CourtListener opinion 4216432

QDRO: nforth subsequently received a judgment in her favor, including attorney's fees. The Oklahoma state court later issued a series of restraining orders preventing Fidelity from disbursing any of Mr. Cornforth's assets that it held. The court then entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with respect to Mr. Cornforth's 401(k) account with Fidelity, and issued a series of garnishments directed to Mr. Cornforth's annuity and brokerage accounts with Fidelity. The QDRO and garnishment orders directed Fidelity to pay the funds in Mr. Cornforth's accounts to his ex-wife or her attorneys. Fidelity complied with the court's orders. Mr.


CourtListener opinion 4216432

retirement benefits: l from the Florida court's decision. Instead, he filed a second action against Fidelity in Florida bringing similar claims to those he brought in the first Florida action, and alleging that Fidelity wrongfully took funds 2 from his annuity, brokerage and retirement accounts. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Fidelity, explaining that there were presently in effect one or more valid orders and/or judgments of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, which expressly required Fidelity, a garnishee in the Oklahoma case, to withhold, sell, or transfer ownership of the Annuity, Investment Account, and AOL


CourtListener opinion 4216432

401(k): fees. The Oklahoma state court later issued a series of restraining orders preventing Fidelity from disbursing any of Mr. Cornforth's assets that it held. The court then entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with respect to Mr. Cornforth's 401(k) account with Fidelity, and issued a series of garnishments directed to Mr. Cornforth's annuity and brokerage accounts with Fidelity. The QDRO and garnishment orders directed Fidelity to pay the funds in Mr. Cornforth's accounts to his ex-wife or her attorneys. Fidelity complied with the court's orders. Mr. Cornforth then filed an action against Fidelit


CourtListener opinion 4216432

domestic relations order: sequently received a judgment in her favor, including attorney's fees. The Oklahoma state court later issued a series of restraining orders preventing Fidelity from disbursing any of Mr. Cornforth's assets that it held. The court then entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with respect to Mr. Cornforth's 401(k) account with Fidelity, and issued a series of garnishments directed to Mr. Cornforth's annuity and brokerage accounts with Fidelity. The QDRO and garnishment orders directed Fidelity to pay the funds in Mr. Cornforth's accounts to his ex-wife or her attorneys. Fidelity complied with the court's orders. Mr.


CourtListener opinion 4218021

CourtListener opinion 4218021 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4218021 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 4218021

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 4218021

QDRO: st. Geauga No. 2012-G-3091, 2013-Ohio-994; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2011-G-3030, 2011-Ohio-5863; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2010-G-2957, 2011-Ohio-2093. {¶3} On May 27, 2016, the trial court entered judgment, approving certain Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") filed by appellee, Tatiana Dilley. Dilley, 2017-Ohio-4046, at ¶7. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from that judgment on June 7, 2016. On appeal, we found appellant's arguments were barred by res judicata and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at ¶11, ¶15. {¶4} While that appeal was pending, on January 7, 2017, appellant filed


CourtListener opinion 4218021

pension: and subject to imputed income are then void ab initio or Plain Error. [6.] The trial court committed prejudicial error and abused its discretion as the trial court lacked jurisdiction to garnish 100% of the Plaintiff-Appellant's social security benefits and pension benefits. It lost its jurisdiction when it exceeded statutory procedure, statutory authority, and violated the Appellant's due process rights when it in [sic] violated Federal and State law and was inconsistent with the final divorce decree making the judgments/orders void ab initio. [7.] The trial court committed prejudicial error and abused its authority


CourtListener opinion 4218021

domestic relations order: No. 2012-G-3091, 2013-Ohio-994; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2011-G-3030, 2011-Ohio-5863; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2010-G-2957, 2011-Ohio-2093. {¶3} On May 27, 2016, the trial court entered judgment, approving certain Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") filed by appellee, Tatiana Dilley. Dilley, 2017-Ohio-4046, at ¶7. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from that judgment on June 7, 2016. On appeal, we found appellant's arguments were barred by res judicata and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at ¶11, ¶15. {¶4} While that appeal was pending, on January 7, 2017, appellant filed


CourtListener opinion 4218687

CourtListener opinion 4218687 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARSHA KAY HILLER AND STEVEN MARK NELSEN Upon the Petition of MARSHA KAY HILLER. Extracted reporter citation: 681 N.W.2d 612. Docket: 16-0997. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4218687 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 4218687


CourtListener opinion 4218687

QDRO: quitably dividing and assigning the parties' property. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 647-48 (Iowa 2009)) (discussing finality of decrees, property division, and QDROs). Second, to implement the court's division of retirement benefits, a QDRO is entered that directs the plan administrator to make specified payments to the non- employee ex-spouse. Id. Thus, "a QDRO is characterized properly as a procedural device required by federal law and entered to effectuate the property division made in the dissolution decree." Id. 10 IV. Alimony Having found a common law marriage, we turn to the questi


CourtListener opinion 4218687

retirement benefits: nd somehow relevant, by the time the parties' intimacy declined, they had already established a common law marriage, and such marriage could only be ended by a decree of dissolution. See Stodola, 519 N.W.2d at 100. 11 Generally, a property division involving retirement benefits evolves in two steps. In re Marriage of Heath-Clark, No. 15-0525, 2016 WL 2753779, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 11, 2016). First, the district court enters a dissolution decree, which is a substantive order equitably dividing and assigning the parties' property. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 647-48 (Iowa 2009)) (discussing finality of de


CourtListener opinion 4218687

pension: neficiary until 2015, when Marsha left the family home. Likewise Steven informed his current employer, Alliant Energy, that Marsha was his spouse over numerous years and for varied reasons—health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, and designated pension beneficiary. In 2015, Steven changed Marsha from his spouse to his "domestic partner" on Alliant forms.6 Steven represented to multiple employers that Marsha was his wife by common law—beginning on November 24, 1993, and continuing until Marsha 6 In 2016, Steven denied Marsha was his domestic partner. 8 moved out in 2015. Accordingly, we believe the


CourtListener opinion 4218687

valuation/division: a party's research and advocacy. See Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 876 (Iowa 1996) ("In a case of this complexity, we will not . . . comb the record for facts to support such arguments."). Accordingly, we decline to address his claim concerning the court's property division. 4 III. Common Law Marriage Iowa recognizes both ceremonial marriages, which are governed by statute, and common law marriages. Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 616-17 (stating common law marriage "has been recognized in Iowa for well over a century"). The burden rests on the party claiming the existence of a common law marriage, here Marsha, to prove the uni


CourtListener opinion 4222089

CourtListener opinion 4222089 Citation: Domestic Relations order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations order. Docket: 900 MDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4222089 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 4222089

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 4222089

domestic relations order: employment. During a permanency hearing on November 19, 2015, Mother reported that she was on medical leave from work. Id. at 50. Later, in June of 2016, Mother reported that she was unemployed. Id. Mother's unemployment and her refusal to comply with the Domestic Relations order requiring her to search for a job resulted in her incarceration from November to December of 2016. Id. at 57. Based on the foregoing, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court in terminating Mother's parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2). Mother's repeated and continued incapacity, neglect, or refusal to perform her parental dutie


CourtListener opinion 4226232

CourtListener opinion 4226232 Extracted case name: VINCENT v. SHANOVICH. Docket: CV-17-0175-PR. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4226232 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 4226232


CourtListener opinion 4226232

QDRO: a State Retirement System ("ASRS"). The dissolution decree awarded Vincent "a one-half (1/2) portion of [Shanovich's] retirement including employer contribution and accrued interest as of the date of filing the Petition for Dissolution," to be reflected in "a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [("QDRO")] stating such provisions." ¶3 The parties stipulated to entry of a QDRO in 2004. But the QDRO did not tie the calculation of Vincent's retirement benefits to the petition filing date, August 25, 2000, as required by the decree. Instead, it provided that "[Vincent] is awarded 50% of [Shanovich's] annuity, payable at the time and in the manner paym


CourtListener opinion 4226232

retirement benefits: as of the date of filing the Petition for Dissolution," to be reflected in "a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [("QDRO")] stating such provisions." ¶3 The parties stipulated to entry of a QDRO in 2004. But the QDRO did not tie the calculation of Vincent's retirement benefits to the petition filing date, August 25, 2000, as required by the decree. Instead, it provided that "[Vincent] is awarded 50% of [Shanovich's] annuity, payable at the time and in the manner payments are made to the member pursuant to the retirement benefit elected." Conversely, the QDRO stated that if Shanovich withdrew from ASRS or died before retirement,


CourtListener opinion 4226232

pension: as of August 25, 2000" plus interest. Neither party appealed. ¶4 Shanovich discovered the discrepancy between the decree and the QDRO as he prepared to retire from the City in 2015. He learned from ASRS that the QDRO entitled Vincent to one-half of his total pension upon retirement rather than one-half of his pension earned as of August 25, 2000, as set forth in the decree. 2 VINCENT v. SHANOVICH Opinion of the Court ¶5 Pursuant to Rule 85(A), which empowers a family court to correct clerical errors "at any time" after judgment is entered, Shanovich moved to replace the QDRO with one that complies with the decree.


