the current and former members of the John Muir Health 21 Retirement Committee during the Class Period." 22 ii. Adequacy of Notice 23 "The court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be 24 bound by the proposal


CourtListener opinion 11258406

CourtListener opinion 11258406 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11258406 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11258406


CourtListener opinion 11258406

ERISA: ilma Dapena Rodríguez Lcdo. Juan Forastieri Maldonado Lcdo. Mario Arroyo Maymi Lcda. Moraima Ríos Robles Lcda. Nicole Marie Bustelo Correo Materia: Adjudicación de beneficios de un plan de retiro regido por la Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA), cuando el participante del plan contrae segundas nupcias y no revoca el formulario de designación de beneficiario a favor de su primera esposa. Este documento constituye un documento oficial del Tribunal Supremo que está sujeto a los cambios y correcciones del proceso de compilación y publicación oficial de las decisiones del Tribunal. Su distribución el


CourtListener opinion 11258406

alternate payee: s-- (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and (iv) each plan to which such order applies. (D) A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this subparagraph only if such order-- (i) does not require a plan to provide any type or form of benefit,


CourtListener opinion 11258406

domestic relations order: tanto, la administración y distribución de los beneficios debe ser conforme a los documentos del plan. 2 En cuanto a los requisitos que debe cumplir una orden de relaciones domésticas cualificadas las disposiciones correspondientes establecen que: (C) A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this subparagraph only if such order clearly specifies-- (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or


CourtListener opinion 11261842

CourtListener opinion 11261842 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of LINH TU BAO TRAN and KRYSTAL BICH HUYEN VU HA. LINH TU BAO TRAN. Extracted reporter citation: 2 Cal.3d 557. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11261842 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11261842

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


CourtListener opinion 11261842

QDRO: ecember 5, 2020, the court entered judgment on reserved issues. That judgment stated Ha shall receive one-half of the community property interest in Tran's two retirement plans; attorney Richard Muir (who was neither Tran's nor Ha's counsel) shall prepare the qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs); the date of marriage is August 1, 2004, and the date of separation is January 12, 2016, for purposes of drafting the QDROs; and "[e]ach side is to pay one-half of the legal 4 fees/expenses pertaining to the drafting of the QDROs."2 It also noted the issue of attorney fees was reserved for further hearing. Tran appealed from the December 5, 2020


CourtListener opinion 11261842

retirement benefits: agree that the court shall reserve jurisdiction over the issue of spousal support and the current [s]pousal [s]upport [o]rder and [e]arnings [a]ssignment [o]rder remain in full force and effect." The MSA also stated Ha may have a community interest in Tran's retirement plans and "[t]he court shall reserve jurisdiction over the division of community property including but not limited to the above-mentioned retirement plans." The MSA included a section entitled, "costs of enforcement" (capitalizations, boldface, and underscoring omitted), which provided as follows: "In the event that either of the parties shall be required to b


CourtListener opinion 11261842

domestic relations order: 2020, the court entered judgment on reserved issues. That judgment stated Ha shall receive one-half of the community property interest in Tran's two retirement plans; attorney Richard Muir (who was neither Tran's nor Ha's counsel) shall prepare the qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs); the date of marriage is August 1, 2004, and the date of separation is January 12, 2016, for purposes of drafting the QDROs; and "[e]ach side is to pay one-half of the legal 4 fees/expenses pertaining to the drafting of the QDROs."2 It also noted the issue of attorney fees was reserved for further hearing. Tran appealed from the December 5, 2020


CourtListener opinion 11261842

valuation/division: and the current [s]pousal [s]upport [o]rder and [e]arnings [a]ssignment [o]rder remain in full force and effect." The MSA also stated Ha may have a community interest in Tran's retirement plans and "[t]he court shall reserve jurisdiction over the division of community property including but not limited to the above-mentioned retirement plans." The MSA included a section entitled, "costs of enforcement" (capitalizations, boldface, and underscoring omitted), which provided as follows: "In the event that either of the parties shall be required to bring any action or proceeding to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement or a


CourtListener opinion 11263584

CourtListener opinion 11263584 Extracted reporter citation: 394 P.3d 604. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11263584 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11263584


CourtListener opinion 11263584

QDRO: ed, "Yes." The master explained that he could preside over the hearing only if there were "no points of dispute." Neither party indicated there were any points of dispute. When asked whether the parties planned to obtain a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)2 for Million's Coast Guard retirement benefits, Hubert responded that they did not have plans to get a QDRO and that Million "agreed to pay [Hubert] half of his retirement" through a mobile payment service at the beginning of 1 The parties valued the home at $440,000. There was an outstanding mortgage of the same amount on the home when Million and Hube


