CourtListener opinion 3152047

retirement benefits: ACKGROUND This appeal stems from the family court's attempt to resolve competing claims to pension benefits. Ilunga Adell ("Ilunga"),1 his first wife, Rosalyn Willis Ilunga ("Rosalyn"), and his second wife, Terry Williams-Ilunga ("Terry"), all stake claim to retirement benefits Ilunga earned while participating in the Producer-Writers Guild of America Pension Plan ("the Plan"). Rosalyn was awarded one-half of the community interest in the retirement benefits in 2000, upon the dissolution of her marriage to Ilunga. Terry obtained an interest in the retirement benefits during her subsequent dissolution proceedings in 2002, when the


CourtListener opinion 3152047

pension: Filed 11/4/15 Producer-Writers Guild of American Pension Plan v. Adell CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.


CourtListener opinion 3152047

ERISA: resented by this appeal is whether a family law court has jurisdiction to hear an interpleader filed by a pension plan involuntarily joined to dissolution proceedings, where the plan is governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). We conclude that it does, at least under the unusual circumstances presented by this procedurally anomalous case. Although ERISA grants federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over most civil actions brought pursuant to its provisions (29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1)), the state law interpleader filed in this case was not an independent civil action instigated by t


CourtListener opinion 3152701

CourtListener opinion 3152701 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3152701 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 3152701

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 3152701

QDRO: f the parties' interests in the marital estate. 3. A party may execute on a judgment in a divorce decree that divides a party's retirement accounts governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (2012) et seq., by filing a qualified domestic relations order with the retirement plan administrator for each retirement account. 1 4. Under the tolling provision of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403(c), the dormancy period does not run \during any period in which the enforcement of the judgment by legal


CourtListener opinion 3152701

retirement benefits: r which a district judge must release the judgment of record. Because any judgment of any court of record in this state is subject to dormancy, K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403(a)(1) is not limited to monetary judgments. 2. A district court's division of a party's retirement accounts in a divorce decree constitutes a judgment subject to dormancy under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403 when the division qualifies as a final determination of the parties' interests in the marital estate. 3. A party may execute on a judgment in a divorce decree that divides a party's retirement accounts governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of


CourtListener opinion 3152701

domestic relations order: ies' interests in the marital estate. 3. A party may execute on a judgment in a divorce decree that divides a party's retirement accounts governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (2012) et seq., by filing a qualified domestic relations order with the retirement plan administrator for each retirement account. 1 4. Under the tolling provision of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403(c), the dormancy period does not run \during any period in which the enforcement of the judgment by legal


CourtListener opinion 3153311

CourtListener opinion 3153311 Extracted reporter citation: 331 N.W.2d 752. Docket: of months respondent worked. The record before this. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3153311 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 3153311


CourtListener opinion 3153311

QDRO: ment and decree contains the following provision at paragraph XX: Pension and Retirement Accounts. The Petitioner is awarded fifty percent (50%) of the Respondent's retirement benefits as of the date of the Judgment and Decree of dissolution. A separate Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be appended to the Judgment and Decree of Dissolution by which Petitioner shall have a separate ownership interest together with the separate responsibility of subsequent tax liability attributable to her receipt of future benefits. 2 In allocating the Respondent's retirement benefits, the court shall utilize the formula provided in Janssen vs


CourtListener opinion 3153311

retirement benefits: marriage was dissolved pursuant to a stipulated judgment and decree. Respondent began work at Berwald Roofing four months prior to the marriage and continued to work there throughout the marriage and until at least 2010. As part of his employment he earned retirement benefits. At the time of dissolution, respondent disclosed that he had a Roofer's Local No. 96 Annuity Plan. Sometime after April 1997, appellant became aware that respondent also had an interest in a National Roofing Industry Pension Plan (National Pension Plan). The National Pension Plan was not disclosed at the time of dissolution. The judgment and decree c


CourtListener opinion 3153311

pension: and Stoneburner, Judge.* * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. UNPUBLISHED OPINION REILLY, Judge Appellant argues that the district court erred in the division of respondent's pension benefits pursuant to their stipulated judgment and decree. Because we determine that the plain language of the judgment and decree required the use of the Janssen formula and the district court misapplied the Janssen formula, we reverse and remand. FACTS Appellant Patricia Radziwill and respondent Michael Radziwill were married from November 6, 1989,


CourtListener opinion 3153311

alternate payee: nt's motion. Between the filing of the motion for amended findings, and the denial of that motion, respondent submitted a proposed QDRO, and it was adopted and filed by the district court. The QDRO contained the following provision: This Order assigns to Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of Fifty Percent (50%) of the Marital Portion of the Participant's Accrued Benefit under the Plan as of the Participant's benefit commencement date, or the Alternate Payee's benefit commencement date, if earlier. 1 This finding appears contrary to what appellant actually argued before the district court. Alt


CourtListener opinion 3153916

CourtListener opinion 3153916 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 322289. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3153916 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 3153916

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 3153916

domestic relations order: For instance, the FOC provides services related to parenting time and custody in domestic relations matters, MCL 552.505; MCL 552.511b; MCL 552.641, investigating and issuing a report regarding child custody or parenting time, MCL 552.505(1)(g), and enforcing domestic relations orders when a written complaint is received regarding the violation of an order, MCL 552.511b. Under MCL 600.2538(1), persons who are required to make support payments through the FOC system pay a monthly charge of $3.50 for child support collection. MCL 600.2538 provides the following: (1) For services provided that are not reimbursable under the provisions


CourtListener opinion 3154387

CourtListener opinion 3154387 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3154387 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 3154387


CourtListener opinion 3154387

QDRO: agreed entry divided the parties' retirement and investment accounts which included appellant's profit sharing plan held by his former employer, Ariel Corporation. The division of this account was done via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (hereinafter \QDRO\"). Also


CourtListener opinion 3154387

domestic relations order: divorce filed on November 6, 2012. The agreed entry divided the parties' retirement and investment accounts which included appellant's profit sharing plan held by his former employer, Ariel Corporation. The division of this account was done via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (hereinafter \QDRO\"). Also


CourtListener opinion 3154621

CourtListener opinion 3154621 Extracted reporter citation: 68 A.3d 354. Docket: 1378 WDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3154621 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 3154621


CourtListener opinion 3154621

QDRO: be appealed by one or both of the parties, thereby prolonging the equitable distribution proceedings. See id. Wife's counsel vehemently opposed bifurcation on the basis that (1) Wife did not have sufficient funds to pay her medical coverage; (2) there were no QDRO's; (3) IRAs and pensions had not been separated; and (4) the parties' joint real estate would be turned into tenancies in common, potentially resulting in liens on such properties if Husband was not keeping up with the mortgages. See id. at 6-7. Thus, based on our review of the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in declini


CourtListener opinion 3154621

valuation/division: MUSMANNO, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2015 Jonathan L. Barnhart ("Husband"), pro se, appeals the July 23, 2014 Decree of divorce between Husband and Donna J. Barnhart ("Wife"), which incorporated the April 23, 2010 Master's Report and Recommendation regarding equitable distribution of the parties' marital property. We deny Wife's Motion to Quash the appeal, and affirm the Decree. In his prior appeal, Husband, pro se, appealed the trial court's January 11, 2012 Decree of divorce, which also adopted the April 23, 2010 Master's Report and Recommendation, as incorporated into the trial court's December 29, 2010 Opinion and Order. Hu


CourtListener opinion 3154948

CourtListener opinion 3154948 Extracted reporter citation: 77 P.3d 285. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3154948 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 3154948

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 3154948

QDRO: ife, less $779 owed to Wife as interim support payments for which Husband was 11 in arrears; (7) Husband's deferred compensation, valued as of the date of divorce, less 12 his $5000 pre-existing separate property interest, would be divided pursuant to a 13 Qualified Domestic Relations Order; and (8) to complete the equalizing process 14 following the ordered division of community assets and liabilities, Husband owed 15 Wife $2,375 within thirty days of the Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. 16 {3} Including those set forth above, the district court's findings of fact and 17 conclusions of law were memorialized in the fourteen-page or