CourtListener opinion 4226232

domestic relations order: tirement System ("ASRS"). The dissolution decree awarded Vincent "a one-half (1/2) portion of [Shanovich's] retirement including employer contribution and accrued interest as of the date of filing the Petition for Dissolution," to be reflected in "a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [("QDRO")] stating such provisions." ¶3 The parties stipulated to entry of a QDRO in 2004. But the QDRO did not tie the calculation of Vincent's retirement benefits to the petition filing date, August 25, 2000, as required by the decree. Instead, it provided that "[Vincent] is awarded 50% of [Shanovich's] annuity, payable at the time and in the manner paym


CourtListener opinion 4228400

CourtListener opinion 4228400 Extracted reporter citation: 86 F.3d 982. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4228400 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 4228400

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 4228400

QDRO: son, as the sole beneficiary. Bruce never changed the beneficiary of the policy to Sierra before he died in 2013. Litigation ensued, and the district court ordered Sun Life to pay the life insurance proceeds to Sierra. Because the divorce decree suffices as a qualified domestic relations order that "clearly specifies" Sierra as the beneficiary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), we affirm. I. In 2003, Bruce Jackson signed up for a life insurance plan sponsored by his employer, Samaritan Health Partners, and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, better known as ERISA. Sun Life Assura


CourtListener opinion 4228400

pension: interpretation may render the specificity requirements toothless," and concluded that "[t]he pivotal question is whether the dissolution order ‘clearly contains the information specified in the statute.'" Hamilton v. Wash. State Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. Pension Plan, 433 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Stewart v. Thorpe Holding Co. Profit Sharing Plan, 207 F.3d 1143, 1154 (9th Cir. 2000)). To the extent these courts undertake a contextual inquiry that examines the decree in its entirety when applying the statute, we do not disagree. That indeed is required. And to the extent any court means to adopt a "


CourtListener opinion 4228400

ERISA: ent Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), we affirm. I. In 2003, Bruce Jackson signed up for a life insurance plan sponsored by his employer, Samaritan Health Partners, and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, better known as ERISA. Sun Life Assurance Company took over management of Bruce's insurance policy in 2008. Bruce died in 2013. At his death, Bruce was insured for $48,000 in basic life insurance and $191,000 in optional life insurance. The question is whether Richard Jackson, Bruce's uncle, or Sierra Jackson, Bruce's only child, receives the money. When Bruce signed up for th


CourtListener opinion 4228400

alternate payee: on those requirements. Here they are: A domestic 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 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. Id. § 1056(d)(3)(C). In addin


CourtListener opinion 4229168

CourtListener opinion 4229168 Extracted case name: In Re Marriage of McDonald. Extracted reporter citation: 118 S.W.3d 829. Docket: 09-17-00254-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4229168 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 4229168


CourtListener opinion 4229168

QDRO: ings Plan arising out of Charles Ray Hall's employment with ExxonMobil as of March 11, 2013, that portion being a sum certain, together with any interest, dividend, gains, or losses on that amount arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final Decree of Divorce is signed. H-6. All individual retirement accounts, simplified employee pensions, annuities and variable annuity life insurance benefits in the husband's name. The specific language of the decree awarded Sandra the following: W-5. A portion of Charles Ray Hall's retirement benefits in Exxo


CourtListener opinion 4229168

retirement benefits: ecree") entered by the trial court on September 23, 2013. The 2013 decree was silent as to the award of the community property ExxonMobil Pension Plan. The specific language of the decree awarded Charles the following: H-5. A portion of Charles Ray Hall's retirement benefits in ExxonMobil Savings Plan arising out of Charles Ray Hall's employment with ExxonMobil as of March 11, 2013, that portion being a sum certain, together with any interest, dividend, gains, or losses on that amount arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final De


CourtListener opinion 4229168

pension: by this Court without hearing oral argument from either party. -v- STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from a judgment denying a request for a division of undivided property. The divorce decree was silent as to the division of the former husband's pension plan. The trial court nevertheless denied former wife's request to divide the pension plan. -vi- ISSUE Issue One The trial court abused its discretion by denying former Wife's petition for post-divorce division of assets because wife proved that the property requested to be divided was not divided by the Final Decree of Divorce. STATEMENT OF F


CourtListener opinion 4229168

401(k): i (hereinafter "Sandra") and Charles Ray Hall (hereinafter "Charles") were married on November 20, 1974. In January 1982, Charles started working for Mobil Oil Corporation, now ExxonMobil. (RR 26) Charles eventually retired from ExxonMobil with pension and 401(k) benefits in February 2017. (RR 17-18) On November 4, 2008, Charles and Sandra were divorced. Charles was represented in that action by Karen Bennett. Sandra Embesi was unrepresented by counsel. Sandra filed a bill of review on October 19, 2012 under Cause Number C216,691 in the 317th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas asserting that Charles' c


CourtListener opinion 4233684

CourtListener opinion 4233684 Extracted reporter citation: 469 S.W.3d 314. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4233684 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 4233684


CourtListener opinion 4233684

QDRO: orce on June 2, 2016, and William timely filed a motion for new trial on July 5, 2016.2 To implement the property division set forth in the final decree, and as agreed by the parties at the final trial, the trial court subsequently signed a July 12, 2016 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning William's retirement account identified as the NetScout Systems, Inc. 401k Savings Plan. At a later hearing on William's motion for new trial, the trial court questioned the parties about the fact that of the monies that were supposed to be in the NetScout 401k, about "180-plus thousand" were not there. William explained on the recor


CourtListener opinion 4233684

retirement benefits: trial on July 5, 2016.2 To implement the property division set forth in the final decree, and as agreed by the parties at the final trial, the trial court subsequently signed a July 12, 2016 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning William's retirement account identified as the NetScout Systems, Inc. 401k Savings Plan. At a later hearing on William's motion for new trial, the trial court questioned the parties about the fact that of the monies that were supposed to be in the NetScout 401k, about "180-plus thousand" were not there. William explained on the record that these monies were not in the NetScout 401


CourtListener opinion 4233684

401(k): n set forth in the final decree, and as agreed by the parties at the final trial, the trial court subsequently signed a July 12, 2016 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning William's retirement account identified as the NetScout Systems, Inc. 401k Savings Plan. At a later hearing on William's motion for new trial, the trial court questioned the parties about the fact that of the monies that were supposed to be in the NetScout 401k, about "180-plus thousand" were not there. William explained on the record that these monies were not in the NetScout 401k but were in his Danaher Corporation & Subsi


CourtListener opinion 4233684

domestic relations order: ne 2, 2016, and William timely filed a motion for new trial on July 5, 2016.2 To implement the property division set forth in the final decree, and as agreed by the parties at the final trial, the trial court subsequently signed a July 12, 2016 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning William's retirement account identified as the NetScout Systems, Inc. 401k Savings Plan. At a later hearing on William's motion for new trial, the trial court questioned the parties about the fact that of the monies that were supposed to be in the NetScout 401k, about "180-plus thousand" were not there. William explained on the recor


CourtListener opinion 4235466

CourtListener opinion 4235466 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 03-17-00693-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4235466 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 4235466


CourtListener opinion 4235466

retirement benefits: disposable retired pay as ordered in this order, AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Servicemember is specifically directed that he is not relieved of that obligation except to the extent that he is specifically notified that 100 percent of Former Spouse's interest in the retirement benefit has been directly paid by DFAS, and IT IS SO ORDERED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any election of benefits that may hereafter be made by Servicemember shall not reduce the amount equal to the percentage of the retired pay or the amount of the retired pay the Court has herein awarded to Former Spouse, except as provided by federal law and prohibited from be


