CourtListener opinion 8212691

QDRO: 1989, and whose retirement benefit under the [ARP] exceeds the retirement benefit offered (or that will be offered) by the [RAP], as amended on the benefit commencement date, and the beneficiaries and estates of such persons and alternate payees under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. He also recommended that the subclass should consist of all members of the general class who "signed a release upon separation of employment." B. The Press Action Meanwhile, on September 14, 2020, over four years after the Guenther Plaintiffs filed their original complaint, Movant-Appellant Michael Press, along with 276 other individuals (the "Press


CourtListener opinion 8212691

21-20617 tactics that are within the district

retirement benefits: of British Petroleum, now known as BP Corporation North America Inc. ("BP America," a Defendant-Appellee in this action), acquired Standard Oil of Ohio ("Sohio"). Prior to the acquisition, Sohio employees were members of a Sohio sponsored defined benefit retirement plan (the "Sohio Plan"), which calculated its pension distributions using a formula based on an employee's earnings history, tenure of service, and age. Therefore, once employees contributed to the Sohio Plan, Sohio bore the entirety of the investment risk as distribution amounts were based on a predetermined formula that did not account for market performa


CourtListener opinion 8212691

pension: America Inc. ("BP America," a Defendant-Appellee in this action), acquired Standard Oil of Ohio ("Sohio"). Prior to the acquisition, Sohio employees were members of a Sohio sponsored defined benefit retirement plan (the "Sohio Plan"), which calculated its pension distributions using a formula based on an employee's earnings history, tenure of service, and age. Therefore, once employees contributed to the Sohio Plan, Sohio bore the entirety of the investment risk as distribution amounts were based on a predetermined formula that did not account for market performance. At the time of the acquisition, Sohio's emp


CourtListener opinion 8212691

ERISA: iffs") filed a class action complaint against the RAP and BP America (collectively, "BP") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleging that BP violated numerous provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") by causing Sohio Legacy Employees to forfeit benefits that they had already accrued and failing to properly disclose this change in their benefits when BP initiated the Conversion (the "Guenther Action"). Specifically, the Guenther Plaintiffs alleged that BP should have credited the Sohio Legacy Employees' new RAP opening account balances with the va


CourtListener opinion 8283464

CourtListener opinion 8283464 Extracted reporter citation: 603 S.W.3d 385. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8283464 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 8283464

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 8283464

QDRO: the original divorce trial, the trial court sent a letter to the parties dated February 15, 1996, that stated in part, "Victoria is awarded 60% of her retirement benefits with the FDIC or elsewhere and Gregory is awarded 40% of such retirement benefits by Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.]" On April 17, 1996, the trial court signed the "Final Decree of Divorce" which stated that it was "judicially PRONOUNCED AND RENDERED on February 15, 1996." The divorce decree also stated that Victoria was awarded as her "sole and separate property" and Gregory was "divested of all right, title, interest and claim in and to," among other things, 1


CourtListener opinion 8283464

retirement benefits: nal. We agree and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. II. BACKGROUND After the conclusion of the original divorce trial, the trial court sent a letter to the parties dated February 15, 1996, that stated in part, "Victoria is awarded 60% of her retirement benefits with the FDIC or elsewhere and Gregory is awarded 40% of such retirement benefits by Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.]" On April 17, 1996, the trial court signed the "Final Decree of Divorce" which stated that it was "judicially PRONOUNCED AND RENDERED on February 15, 1996." The divorce decree also stated that Victoria was awarded as her "sole and


CourtListener opinion 8283464

pension: names. 2 [s]ixty percent of any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of [Victoria's] past, present, or future employment, including specifically the following retirement benefits with FDIC: (1) Thrift Savings Plan; and (2) FDIC Savings Plan. The divorce decree also awarded Gregory as his "sole


CourtListener opinion 8283464

401(k): 's] following retirement benefits with FDIC: (1) Thrift Savings Plan; and (2) FDIC Savings Plan; as more fully set forth in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. On August 16, 1996, the trial court signed two separate orders dividing Victoria's FDIC 401(k) Savings Plan and her Thrift Savings Plan. Neither the divorce decree nor the two orders mentioned Victoria's FDIC retirement benefits—the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) Pension. 3 On January 27, 2021, Gregory filed his "Petition for Enforcement of Property Division," alleging that Victoria retired from the FDIC in December 2019 and failed


CourtListener opinion 829938

CourtListener opinion 829938 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 829938 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 829938

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 829938

QDRO: granted, of whether the trial court correctly held that the parties' November 14, 1994 divorce judgment limited the plaintiff's survivorship benefit to a proportionate interest based on years of marriage, that the divorce judgment conflicted with the 1995 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) agreed upon by the parties, that the terms of the divorce judgment should control over the terms of the QDRO, and that the defendant's motion to have the QDRO amended was not time- barred. We do not retain jurisdiction. I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order


CourtListener opinion 829938

domestic relations order: of whether the trial court correctly held that the parties' November 14, 1994 divorce judgment limited the plaintiff's survivorship benefit to a proportionate interest based on years of marriage, that the divorce judgment conflicted with the 1995 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) agreed upon by the parties, that the terms of the divorce judgment should control over the terms of the QDRO, and that the defendant's motion to have the QDRO amended was not time- barred. We do not retain jurisdiction. I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order