CourtListener opinion 3154948

retirement benefits: Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellant 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 HANISEE, Judge. 2 {1} This appeal stems from a divorce proceeding. Husband argues that the district 3 court abused its discretion in dividing various items of community property, including 4 a retirement account derived from his employment with the State of New Mexico. We 5 conclude that there was no abuse of discretion and affirm. 6 BACKGROUND 7 {2} Frank Esparza (Husband) and Ernestine Esparza (Wife) were married on 8 November 27, 1981. Approximately twenty-eight years later, Wife filed a petition 9 seeking dissolution of the marriage. A trial was held


CourtListener opinion 3154948

pension: 7 conclusions of law were memorialized in the fourteen-page order from which 1 17 Option B consists of "[l]ife payments with full continuation to one survivor 18 beneficiary." Section 10-11-117(B). Under this option, the "retired member is paid a 19 reduced pension for life." Id. Upon the death of the retired member, "the designated 20 survivor beneficiary is paid the full amount of the reduced pension until death." Id. 3 1 Husband appeals. Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar 2 with the background of the case, we reserve discussion of more specific facts when 3 pertinent to our leg


CourtListener opinion 3154948

domestic relations order: $779 owed to Wife as interim support payments for which Husband was 11 in arrears; (7) Husband's deferred compensation, valued as of the date of divorce, less 12 his $5000 pre-existing separate property interest, would be divided pursuant to a 13 Qualified Domestic Relations Order; and (8) to complete the equalizing process 14 following the ordered division of community assets and liabilities, Husband owed 15 Wife $2,375 within thirty days of the Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. 16 {3} Including those set forth above, the district court's findings of fact and 17 conclusions of law were memorialized in the fourteen-page or


CourtListener opinion 3159362

CourtListener opinion 3159362 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of Howell. Extracted reporter citation: 490 U.S. 581. Docket: CV-15-0030-PR. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3159362 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 3159362


CourtListener opinion 3159362

QDRO: v. Van Loan, 116 Ariz. 272, 274, 569 P.2d 214, 216 (1977). Thus, the MRP earned during the parties' marriage belonged to the community and was divisible upon dissolution of the marriage. See id. After the dissolution decree became final and the corresponding qualified domestic relations order issued, nothing more needed to occur to entitle Sandra to fifty percent of the MRP; it had already been earned. See 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d) (requiring payment of disposable MRP share to ex-spouse upon receipt of court order). Additionally, both parties' shares, which were subject to equal cost- of-living and other adjustments, could be precisely calculated by D


CourtListener opinion 3159362

pension: arriage of Gaddis, 191 Ariz. 467, 469–70, 957 P.2d 1010, 1012–13 (App. 1997). Courts in other jurisdictions have divided on the issue. See Mark E. Sullivan & Charles R. Raphun, Dividing Military Retired Pay: Disability Payments and the Puzzle of the Parachute Pension, 24 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law 147, 158 (2011) ("The large majority of states allow a judge to use equitable remedies to prevent a retiree from effecting a unilateral 4 HOWELL V. HOWELL Opinion of the Court reduction of [MRP] granted to the other spouse in the settlement or divorce decree."). But see Mallard v. Burkart, 95 So. 3d 1264, 1271 (Miss. 2012)


CourtListener opinion 3159362

domestic relations order: an, 116 Ariz. 272, 274, 569 P.2d 214, 216 (1977). Thus, the MRP earned during the parties' marriage belonged to the community and was divisible upon dissolution of the marriage. See id. After the dissolution decree became final and the corresponding qualified domestic relations order issued, nothing more needed to occur to entitle Sandra to fifty percent of the MRP; it had already been earned. See 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d) (requiring payment of disposable MRP share to ex-spouse upon receipt of court order). Additionally, both parties' shares, which were subject to equal cost- of-living and other adjustments, could be precisely calculated by D


CourtListener opinion 3159362

valuation/division: ght. 2. Vested property rights ¶19 Both parties acknowledge that Sandra obtained a vested property right in her share of MRP when the family court entered the decree in 1991. Cf. Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 181, 713 P.2d 1234, 1239 (1986) ("When the community property is divided at dissolution . . . each spouse receives an immediate, present, and vested separate property interest in the property awarded to him or her by the trial court . . . [and] a former spouse loses any interest in and control over that separate property."). They differ, however, on the scope of that right. John contends that Sandra has a vested right


CourtListener opinion 3161144

CourtListener opinion 3161144 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JOSEPH VINCENT COLARUSSO AND KARYL JEAN COLARUSSO Upon the Petition of JOSEPH. Extracted reporter citation: 810 N.W.2d 880. Docket: 15-0177. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3161144 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 3161144


CourtListener opinion 3161144

QDRO: Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Marlita A. Greve, Judge. Karyl Hughes appeals the district court's ruling denying her motion to amend the 1999 Qualified Domestic Relations Order to reflect the intent of the court's division of their marital property in their 1990 dissolution of marriage decree. AFFIRMED. Elliott R. McDonald III and Ryan F. Gerdes of McDonald, Woodward & Carlson, P.C., Davenport, for appellant. Christine Frederick of Zamora, Taylor, Woods & Frederick, Davenport, and Gary D. McKenrick of Cartee & McKenrick, P


CourtListener opinion 3161144

retirement benefits: In contention here is whether a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), entered some nine years after Joseph and Karyl Colarusso's 1990 decree of dissolution of marriage, correctly reflects the intent of the decree's division and disposition of Joseph's retirement benefits. The decree provides that when and if Joseph begins to receive his government pension benefits, Karyl is to be paid forty percent of a fraction of the benefits. The QDRO fixes the value of Karyl's forty percent by the amount of accrued benefits as of the date of the dissolution, January 30, 1990. Joseph retired in September 2011, and his pension went


CourtListener opinion 3161144

pension: after Joseph and Karyl Colarusso's 1990 decree of dissolution of marriage, correctly reflects the intent of the decree's division and disposition of Joseph's retirement benefits. The decree provides that when and if Joseph begins to receive his government pension benefits, Karyl is to be paid forty percent of a fraction of the benefits. The QDRO fixes the value of Karyl's forty percent by the amount of accrued benefits as of the date of the dissolution, January 30, 1990. Joseph retired in September 2011, and his pension went into "pay status." The parties then began collecting benefits pursuant to the QDRO's p


CourtListener opinion 3161144

ERISA: efits to be implemented, a QDRO is entered as a court order directing the plan administrator to make certain specified payments to the ex- spouse.4 See id. 4 "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." Brown, 776 N.W.2d at 647-48 (citing Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 566 A.2d 767, 768-71 (Md. 1989)). "ERISA does not 7 A QDRO is defined in relevant part by [ERISA] as a domestic relations order "which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate


CourtListener opinion 3161942

CourtListener opinion 3161942 Extracted case name: C.R.B. v. C.C. Extracted reporter citation: 989 P.2d 1281. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3161942 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 3161942


CourtListener opinion 3161942

QDRO: et, noting that James had not yet vested but that the benefit should be "valued upon vesting at a future hearing." At trial Miller testified James needed about four more years to vest and recommended that James's retirement health benefit be divided through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The superior court divided James's PERS pension through a QDRO, but it did not allocate James's retirement health benefit even though Miller testified at some length on this issue. We therefore remand for the superior court to address this apparent oversight. 17 815 P.2d 374, 375 (Alaska 1991). 18 Id. at 376. 19 Id. at 375-76. 20 See id. (c


CourtListener opinion 3161942

pension: tirement health benefits] are earned during marriage, they are marital property."16 The superior court made no findings about James's non-vested but potential PERS retirement health benefit. In Thomas v. Thomas we considered how to value a spouse's non-vested pension when the spouse needed to work one of the 14 See Pfeil v. Lock, 311 P.3d 649, 653 (Alaska 2013). 15 James also argues in his appellee's brief that the superior court should not have allowed Dea to file a joint 2012 tax return and that this tax issue should be addressed on remand. We reject James's argument; if James wished to contest this issue on app