CourtListener opinion 4235466

pension: red pay the Court has herein awarded to Former Spouse, except as provided by federal law and prohibited from being changed by a state court order. In this regard, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Servicemember shall not merge his military retired pay with any other pension and shall not pursue any course of action that would defeat, reduce, or limit Former Spouse's right to receive Former Spouse's full separate-property share of Servicemember's retired pay as awarded in this order, unless otherwise ordered herein. Death IT IS ORDERED that the payment of the retired pay awarded in this order to Former Spouse CR 110 page 4


CourtListener opinion 4235466

domestic relations order: a retirement pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Chapter 61, effective January 28, 2016. CR 121; RX-1 at 2; RX-1, Exhibit A. 3 Following a hearing, although the date thereof is not specified in the order, the court entered an order entitled Order On Clarification Of Domestic Relations Order [Military Retirement] (MRO) on February 17, 2016. CR 107-112. Thereafter, a "final trial" was held on March 8, 2017, at which the only witness was James N. Higdon, the military retirement expert retained by Appellant. RR at 14-46. Following the March 8 trial, the trial court issued a Memorandum of Ruling on May 17, 2017. CR 114. The trial court's Memo


CourtListener opinion 4235466

valuation/division: pay does not preclude waiver of retirement pay and electing disability). The Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA) and the many cases construing it, both federal and state, prohibit our state trial courts from treating as 5 divisible community property that portion of a service member's military retired pay received pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Chapter 61. 10 U.S.C. §1408(a)(4)(A)(iii). Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 594-595, 109 S.Ct. 2023, 2031-2032, 104 L.Ed.2d 675 (1989). See also, Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1400, 1402-1404, 197 L.Ed.2d 781 (2017); Hicks v. Hicks, 348 S.W.3d 281, 285 (T


CourtListener opinion 4235517

CourtListener opinion 4235517 Docket: 335653 Allegan Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4235517 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 4235517

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 4235517

QDRO: upport based on stock options, but the spousal support attachment does not. The parties engaged in a significant amount of post-judgment conflict over numerous matters, most of which are no longer at issue. Relevant to this appeal, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, as of December 31, 2011, in something called the "Perrigo Profit Sharing and Investment Plan." Simultaneously, the trial court entered a domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, also as of December 31, 2011, in the "Perrigo 2005 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (As Amen


CourtListener opinion 4235517

domestic relations order: ed on stock options, but the spousal support attachment does not. The parties engaged in a significant amount of post-judgment conflict over numerous matters, most of which are no longer at issue. Relevant to this appeal, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, as of December 31, 2011, in something called the "Perrigo Profit Sharing and Investment Plan." Simultaneously, the trial court entered a domestic relations order granting plaintiff half of defendant's interest, also as of December 31, 2011, in the "Perrigo 2005 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (As Amen


CourtListener opinion 4235538

CourtListener opinion 4235538 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Steel. Docket: 333569 Kent Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4235538 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 4235538

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 4235538

QDRO: Sparks, 440 Mich at 151-152. D. EQUALIZATION PAYMENT Finally, we shall address defendant's claim on cross-appeal that the trial court erred when it refused to award plaintiff a share of the retirement accounts through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). At the hearing on his motion to clarify how the equalization payment would be made, defendant argued that the court should award plaintiff a portion of her award through a QDRO. He stated that he did not have enough cash to pay her the equalization payment. He argued too that it would only be fair that plaintiff should have to pay the tax penalty if she w


CourtListener opinion 4235538

retirement benefits: s business—and plaintiff's rental home had an increase in value, but that the amounts canceled each other out. It stated that defendant would keep his commercial property, and plaintiff would keep her rental property. The trial court also divided the parties' retirement accounts. It found that the total value of the marital estate was $598,613. Although it recognized that a marital estate will normally be divided 50/50, it elected to award 60% to defendant and 40% to plaintiff. It explained that the marriage was short, and the parties did not have children. Additionally, defendant "funded 95% or more of the marriage." It specifica


CourtListener opinion 4235538

valuation/division: or earned during the marriage). As the Supreme Court of Minnesota has explained, when a business increases in value during a marriage as a result of one spouse's direct efforts, the increase is treated as a product of the marital partnership: The concept of equitable distribution is a corollary of the principle that marriage is a joint enterprise whose vitality, success and endurance is dependent upon the conjunction of multiple components, only one of which is financial. The nonremunerated efforts of raising children, making a home, performing a myriad of personal services and providing physical and emotional support are, among


CourtListener opinion 4235820

CourtListener opinion 4235820 Docket: 335653 Allegan Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4235820 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 4235820


CourtListener opinion 4235841

CourtListener opinion 4235841 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Steel. Docket: 333569 Kent Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4235841 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 4235841


CourtListener opinion 4236199

CourtListener opinion 4236199 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Frank. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4236199 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 4236199


CourtListener opinion 4236199

QDRO: WIFE shall receive the specific property allocated to her in accordance with exhibit A, *** This distribution includes the execution of a QILDRO awarding 1/2 of the marital portion of HUSBAND's pension from the FIREMAN's ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND, and a QDRO conveying HUSBAND's complete interest to WIFE in his Deferred Compensation Plan as of the date of Judgment. Until the date of final approval of the above QDRO and QILDRO, the WIFE shall remain as the beneficiary of these plans to the extent of the interests granted to here in this paragraph." (Emphasis added.) Section 3.2(d) further provided: 2 1


CourtListener opinion 4236199

retirement benefits: ed that when he attains the age of 63, the mandatory age for retirement, he would begin receiving his fireman's annuity, which would be divided with Joanne in accordance with the agreement. Until then, Thomas asserted that the disability benefits are not a retirement benefit but an income replacement to which Joanne was not entitled under the marital settlement agreement. ¶6 Thomas further argued that the language of the agreement as a whole demonstrated that the parties did not intend to split his disability benefits. Thomas noted that disability benefits are not allowed to be divided by a qualified domestic relations orde


CourtListener opinion 4236199

pension: s Howe (Thomas), and the circuit court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage, which incorporated a marital settlement agreement signed by the parties. The marital settlement agreement provided that the parties would split the marital portion of Thomas' pension from the Fireman's Annuity and Benefit Fund (fireman's fund) equally. 1 Thereafter, Thomas was injured while on active duty as a City of Chicago firefighter and began collecting disability benefits 1 We acknowledge that article 6 of the Pension Code provides that the term "Fireman" used in the article "includes the female gender" and applies "with equa


CourtListener opinion 4236199

domestic relations order: settlement agreement. ¶6 Thomas further argued that the language of the agreement as a whole demonstrated that the parties did not intend to split his disability benefits. Thomas noted that disability benefits are not allowed to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order, yet the marital settlement agreement provided that Joanne's interest in his pension was to be transferred exclusively by a qualified domestic relations order. Thomas also observed that the marital settlement agreement 2 The Fireman's Annuity and Benefit Fund is governed by article 6 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/6-101 to 6-229 (West 2016)). 3 1-17


CourtListener opinion 4236244

CourtListener opinion 4236244 Docket: 335653 Allegan Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4236244 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 4236244


CourtListener opinion 4237795

CourtListener opinion 4237795 Docket: 4 IN THE SUPREME. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4237795 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 4237795


CourtListener opinion 4237795

QDRO: ter for sev- eral years. Knappenberger represented a client in a mar- ital dissolution proceeding, and the dissolution judgment provided that his client was to receive one-half of her for- mer husband's pension, through a qualified domestic rela- tions order (QDRO). Despite repeated inquiries from his 386 In re Ramirez client, opposing counsel, and the pension administrators, Knappenberger did not finalize the QDRO until eight years after entry of the dissolution judgment. This court held that Knappenberger violated the then-current rule govern- ing neglect and that, although he ultimately finalized the QDRO, he ha


CourtListener opinion 4237795

pension: Standard 4.32 (suspension generally appropriate when lawyer knows of, but does not disclose, a conflict of interest and causes injury or potential injury to the client). 4. Aggravating and mitigating factors To determine whether a sanction other than sus- pension is appropriate, we consider any aggravating or mit- igating factors. Jaffee, 331 Or at 408-09. As aggravating factors, the trial panel found, inter alia, that the accused has a prior history of discipline, acted with a dishonest or 2 "Injury" is "harm to a client, the public, the legal system or the profession which results from a lawyer's misconduct."