CourtListener opinion 8374212

CourtListener opinion 8374212 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Knoll and Coyne. Docket: 2-21-0739 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8374212 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 8374212


CourtListener opinion 8374212

QDRO: civil contempt for entirely depleting a securities investment account that the MSA directed be divided between the parties. The trial court also did not err in declining to hold petitioner in indirect civil contempt for failing to cooperate in preparing a QDRO for the division of a retirement account. Since the QDRO had been completed before the hearing on the petition for a rule to show cause, a civil contempt finding would be inappropriate because petitioner would have no means to purge himself of the contempt. ¶2 In this post-dissolution proceeding, Matthew Zyskowski (petitioner), and Noelia Zyskowski (a/


CourtListener opinion 8374212

retirement benefits: depleting a securities investment account that the MSA directed be divided between the parties. The trial court also did not err in declining to hold petitioner in indirect civil contempt for failing to cooperate in preparing a QDRO for the division of a retirement account. Since the QDRO had been completed before the hearing on the petition for a rule to show cause, a civil contempt finding would be inappropriate because petitioner would have no means to purge himself of the contempt. ¶2 In this post-dissolution proceeding, Matthew Zyskowski (petitioner), and Noelia Zyskowski (a/k/a Noelia Donamaria) (respondent), each f


CourtListener opinion 8374212

401(k): marital portion of said IRA account and such shall be transferred to her pursuant to QDRO within ninety (90) days of entry of the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage." (Emphasis in original.) ¶6 Section 10.2 governed the division of petitioner's "Barclay 401(k)" (the Barclay 401(k)), which had an approximate balance of $218,206.86. It similarly provided that respondent was "entitled to one half (50%) of the marital portion of said 401K account and such shall be transferred to her pursuant to QDRO within ninety (90) days of entry of the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage." (Emphasis in original.) -2- 2022


CourtListener opinion 8374212

valuation/division: visions concerning the financial accounts at issue here. ¶5 Section 10.1 governed the division of petitioner's "PNC Roth IRA" (the Roth IRA), which had an approximate balance of $49,800.01. It provided that respondent was "entitled to one half (50%) of the marital portion of said IRA account and such shall be transferred to her pursuant to QDRO within ninety (90) days of entry of the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage." (Emphasis in original.) ¶6 Section 10.2 governed the division of petitioner's "Barclay 401(k)" (the Barclay 401(k)), which had an approximate balance of $218,206.86. It similarly provided that responden


CourtListener opinion 8404988

CourtListener opinion 8404988 Extracted reporter citation: 301 P.3d 850. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8404988 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 8404988


CourtListener opinion 8404988

QDRO: DB CATHERINE MARIE DELAO, Respondent. OCT 24 2022 aie psn BY DEPUTY CLERK ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a post-divorce decree district court order directing (1) appellant to obtain a life insurance policy, (2) that an indemnification QDRO will not be entered if appellant obtains the required life insurance, (3) counsel for respondent to notify the court if a compliant life insurance policy is obtained, and (4) that if appellant fails to timely obtain life insurance, the indemnification QDRO shall be submitted to the court for signature. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division,


CourtListener opinion 8405420

CourtListener opinion 8405420 Extracted reporter citation: 301 P.3d 850. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8405420 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 8405420


CourtListener opinion 8405420

QDRO: espondent. oCT 2 4 2022 ELETH BPOWN CLE EME COURT BY DEPUTY CLERK ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a post-divorce decree district court order directing (1) appellant to obtain a life insurance policy, (2) that an indemnification QDRO will not be entered if appellant obtains the required life insurance, (3) counsel for respondent to notify the court if a compliant life insurance policy is obtained, and (4) that if appellant fails to timely obtain life insurance, the indemnification QDRO shall be submitted to the court for signature. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Divis


CourtListener opinion 8406622

CourtListener opinion 8406622 Extracted reporter citation: 301 P.3d 850. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8406622 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 8406622


CourtListener opinion 8407060

CourtListener opinion 8407060 Docket: COA22-198. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8407060 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 8407060

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 8407060

QDRO: ett & Associates, by S. Thomas Currin II, for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. ¶1 Defendant Michael Welborn Murdock appeals from the trial court's order granting Plaintiff Alice Bracey's motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant's motion for entry of qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs"), and dismissing as moot his other pending motions. After careful review, we affirm. I. Background ¶2 The trial court granted Plaintiff an absolute divorce from Defendant on 31 BRACEY V. MURDOCK 2022-NCCOA-705 Opinion of the Court October 2003, while retaining jurisdiction over, inter alia, both parties' claims for equitable distribu


CourtListener opinion 8407060

retirement benefits: A, each for a sum certain "equal to one-half of the date of separation balance" of each account. Yet Defendant's motion, although titled "Motion For Entry of [QDROs]," in fact seeks relief beyond the entry of QDROs to effectuate the 2005 Consent Order's retirement account provisions. In this motion, Defendant asserts that he "is entitled to, not only the amounts listed in the [2005 Consent] Order, but also all passive gains and losses on his portion of the retirement accounts through the entry of the QDROs[,]" and that he "is in need of, and entitled to, discovery" to enable him to determine the amounts of the passiv