CourtListener opinion 3161942

domestic relations order: that James had not yet vested but that the benefit should be "valued upon vesting at a future hearing." At trial Miller testified James needed about four more years to vest and recommended that James's retirement health benefit be divided through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The superior court divided James's PERS pension through a QDRO, but it did not allocate James's retirement health benefit even though Miller testified at some length on this issue. We therefore remand for the superior court to address this apparent oversight. 17 815 P.2d 374, 375 (Alaska 1991). 18 Id. at 376. 19 Id. at 375-76. 20 See id. (c


CourtListener opinion 3161942

valuation/division: ued to treat certain bank accounts as marital and others as separate, making it difficult for the superior court to later determine when the joint marital enterprise ended and how to value the bank accounts. This appeal presents issues under each step of the equitable distribution process — identification, valuation, and distribution — as well as issues of alimony, child visitation expenses, and child support credits. As set forth below, we remand for further proceedings on a number of these issues. II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Dea and James Dundas married in 1997 after a lengthy relationship. James began commercial fishing in the earl


CourtListener opinion 3162487

CourtListener opinion 3162487 Docket: COA15-209. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3162487 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 3162487

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 3162487

QDRO: surance policy. (6) Both Defendant and Mr. Respess described all of the above transactions as "loans." While the Court is not convinced that their original intent was that these funds be "loans," it is undisputed that Defendant, upon receiving $200,000 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order from a retirement account of Plaintiff/Husband's (pursuant to the consent judgment), promptly paid Mr. Respess all that they agreed she owed him. That amount was paid on October 5, 2013, in the amount of $19,844.00; part of said funds was attorney fees Defendant owed for Mr. Respess' representation of Defendant in this matter. (7) Mr. Respess has also give


CourtListener opinion 3162487

retirement benefits: . Respess described all of the above transactions as "loans." While the Court is not convinced that their original intent was that these funds be "loans," it is undisputed that Defendant, upon receiving $200,000 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order from a retirement account of Plaintiff/Husband's (pursuant to the consent judgment), promptly paid Mr. Respess all that they agreed she owed him. That amount was paid on October 5, 2013, in the amount of $19,844.00; part of said funds was attorney fees Defendant owed for Mr. Respess' representation of Defendant in this matter. (7) Mr. Respess has also given Defendant a diamond enga


CourtListener opinion 3162487

domestic relations order: licy. (6) Both Defendant and Mr. Respess described all of the above transactions as "loans." While the Court is not convinced that their original intent was that these funds be "loans," it is undisputed that Defendant, upon receiving $200,000 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order from a retirement account of Plaintiff/Husband's (pursuant to the consent judgment), promptly paid Mr. Respess all that they agreed she owed him. That amount was paid on October 5, 2013, in the amount of $19,844.00; part of said funds was attorney fees Defendant owed for Mr. Respess' representation of Defendant in this matter. (7) Mr. Respess has also give


CourtListener opinion 3162487

valuation/division: er and defendant-mother were married on 25 April 1992. During their marriage, the couple had two children. The parties subsequently separated on 12 April 2012. On 11 May 2012, plaintiff filed his Complaint seeking child custody, divorce from bed and board, equitable distribution, injunctive relief, and interim distribution. Defendant then filed an Answer and Counterclaim seeking child custody, child support, post separation support, permanent alimony, equitable distribution, and attorney's fees. On 30 May 2013, the parties were divorced, and on 13 June 2013, a judgment of equitable distribution and an order of permanent alimo


CourtListener opinion 3162541

CourtListener opinion 3162541 Extracted reporter citation: 536 S.W.2d 30. Docket: 1805. Wife agrees that the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3162541 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 3162541


CourtListener opinion 3162541

QDRO: tion. As to the SEP Account No. 1805, the parties agree that the trial court properly awarded the account to Husband as his separate property. The parties further agree that the trial court's later reference to a division of the account and an order for a QDRO was an error. We remand the court's award of SEP Account No. 1805 to conform to the parties' stipulation. Finally, in regard to the Tag Group money market account, Husband claims the trial court erred in awarding Wife one-half of the balance because the account was an asset of the Tag Group, which the trial court had awarded him as his separate propert


CourtListener opinion 3162541

retirement benefits: the present date. So one-half of the increase in the cash surrendered value. . . . [Wife] shall receive one-half of the increase in value from the date of the marriage to the present of First Banker's [sic] Banc, B-A-N-C, Securities, Inc., SEP Individual Retirement Account. . . . [Husband] shall receive the stock in Tag Group, Inc. The only dispute the parties had, which will be tried in the Court, is the value of a certain money market account held by the Tag Group, Inc. . . . Counsel for both parties affirmed that the "stipulation is binding upon both parties" and "that's how [they would] prepare a division of property


CourtListener opinion 3162541

valuation/division: relating to the Wild Horse Creek property and Wife's interest in the marital residence. When Wife's counsel stated that the parties would present evidence of marital misconduct, the trial court advised that it was "not going to be bound by [the stipulated] property division" because evidence of marital misconduct might impact the property division as well as maintenance. Husband and Wife both testified at the hearing. At the conclusion of evidence, the trial court asked each party to submit "a proposed judgment and findings because I'm somewhat confused by your earlier stipulation and how it's going to tie into what I'm s


CourtListener opinion 3162624

CourtListener opinion 3162624 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Howell. Extracted reporter citation: 284 P.3d 880. Docket: CV-15-0028-PR. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3162624 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 3162624

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 3162624

QDRO: e divorce, Robert received MRP and VA disability benefits based on a disability rating of 18.62 percent. The family court did not divide Robert's disability benefits but awarded each party "one-half" of the MRP as their sole and separate property and issued a qualified domestic relations order to implement that award. ¶3 After the parties' divorce, Robert became unemployable due to his disabilities. Thus, in 2004, the VA changed Robert's disability rating to 100 percent and found him eligible to receive CRSC. The CRSC program permits some veterans injured in combat to waive a portion of their "disposable" MRP for an equal amount of tax-free CRSC


CourtListener opinion 3162624

domestic relations order: Robert received MRP and VA disability benefits based on a disability rating of 18.62 percent. The family court did not divide Robert's disability benefits but awarded each party "one-half" of the MRP as their sole and separate property and issued a qualified domestic relations order to implement that award. ¶3 After the parties' divorce, Robert became unemployable due to his disabilities. Thus, in 2004, the VA changed Robert's disability rating to 100 percent and found him eligible to receive CRSC. The CRSC program permits some veterans injured in combat to waive a portion of their "disposable" MRP for an equal amount of tax-free CRSC


CourtListener opinion 3162624

valuation/division: rtion of their "disposable" MRP for an equal amount of tax-free CRSC. See 10 U.S.C. § 1413a. Federal law prohibits courts from treating CRSC as community property. See 10 U.S.C. § 1408(c)(1) (authorizing a state court to treat only "disposable retired pay" as community property); § 1413a(g) ("Payments under this section are not retired pay."). Robert waived a significant portion of MRP to receive CRSC and, as a result, Diane's monthly share of MRP from 2004 onward decreased dramatically. In 2010, for example, Diane's monthly share of MRP was reduced from $1,116 to $133. 2 MERRILL V. MERRILL Opinion of the Court ¶4 In 2010, Di


CourtListener opinion 3164292

CourtListener opinion 3164292 Extracted reporter citation: 671 N.E.2d 236. Docket: H-15-008 Appellee Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3164292 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 3164292


CourtListener opinion 3164292

QDRO: unds as a "Retirement IRA." {¶ 4} In reading the proposed agreement into the record, appellee's attorney detailed that, "The parties have various and sundry retirement and employment-related benefits. It is the agreement of the parties that those shall be QDRO-ed, divided evenly, and that the term of marriage will be the traditional term of marriage from date of marriage in 1989 to today's date." Later in the hearing, in a discussion concerning child support, appellee's attorney stated, "[I]t's further anticipated that any and all retirement 2. accounts and the like, employment-related benefits would be veri