CourtListener opinion 11263584

retirement benefits: , acting as his own lawyer in dissolution proceedings, represented to the superior court that he had agreed to equally divide his military benefits with his spouse. The veteran informed the court that the monthly payments he received from the government were "retirement benefits," when in fact the benefits were CRSC. Both the veteran and his spouse explained their understanding of the terms of the agreement and expressly consented to those terms. The court accepted the agreement and incorporated it into a decree for the dissolution of marriage. The veteran was aware, either at the time of the dissolution or shortly thereafter, th


CourtListener opinion 11263584

pension: Million was receiving monthly payments of $637 from the Coast Guard, which were clearly identified as "retirement benefits" in the petition. The petition represented that the parties had attached an agreement "about the distribution of retirement or military pension benefits." Although there was no attachment, the petition form included a box that the parties could check if they did not plan to divide the retirement benefits listed in the petition. The box was not checked. Million and Hubert also agreed to the division of their other assets, with Hubert receiving the marital home.1 The petition also included a child cu


CourtListener opinion 11263584

valuation/division: ates Coast Guard when he married Diane Lynn Hubert in 2009. Their child was born the next year. They later purchased a home. Million retired from the Coast Guard in 2019. In 2022 Million and Hubert petitioned for dissolution of their marriage. They reached a property division agreement which was set out in writing in the petition. -2- 7802 Although both Hubert and Million consulted an attorney during negotiation of the agreement, both parties appeared without attorneys at the dissolution hearing. At the time of the dissolution Million was receiving monthly payments of $637 from the Coast Guard, which were clearly identified


CourtListener opinion 11265398

CourtListener opinion 11265398 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Scinto family residence. Extracted reporter citation: 815 P.2d 843. Docket: 37878-1-III In re Marriage of Scinto The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11265398 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11265398


CourtListener opinion 11265398

QDRO: Marriage of Mathews, 70 Wn. App. 116 (1993), but misstates its holding. In In re Marriage of Mathews, this court found error when the trial court awarded indefinite maintenance equivalent to one-half of Donald Mathews' income to his divorcing spouse when a qualified domestic relations order already operated to transfer one-half of all retirement or disability income. This court found error when the combination of the two orders would have deprived Mathews of his half of the retirement income. Mathews does not stand for the proposition that a court is forbidden from awarding maintenance that extends beyond retirement. John Scinto also rel


CourtListener opinion 11265398

retirement benefits: nd $669 for civil service retirement from John's paycheck. 3 No. 37878-1-III In re Marriage of Scinto He claims his net monthly income is $7,200 after also deducting for income taxes. John also monthly deducts an amount from his paycheck into a voluntary retirement plan known as a thrift savings plan. Cindy Scinto's physical condition overshadows other factors in this appeal. Cindy suffers from relentless health problems requiring constant monitoring and resulting in high medical expenses. The ailments include a heart transplant attended to coronary artery disease, a pancreas transplant caused by type 1 diabetes, Gra


CourtListener opinion 11265398

pension: of a formal motion. John testified that he had agreed to a legal separation so that Cindy could maintain health insurance. During the trial, the parties announced an agreement that John would share fifty percent of the community portion of his retirement pension with Cindy. Cindy also asked the court to divide John's income until he retires. During the trial testimony of Cindy Scinto, the superior court asked counsel about the parties' respective wishes for disposing of the family residence. Cindy's counsel requested possession of the residence and a nominal payment of $4,534 to John for his share in the home


CourtListener opinion 11265398

domestic relations order: f Mathews, 70 Wn. App. 116 (1993), but misstates its holding. In In re Marriage of Mathews, this court found error when the trial court awarded indefinite maintenance equivalent to one-half of Donald Mathews' income to his divorcing spouse when a qualified domestic relations order already operated to transfer one-half of all retirement or disability income. This court found error when the combination of the two orders would have deprived Mathews of his half of the retirement income. Mathews does not stand for the proposition that a court is forbidden from awarding maintenance that extends beyond retirement. John Scinto also rel


CourtListener opinion 11266024

CourtListener opinion 11266024 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Wallace. Extracted reporter citation: 45 P.3d 1131. Docket: 82557-7-I/8 ANALYSIS Janice argues the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11266024 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11266024


CourtListener opinion 11266024

QDRO: ourt ordered that Michael "pay a total of $1,750 to [Janice] from the C[al]PERS pension as and for spousal maintenance," eliminating the payment to Janice for her community portion of the pension. On March 2, 2022, a court commissioner entered a stipulated qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directing monthly payments of $1,750 to Janice from Michael's CalPERS pension. Janice appeals. 7 No. 82557-7-I/8 ANALYSIS Janice argues the trial court abused its discretion in its property distribution and calculation of maintenance. She also asks for attorney fees and costs on appeal. Property Distribution Janice argues the court ab