CourtListener opinion 4238845

CourtListener opinion 4238845 Extracted reporter citation: 22 N.E.3d 1035. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4238845 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 4238845


CourtListener opinion 4238845

QDRO: 1/12/17 Tr. 3). {¶7} Appellant's counsel responded by noting Appellant's last four payments covered the $2,000 per month owed in current spousal support but left little available for the arrearage. (1/12/17 Tr. 3). Appellant argued efforts were made to put a QDRO (qualified domestic relations order) in place to release the Ameriprise account valued at over $200,000. Counsel said Appellant intended to use his half of the account to pay the arrearage. (1/12/17 Tr. 4). The court opined Appellee could name Ameriprise as a defendant to obtain an entry ordering the company to pay an additional amount directly to her befor


CourtListener opinion 4238845

retirement benefits: age. (1/12/17 Tr. 1). Appellee specified that only $800 went toward the arrearage since the magistrate's decision. (1/12/17 Tr. 2). Appellee said Appellant had assets to pay the arrearage, noting Appellant's counsel agreed he would use the parties' Ameriprise retirement account to pay the arrearage in full. (1/12/17 Tr. 2-3). She asked Appellant to put this promise on the record but opined he should go to jail as it 1 Meanwhile, on October 17, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to terminate spousal support, which remained pending during the contempt proceedings. -3- was too late to make up for his blatant noncompliance with court o


CourtListener opinion 4238845

pension: e time. He also contends the trial court failed to consider his recent full payments toward his $2,000 per month spousal support obligation while trying to make payments on the arrearage despite the decrease in his monthly earnings to $669.75 per month from a pension. {¶20} Appellant acknowledges this is not the place for contesting the spousal support ordered in the divorce decree or the denial of his motion to modify spousal support, neither of which was appealed. The magistrate ordered Appellant to purge his contempt sentence by paying the arrearage in full. The magistrate apparently believed Appellant had the means


CourtListener opinion 4238845

domestic relations order: {¶7} Appellant's counsel responded by noting Appellant's last four payments covered the $2,000 per month owed in current spousal support but left little available for the arrearage. (1/12/17 Tr. 3). Appellant argued efforts were made to put a QDRO (qualified domestic relations order) in place to release the Ameriprise account valued at over $200,000. Counsel said Appellant intended to use his half of the account to pay the arrearage. (1/12/17 Tr. 4). The court opined Appellee could name Ameriprise as a defendant to obtain an entry ordering the company to pay an additional amount directly to her before paying Appellant (if there was a c


CourtListener opinion 4240619

CourtListener opinion 4240619 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: entry that reads:. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4240619 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 4240619

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 4240619

QDRO: ortion of the pension benefits, generally described in the decree and "more particularly specified in the Order Dividing Railroad Retirement Benefits to be entered after this Decree." Id. at 234. This court held the decree indicated an intention to render a QDRO in the future and the decree therefore did not render a DRO. Id. at 237. We concluded the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sign the DRO after the trial court's plenary power over the decree had expired because the court's jurisdiction had not been properly invoked. Id. at 238. We hold the DRO was rendered as part of the April 1, 2015 Final Decree of


CourtListener opinion 4240619

retirement benefits: that contains the parties' agreements dividing the marital estate. The agreement was signed by Stephen on January 20, 2015, signed by Carrie on February 11, 2015, and signed by both parties' attorneys. Among other things, the AID divides Stephen's military retirement benefits "as more particularly specified in the domestic relations order signed in conjunction with this agreement and incorporated verbatim in it by reference." The Domestic Relations Order ("DRO") ultimately signed by the trial court is signed and "approved and consented to as to both form and substance" by both Stephen and Carrie and is signed by both partie


CourtListener opinion 4240619

pension: Decree and the documents incorporated therein evidence a present intent to render a DRO at the time the Decree was signed. This contrasts with the facts in Araujo, upon which Stephen relies. In Araujo, the divorce decree awarded the spouse a portion of the pension benefits, generally described in the decree and "more particularly specified in the Order Dividing Railroad Retirement Benefits to be entered after this Decree." Id. at 234. This court held the decree indicated an intention to render a QDRO in the future and the decree therefore did not render a DRO. Id. at 237. We concluded the trial court lacked jurisd


CourtListener opinion 4240619

domestic relations order: ial of his motion to declare a domestic relations order void, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sign the order, the order was signed in violation of his right to due process, and the order impermissibly modified the divorce decree. We hold the domestic relations order is not void because the trial court rendered the order when it signed the divorce decree and its terms were wholly encompassed in the decree. 04-16-00707-CV BACKGROUND In the underlying divorce proceeding, Stephen and his former wife, Carrie, reached a mediated settlement agreement. At a hearing held November 13, 2014, the trial court, the Honorable


CourtListener opinion 4240936

CourtListener opinion 4240936 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 17CA0255 Garfield County District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4240936 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 4240936

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 4240936

domestic relations order: y placed the children with their maternal grandmother. However, father M.M. moved from Florida to Colorado and sought custody of all three children soon after the case began. He said that he shared custody of the older two children with mother under a domestic relations order, and he asserted that he should have custody of M.A.M. because he was her psychological parent. The court placed the children with him, under the protective supervision of the Department, at the end of March. ¶6 In May, father M.M. entered into a stipulated agreement for continued adjudication under section 19-3-505(5), C.R.S. 2017, and the cou


CourtListener opinion 4241464

CourtListener opinion 4241464 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4241464 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 4241464


CourtListener opinion 4241464

QDRO: s without a hearing and without addressing appellant's objections. III. Discussion {¶8} We combine the assigned errors for judicial economy. Generally, the division or distribution of marital property is not subject to future modification by a court. A QDRO prescribes the division of retirement and pension accounts. R.C. 3105.171. The parties agree that the QDROs do not comply with the PSA of the parties. Appellant argues that the trial court erred by issuing the QDROs without responding to appellant's objections and without a hearing. Appellee argues that the QDROs are void because the trial court lacked


CourtListener opinion 4241464

retirement benefits: settlement agreement ("PSA") resolving all issues except for spousal support and attorney fees that were addressed through hearings by the court. The PSA also prescribed the terms for the QDROs, granting each spouse the marital portion of the other party's retirement plan. On October 20, 2015, the magistrate issued a decision adopting the PSA and granting the divorce. {¶3} On April 14, 2015, the parties filed four stipulated QDROs. The stipulated QDROs for appellant's United Airlines and Continental Airlines retirement plans were denied. On November 13, 2015, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision and, on D


CourtListener opinion 4241464

pension: ellant's objections. III. Discussion {¶8} We combine the assigned errors for judicial economy. Generally, the division or distribution of marital property is not subject to future modification by a court. A QDRO prescribes the division of retirement and pension accounts. R.C. 3105.171. The parties agree that the QDROs do not comply with the PSA of the parties. Appellant argues that the trial court erred by issuing the QDROs without responding to appellant's objections and without a hearing. Appellee argues that the QDROs are void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue them. As a result, appellee


CourtListener opinion 4241464

domestic relations order: 1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 1720 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 John C. Oberholtzer Oberholtzer & Filous, L.P.A. 39 Public Square, Suite 201 Medina, Ohio 44256 ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.: {¶1} This consolidated appeal arises from the issuance of two amended qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs") journalized on January 23, 2017. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Background and Facts {¶2} On May 13, 2014, plaintiff-appellee Deborah D. Fitzgerald ("appellee") filed a complaint for divorce against defendant-appellant John W. Fitzgerald ("appellant"). On April 14, 2015, the parties entered in


CourtListener opinion 4243408

CourtListener opinion 4243408 Docket: 4 IN THE SUPREME. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4243408 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 4243408


CourtListener opinion 4243408

QDRO: ter for sev- eral years. Knappenberger represented a client in a mar- ital dissolution proceeding, and the dissolution judgment provided that his client was to receive one-half of her for- mer husband's pension, through a qualified domestic rela- tions order (QDRO). Despite repeated inquiries from his 386 In re Ramirez client, opposing counsel, and the pension administrators, Knappenberger did not finalize the QDRO until eight years after entry of the dissolution judgment. This court held that Knappenberger violated the then-current rule govern- ing neglect and that, although he ultimately finalized the QDRO, he ha


CourtListener opinion 4243408

pension: Standard 4.32 (suspension generally appropriate when lawyer knows of, but does not disclose, a conflict of interest and causes injury or potential injury to the client). 4. Aggravating and mitigating factors To determine whether a sanction other than sus- pension is appropriate, we consider any aggravating or mit- igating factors. Jaffee, 331 Or at 408-09. As aggravating factors, the trial panel found, inter alia, that the accused has a prior history of discipline, acted with a dishonest or 2 "Injury" is "harm to a client, the public, the legal system or the profession which results from a lawyer's misconduct."