CourtListener opinion 8407060

401(k): aims for equitable distribution. On 28 February 2005, the trial court entered the parties' consent order and judgment for equitable distribution (the "2005 Consent Order"). The 2005 Consent Order provides, in pertinent part: Plaintiff shall retain her 401(k) account and IRA account as her separate property. Plaintiff shall transfer to Defendant $31,618.00, equal to one-half of the date of separation balance in her IRA and $75,203.74, equal to one-half of the date of separation balance of her 401(k) account. The judgment of divorce in the above-entitled action shall be amended to create the tax free transf


CourtListener opinion 8407060

domestic relations order: ciates, by S. Thomas Currin II, for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. ¶1 Defendant Michael Welborn Murdock appeals from the trial court's order granting Plaintiff Alice Bracey's motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant's motion for entry of qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs"), and dismissing as moot his other pending motions. After careful review, we affirm. I. Background ¶2 The trial court granted Plaintiff an absolute divorce from Defendant on 31 BRACEY V. MURDOCK 2022-NCCOA-705 Opinion of the Court October 2003, while retaining jurisdiction over, inter alia, both parties' claims for equitable distribu


CourtListener opinion 8407190

CourtListener opinion 8407190 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1343 EDA 2022. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8407190 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 8407190

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 8407190

domestic relations order: ed," hearings were in fact held on those days: While [the trial docket] indicates that Continuance Orders were docketed on April 11[ and] November 20, 2018; January 4[ and] October 24, 2019; June 29, 2020; February 19[ and] May 12, 2021, a review of each Domestic Relations Order (DRO) . . . shows that Permanency Review Orders were docketed for those hearing dates and Court Orders were issued [regarding] Mother's compliance. - 24 - J-S30017-22 Id. at 26; see also N.T., 4/27/22, at 20 ("It should be noted that, notwithstanding [the docket] stating, ‘continuance order,' that does not mean that the matter was continued. . . .


CourtListener opinion 8407560

CourtListener opinion 8407560 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KATIE ANN HIATT AND JEREMY SCOTT HIATT Upon the Petition of KATIE ANN HIATT. Extracted reporter citation: 601 N.W.2d 48. Docket: 22-0758. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8407560 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 8407560


CourtListener opinion 8407560

QDRO: but because he dissipated $41,050.92, Jeremy's share was reduced to $3034.58. The court determined Katie had $22,800.40 more in her 401(k) than Jeremy had in his 401(k). The court required Katie to pay Jeremy one-half of that amount through the entry of a qualified domestic relations order. The parties each kept their individual bank accounts, personal property, and other items in their possessions. The court ordered Jeremy to pay $2500 for Katie's attorney fees. Jeremy appeals the physical care and spousal support provisions of the dissolution decree.3 Katie requests appellate attorney fees. II. Standard of Review We review dissolut


CourtListener opinion 8407560

retirement benefits: bout $20,000 to $21,000 in gambling. Jeremy engaged in online sports gambling and at times also went to a casino. He held poker games in his garage. Jeremy spent large amounts of money on scratch-off tickets. At Jeremy's request, Katie cashed out her IPERS retirement account of about $32,000, and Jeremy also took loans against his 401k account. In 2019, Jeremy had $43,000 of debt. Through a debt collection agency, he paid it down to $9094 at the time of the trial. Jeremy began therapy in May 2021, and although he felt this was helping him with his gambling problem, he had not ceased the consumption of alcohol. He stated he


CourtListener opinion 8407560

401(k): g and at times also went to a casino. He held poker games in his garage. Jeremy spent large amounts of money on scratch-off tickets. At Jeremy's request, Katie cashed out her IPERS retirement account of about $32,000, and Jeremy also took loans against his 401k account. In 2019, Jeremy had $43,000 of debt. Through a debt collection agency, he paid it down to $9094 at the time of the trial. Jeremy began therapy in May 2021, and although he felt this was helping him with his gambling problem, he had not ceased the consumption of alcohol. He stated he ceased online gambling two months before trial, but he continu


CourtListener opinion 8407560

domestic relations order: e he dissipated $41,050.92, Jeremy's share was reduced to $3034.58. The court determined Katie had $22,800.40 more in her 401(k) than Jeremy had in his 401(k). The court required Katie to pay Jeremy one-half of that amount through the entry of a qualified domestic relations order. The parties each kept their individual bank accounts, personal property, and other items in their possessions. The court ordered Jeremy to pay $2500 for Katie's attorney fees. Jeremy appeals the physical care and spousal support provisions of the dissolution decree.3 Katie requests appellate attorney fees. II. Standard of Review We review dissolut


CourtListener opinion 8415699

CourtListener opinion 8415699 Extracted case name: AGUINIGA v. AGUINIGA. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8415699 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 8415699


CourtListener opinion 8415699

QDRO: torneys' fees. Husband appealed from the decree in 2017 ("2017 Appeal"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and asked the superior court to divide a pension that was not included in the decree. In turn, Husband objected and petitioned to enforce other provisions in the decree. In response, Wife also sought to enforce the decree. After a hearing on these petitions, the court ordered the parties to sell vehicles (including a recreational vehicle), sign 201