CourtListener opinion 11266024

pension: 1 For clarity, we refer to Janice Hodge and Michael Hodge by first name. We intend no disrespect. This opinion bases the citations and pin cites on the Westlaw online version of the cited material. No. 82557-7-I/2 In 2003, Michael retired. He received a pension under the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). On retirement, Michael elected to receive a lower monthly payment in exchange for a 100 percent survivor benefit under his pension. He named Janice the sole beneficiary of the survivor benefit so she would receive his monthly pension payments after his death. Michael also collected Soc


CourtListener opinion 11266024

domestic relations order: ed that Michael "pay a total of $1,750 to [Janice] from the C[al]PERS pension as and for spousal maintenance," eliminating the payment to Janice for her community portion of the pension. On March 2, 2022, a court commissioner entered a stipulated qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directing monthly payments of $1,750 to Janice from Michael's CalPERS pension. Janice appeals. 7 No. 82557-7-I/8 ANALYSIS Janice argues the trial court abused its discretion in its property distribution and calculation of maintenance. She also asks for attorney fees and costs on appeal. Property Distribution Janice argues the court ab


CourtListener opinion 11266024

survivor benefits: on of the cited material. No. 82557-7-I/2 In 2003, Michael retired. He received a pension under the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). On retirement, Michael elected to receive a lower monthly payment in exchange for a 100 percent survivor benefit under his pension. He named Janice the sole beneficiary of the survivor benefit so she would receive his monthly pension payments after his death. Michael also collected Social Security benefits and a monthly disability benefit from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for injuries he sustained while serving in the United States Marine


CourtListener opinion 11268039

CourtListener opinion 11268039 Docket: 30629 Appellant : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11268039 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11268039

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


CourtListener opinion 11268039

QDRO: f from judgment, Yalonda's attorney electronically submitted a signed decree to the court, which the court accepted on July 15, 2025. Motion for Relief from Judgment, p. 1. This is consistent with the court's July 17, 2025 order, which ordered the filing of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). The July 17 order indicated that a final judgment and decree had been filed in the case and ordered David to file a QDRO with the court and forward it to the plan administrator within 90 days. Although the final judgment and decree had been filed, it was not time-stamped until July 18. The suggestion of death filed on August 22, 2025, indicated th


CourtListener opinion 11268039

retirement benefits: Agreement; instead, she asked that the decree itself be vacated. In the motion, Yalonda mentioned the parties' home, which was titled in both their names, as well as money contained in two accounts: Yalonda's Ohio Deferred Compensation Account and her 457 Retirement Plan with Voya Financial. The amounts in these accounts as of June 30, 2025, were to be transferred to David, and the proceeds of the sale of the home were to be divided equally between the parties. {¶ 10} The main focus of Yalonda's motion was the house. She argued that if David died intestate, the house proceeds would have to be administered in the probat


CourtListener opinion 11268039

pension: 3, citing Knapp, 24 Ohio St.3d 141 at paragraph two of the syllabus, and Whitman, 81 Ohio St.3d at 245. {¶ 27} Finally, in 2019, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered whether a trial court has authority under R.C. 3105.171(I) to modify a property division (pension benefits) where the properties did not agree to the modification. Walsh v. Walsh, 2019-Ohio-3723, ¶ 1. In Walsh, the parties had been married for 19 years but had separated after only six years. Their consent judgment in the divorce case provided that the wife would receive a share of the husband's military pension based on a marriage term of six years.


CourtListener opinion 11268039

domestic relations order: gment, Yalonda's attorney electronically submitted a signed decree to the court, which the court accepted on July 15, 2025. Motion for Relief from Judgment, p. 1. This is consistent with the court's July 17, 2025 order, which ordered the filing of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). The July 17 order indicated that a final judgment and decree had been filed in the case and ordered David to file a QDRO with the court and forward it to the plan administrator within 90 days. Although the final judgment and decree had been filed, it was not time-stamped until July 18. The suggestion of death filed on August 22, 2025, indicated th


CourtListener opinion 11268520

CourtListener opinion 11268520 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11268520 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11268520

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


CourtListener opinion 11268520

domestic relations order: III. Conclusion Wright seeks to vindicate important interests: due process, protection of familial association, and freedom from unlawful seizure. This Court appreciates her commitment to reuniting with her children. However, to appeal child custody and domestic relations orders issued by the Franklin County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and Roanoke City Circuit Court, Wright must litigate in those courts. Further, insofar as Wright states a claim for retaliation unconnected with the child custody dispute, she fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This Court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction


CourtListener opinion 11269662

CourtListener opinion 11269662 Extracted reporter citation: 581 U.S. 214. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11269662 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11269662


CourtListener opinion 11269662

QDRO: is the division of Husband's military pension. Paragraph 7 addresses Husband's military pension: Retirement Plans: Husband has a DFAS Military Retirement Plan. Wife is to receive 50% of the marital share, based on gross pay, of this retirement plan by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or its military equivalent, after a final decree of divorce is entered by the Court. Wife shall retain 100% of her Vanguard IRA. Nothing contained herein shall be a waiver of either party's right to make any claim for social security benefits based on the other party's social security benefits. Other portions of the Agreement reference Husband's "


CourtListener opinion 11269662

retirement benefits: complaint for divorce on February 15, 2022. * This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). Included in the Property Agreement is the division of Husband's military pension. Paragraph 7 addresses Husband's military pension: Retirement Plans: Husband has a DFAS Military Retirement Plan. Wife is to receive 50% of the marital share, based on gross pay, of this retirement plan by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or its military equivalent, after a final decree of divorce is entered by the Court. Wife shall retain 100% of her Vanguard IRA. Nothing contained herein shall be a waiver of


CourtListener opinion 11269662

pension: operty Settlement Agreement on September 7, 2021. Wife filed a complaint for divorce on February 15, 2022. * This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). Included in the Property Agreement is the division of Husband's military pension. Paragraph 7 addresses Husband's military pension: Retirement Plans: Husband has a DFAS Military Retirement Plan. Wife is to receive 50% of the marital share, based on gross pay, of this retirement plan by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or its military equivalent, after a final decree of divorce is entered by the Court. Wife shall retain 100


CourtListener opinion 11269662

domestic relations order: vision of Husband's military pension. Paragraph 7 addresses Husband's military pension: Retirement Plans: Husband has a DFAS Military Retirement Plan. Wife is to receive 50% of the marital share, based on gross pay, of this retirement plan by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or its military equivalent, after a final decree of divorce is entered by the Court. Wife shall retain 100% of her Vanguard IRA. Nothing contained herein shall be a waiver of either party's right to make any claim for social security benefits based on the other party's social security benefits. Other portions of the Agreement reference Husband's "


CourtListener opinion 11271009

CourtListener opinion 11271009 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Robertson. Extracted reporter citation: 54 P.3d 708. Docket: 40791-8-III Marriage of Sams We agree with the superior. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11271009 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11271009


CourtListener opinion 11271009

QDRO: rder in this dissolution proceeding awarded Darla Carpenter1 one-half of Talesha Sams' Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) account from the date of the parties' marriage through the date of their separation and ordered the account to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In July 2021, Sams filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. On the day she filed bankruptcy, Sams' attorney issued a notice of stay in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362. In a March 2022 settlement agreement in the bankruptcy proceedings, the parties agreed to cooperate in good faith to enter a QDRO to effectuate the ordered division of Sams' PERS accoun


CourtListener opinion 11271009

domestic relations order: is dissolution proceeding awarded Darla Carpenter1 one-half of Talesha Sams' Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) account from the date of the parties' marriage through the date of their separation and ordered the account to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In July 2021, Sams filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. On the day she filed bankruptcy, Sams' attorney issued a notice of stay in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362. In a March 2022 settlement agreement in the bankruptcy proceedings, the parties agreed to cooperate in good faith to enter a QDRO to effectuate the ordered division of Sams' PERS accoun


CourtListener opinion 11271009

valuation/division: count. 1 Although the case caption reads "Darla Carpenter-Sams," we refer to her as "Darla Carpenter," her preferred name, as shown on the title page of her brief. 2 No. 40791-8-III Marriage of Sams On February 20, 2024, a court commissioner entered a property division order, concluding that it effectuated the terms of the final divorce order. More than three months later, on May 28, 2024, the court commissioner signed the findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the order. On June 7, 2024, Sams filed a motion for revision of the commissioner's order and the later entered findings and conclusions. On Ju


CourtListener opinion 11276663

CourtListener opinion 11276663 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of DAVID and TELETHA HAYNES. DAVID HAYNES. Extracted reporter citation: 225 Cal.App.3d 469. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11276663 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 11276663

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


CourtListener opinion 11276663

QDRO: A172255 v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals two orders arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of part of her federal employment retirement benefits: the first, a qualified domestic relations order; the second, the trial court's findings and order after hearing. We dismiss the appeal of the first order because it is untimely, and we affirm the second order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument.2 1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 19. 2 Concurrently, we issue