CourtListener opinion 4243811

CourtListener opinion 4243811 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4243811 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 4243811

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 4243811

QDRO: ornsbury claimed that he was entitled to receive these monies despite his conviction. Additionally, Mr. Thornsbury's former wife, Petitioner Dreama Thornsbury, claimed entitlement to the marital portion of Mr. Thornsbury's retirement accounts according to two qualified domestic relations orders entered by the Circuit Court of Mingo County in connection with her divorce from Mr. Thornsbury. Ms. Thornsbury's claim regarding the pensions was entirely derivative of Mr. Thornsbury's claim as she was never a participant in either retirement system in her own right. The relevant facts are as follows. Mr. Thornsbury has 2.15 years of service in the Wes


CourtListener opinion 4243811

retirement benefits: Thornsbury, pro se, and Petitioner Dreama Thornsbury, by counsel Mark Hobbs, appeal the Circuit Court of Kanawha County's February 24, 2017, "Final Order Granting West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board's Petition to Terminate Michael Thornsbury's Retirement Benefits." Respondent West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board ("Board"), by counsel J. Jeaneen Legato, filed responses in support of the circuit court's order. This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by ora


CourtListener opinion 4243811

pension: tion thereof contemplated and each now contemplates that the service rendered by any participating public officer or employee shall at all times be honorable. The Legislature further finds and declares that honorable service is a condition to receiving any pension, annuity, disability payment or any other benefit under a retirement plan. In relevant part, "less than honorable service" is defined as "[c]onviction of a participant or former participant of a felony for conduct related to his or her office or employment which he or she committed while holding the office or during the employment[.]" Id. at § 5-10A-2(f)


CourtListener opinion 4243811

domestic relations order: laimed that he was entitled to receive these monies despite his conviction. Additionally, Mr. Thornsbury's former wife, Petitioner Dreama Thornsbury, claimed entitlement to the marital portion of Mr. Thornsbury's retirement accounts according to two qualified domestic relations orders entered by the Circuit Court of Mingo County in connection with her divorce from Mr. Thornsbury. Ms. Thornsbury's claim regarding the pensions was entirely derivative of Mr. Thornsbury's claim as she was never a participant in either retirement system in her own right. The relevant facts are as follows. Mr. Thornsbury has 2.15 years of service in the Wes


CourtListener opinion 4243937

CourtListener opinion 4243937 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Boyle. Extracted reporter citation: 88 A.3d 222. Docket: 1956 MDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4243937 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 4243937


CourtListener opinion 4243937

QDRO: sion at No(s): 14-0012 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and RANSOM, J. MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2018 Appellant, Robert Edwards, appeals from the order entered November 14, 2016, which denied two motions filed by Appellant challenging a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that issued in September 2016. Following a hearing in November 2016, the trial court denied Appellant's motions, and Appellant timely appealed. Thereafter, Appellant failed to file and serve upon the trial court a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal as directed by the trial court. Thus, Ap


CourtListener opinion 4243937

retirement benefits: llee was entitled to $500,353.56 from Appellant's State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) account, with payment subject to wage attachment of $2,250.00 per month. Id. at 11. In addition, Appellant was directed to distribute all proceeds from his Vanguard retirement account to Appellee after first paying $8,149.50 to Mindy Thomas, CPA, for services rendered as appointed guardian of the marital estate. Id. Appellant did not appeal. In May 2016, the trial court signed a qualified domestic relations order (May QRDO), which directed Appellant's SERS account to comply with the prior, equitable distribution order. See May QRD


CourtListener opinion 4243937

domestic relations order: (s): 14-0012 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and RANSOM, J. MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2018 Appellant, Robert Edwards, appeals from the order entered November 14, 2016, which denied two motions filed by Appellant challenging a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that issued in September 2016. Following a hearing in November 2016, the trial court denied Appellant's motions, and Appellant timely appealed. Thereafter, Appellant failed to file and serve upon the trial court a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal as directed by the trial court. Thus, Ap


CourtListener opinion 4243937

valuation/division: r Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224-25 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc). Accordingly, we affirm the order entered November 14, 2016. In February 2016, the parties were divorced. Contemporaneously, the trial court entered an equitable distribution order. See Trial Court Opinion J-A26043-17 and Order, 02/11/2016. In relevant part, the court determined that Appellee was entitled to $500,353.56 from Appellant's State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) account, with payment subject to wage attachment of $2,250.00 per month. Id. at 11. In addition, Appellant was directed to distribute all proceeds


CourtListener opinion 4243938

CourtListener opinion 4243938 Extracted case name: JACQUELINE EDWARDS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT EDWARDS. Extracted reporter citation: 719 A.2d 306. Docket: 1956 MDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4243938 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 4243938

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 4243938

QDRO: mstances of this case, Appellant satisfied the spirit of Rule 1925(b), and therefore, we should not find waiver of that basis. Herein, Appellant timely appealed the trial court's November 14, 2016 order denying his petitions challenging the September 2016 QDRO order and the February 11, 2016 equitable distribution order. The trial court directed Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. Appellant failed to file or serve a Rule 1925(b) statement with the trial court. Instead, Appellant filed a letter with this Court, setting forth his claimed errors. The trial court considered this letter and authored a res


CourtListener opinion 4243938

valuation/division: fied the spirit of Rule 1925(b), and therefore, we should not find waiver of that basis. Herein, Appellant timely appealed the trial court's November 14, 2016 order denying his petitions challenging the September 2016 QDRO order and the February 11, 2016 equitable distribution order. The trial court directed Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. Appellant failed to file or serve a Rule 1925(b) statement with the trial court. Instead, Appellant filed a letter with this Court, setting forth his claimed errors. The trial court considered this letter and authored a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion. Thus, appellate review of


CourtListener opinion 4244470

CourtListener opinion 4244470 Docket: 4 IN THE SUPREME. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4244470 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 4244470


CourtListener opinion 4244470

QDRO: ter for sev- eral years. Knappenberger represented a client in a mar- ital dissolution proceeding, and the dissolution judgment provided that his client was to receive one-half of her for- mer husband's pension, through a qualified domestic rela- tions order (QDRO). Despite repeated inquiries from his 386 In re Ramirez client, opposing counsel, and the pension administrators, Knappenberger did not finalize the QDRO until eight years after entry of the dissolution judgment. This court held that Knappenberger violated the then-current rule govern- ing neglect and that, although he ultimately finalized the QDRO, he ha


CourtListener opinion 4244470

pension: Standard 4.32 (suspension generally appropriate when lawyer knows of, but does not disclose, a conflict of interest and causes injury or potential injury to the client). 4. Aggravating and mitigating factors To determine whether a sanction other than sus- pension is appropriate, we consider any aggravating or mit- igating factors. Jaffee, 331 Or at 408-09. As aggravating factors, the trial panel found, inter alia, that the accused has a prior history of discipline, acted with a dishonest or 2 "Injury" is "harm to a client, the public, the legal system or the profession which results from a lawyer's misconduct."