CourtListener opinion 8415699

pension: rt affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and asked the superior court to divide a pension that was not included in the decree. In turn, Husband objected and petitioned to enforce other provisions in the decree. In response, Wife also sought to enforce the decree. After a hearing on these petitions, the court ordered the parties to sell vehicles (including a recreational vehicle), sign 2014 tax returns, and "encourage[d]" Husband to refinance the


CourtListener opinion 8415699

401(k): zona Supreme Court, we deny relief and affirm all other orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The 2017 decree of dissolution allocated community property and tax obligations, awarded spousal maintenance to Wife, ordered Husband to return $50,000 to his 401(k) account, and granted Wife $5,500 in attorneys' fees. Husband appealed from the decree in 2017 ("2017 Appeal"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and asked the sup


CourtListener opinion 8415699

domestic relations order: ees. Husband appealed from the decree in 2017 ("2017 Appeal"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and asked the superior court to divide a pension that was not included in the decree. In turn, Husband objected and petitioned to enforce other provisions in the decree. In response, Wife also sought to enforce the decree. After a hearing on these petitions, the court ordered the parties to sell vehicles (including a recreational vehicle), sign 201


CourtListener opinion 8436221

CourtListener opinion 8436221 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Beltran. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: S-21-350. 1. Jurisdiction:. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8436221 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 8436221

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 8436221

pension: an anti-alienation stat- ute to bar creditors from collecting undistributed funds in an employee benefit plan. 26. Federal Acts: Pensions: Garnishment. The restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on assignment or alienation of pension benefits apply to garnishment. 27. Constitutional Law: Statutes. Federal preemption arises from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and is the concept that state laws that conflict with federal law are invalid. 28. Federal Acts: Pensions: Garnishment: Statutes. The anti-alienation statute of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 p


CourtListener opinion 8436221

ERISA: order overruling its application to determine garnishee liability against a plan administrator whose interrogatory answers failed to disclose a judgment debt- or's 401K account. The central issue is whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) 1—particu- larly, ERISA's anti-alienation statute 2—shields the administra- tor from state garnishment law liability. Because we conclude that it does under the circumstances here, we affirm. II. BACKGROUND Florence Lake Investments, LLC (Florence), obtained a judgment against Jason Berg (Berg) and his wife, Mary Berg 1 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (2018 &


CourtListener opinion 8436221

401(k): nberg, JJ., and Derr, District Judge. Cassel, J. I. INTRODUCTION A garnishor appeals from an order overruling its application to determine garnishee liability against a plan administrator whose interrogatory answers failed to disclose a judgment debt- or's 401K account. The central issue is whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) 1—particu- larly, ERISA's anti-alienation statute 2—shields the administra- tor from state garnishment law liability. Because we conclude that it does under the circumstances here, we affirm. II. BACKGROUND Florence Lake Investments, LLC (Florence), obtained


CourtListener opinion 8436221

domestic relations order: Cir. 1980). 52 See, § 1056(d)(1); Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund, supra note 3. 53 See § 1056(d)(1). But see § 1056(d)(2) and (3) (allowing alienation or assignment of undistributed funds in employee benefit plan in limited situations such as domestic relations order). - 200 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports FLORENCE LAKE INVESTMENTS V. BERG Cite as 312 Neb. 183 payable to the participant or beneficiary." 54 Following the dis- tribution of benefits to the participant or beneficiary, ERISA's anti-alienation statute no longer applies. 55 [26] While ERISA's anti-alienation statute does not


CourtListener opinion 846469

CourtListener opinion 846469 Extracted reporter citation: 324 F3d 941. Docket: 253520. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 846469 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 846469


CourtListener opinion 846469

QDRO: ll such insurance free and clear from any right or interest which the other party now has or may have had therein, by virtue of being 3 The provision in the judgment of divorce in this case is a waiver of rights, but it does not meet the requirements of a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 USC 1056(d)(3)(B)(i) and (ii). 7 the beneficiary, contingent beneficiary or otherwise." (Emphasis added.) Our review of this provision indicates that plaintiff clearly and unequivocally waived her right to the plan proceeds. Plaintiff and the decedent freely reached an agreement about how to divide property and insurance proceeds. Therefore,


CourtListener opinion 846469

pension: ede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan . . . ." 4 A recent case decided by this Court—State Treasurer v Abbott, 468 Mich 143; 660 NW2d 714 (2003)—also dealt with ERISA. While Abbott dealt with pension benefits and ERISA's antialienation provision, the principle espoused by this Court was that the Abbott defendant's pension plan proceeds were no longer protected by ERISA after they had been paid by the plan administrator.2 Similarly, today's decision does not invade the purview of ERISA because the plan administrator is still only required to do that


CourtListener opinion 846469

ERISA: Appellant, v No. 126913 HERBERT ORVILLE SWEEBE, Defendant-Appellee. _______________________________ BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH CAVANAGH, J. The issue in this case is whether the preemption provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 USC 1001 et seq., precludes a named beneficiary from waiving the proceeds from a life insurance policy. We hold that it does not. While a plan administrator is required by ERISA to distribute plan proceeds to the named beneficiary, the named beneficiary can then be found to have waived the right to retain those proceeds. In this case, the Court