CourtListener opinion 3164292

retirement benefits: divorce. The parties expended significant effort in negotiations, and on July 8, 2011, they read their proposed agreement into the record before the magistrate. The only term of the agreement at issue in this appeal pertains to the division of appellant's retirement accounts. {¶ 3} The parties do not contest that during their marriage, appellant worked for approximately 19 years for the Huron County Sheriff's Office. As part of his employment, appellant participated in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS"). Appellant also participated in a deferred compensation program. Shortly before the complaint for di


CourtListener opinion 3164292

pension: he negative. {¶ 5} The subsequent consent entry, which was drafted by appellee and entered by the court on September 28, 2011, after being signed by the parties, stated, Each party has, through their respective places of employment, certain rights in a pension and/or retirement plan. Specifically, wife has School Employees Retirement System (SERS) retirement benefits and husband has Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) retirement benefits and an Ohio Public Employees Deferred Compensation fund. Each party is awarded 50% of the marital component of all plans of the other party. QDROs, DOPOs or


CourtListener opinion 3164292

401(k): No. 88468, 2007-Ohio-4038, the Eighth District encountered a similar issue. In that case, the defendant had agreed to give the plaintiff 61 percent of her retirement account at KeyCorp. The separation agreement misidentified the account as the defendant's "401(k) account," instead of the defendant's "Qualified Cash Balance Pension Plan account." Id. at ¶ 3. The plaintiff subsequently learned that the 401(k) account had been zero for several years prior to the divorce. After a hearing on the matter, the magistrate found that the intent of the parties clearly was to divide the balance in the cash pension account.


CourtListener opinion 3165740

CourtListener opinion 3165740 Citation: Domestic Relations order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations order. Docket: 3520 EDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3165740 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 3165740

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 3165740

pension: eptions. On June 9, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the outstanding exceptions concerning child support and Mother's petition for contempt and/or specific performance of the post-nuptial agreement. During the hearing, Father testified that an NBA pension that he was entitled to had -3- J-S70009-15 gone to pay for a child support obligation in Virginia.2 (See N.T. Hearing, 6/09/14, at 133-36). Father did not testify nor did counsel present any evidence that any source of income, other than the pension, was going toward his Virginia child support obligations. On the adjourned date of the hearing Octo


CourtListener opinion 3165740

domestic relations order: ssued its opinion incorporating its October 24, 2014 opinion and order. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). Father raises the following questions for our review pro se: 1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by ordering money escrowed pursuant to the Montgomery County Domestic Relations order No. 10-26039 dated November 19, 2013, for the purpose of child support, to be distributed and paid to [Mother] towards amounts owed pursuant to their [m]arital [s]ettlement [a]greement[?] 2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by concluding that [Father] has an earning capacity of $50,000.00 per year (net monthly income of $3,191.00) without basis for


CourtListener opinion 3166192

CourtListener opinion 3166192 Extracted reporter citation: 461 N.E.2d 1273. Docket: 1: The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3166192 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 3166192


CourtListener opinion 3166192

QDRO: onstituted a marital asset and ordered that it be equally divided between the parties. The trial court further determined that Michael's retirement account had a marital value $14,614 greater than that of Carrie's retirement account. Instead of requiring a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), the trial court ordered that Michael pay her half of the difference as her share of his retirement funds. In addition, the trial court awarded certain personal property in accordance with an exhibit introduced at trial by Carrie. The trial court also awarded to Carrie a Ruger Mark III Pistol and Lawrence App. No. 14CA30 2 assorted compound an


CourtListener opinion 3166192

retirement benefits: ivision, the trial court determined that $51,500 in cash taken by Carrie from a safe in the parties' marital residence constituted a marital asset and ordered that it be equally divided between the parties. The trial court further determined that Michael's retirement account had a marital value $14,614 greater than that of Carrie's retirement account. Instead of requiring a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), the trial court ordered that Michael pay her half of the difference as her share of his retirement funds. In addition, the trial court awarded certain personal property in accordance with an exhibit introduced


CourtListener opinion 3166192

pension: e trial court erred in classifying the $51,500 in cash from the parties' safe as marital property, it further erred in denying his request for a QDRO to divide the parties' retirement accounts. {¶ 39} "When considering a fair and equitable distribution of pension or retirement benefits in a divorce, the trial court must apply its discretion based upon the circumstances of the case, the status of the parties, the nature, terms and conditions of the pension or retirement plan, and the reasonableness of the result." Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 559 N.E.2d 1292 (1990), paragraph one of the syllabus. "Accordingly


CourtListener opinion 3166192

domestic relations order: a marital asset and ordered that it be equally divided between the parties. The trial court further determined that Michael's retirement account had a marital value $14,614 greater than that of Carrie's retirement account. Instead of requiring a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), the trial court ordered that Michael pay her half of the difference as her share of his retirement funds. In addition, the trial court awarded certain personal property in accordance with an exhibit introduced at trial by Carrie. The trial court also awarded to Carrie a Ruger Mark III Pistol and Lawrence App. No. 14CA30 2 assorted compound an


CourtListener opinion 3166786

CourtListener opinion 3166786 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3166786 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 3166786

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 3166786

domestic relations order: rent of the adult child, what if there is a dispute between the adult child and the custodial parent with regard to the access of those funds? If the adult child were to enter into a contract, would that contract be enforceable against her? Further, while the domestic relations order indicates that she essentially "remains a minor," does that mean she has been adjudged incompetent? There is no order to that effect. 9 {¶27} Under these circumstances, it would seem that it would be in the best interest of the adult child to have a guardianship established in order to ensure the adult child receives the protections of the guardianship


CourtListener opinion 3167487

CourtListener opinion 3167487 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3167487 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 3167487


CourtListener opinion 3167487

QDRO: he trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the mediated settlement agreement entered into by the parties is ambiguous, and, if so, to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the proper interpretation of that agreement and to enter an appropriate qualified domestic relations order that comports with its terms. Teague v. Teague, 122 So. 2d 3d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Reversed and Remanded. LEVINE, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.


CourtListener opinion 3167487

domestic relations order: ourt for further proceedings to determine whether the mediated settlement agreement entered into by the parties is ambiguous, and, if so, to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the proper interpretation of that agreement and to enter an appropriate qualified domestic relations order that comports with its terms. Teague v. Teague, 122 So. 2d 3d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Reversed and Remanded. LEVINE, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.


CourtListener opinion 3168428

CourtListener opinion 3168428 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 322257 Calhoun Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3168428 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 3168428


CourtListener opinion 3168428

QDRO: ons be spelled out in the judgment of divorce, and that was not done in the parties' judgment of divorce. -3- This appeal followed. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A trial court's decision interpreting a divorce judgment and qualifying domestic relations order (QDRO) is reviewed de novo, Neville v Neville (On Remand), 295 Mich App 460, 466; 812 NW2d 816 (2012), as are questions of statutory interpretation, AFSCME v Detroit, 468 Mich 388, 398; 662 NW2d 695 (2003). III. ANALYSIS We conclude that the trial court erred in determining that MCL 552.101(5) required that defendant be allowed to select option (b) in paragra


CourtListener opinion 3168428

retirement benefits: payable to the Alternate Payee will begin when the Participant begins to receive benefits under the Plan and will be in the form of a single life annuity payable during the lifetime of the Participant. If the Participant elects to receive an early-reduced retirement benefit, the Alternate Payee's benefit shall be reduced by the same factor. Death of Participant: If the Participant predeceases the Alternate Payee after payments to the Alternate Payee begin, all benefits payable to the Alternate Payee will permanently cease. Death of Alternate Payee: If the Alternate Payee predeceases the Participant after payments to th


CourtListener opinion 3168428

pension: AKE ALAN HUDSON, LC No. 2013-001252-DM Defendant-Appellee. Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and SAAD and HOEKSTRA, JJ. BOONSTRA, P.J. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted1 the trial court's entry of an Eligible Domestic Relations Order (EDRO) directing plaintiff's pension plan administrator, the Michigan Public Schools Employees Retirement System (MPSERS), to grant defendant an interest in her pension benefits in the form of a single life annuity payable over defendant's lifetime, and the trial court's denial of reconsideration of that order. We affirm. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff and defendant we