CourtListener opinion 4245580

CourtListener opinion 4245580 Extracted case name: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. VERNON CHARLES DONNELLY. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: AG No. 3. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4245580 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 4245580

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 4245580

retirement benefits: egard to the representation of two clients in separate matters. See id. at 97, 919 A.2d at 1195. In one matter, a client retained the lawyer to prepare an Eligible Domestic Relations Order, which was necessary for the client to obtain half of his ex-wife's retirement benefits. See id. at 98, 919 A.2d at 1195. Despite his client's numerous requests that he do so, the lawyer failed to prepare the order before his client's remarriage, which rendered his client ineligible to obtain half of his ex-wife's retirement benefits. See id. 99, 919 A.2d at 1195-96. After the lawyer's client filed a complaint against him, Bar Counsel sou


CourtListener opinion 4245580

domestic relations order: lawyer from the practice of law in Maryland for thirty days. Hill involved misconduct with regard to the representation of two clients in separate matters. See id. at 97, 919 A.2d at 1195. In one matter, a client retained the lawyer to prepare an Eligible Domestic Relations Order, which was necessary for the client to obtain half of his ex-wife's retirement benefits. See id. at 98, 919 A.2d at 1195. Despite his client's numerous requests that he do so, the lawyer failed to prepare the order before his client's remarriage, which rendered his client ineligible to obtain half of his ex-wife's retirement benefits. See id. 99, 919 A.


CourtListener opinion 4249164

CourtListener opinion 4249164 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 15–1456. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249164 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 4249164


CourtListener opinion 4249164

QDRO: n" within the meaning of section 614.1. See id. § 611.1; see also Johnson v. Masters, 830 N.W.2d 647, 654, 660–61 (Wis. 2013) (plurality opinion) (concluding postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) are subject to twenty-year statute of repose on actions to enforce a judgment or decree, but the repose period is tolled if the judgment on which relief is sought is not statutorily permitted); id. at 671–73 (Prosser, J., dissenting) (opining postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a QDRO are subject to twenty-year repose period th


CourtListener opinion 4249164

domestic relations order: e it constitutes an "action" within the meaning of section 614.1. See id. § 611.1; see also Johnson v. Masters, 830 N.W.2d 647, 654, 660–61 (Wis. 2013) (plurality opinion) (concluding postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) are subject to twenty-year statute of repose on actions to enforce a judgment or decree, but the repose period is tolled if the judgment on which relief is sought is not statutorily permitted); id. at 671–73 (Prosser, J., dissenting) (opining postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a QDRO are subject to twenty-year repose per


CourtListener opinion 4249174

CourtListener opinion 4249174 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 15–2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249174 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 4249174


CourtListener opinion 4249174

QDRO: nd the majority of the other assets of the marriage including the family home, a number of vehicles and motorcycles, and farm equipment. Blessum filed the decree on March 30. However, Blessum failed to prepare or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to document Stender's interest in Phillip's retirement account. Stender was unaware that Blessum had not prepared or filed the QDRO. 5 Approximately two years later, in mid-March 2011, Blessum called Stender. Blessum informed Stender that Phillip had called to ask if he would receive the entire balance of his retirement account if "something happen


CourtListener opinion 4249174

retirement benefits: ually assaulted Stender. On March 25, Stender signed the second proposed decree upon the advice of Blessum. Stender testified at trial that she was a homemaker for most of her marriage to Phillip. She testified she was unaware of the amount in Phillip's retirement accounts, the state of the household finances, or the amount of alimony to which she might be entitled. She signed the decree based on Blessum's advice that the contents of the decree represented everything she was entitled to receive in the divorce. The final divorce decree awarded Stender $110,000 from Phillip's retirement account, half of the home furnishin


CourtListener opinion 4249174

domestic relations order: ll of the other accounts and the majority of the other assets of the marriage including the family home, a number of vehicles and motorcycles, and farm equipment. Blessum filed the decree on March 30. However, Blessum failed to prepare or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to document Stender's interest in Phillip's retirement account. Stender was unaware that Blessum had not prepared or filed the QDRO. 5 Approximately two years later, in mid-March 2011, Blessum called Stender. Blessum informed Stender that Phillip had called to ask if he would receive the entire balance of his retirement account if "something


CourtListener opinion 4249198

CourtListener opinion 4249198 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Benson. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 16–1441. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249198 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 4249198


CourtListener opinion 4249198

QDRO: xpenditures had not occurred. The district court ordered Gary to pay Linda approximately $23,835 for Linda's share in the marital home. The court also ordered that Linda receive substantial retirement assets through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with a value in excess of $100,000. In addition, the court ordered that Gary's interest in a defined benefits plan be distributed between the parties according to the formula established in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255–57 (Iowa 1996). The district court awarded Linda rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $200 per month for three yea


CourtListener opinion 4249198

retirement benefits: Duffy was concerned that the language of the document could be construed to release Linda's award of retirement assets in the divorce decree. As a result, Duffy modified the document by inserting the handwritten phrase "except pending QDRO concerning pet. retirement accounts per decree" in three places on the "Settlement and Release of Claims." Linda initialed each handwritten change, and she signed the document before a notary. Also on October 10, Linda cashed Gary's check for $27,000. 8 On October 11, 2012, Duffy dismissed the contempt complaint with prejudice. On October 22, Sporer dismissed his appeal in the divorc


CourtListener opinion 4249198

pension: n note was "a fraud." The court cited the tone, substance, and circumstances of the note. The court emphasized that it would be absurd for Linda to give up her retirement benefit of more than $100,000, plus an unknown value of a share of a defined benefit pension, in exchange for $3000. Further, the court noted that it would be extremely unlikely that Linda would surrender the retirement award in settlement of the contempt action against Gary. Further, the district court reasoned that there was no plausible motivation for Linda to accept "such a ridiculous agreement." According to the court, there was no prosp


CourtListener opinion 4249198

401(k): istrict court noted that dissipation of assets is a proper consideration. The district court found that Gary had unreasonably dissipated marital assets in contemplation of the dissolution. The court concluded Gary had unreasonably spent 4 $139,000 from a 401(k) account and $30,000 from the parties' home equity line of credit. The district court stated it would adjust the distribution of the remaining marital property as if these expenditures had not occurred. The district court ordered Gary to pay Linda approximately $23,835 for Linda's share in the marital home. The court also ordered that Linda receive su


CourtListener opinion 4249357

CourtListener opinion 4249357 Extracted reporter citation: 855 N.W.2d 156. Docket: 14–1201. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249357 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 4249357


CourtListener opinion 4249357

QDRO: ship with one of his clients, then assaulted her after the relationship deteriorated. The attorney pled guilty to assault causing bodily injury, a serious misdemeanor. See Iowa Code §§ 708.1(1), .2(2) (2011). In addition, the attorney did not finalize the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in this client's divorce case for two years, and he withdrew this client's fee from his trust account before doing the work. The Board filed a complaint alleging the attorney violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.3 (lack of diligence), 32:1.8(j) (sexual relationship with a client), 32:8.4(b) (criminal act adversely reflecting on the


CourtListener opinion 4249357

retirement benefits: ted a proposed divorce decree and sent copies to Doe and her husband. The stipulated decree of dissolution was filed and approved by the district court in March. It provided, in relevant part, that Jane Doe was to be awarded $110,000.00 from her husband's retirement plan and that "[Jane Doe]'s attorney shall be responsible for preparing the necessary documents to effectuate this transfer." At that time, Blessum sent a copy of the decree and a letter to Doe, stating, "Our office will prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO—to effectuate the transfer from your ex-husband's retirement plan] once we receive t


CourtListener opinion 4249357

pension: ate this transfer." At that time, Blessum sent a copy of the decree and a letter to Doe, stating, "Our office will prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO—to effectuate the transfer from your ex-husband's retirement plan] once we receive the pension documents from [your ex-husband]." That same day, Blessum wrote Doe's ex-husband asking him to forward his pension documents. Doe's ex-husband provided the relevant documents to Blessum two months later. Handwritten notes in 1Due to the sensitive nature of the complaint and the underlying facts, we use the pseudonym "Jane Doe" to refer to the complaina


CourtListener opinion 4249357

alternate payee: Blessum received a faxed letter from Jane Doe's ex-husband himself. The letter read, Dear Zane, In regards to our QDRO we agree to the following changes to your draft submitted to [ex-husband's pension provider] dated December 21, 2009. Item #4: The Alternate Payee's [(Jane Doe's)] accounts effective date shall begin as of August 1, 2008. Item # 7 [Line struck through]. Thank you for your attention in this matter. 5 (Signed) [Doe's ex-husband] [Jane Doe] 2 Both Jane Doe and her ex-husband had signed the letter at the bottom and initialed the line that had been struck through. The fax cover sheet from Doe'