CourtListener opinion 846469

domestic relations order: surance free and clear from any right or interest which the other party now has or may have had therein, by virtue of being 3 The provision in the judgment of divorce in this case is a waiver of rights, but it does not meet the requirements of a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 USC 1056(d)(3)(B)(i) and (ii). 7 the beneficiary, contingent beneficiary or otherwise." (Emphasis added.) Our review of this provision indicates that plaintiff clearly and unequivocally waived her right to the plan proceeds. Plaintiff and the decedent freely reached an agreement about how to divide property and insurance proceeds. Therefore,


CourtListener opinion 8482279

CourtListener opinion 8482279 Extracted case name: GAVALDON v. GAVALDON. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0302 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8482279 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 8482279


CourtListener opinion 8482279

QDRO: n and Judge Peter B. Swann joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 Jose G. Gavaldon, Jr. ("Husband") appeals the superior court's post-dissolution order in favor of Sandra R. Gavaldon ("Wife") that Husband's undisclosed defined contribution savings plan be divided via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife divorced in 2012. In 2020, Wife petitioned for entry of a QDRO against Husband's Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund pension plan. The superior court ruled in favor of Wife and in early 2021 entered a QDRO against the pension plan. ¶3 Later that year, W


CourtListener opinion 8482279

pension: plan be divided via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife divorced in 2012. In 2020, Wife petitioned for entry of a QDRO against Husband's Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund pension plan. The superior court ruled in favor of Wife and in early 2021 entered a QDRO against the pension plan. ¶3 Later that year, Wife contacted the administrator of the pension plan about the QDRO and discovered that Husband also had an Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution savings plan ("savings plan") that she had been unaware of. Wif


CourtListener opinion 8482279

401(k): ecision of the Court, in which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Peter B. Swann joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 Jose G. Gavaldon, Jr. ("Husband") appeals the superior court's post-dissolution order in favor of Sandra R. Gavaldon ("Wife") that Husband's undisclosed defined contribution savings plan be divided via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife divorced in 2012. In 2020, Wife petitioned for entry of a QDRO against Husband's Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund pension plan. The superior court ruled in favor of Wife and in early 202


CourtListener opinion 8482279

domestic relations order: e Peter B. Swann joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 Jose G. Gavaldon, Jr. ("Husband") appeals the superior court's post-dissolution order in favor of Sandra R. Gavaldon ("Wife") that Husband's undisclosed defined contribution savings plan be divided via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife divorced in 2012. In 2020, Wife petitioned for entry of a QDRO against Husband's Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund pension plan. The superior court ruled in favor of Wife and in early 2021 entered a QDRO against the pension plan. ¶3 Later that year, W


CourtListener opinion 8482295

CourtListener opinion 8482295 Docket: COA22-198. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8482295 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 8482295


CourtListener opinion 8482295

QDRO: ett & Associates, by S. Thomas Currin II, for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. ¶1 Defendant Michael Welborn Murdock appeals from the trial court's order granting Plaintiff Alice Bracey's motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant's motion for entry of qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs"), and dismissing as moot his other pending motions. After careful review, we affirm. I. Background ¶2 The trial court granted Plaintiff an absolute divorce from Defendant on 31 BRACEY V. MURDOCK 2022-NCCOA-705 Opinion of the Court October 2003, while retaining jurisdiction over, inter alia, both parties' claims for equitable distribu


CourtListener opinion 8482295

retirement benefits: A, each for a sum certain "equal to one-half of the date of separation balance" of each account. Yet Defendant's motion, although titled "Motion For Entry of [QDROs]," in fact seeks relief beyond the entry of QDROs to effectuate the 2005 Consent Order's retirement account provisions. In this motion, Defendant asserts that he "is entitled to, not only the amounts listed in the [2005 Consent] Order, but also all passive gains and losses on his portion of the retirement accounts through the entry of the QDROs[,]" and that he "is in need of, and entitled to, discovery" to enable him to determine the amounts of the passiv


CourtListener opinion 8482295

401(k): aims for equitable distribution. On 28 February 2005, the trial court entered the parties' consent order and judgment for equitable distribution (the "2005 Consent Order"). The 2005 Consent Order provides, in pertinent part: Plaintiff shall retain her 401(k) account and IRA account as her separate property. Plaintiff shall transfer to Defendant $31,618.00, equal to one-half of the date of separation balance in her IRA and $75,203.74, equal to one-half of the date of separation balance of her 401(k) account. The judgment of divorce in the above-entitled action shall be amended to create the tax free transf


CourtListener opinion 8482295

domestic relations order: ciates, by S. Thomas Currin II, for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. ¶1 Defendant Michael Welborn Murdock appeals from the trial court's order granting Plaintiff Alice Bracey's motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant's motion for entry of qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs"), and dismissing as moot his other pending motions. After careful review, we affirm. I. Background ¶2 The trial court granted Plaintiff an absolute divorce from Defendant on 31 BRACEY V. MURDOCK 2022-NCCOA-705 Opinion of the Court October 2003, while retaining jurisdiction over, inter alia, both parties' claims for equitable distribu


CourtListener opinion 8482508

CourtListener opinion 8482508 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: an adjudicatory hearing on another date within thir. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8482508 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 8482508