CourtListener opinion 3168428

alternate payee: mestic Relations Order.2 Defendant sent to plaintiff a proposed EDRO to be filed with the MPSERS. The document is a standardized form that allows the preparer to select certain options. Paragraph six of the EDRO states that "[t]he Participant assigns to the Alternate Payee a portion of the Participant's benefits from the Plan and the Plan will pay benefits to the Alternate Payee according to the following terms and conditions." Following this heading, defendant filled in a table that showed that he, as the alternate payee, would receive 39.5% of plaintiff's allowance, with the years of service included in the calculation iden


CourtListener opinion 3169181

CourtListener opinion 3169181 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 49A02-1501-DR-51 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3169181 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 3169181

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 3169181

QDRO: ce the date of final separation. The Order shall first be submitted to Wife's attorney for approval and then to the Court before it is forwarded to Husband's employer. Appellant's App. p. 12. Jerry did not appeal the decree. [5] Jerry's attorney drafted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). On August 30, 2006, the trial court issued the QDRO. The QDRO stated that Phyllis was an alternate payee of the account and was entitled to "receive a portion of the participant's benefits payable under any employer sponsored defined benefit retirement plan." Id. at 17. The QDRO further explained that Phyllis was entitled to receive $50,47


CourtListener opinion 3169181

retirement benefits: r (QDRO). On August 30, 2006, the trial court issued the QDRO. The QDRO stated that Phyllis was an alternate payee of the account and was entitled to "receive a portion of the participant's benefits payable under any employer sponsored defined benefit retirement plan." Id. at 17. The QDRO further explained that Phyllis was entitled to receive $50,471.11 from Jerry's pension plan. Id. at 18- 19. In addition, the QDRO provided: In the event the administrator [of the Plan] determines that this order is not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, both parties shall cooperate with the administrator to make the changes


CourtListener opinion 3169181

pension: a petition to dissolve her marriage with Jerry. On April 13, 2006, the trial court issued a decree of dissolution of marriage. At the time the court issued the decree, Jerry was employed by the Indianapolis Fire Department. The fire department offered a pension benefit for its employees, and Jerry participated in the pension plan. [4] The court determined that Phyllis was entitled to one-half of Jerry's pension, or $50,471.11. The court further ordered as follows: Husband's attorney shall immediately prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order providing Wife with her above noted share of the account, plu


CourtListener opinion 3169181

401(k): nder the decree. Phyllis' request for relief was necessary and just, and the court's clarification was not an abuse of discretion. See Case v. Case, 794 N.E.2d 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (trial court's alteration of the amount wife received from husband's 401(k) was not an abuse of discretion where the alteration preserved the original allocation of assets under the divorce decree). [25] Jerry also challenges the trial court's entry of judgment against him in the amount of $14,000 for his "failure to contribute any funds from his pension to [Phyllis]." Appellant's App. p. 34. Having reviewed the record, we


CourtListener opinion 3169210

CourtListener opinion 3169210 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARY KAY FRARY AND DANIEL L. KNIPPER Upon the Petition of MARY KAY FRARY. Extracted reporter citation: 832 N.W.2d 663. Docket: 14-1398. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3169210 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 3169210


CourtListener opinion 3169210

QDRO: sion of property upon dissolution of marriage and premarital agreements. Schedule "A" set forth the assets of Mary Kay the parties agreed would remain with Mary Kay, including: "IRA at 1st Nat. of Oelwein Prime Vest (First Trust) from divorce settlement [qualified domestic relations order] QDRO & previous Hall & Hall IRA Plan, $36,000"; "Mass. Fidelity IRA (Aegon) from divorce settlement, $36,000"; and "401k at Hall & Hall (18,000.00) of which was rolled over from divorce [from Denny Frary] QDRO, $22,000.00." In 2009, Mary Kay filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The parties reached a stipulation resolving property distributio


CourtListener opinion 3169210

retirement benefits: ny Frary] QDRO, $22,000.00." In 2009, Mary Kay filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The parties reached a stipulation resolving property distribution and spousal support. Paragraph 9 of the stipulation provided: Savings Accounts, Stocks, Bonds, Retirement Plan or Other Investments. Each party shall receive any savings, stocks, bonds and other investments in their name. Any pension plans of a party shall be divided by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Act Order (QDRO) for the contributions of each party to their pension plans during the term of the marriage and each party shall sign all documents necessa


CourtListener opinion 3169210

pension: lving property distribution and spousal support. Paragraph 9 of the stipulation provided: Savings Accounts, Stocks, Bonds, Retirement Plan or Other Investments. Each party shall receive any savings, stocks, bonds and other investments in their name. Any pension plans of a party shall be divided by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Act Order (QDRO) for the contributions of each party to their pension plans during the term of the marriage and each party shall sign all documents necessary to carry out this provision. Petitioner shall prepare any QDRO for her pension plans and Respondent shall prepare any QDR


CourtListener opinion 3169210

401(k): with Mary Kay, including: "IRA at 1st Nat. of Oelwein Prime Vest (First Trust) from divorce settlement [qualified domestic relations order] QDRO & previous Hall & Hall IRA Plan, $36,000"; "Mass. Fidelity IRA (Aegon) from divorce settlement, $36,000"; and "401k at Hall & Hall (18,000.00) of which was rolled over from divorce [from Denny Frary] QDRO, $22,000.00." In 2009, Mary Kay filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The parties reached a stipulation resolving property distribution and spousal support. Paragraph 9 of the stipulation provided: Savings Accounts, Stocks, Bonds, Retirement Plan or Othe


CourtListener opinion 3169706

CourtListener opinion 3169706 Extracted reporter citation: 450 N.E.2d 1140. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3169706 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 3169706


CourtListener opinion 3169706

QDRO: n the parties' motions to show cause and for attorney fees, as well as Melvin's motion to modify life insurance provisions. The record further reflects that at the May 13, 2014 hearing, Melvin's counsel first mentioned that his "client has been informed by QDRO consultants that the DOPO is not accurate and has to be redone prior to retirement * * *." Melvin's counsel then indicated that he would file a "civil motion on the DOPO so that we can get everything resolved." Although Melvin filed his motion on June 30, 2014, he never requested a hearing nor did he raise the same argument that he raises now on appeal,


CourtListener opinion 3169706

pension: affirm. A. Procedural History and Facts {¶2} Melvin and plaintiff-appellee, Barbara Morgan, were divorced on March 7, 2013. Eight days later, the court issued a division of property order ("DOPO") regarding the division of Melvin's Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund ("OPFPF") pension, which had been preapproved and signed by counsel for both parties. On May 20, 2013, the court docketed notice from the OPFPF accepting the DOPO and its determination "that the [DOPO] meets the requirements of the Ohio Revised Codes Sections 3105.80 to 3105.90." {¶3} On June 30, 2014, 13 months after the OPFPF accepted the DOPO,


CourtListener opinion 3169706

valuation/division: continuing jurisdiction over the underlying matter. See Cameron v. Cameron, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-349, 2012-Ohio-6258, ¶ 10, citing R.C. 3105.171(I) ("After a trial court issues a divorce decree, it lacks jurisdiction to modify or amend the marital property division, including the division of a pension fund, unless the decree expressly reserves jurisdiction or the parties expressly consent in writing to the modification."). Here, there is no dispute over the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction to consider and rule upon Melvin's motion. Rather, the sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its dis


CourtListener opinion 3169896

CourtListener opinion 3169896 Extracted case name: S.V. v. R.V. Extracted reporter citation: 369 S.W.3d 918. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3169896 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 3169896


CourtListener opinion 3169896

QDRO: r, at trial Paul merely insinuated that Teresa "should have known where I was at," either through "contact of our children" or by virtue of her specialized knowledge as a licensed attorney. Though in his brief Paul argued that Teresa should have obtained a qualified domestic relations order or maintained regular contact with Paul or Conoco, such arguments were not presented to the trial court. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the discovery rule and enforcing the retirement benefits provision of Paul and Teresa's New Mexico divorce decree. Accordingly, we overrule Paul's sole issue. 7 CONCL