CourtListener opinion 4249452

CourtListener opinion 4249452 Extracted reporter citation: 790 N.W.2d 791. Docket: 13–0372. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249452 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 4249452

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 4249452

QDRO: culate child support payments. Following the rescheduled trial, the district court ordered the marriage dissolved and determined custody, child support, and division of property. The court directed Kennedy to prepare a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) "which will divide both of the accounts equally awarding [Stephanie Robinson] 50 percent of the balance." Kennedy never prepared the QDRO. Kennedy also acknowledges she neglected the matter, did not adequately communicate with her client, and was not ready for the initial trial date. The Board asserts that Kennedy violated Iowa Rules of Professional


CourtListener opinion 4249618

CourtListener opinion 4249618 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KATHRYN JUNE MORRIS AND DENNIS EUGENE MORRIS Upon the Petition of KATHRYN JUNE. Extracted reporter citation: 647 A.2d 812. Docket: 11–0118. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249618 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 4249618

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 4249618

QDRO: . In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 647 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing de novo whether district court properly interpreted dissolution decree); see also In re Marriage of Veit, 797 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 2011) (applying de novo review in determining whether QDRO fulfilled terms of dissolution decree); In re Marriage of Pals, 714 N.W.2d 644, 646 (Iowa 2006) (" ‘A proceeding to modify or implement a marriage dissolution decree subsequent to its entry is triable in equity and reviewed de novo on appeal.' " (quoting In re Marriage of Mullen-Funderburk, 696 N.W.2d 607, 609 (Iowa 2005))). The parties agree our revie


CourtListener opinion 4249618

retirement benefits: Pleasant, for appellant. John D. Hartung of Hartung & Schroeder, Des Moines, for appellee. 2 WATERMAN, Justice. This case should serve as a vivid reminder to attorneys practicing matrimonial law to specifically address survivor rights when dividing retirement benefits. The fighting issue here is whether the award of "half of the . . . Marine Corps Retirement" in the parties' stipulated decree of dissolution entitles the nonmilitary spouse to no more than fifty percent of the monthly retirement pay while the retiree lives, without survivor benefits. Trial counsel for Kathryn June Morris (Kathy), the petitioner, and


CourtListener opinion 4249618

pension: es, farmland, farm products, farm equipment, and other farm-related assets and liabilities. The stipulation further provided: 8. PENSIONS AND TRUSTS: Each party shall receive half of the Respondent's Marine Corps Retirement and any Trans. World Airlines pension received in the future. The Petitioner is awarded $31,500 cash in lieu of any interest she has in the Respondent's United Airlines Directed Account Plan, with the Respondent awarded any remainder. The Respondent is awarded his United Airlines Defined Pension Benefits, while the Petitioner is awarded all proceeds from her interest in the T.A. Cross Tru


CourtListener opinion 4249618

survivor benefits: e Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Sherman W. Phipps, Judge. Kathryn Morris appeals the denial of her request for an order requiring Dennis Morris to designate her as the beneficiary of a military retirement survivor benefits plan. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT RULINGS REVERSED; AND CASE REMANDED. Anjela A. Shutts of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, and Diana L. Miller of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Mount Pleasant, for appellant. John D. Hartung of Hartung & Schroeder, Des Moines, for appellee. 2 WATERMAN, Justice. This case should serve a


CourtListener opinion 4249705

CourtListener opinion 4249705 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TAMARA D. VEIT AND GREGORY H. VEIT Upon the Petition of TAMARA D. VEIT. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 09–1312. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249705 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 4249705


CourtListener opinion 4249705

QDRO: Rodney H. Powell of The Powell Law Firm, P.C., Norwalk, for appellant. Willard W. Olesen of Olesen Law Firm, PLC, Greenfield, for appellee. 2 HECHT, Justice. On further review, we are asked to determine whether a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) fulfilled the terms of a property division prescribed in a dissolution decree. Because we conclude the QDRO did not fulfill the terms of the decree, we vacate the court of appeals' decision and affirm the district court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Tamara Veit filed a petition for the dissolution of her marriage to Gregory Veit. On the day


CourtListener opinion 4249705

retirement benefits: mployee stock ownership account.1 The attorneys discussed the possibility of tax consequences attendant to this solution. Gregory's attorney assured Tamara's attorney there would be no tax consequences. Gregory's 1Gregory had an ownership interest in two retirement accounts at the time of the dissolution. One of the accounts was derived from Gregory's employment with Firestone and the other from his employment with Cemen Tech. The decree allocated to Tamara fifty percent of the Firestone account, but the Cemen Tech account was not mentioned in the decree. 3 attorney drafted a QDRO which Tamara's attorney signed on her behal


CourtListener opinion 4249705

domestic relations order: COURT DECISION AFFIRMED. Rodney H. Powell of The Powell Law Firm, P.C., Norwalk, for appellant. Willard W. Olesen of Olesen Law Firm, PLC, Greenfield, for appellee. 2 HECHT, Justice. On further review, we are asked to determine whether a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) fulfilled the terms of a property division prescribed in a dissolution decree. Because we conclude the QDRO did not fulfill the terms of the decree, we vacate the court of appeals' decision and affirm the district court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Tamara Veit filed a petition for the dissolution of her marriage to Gregory Veit. On t


CourtListener opinion 4249705

valuation/division: wake of our decision in In re Marriage of Brown, filed shortly after the district court issued its ruling on Tamara's motion to modify the QDRO. The parties now agree the QDRO is not itself a property settlement, but is merely a method of effectuating the property division contained in a dissolution decree and may be modified later without affecting the finality of the underlying decree. Brown, 776 N.W.2d at 648–49. The decree provided Gregory "shall pay [Tamara] the amount of $127,000 for her rights to any property not specifically set out by this Stipulation." Neither party appealed the decree, and the property divis


CourtListener opinion 4249734

CourtListener opinion 4249734 Extracted case name: IN RE MARRIAGE OF TRACY ALAN HOWELL AND LISA ANN HOWELL. Extracted reporter citation: 788 N.W.2d 833. Docket: 09–0084. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249734 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 4249734


CourtListener opinion 4249734

QDRO: efit pension plan, through his union membership. The entire amount of the benefit due Tracy from the Carpenter's Pension Fund was accrued during the pendency of the marriage. Lisa requested the district court to divide the pension benefits equally using a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to provide Lisa survivorship benefits in the plan. In its decree, the court did not use a QDRO to divide the plan. Rather, the district court valued Tracy's interest in the Carpenter's Pension Fund at $3274.55 and awarded the fund to Tracy. Lisa subsequently filed a motion to enlarge or amend the decree. In her motion, she asked the court to re


CourtListener opinion 4249734

retirement benefits: e's employer contributions in given years by the applicable benefit rate in the corresponding years—the same formula used to calculate Tracy's ―benefit amounts‖ in Exhibit CC. The example then adds these figures together to determine ―Joe's Monthly Normal Retirement Benefit.‖ (Emphasis added.) In other words, the example employee's ―benefit amounts‖ are added together to determine the employee's monthly pension payment upon retirement. Applying Exhibit CC–1's example in interpreting Tracy's Carpenter's Pension Fund statement, we find Tracy's vested ―benefit amounts‖ of $3274.55 is not the present value of his pension but


CourtListener opinion 4249734

pension: J. Goldsmith of Gaumer, Emanuel, Carpenter & Goldsmith, P.C., Ottumwa, for appellant. Allan C. Orsborn of Orsborn, Milani & Mitchell, L.L.P., Ottumwa, for appellee. 2 PER CURIAM. A spouse seeks review of the district court's division of her husband's pension plan. The spouse contends the district court undervalued the plan and failed to divide the plan properly in accord with this court's precedent. Because the trial court failed to properly determine the plan's value and divide it in accordance with well-settled law, we vacate that portion of the court of appeals' decision concerning the pension plan, aff


CourtListener opinion 4249734

domestic relations order: on plan, through his union membership. The entire amount of the benefit due Tracy from the Carpenter's Pension Fund was accrued during the pendency of the marriage. Lisa requested the district court to divide the pension benefits equally using a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to provide Lisa survivorship benefits in the plan. In its decree, the court did not use a QDRO to divide the plan. Rather, the district court valued Tracy's interest in the Carpenter's Pension Fund at $3274.55 and awarded the fund to Tracy. Lisa subsequently filed a motion to enlarge or amend the decree. In her motion, she asked the court to re