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 8482508

domestic relations order: )). This Court, by statute, is one of limited jurisdiction. We have appellate jurisdiction, with limited exception, over "any final judgment, order, or decree of a circuit court in a civil matter." Code § 17.1-405(3).5 This includes jurisdiction over final domestic relations orders entered under Titles 16.1 and 20. See Wells v. Wells, 29 Va. App. 82, 86 (1999). As a general matter, a final judgment or order "is one which disposes of the entire action and leaves nothing to be done except the ministerial superintendence of execution of the judgment." Super Fresh Food Mkts. of Va., Inc. v. Ruffin, 263 Va. 555, 560 (2002). Matters c


CourtListener opinion 8482518

CourtListener opinion 8482518 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: an adjudicatory hearing on another date within thir. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8482518 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 8482518


CourtListener opinion 8482601

CourtListener opinion 8482601 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of CHRISTINA DURAN MORENO. Extracted reporter citation: 212 Cal.App.4th 1565. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8482601 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 8482601

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 8482601

QDRO: and retirement accounts as of a certain date. Following trial on several reserved issues, the trial court confirmed to the parties their respective retirement accounts and ordered Miguel to pay an equalizing payment to Christina from his 401(k) account via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).2 The court also ordered the parties to equally pay the expert's costs. On appeal, Christina contends the trial court erred in failing to include gains and losses on the QDRO equalizing payment. She further contends the court erred in equally allocating all of the expert's fees in assessing the parties' investment accounts, rather than allocating on


CourtListener opinion 8482601

retirement benefits: their first names for ease of reading and to avoid confusion. (In re Marriage of Campi (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1565, 1567, fn. 1.) 1 property and assets, with the understanding that a subsequent expert report would characterize and value the investment and retirement accounts as of a certain date. Following trial on several reserved issues, the trial court confirmed to the parties their respective retirement accounts and ordered Miguel to pay an equalizing payment to Christina from his 401(k) account via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).2 The court also ordered the parties to equally pay the expert's costs. On appea


CourtListener opinion 8482601

pension: itted by stipulation in September 2020. Based on Kaplan's revised calculations, the court awarded Christina $619,145 in her retirement and cash accounts, and awarded Miguel $832,146 in his retirement and cash accounts. In order to equalize the division of the pension, retirement, brokerage, and bank accounts, the court ordered Miguel to pay Christina an equalizing payment of $126,501.3 As to expert costs, the tentative decision found that under the prior marital settlement agreement, the parties were responsible for their respective attorneys' fees and costs, "except for the costs incurred with Seth Kaplan." The court


CourtListener opinion 8482601

ERISA: arties shall share equally the cost of the expert's additional fees for revising his report. As so modified, we shall affirm the judgment. 2 "Under provisions of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; hereafter ERISA), private retirement plans may, pursuant to a state court's domestic relations order, pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse or dependents, if and only if the state court order meets certain specifications. Such an order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' . . . . (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)


CourtListener opinion 8482642

CourtListener opinion 8482642 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Belk. Docket: 2-21-0648 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8482642 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 8482642


CourtListener opinion 8482642

QDRO: meet her reasonable needs." The MSA also included a specific provision about the division of Laurence's pension from the District (pension provision): "With respect to [Laurence's] pension with Countryside Fire Protection District, they will not honor a [qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)], therefore either a withholding order shall be placed against [Laurence] or he shall be directly ordered to pay [Judith] in accordance with a formula of 20 years of marriage over years of participation times one half, which shall be paid to [Judith] only in the event it is received by [Laurence] if it is paid to him as a pension benefit. [La


CourtListener opinion 8482642

retirement benefits: minor child. ¶8 On May 1, 2001, the trial court entered a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO) specifying that Judith was to receive her marital portion of Laurence's "retirement benefit *** when benefits become payable" or "on the date the retirement benefit commences." Also on May 1, Laurence filed his consent to issue the QILDRO. No further postdissolution motions appear in the record until February 25, 2020. ¶9 On February 25, 2020, Judith filed a petition for issuance of a QILDRO and for restitution. There were apparent notice issues, and, on June 12, 2020, the trial court ordered Judith to effect 1


CourtListener opinion 8482642

pension: concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 Petitioner, Judith Grandt, appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County denying her petition for enforcement of judgment and restitution. In her petition, Judith sought to treat the disability pension of respondent, Laurence J. Grandt, as a retirement pension subject to division by the terms of the parties' dissolution of marriage judgment and the marital settlement agreement (MSA) incorporated therein. On appeal, Judith argues that, where Laurence is eligible to receive a retirement pension, he should not be allowed to frustrate the intent of the MSA


CourtListener opinion 8482642

domestic relations order: easonable needs." The MSA also included a specific provision about the division of Laurence's pension from the District (pension provision): "With respect to [Laurence's] pension with Countryside Fire Protection District, they will not honor a [qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)], therefore either a withholding order shall be placed against [Laurence] or he shall be directly ordered to pay [Judith] in accordance with a formula of 20 years of marriage over years of participation times one half, which shall be paid to [Judith] only in the event it is received by [Laurence] if it is paid to him as a pension benefit. [La


CourtListener opinion 8484526

CourtListener opinion 8484526 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF HEATHER ANN BANISTER AND SHAUN IVAN BANISTER Upon the Petition of HEATHER ANN. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 22-0221. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8484526 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 8484526