CourtListener opinion 3169896

retirement benefits: immons divorced in New Mexico in 1987. In 2013, Teresa registered the parties' New Mexico divorce decree in Texas. Teresa subsequently filed a Petition for Enforcement of Order, seeking to enforce a provision of the decree concerning the division of Paul's retirement benefits. Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment granting Teresa's request to enforce the provision. In one issue, Paul contends that the enforcement action was barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion by rendering judgment in favor of Teresa. We will affirm the trial court's judgment. BACKGR


CourtListener opinion 3169896

domestic relations order: l Paul merely insinuated that Teresa "should have known where I was at," either through "contact of our children" or by virtue of her specialized knowledge as a licensed attorney. Though in his brief Paul argued that Teresa should have obtained a qualified domestic relations order or maintained regular contact with Paul or Conoco, such arguments were not presented to the trial court. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the discovery rule and enforcing the retirement benefits provision of Paul and Teresa's New Mexico divorce decree. Accordingly, we overrule Paul's sole issue. 7 CONCL


CourtListener opinion 3174702

CourtListener opinion 3174702 Extracted reporter citation: 133 S.W.3d 277. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3174702 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 3174702

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 3174702

QDRO: tions, warranties, covenants or undertakings other than those expressly set forth herein. .... 21. RETIREMENT BENEFITS: (a) Wife shall receive one-half of the marital share of Husband's military retirement accounts/plans. Such division shall be done by QDRO, ADRO, or other required mechanism. The costs of preparing the paperwork shall be at Wife's expense. The Marital Share shall be a fraction, the numerator of -2- which is the number of reserve retirement points earned during the marriage and the denominator is the Husband's total number of reserve retirement points. If Husband has a further retirement


CourtListener opinion 3174702

retirement benefits: the parties present evidence from expert witnesses to assist the court in resolving the matter. At the later hearing, wife presented the expert testimony of Leslie Shaner to explain the provisions of the proposed orders in the context of dividing military retirement benefits. Shaner formerly worked as an attorney with the law firm representing wife in the proceedings, and had drafted some provisions in wife's proposed order. The trial court, after making some modifications not pertinent to this appeal, entered wife's proposed order (the Order appealed here). The portions of the Agreement relevant to this appeal are: 3.


CourtListener opinion 3174702

pension: Agreement. Husband's most substantive challenges concern "anti-circumvention" provisions (paragraphs 15,2 16,3 17,4 2 15. Merger of Benefits and Indemnification: The Member agrees not to merge the Member's disposable military retired pay with any other pension and not to pursue any course of action that would defeat the Former Spouse's right to receive a portion of the disposable military retired pay of the Member. The Member agrees not to take any action by merger of the military retirement pension so as to cause a limitation in the amount of the total retired pay in which the Member has a vested interest a


CourtListener opinion 3174702

survivor benefits: ife will also receive a similar one-half marital share of that benefit (with the numerator and denominator expressed in months of creditable service rather than reserve retirement points). Husband shall elect (or cause to be selected) participation in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) of at least a 50% survivor benefit. The Agreement contains no express indemnification clause. II. CHALLENGED PROVISIONS IN THE ORDER "[O]n appeal, our standard of review for property settlement agreements is the same as for other contracts." Craig v. Craig, 59 Va. App. 527, 537, 721 S.E.2d 24, 28 (2012). "If the terms of the agreement are


CourtListener opinion 3177444

CourtListener opinion 3177444 Extracted reporter citation: 980 N.E.2d 363. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3177444 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 3177444


CourtListener opinion 3177444

QDRO: Settlement Agreement (the "PSA") Husband and Wife had executed on that date. Under the heading "401K & PENSION," the PSA stated that "Wife shall participate in Husband's Con- Way Pension and Conway Retirement Savings Plan as specified in the attached Qualified Domestic Relations Order (Exhibit A)." Appellant's Appendix at 3. The PSA also provided that "[n]o modification or waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and executed by both parties hereto." Id. at 4. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1505-DR-309| February 16, 2016 Page 2 of 19 [3] A Qualified Domestic Relations


CourtListener opinion 3177444

retirement benefits: able accounts established on behalf of [Wife]. [Wife] shall thereafter be entitled to self-direct the investments in [Wife's] accounts subject to the terms and restrictions of the Plans. Id. at 9-10. [4] The October 5, 2012 QDRO was sent to the Con-Way retirement plan administrator, and senior retirement plan administrator Jack Cosgrove determined that it did not qualify as a qualified domestic relations order, in part because Con-Way had two separate retirement plans with different plan documents and a separate order was needed for each of the two plans. Cosgrove sent an email message to Wife and counsel for H


CourtListener opinion 3177444

pension: olution of marriage. On October 5, 2012, the trial court entered a summary dissolution decree providing in part that the court approved the Property Settlement Agreement (the "PSA") Husband and Wife had executed on that date. Under the heading "401K & PENSION," the PSA stated that "Wife shall participate in Husband's Con- Way Pension and Conway Retirement Savings Plan as specified in the attached Qualified Domestic Relations Order (Exhibit A)." Appellant's Appendix at 3. The PSA also provided that "[n]o modification or waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and exec


CourtListener opinion 3177444

401(k): for dissolution of marriage. On October 5, 2012, the trial court entered a summary dissolution decree providing in part that the court approved the Property Settlement Agreement (the "PSA") Husband and Wife had executed on that date. Under the heading "401K & PENSION," the PSA stated that "Wife shall participate in Husband's Con- Way Pension and Conway Retirement Savings Plan as specified in the attached Qualified Domestic Relations Order (Exhibit A)." Appellant's Appendix at 3. The PSA also provided that "[n]o modification or waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writ


CourtListener opinion 3178511

CourtListener opinion 3178511 Extracted case name: MAGALLANES v. MAGALLANES. Docket: 1 CA-CV 14-0534 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3178511 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 3178511


CourtListener opinion 3178511

QDRO: otion for new trial, claiming the superior court erred by allowing Michael Magallanes (Husband) to retain $3,000 in proceeds from a foreclosure; refusing to hold Husband in contempt for not timely paying Wife $1,500 in attorneys' fees and $850 for preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); ordering Wife to correct the QDRO; dividing Wife's previously- undisclosed retirement account as a community asset and awarding Husband $2,500 in attorneys' fees.1 Because Wife has shown no error, the order is affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in May 2007. The parties reached an agreement


CourtListener opinion 3178511

retirement benefits: oceeds from a foreclosure; refusing to hold Husband in contempt for not timely paying Wife $1,500 in attorneys' fees and $850 for preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); ordering Wife to correct the QDRO; dividing Wife's previously- undisclosed retirement account as a community asset and awarding Husband $2,500 in attorneys' fees.1 Because Wife has shown no error, the order is affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in May 2007. The parties reached an agreement on the division of community property, which was incorporated in a February 2008 decree. Among other t


CourtListener opinion 3178511

domestic relations order: new trial, claiming the superior court erred by allowing Michael Magallanes (Husband) to retain $3,000 in proceeds from a foreclosure; refusing to hold Husband in contempt for not timely paying Wife $1,500 in attorneys' fees and $850 for preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); ordering Wife to correct the QDRO; dividing Wife's previously- undisclosed retirement account as a community asset and awarding Husband $2,500 in attorneys' fees.1 Because Wife has shown no error, the order is affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in May 2007. The parties reached an agreement


CourtListener opinion 3178511

valuation/division: sset and awarding Husband $2,500 in attorneys' fees.1 Because Wife has shown no error, the order is affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in May 2007. The parties reached an agreement on the division of community property, which was incorporated in a February 2008 decree. Among other things, the decree required Husband to pay Wife $1,500 in attorneys' fees; awarded Wife one-half of Husband's retirement accounts to be divided by a QDRO; required Husband to pay for the cost of preparing the QDRO and required the sale of the community's home, with the net proceeds divided equal