CourtListener opinion 4249851

CourtListener opinion 4249851 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DAVID A. BROWN and PAMELA S. BROWN. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 08–0948. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4249851 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 4249851


CourtListener opinion 4249851

QDRO: appeals opinion affirming the district court's order dividing the petitioner's pension using the service-factor-percentage method. We are asked to determine: (1) whether the court of appeals erred in finding the dissolution decree was not final until the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") was entered and (2) whether the district court judge erred by adopting a QDRO that is alleged to be contrary to the specific language contained in the parties' decree of dissolution. We find the court of appeals erred in determining the dissolution decree was not final until the QDRO was entered; however, its adoption of a QDRO employing the s


CourtListener opinion 4249851

retirement benefits: . Pamela specifically asked the court to insert provisions for the payment of interest on both her preretirement and postretirement death benefits. She also requested the court insert language that prevents David from taking a lump-sum distribution of his retirement benefits in order to deny Pamela her share of the pension. David filed a resistance to Pamela's motion. The court granted Pamela's motion and inserted her proposed language into the approved QDRO. David subsequently filed a motion to amend, enlarge and clarify the district court's orders adopting Pamela's proposed QDRO and granting Pamela's rule 1.904(2) moti


CourtListener opinion 4249851

pension: n review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane Sokolovske, Judge. Petitioner seeks further review of the court of appeals opinion affirming the district court's order dividing the petitioner's pension using the service-factor-percentage method. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. R. Scott Rhinehart of Rhinehart Law, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant. Francis L. Goodwin of Baron, Sar, Goodwin, Gill & Lohr, Sioux City, for appellee. 2 BAKER, Justice. Petitioner seeks further review of the court of appeals opini


CourtListener opinion 4249851

ERISA: y awarded the parties in a dissolution becomes theirs the moment the decree is final. Id. This principle is not entirely true as applied to pension divisions. Because of certain anti-alienation restrictions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the federal tax code, a QDRO must be filed for every pension division undertaken pursuant to a divorce. See generally Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 566 A.2d 767, 768–71 (Md. 6 1989). In Iowa, this QDRO must comply with Internal Revenue Code section 414(p) and Iowa Code section 97B.39, as well as the Iowa administrative rules. See 26 U.S.C. § 414(p) (2006


CourtListener opinion 4250184

CourtListener opinion 4250184 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Sullins. Extracted reporter citation: 692 N.W.2d 360. Docket: 143 / 05-1040. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4250184 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 4250184

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 4250184

QDRO: oyment plus a portion from his employer. Steven and Karen agreed to divide the IPERS account equally. To accomplish this division, they considered the "investment value" to be the value of the account, and they sought to divide the account by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that required IPERS to immediately pay Karen one-half of the investment value, or $19,100. Specifically, the stipulation required Steven to "immediately pay $19,100.00 to [Karen] from his I.P.E.R.S. retirement account pursuant to a separate Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the Court." Steven and Karen also prepared an itemization of


CourtListener opinion 4250184

retirement benefits: division of their marital property. The parties and their attorneys worked to resolve these issues, which ultimately resulted in a stipulated decree for dissolution of marriage. One item of property divided under the stipulation and decree was Steven's retirement account with the Iowa Public Employer's Retirement System (IPERS). Steven began working for the State of Iowa two years after the marriage. He worked at the Anamosa state penitentiary as a corrections officer, and continued to be employed in that capacity until after the divorce. Based on information provided by IPERS during the pendency of the divorce, Stev


CourtListener opinion 4250184

pension: beneficiary, in the event of Steven's death. The "investment 3 value" represented the amount Steven would receive in a lump sum payment if he retired from his employment with the State of Iowa on the day the value was determined. Steven was vested in the pension plan, and therefore the "investment value" represented all of his personal contributions during the course of his employment plus a portion from his employer. Steven and Karen agreed to divide the IPERS account equally. To accomplish this division, they considered the "investment value" to be the value of the account, and they sought to divide the ac


CourtListener opinion 4250184

alternate payee: t as a result of exposure to mace and second-hand smoke while working at the prison. IPERS approved his application in January 2001, and eventually informed him that due to the QDRO on file he would receive monthly benefits of $1,209.77, and Karen, as the alternate payee, would receive $962.31 each month. Steven was surprised to learn Karen would receive a portion of the monthly benefits, and he wrote a letter to Herman expressing his displeasure with the distributions from IPERS. As a result, Herman tried several times to modify the QDRO to provide Steven with a more favorable result. Ultimately, Herman's efforts wer


CourtListener opinion 4250288

CourtListener opinion 4250288 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BONNIE M. PALS AND JAMES J. PALS Upon the Petition of BONNIE M. PALS. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 48 / 05-0507. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4250288 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 4250288


CourtListener opinion 4250288

QDRO: as a teacher and began receiving retirement benefits on June 1, 2004; (2) the legislature enacted Iowa Code section 598.21(5A), providing for postsecondary education subsidies, in 1997; (3) the parties never submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to the court for approval to implement the original decree's division of James's IPERS benefits; and (4) his income decreased, while Bonnie's income increased. James asked the court to modify the decree to enter a QDRO dividing his IPERS benefits according to the provisions of the original decree, terminate his child- 4 support obligation, and order a


CourtListener opinion 4250288

retirement benefits: scholarships and grants—$1,118.50. In the modification proceeding, James alleged the following changes since the time of the decree constituted a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification: (1) he retired as a teacher and began receiving retirement benefits on June 1, 2004; (2) the legislature enacted Iowa Code section 598.21(5A), providing for postsecondary education subsidies, in 1997; (3) the parties never submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to the court for approval to implement the original decree's division of James's IPERS benefits; and (4) his income decreased, while Bonnie's in


CourtListener opinion 4250288

domestic relations order: ification: (1) he retired as a teacher and began receiving retirement benefits on June 1, 2004; (2) the legislature enacted Iowa Code section 598.21(5A), providing for postsecondary education subsidies, in 1997; (3) the parties never submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to the court for approval to implement the original decree's division of James's IPERS benefits; and (4) his income decreased, while Bonnie's income increased. James asked the court to modify the decree to enter a QDRO dividing his IPERS benefits according to the provisions of the original decree, terminate his child- 4 support obligation, and o


CourtListener opinion 4250295

CourtListener opinion 4250295 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DONNA LEE SULLINS AND RAYMOND W. SULLINS Upon the Petition of DONNA LEE SULLINS. Extracted reporter citation: 695 N.W.2d 493. Docket: 42 / 04-0950. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4250295 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 4250295


CourtListener opinion 4250295

QDRO: bute the IPERS account is to use the percentage method normally applicable to cases involving IPERS. See In re Marriage of Scheppele, 524 N.W.2d at 680 (modifying decree, where present value of IPERS account was not ascertainable on the record, to order a QDRO using the percentage method to divide the future benefits when received). Under the percentage method, the non-pensioner spouse is awarded a percentage (frequently fifty percent) of a fraction of the pensioner's benefits (based on the duration of the marriage), by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which is paid if and when the benefits mat


CourtListener opinion 4250295

retirement benefits: r appellee. 2 CADY, Justice. Ray Sullins seeks further review of a decision by the court of appeals affirming the property-distribution and attorney-fee provisions of a district court decree for dissolution of marriage. He argues: (1) the division of a retirement account was inequitable, (2) the court did not properly consider his premarital retirement savings, (3) the division of the parties' other assets and liabilities was inequitable, (4) he should not have been ordered to pay attorney fees, and (5) the court should have ordered a postsecondary education subsidy for the parties' daughter. We vacate the decision of


CourtListener opinion 4250295

pension: e factor among many, see id. (a)-(m). It does not automatically require Donna's share of the property to be reduced as a reimbursement for Ray's premarital contributions. We turn now to specifically consider the district court's treatment of Donna's IPERS pension. 6 IV. IPERS Pensions are divisible marital property. See In re Marriage of Branstetter, 508 N.W.2d 638, 640 (Iowa 1993) ("Pensions in general are held to be marital assets, subject to division in dissolution cases, just as any other property." (Citations omitted.)); see also Iowa Code § 598.21(1)(i) (stating vested and unvested pensions are circum