CourtListener opinion 8484526

retirement benefits: ee- day basis. Turning to the division of property, the court largely rejected Heather's claims that Shaun dissipated marital assets. Her claims focused on the sale of the business for less than its purchase price; Shaun's decision to liquidate a 401(k) retirement account; and $53,860.33 in cash withdrawals and advances, unexplained checks, and excessive spending on Shaun's credit cards since their separation.2 When confronted with these latter expenditures, Shaun argued that most were from his move to Iowa and necessary living expenses. On the sale of the business, the court found Heather presented "no evidence on whe


CourtListener opinion 8484526

401(k): day, three- day basis. Turning to the division of property, the court largely rejected Heather's claims that Shaun dissipated marital assets. Her claims focused on the sale of the business for less than its purchase price; Shaun's decision to liquidate a 401(k) retirement account; and $53,860.33 in cash withdrawals and advances, unexplained checks, and excessive spending on Shaun's credit cards since their separation.2 When confronted with these latter expenditures, Shaun argued that most were from his move to Iowa and necessary living expenses. On the sale of the business, the court found Heather presented


CourtListener opinion 8484526

domestic relations order: lties of $7946.26. She complains, absent liquidation, there would have been more in the account to divide. But she never asserted at trial, or on appeal, that she did not want the account to be liquidated and instead transferred to her through a qualified domestic relations order to avoid those penalties. Cf. In re Marriage of Retz, No. 11-0447, 2012 WL 3026786, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 25, 2012) ("A balance transfer avoids tax consequences of withdrawing funds from a retirement account."). Though we do not approve of Shaun's unilateral action in cashing out the account in violation of an asset-preservation order, we find no in


CourtListener opinion 8484526

valuation/division: , a former stay-at-home mother of three children, appeals the decree dissolving her marriage to Shaun Banister. At the trial on her petition, Shaun complained that he had not gotten "a sniff of a win since this whole thing started." So to be "fair with the property division and with the kids," he asked for everything to be split "down the middle," children included. The district court went along with Shaun's request and placed the children in the parties' joint legal custody and physical care. On appeal, Heather challenges that decision, along with the court's division of the parties' property and treatment of attorney fee


CourtListener opinion 8488106

CourtListener opinion 8488106 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of BRILLIANT. Extracted reporter citation: 14 Cal.App.4th 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8488106 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 8488106


CourtListener opinion 8488106

QDRO: pport. He argues Angela's community share of these retirement funds would have provided her with a substantially better standard of living than she enjoyed prior to separation, and the court could have enabled Angela to access her share of the funds through a qualified domestic relations order.10 Brilliant also argues Angela's attorney misled the court into believing Brilliant had sufficient money to pay spousal support by stating Brilliant had $2,000 in monthly savings "in addition to what they take out for his deferred compensation and his 10 Brilliant points to Los Angeles County Code section 5.25.125, which he asserts provides for early dist


CourtListener opinion 8488106

retirement benefits: including $1,277 for home loan payments and $2,000 in "savings and investments." He submitted pay stubs showing his gross monthly pay was approximately $16,100 in January 2021 and $13,000 in February 2021. His monthly contribution to his deferred compensation retirement plan was approximately $2,900 in January and $2,600 in February. B. Hearing on the RFO The family court heard the RFO on April 12, 2021. Both parties were present in court and represented by counsel. After the court summarized the parties' declarations, Angela's attorney argued that Brilliant's declaration failed to address Angela's assertions of domestic viol


CourtListener opinion 8488106

401(k): come. Brilliant's and Angela's attorneys confirmed they prepared the 6 report together. In the "Input Data" field, the report listed Brilliant's monthly wage and salary income as $9,669 and Angela's monthly income as $1,367. The parties did not itemize any 401(k) or other deferred compensation contributions, or other deductions or adjustments to their monthly income, except for minor entries reflecting Brilliant's union dues ($84), Angela's health insurance ($133), and Angela's mandatory retirement contributions ($27). Based on these inputs, the DissoMaster calculated guideline support of $2,163 per month for Angela


CourtListener opinion 8488106

domestic relations order: argues Angela's community share of these retirement funds would have provided her with a substantially better standard of living than she enjoyed prior to separation, and the court could have enabled Angela to access her share of the funds through a qualified domestic relations order.10 Brilliant also argues Angela's attorney misled the court into believing Brilliant had sufficient money to pay spousal support by stating Brilliant had $2,000 in monthly savings "in addition to what they take out for his deferred compensation and his 10 Brilliant points to Los Angeles County Code section 5.25.125, which he asserts provides for early dist


CourtListener opinion 852021

CourtListener opinion 852021 Extracted reporter citation: 946 N.E.2d 1191. Docket: 71S03-1111-DR-644 CLERK of the supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 852021 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 852021

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 852021

QDRO: orth, su- pra, § 9.5.10 We conclude by saying that, in writing this opinion, we have been struck by the recur- rence of several fact patterns that have been avoidably problematic – the use of specific dollar amounts rather than percentages, the failure of a QDRO's terms to conform to ERISA require- ments, the failure to provide a contingency if the marital residence cannot be sold – and trust that practitioners and judges alike will contemplate them in their work as well. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur. 10 Parham v. Parham, 855 N