CourtListener opinion 3178995

CourtListener opinion 3178995 Extracted reporter citation: 331 N.W.2d 752. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3178995 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 3178995


CourtListener opinion 3178995

QDRO: ree was drawn, verbatim, from the stipulated agreement of the parties. In March 2010, Theno retired from U.S. Steel. In July 2010, he began collecting retirement benefits. In January 2011, the district court issued the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) provided for in the judgment and decree, which required Theno's pension administrator to pay Starkovich a portion of Theno's benefits. The payment formula from the judgment and decree was included in the QDRO. Theno reviewed and signed the QDRO as part of the district court's review and approval process. Theno did not challenge the QDRO at the time it


CourtListener opinion 3178995

retirement benefits: 2. Their marriage was dissolved in October 1994. The dissolution was formalized in a judgment and decree, which was based upon a stipulated agreement negotiated by the parties. The judgment and decree included a provision addressing distribution of Theno's retirement benefits, which Theno earned working at U.S. Steel from 1975 to 1982 and from 1989 until he retired in March 2010. The provision of the judgment and decree addressing Theno's retirement benefits provided: The Court shall enter a separate Qualified Domestic Relations Order which shall provide that [Starkovich] shall receive a portion of each monthly or other


CourtListener opinion 3178995

pension: hich shall be the total number of months that 2 [Theno] accumulates benefits in the plan prior to their being paid. This payment formula is commonly referred to as the Janssen formula. See Janssen v. Janssen, 331 N.W.2d 752, 756 (Minn. 1983) (describing pension division formula). The retirement provision of the judgment and decree was drawn, verbatim, from the stipulated agreement of the parties. In March 2010, Theno retired from U.S. Steel. In July 2010, he began collecting retirement benefits. In January 2011, the district court issued the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) provided for in the judgm


CourtListener opinion 3178995

valuation/division: N.W.2d 519, 522 (Minn. 1997). A district court's decision not to reopen a judgment and decree is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. Kornberg v. Kornberg, 542 N.W.2d 379, 386 (Minn. 1996). "While a district court may not modify a final property division," such as the division of pension benefits in a judgment and decree, "it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties' substantive rights." Nelson v. Nelson, 806 N.W.2d 870, 871 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted). "An order implementing or enforcing a dissolution decree does


CourtListener opinion 3180906

CourtListener opinion 3180906 Extracted reporter citation: 982 A.2d 1230. Docket: 394 WDA 2015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3180906 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 3180906

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 3180906

QDRO: ble distribution claims. Paragraph five of the equitable distribution order addressed Wife's J-A35024-15 entitlement to a portion of Husband's SERS pension in the amount of $2,000.00 per month and the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). The parties' divorce decree was entered on August 12, 2014. Because Husband did not make $2,000.00 payments to Wife while the QDRO was being finalized by SERS, on December 11, 2014, Wife sent a pro se letter to the court of common pleas seeking to hold Husband in contempt of the May 16, 2014 equitable distribution order. At a hearing on Wife's pet


CourtListener opinion 3180906

pension: orah Ann Weishner ("Wife"). We affirm. We summarize the history of this case as follows. Husband and Wife were married on June 3, 1978. On November 24, 2010, Husband filed a complaint in divorce. During the divorce proceedings, Husband received a monthly pension from the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System ("SERS"). Based upon the amount of Husband's pension, Wife received monthly alimony pendente lite payments of $2,100.00. On May 16, 2014, upon agreement of the parties, the trial court entered an order disposing of the parties' equitable distribution claims. Paragraph five of the equitable distr


CourtListener opinion 3180906

valuation/division: f Indiana County Civil Division at No(s): 12363 CD 2010 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 26, 2016 Appellant, Terrence R. Weishner ("Husband"), appeals from the order finding him in contempt of an equitable distribution order in this divorce matter involving Appellee, Deborah Ann Weishner ("Wife"). We affirm. We summarize the history of this case as follows. Husband and Wife were married on June 3, 1978. On November 24, 2010, Husband filed a complaint in divorce. During the divorce proceedings, Husband received a monthly pension from the Pennsylvania State Employees'


CourtListener opinion 3181432

CourtListener opinion 3181432 Extracted reporter citation: 443 S.W.3d 29. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3181432 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 3181432

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 3181432

QDRO: the President's Page of the September-October 2014 issue of the Missouri Bar Journal. Mr. Kim—apparently based on his negative experience with two Missouri attorneys who were involved in Mr. Kim's 1993 divorce proceeding and a 2013 proceeding relating to a qualified domestic relations order arising therefrom—determined that Shelton's positive words about the Missouri Bar were false declarations under § 575.060 RSMo (2000). Mr. Kim requested damages of $587,928.51 for the allegedly fraudulent words contained in the article. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Mr. Kim timely


CourtListener opinion 3181432

domestic relations order: ent's Page of the September-October 2014 issue of the Missouri Bar Journal. Mr. Kim—apparently based on his negative experience with two Missouri attorneys who were involved in Mr. Kim's 1993 divorce proceeding and a 2013 proceeding relating to a qualified domestic relations order arising therefrom—determined that Shelton's positive words about the Missouri Bar were false declarations under § 575.060 RSMo (2000). Mr. Kim requested damages of $587,928.51 for the allegedly fraudulent words contained in the article. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Mr. Kim timely


CourtListener opinion 3183182

CourtListener opinion 3183182 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3183182 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 3183182


CourtListener opinion 3183182

QDRO: of his retirement benefits in order to prepare a DOPO. The trial court ordered Husband to execute an authorization for Wife's expert so he could obtain the necessary information; thus the hearing was continued. {¶7} During the two day hearing, Brian Hogan of QDRO Consultants testified on behalf of Wife regarding Husband's OPERS benefits, the method of determining the age and service portion, and the protocol for dividing benefits. Hogan's testimony was mostly consistent over the two days. However, his testimony differed slightly with respect to the exact number of Husband's years of service and the number of years t


CourtListener opinion 3183182

retirement benefits: the final hearing, Husband was receiving disability benefits as he had left his employment with the police department. Due to the parties' delay and the failure by counsel for Wife to submit a compliant Division of Property Order (DOPO) relative to husband's retirement benefits, the final decree of divorce was not filed until November 19, 2007. The trial court found in pertinent part: 6. The marital portion of Husband's OPERS retirement shall be awarded to Wife by DOPO (Husband may have the option to obtain a current value and pay a lump sum to Wife). *** 19. Mortgage payments to be paid by Husband during the pendency of t


CourtListener opinion 3183182

pension: r dividing benefits. Hogan's testimony was mostly consistent over the two days. However, his testimony differed slightly with respect to the exact number of Husband's years of service and the number of years that was the marital portion of the age and service pension. {¶8} Before he received the information from PERS, Hogan testified that, -3- based upon information he had received from Wife's counsel, Husband had 29.666 years of service and the marital portion was 6.666 years. After he received the information from PERS, Hogan stated Husband accumulated 29.749 years of service, of which 6.612 years was the marital p


CourtListener opinion 3183182

alternate payee: er. (emphasis added) {¶3} Neither party appealed the original decree. {¶4} Wife's counsel prepared and submitted a DOPO to Husband's attorney, and Wife contends Husband repeatedly refused to sign it. The DOPO submitted by wife sought payments to her as the Alternate Payee from Husband's plan from two distinct benefits: the age and service retirement benefit, and the disability monthly benefit. This was the basis for Husband's refusal to sign. Husband took the position that his disability benefits were separate property, and that Wife was only entitled to the marital portion of his age and service benefits, which he was not r


CourtListener opinion 3183829

CourtListener opinion 3183829 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3183829 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 3183829


CourtListener opinion 3183829

QDRO: ipt to facilitate our review of the decision below, we are compelled to affirm the trial court's final 2 judgment of dissolution order. Case 15-4161 After Husband's first appeal had been perfected, it was brought to the trial court's attention that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) used to distribute Husband's pension plan was ineffectual for this type of pension. The trial court entered a second order attempting to remedy this error and clarify the distribution of this marital asset. Husband argues the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter this new order. However, "[w]hile [an] appeal is pending, the trial court retain


CourtListener opinion 3183829

pension: band's two appeals have been consolidated for the purposes of this opinion. We write first to address the need for proper preservation of appellate issues in equitable distribution cases. The remainder of the opinion will address the distribution of Husband's pension. Case 14-1364 Husband's first assertion on appeal is that the trial court erred in its distribution of the marital property by failing to make specific factual findings as to the disposition of several of the couple's assets and liabilities. However, Husband did not provide a trial transcript for appellate review, nor did he alert the trial court to this


CourtListener opinion 3183829

domestic relations order: ilitate our review of the decision below, we are compelled to affirm the trial court's final 2 judgment of dissolution order. Case 15-4161 After Husband's first appeal had been perfected, it was brought to the trial court's attention that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) used to distribute Husband's pension plan was ineffectual for this type of pension. The trial court entered a second order attempting to remedy this error and clarify the distribution of this marital asset. Husband argues the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter this new order. However, "[w]hile [an] appeal is pending, the trial court retain


CourtListener opinion 3183829

valuation/division: ali ("Husband") appeals two orders arising from his divorce from Appellee Joyce Farghali ("Wife"). Husband's two appeals have been consolidated for the purposes of this opinion. We write first to address the need for proper preservation of appellate issues in equitable distribution cases. The remainder of the opinion will address the distribution of Husband's pension. Case 14-1364 Husband's first assertion on appeal is that the trial court erred in its distribution of the marital property by failing to make specific factual findings as to the disposition of several of the couple's assets and liabilities. However, Husband did not pr


CourtListener opinion 3184156

CourtListener opinion 3184156 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3184156 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 3184156


CourtListener opinion 3184156

domestic relations order: waiving his right to a preliminary hearing and jury trial in November 2014, Fernando Chavez pleaded no contest to one felony count of possession of contraband (methamphetamine) in jail (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a))1 and one misdemeanor count of violating a domestic relations order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)) and admitted he had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j); 1170.12). Pursuant to a negotiated agreement the trial court sentenced Chavez to a state prison term of four years: four years (the two-year lower term doubled under the three strikes law) for po


CourtListener opinion 3185044

CourtListener opinion 3185044 Extracted reporter citation: 633 A.2d 589. Docket: 619 MDA 2015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3185044 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 3185044

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 3185044

QDRO: ch 19, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 2001-FC-002436-15 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OTT, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MARCH 11, 2016 Carla S. Grothey n/k/a Carla S. Meyer ("Wife") appeals from the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered on March 19, 2015, in the York County Court of Common Pleas, which was drafted by her ex-husband, Thomas E. Grothey ("Husband"). Wife complains the court erred in adopting Husband's QDRO because it was incorrectly drafted. Based on the following, we are constrained to reverse and remand. The facts and procedural history are as follows.


CourtListener opinion 3185044

retirement benefits: oth agree they were married on February 14, 1987, separated on September 1, 2001, and divorced on January 14, 2004. Husband is a trooper for the J-A34026-15 Pennsylvania State Police,1 and participated in a deferred compensation plan as well as a defined retirement plan/pension as a member of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Employees' Retirement System ("SERS"). Prior to finalizing the divorce, a January 5, 2004, hearing was conducted to address the equitable distribution of the parties' marital property. Pertinent to this appeal, the parties agreed that Wife would be rewarded 65% of the marital portion wit


CourtListener opinion 3185044

pension: were married on February 14, 1987, separated on September 1, 2001, and divorced on January 14, 2004. Husband is a trooper for the J-A34026-15 Pennsylvania State Police,1 and participated in a deferred compensation plan as well as a defined retirement plan/pension as a member of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Employees' Retirement System ("SERS"). Prior to finalizing the divorce, a January 5, 2004, hearing was conducted to address the equitable distribution of the parties' marital property. Pertinent to this appeal, the parties agreed that Wife would be rewarded 65% of the marital portion with respec


CourtListener opinion 3185044

alternate payee: ew: 1. Whether the lower court committed an error of law and/or abuse of discretion in adopting the Domestic Relations Order on March 19, 2015 submitted by Former Husband/Participant in the SERS pension which provides for a specific dollar amount to the Alternate Payee/Former Wife? 2. Whether the lower court committed an error of law and/or abuse of discretion in failing to adopt the Domestic Relations Order proposed by the Former Wife/Alternate Payee herein which provides for Former Wife/Alternate Payee's share of the SERS pension to be calculated in ____________________________________________ 4 The same day, t


CourtListener opinion 3188202

CourtListener opinion 3188202 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thomas. Extracted reporter citation: 302 P.3d 357. Docket: 42875 LINDA C. KESTING. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3188202 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 3188202


CourtListener opinion 3188202

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


CourtListener opinion 3188202

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


CourtListener opinion 3188202

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


CourtListener opinion 3188202

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


CourtListener opinion 3190441

CourtListener opinion 3190441 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3190441 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 3190441

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 3190441

domestic relations order: lating a protective order, with all counts to be served consecutively to each other. The latter jail days were suspended, with further orders of intensive supervised probation under conditions including, inter alia, contact with the infant son only "upon a domestic relations order *** as order[ed] by DR Court." 1 A more detailed assessment of the incident and injuries leading to the charges at issue is not necessary in the present appeal. An additional charge of unlawful restraint was subsequently dismissed. Fairfield County, Case No. 15 CA 37 3 {¶5} Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 9, 2015. He herein raises the follow


CourtListener opinion 3191315

CourtListener opinion 3191315 Docket: COA15-253. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3191315 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 3191315


CourtListener opinion 3191315

QDRO: dant to move with the children to Arizona. Defendant does not intend to move to Arizona. 16. In 2013 the parties were offered an early pension distribution from Henkle also known as Dial, a former employer of the Plaintiff. This pension had been divided by a QDRO pursuant to paragraph 16(h) of the Separation Agreement. Plaintiff accepted the offer and received $46,636.99. Defendant did not accept the offer and retains her interest in the pension plan. 17. The Defendant and the minor children lived in the - 12 - LASECKI V. LASECKI Opinion of the Court marital home until it was sold by short sale in July of 201


CourtListener opinion 3191315

retirement benefits: policies provided by Plaintiff's employer. The parties' estates can be found above. Each is now renting a home. Their primary assets appear to be retirement [accounts] divided pursuant to the Separation Agreement. Plaintiff has continued to contribute to retirement plans after the date of separation. The Plaintiff has enjoyed high earnings and the children enjoyed the benefit of his earnings throughout the marriage and most of the separation. His payments to Defendant under the Separation Agreement can be found above. The accustomed standard of living of the parties and the children were high prior to the separation


CourtListener opinion 3191315

pension: and is hopeful that he can secure a position with that company. This job prospect is favorable and he has again asked Defendant to move with the children to Arizona. Defendant does not intend to move to Arizona. 16. In 2013 the parties were offered an early pension distribution from Henkle also known as Dial, a former employer of the Plaintiff. This pension had been divided by a QDRO pursuant to paragraph 16(h) of the Separation Agreement. Plaintiff accepted the offer and received $46,636.99. Defendant did not accept the offer and retains her interest in the pension plan. 17. The Defendant and the minor children live


CourtListener opinion 3191315

valuation/division: I. Background Plaintiff and Stacey M. Lasecki ("defendant") married in 1993, and three children were born to the marriage. On 24 August 2012, plaintiff and defendant separated and executed a Separation Agreement, which resolved issues of child custody, equitable distribution, child support, alimony, and attorneys' fees. In the Separation Agreement, the parties agreed that plaintiff would pay defendant $2,900.00 per month in child support and $3,600.00 per month in alimony. The parties also agreed that plaintiff would pay a joint credit card debt. The parties further agreed that in the event that either party breached the Se


CourtListener opinion 3192113

CourtListener opinion 3192113 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3192113 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 3192113

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.