CourtListener opinion 852021

pension: irmed the tri- al court's ruling under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) that awarded one party 55% and the other party 45% (rather than specific dollar amounts) of the 401(k) plan. Id. at 516-19. Beike v. Beike: The parties' settlement agreement divided an employee- pension plan such that the nonemployee spouse was to receive 36% of the value of the plan as of the date of separation, which was calculated to be $353 per month. 805 N.E.2d 1265, 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Following the employer's bankruptcy eight years after the divorce, the employee's benefits were reduced by 38%. Id. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial


CourtListener opinion 852021

ERISA: e conclude by saying that, in writing this opinion, we have been struck by the recur- rence of several fact patterns that have been avoidably problematic – the use of specific dollar amounts rather than percentages, the failure of a QDRO's terms to conform to ERISA require- ments, the failure to provide a contingency if the marital residence cannot be sold – and trust that practitioners and judges alike will contemplate them in their work as well. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur. 10 Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 200


CourtListener opinion 852021

401(k): sets in the plan as of the valuation date because they had agreed that each would be entitled to half of the benefit plan as of the valuation date. Id. at 640-41. Case v. Case: The trial court had awarded one party $50,000 and the other party $40,000 of a 401(k) plan valued at $90,000 as of about 60 days prior to the decree. Within 45 days of the decree, the total value had dropped to $67,000. 794 N.E.2d 514, 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). The Court of Appeals affirmed the tri- al court's ruling under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) that awarded one party 55% and the other party 45% (rather than specific dollar amounts) of the


CourtListener opinion 857641

CourtListener opinion 857641 Extracted reporter citation: 632 F.3d 837. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 857641 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 857641


CourtListener opinion 857641

QDRO: PA 15219 Counsel for Appellant Harrison Lee, Esq. Frederick G. Sandstrom, Esq. (Argued) Blank Rome LLP One Logan Square 130 North 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 1 Counsel for Appellees ___________ OPINION ___________ VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") entitles Appellant Cheryl Ann Gruber to 53% of the actuarial equivalent of her former husband‟s normal retirement benefit plus "53% of the value of any employer subsidy for early retirement" in the event that her ex-husband "retires prior to the attainment of age 65." (J.A. 58, ¶ 5) (emphasis added). Ms. Gruber‟s ex-husband, Bryn Lindenmuth, re


CourtListener opinion 857641

retirement benefits: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 12-2123 _____________ CHERYL ANN GRUBER, Appellant v. PPL RETIREMENT PLAN; PPL CORPORATION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DEPARTMENT PLAN ADMINISTRATION; PPL BENEFITS SERVICE AND FIDELITY INVESTMENTS ___________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 5-11-cv-02188) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg ___________ Argued March 5, 2013 Before: RENDELL, AMBRO, and


CourtListener opinion 857641

pension: iminated as part of a reduction-in-force. Appellees PPL Retirement Plan, PPL Corporation Employee Benefits Department Plan Administration, and PPL Benefits Service (collectively, "PPL"), included in the calculation of Ms. Gruber‟s share of her ex-husband‟s pension the value of an employer subsidy that increased Mr. Lindenmuth‟s pension as a reward for his years of service with PPL, but excluded from that calculation the increase in her ex-husband‟s pension that was payable under a PPL policy that entitled an early-retirement eligible employee to the full amount that would have been payable at age 65 if he or she


CourtListener opinion 857641

ERISA: however, denied Ms. Gruber‟s administrative claim and her subsequent appeal, reasoning that the GP 401 was payable due to the reduction-in-force, not for early retirement. Ms. Gruber brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, seeking her share of the GP 401 benefits. 4 The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Interpreting the phrase in the QDRO, "any employer subsidy for early retirement," the District Court concluded that the GP 401 subsidy was "not provided „for‟ early retirement," interpreting "for" as meaning "because of" or "on ac


CourtListener opinion 859467

CourtListener opinion 859467 Extracted case name: JR. v. D'ANNE P. MCFARLAND DATE OF JUDGMENT. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 859467 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 859467


CourtListener opinion 859467

QDRO: October 1, 2009, in accordance with the parties' agreement. 2 Initially, it was thought that the Fidelity IRA was in D'Anne's possession Later, it was determined that it was in Skip's possession. It was to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to avoid tax consequences, which was not entered by the court until after the final judgment. 4 ¶7. In its April 18, 2011, Amended Opinion and Final Judgment,3 the court summarized the parties' agreement, finding that Skip owed D'Anne $111,500 (D'Anne's half of the house and business) that was past due, and D'Anne owed Skip $12,613.67 (Skip's half of


CourtListener opinion 859467

retirement benefits: ue of the home within sixty days of the hearing (rendering the deadline on or about November 10, 2009); 3) the parties would equally divide their certificates of deposit in the amount of $20,327.34; 4) the parties would equally divide a Fidelity Individual Retirement Account (IRA) in the amount of approximately $63,000; and 5) Skip would pay D'Anne fifty percent of the appraised value of Precision Vision after the appraisal. The home ultimately was appraised at $190,000 and Precision Vision was appraised at $33,000. This agreement was not reduced to or included in an order, until the final order was entered approximately on


CourtListener opinion 859467

domestic relations order: 'Anne vacated the home by October 1, 2009, in accordance with the parties' agreement. 2 Initially, it was thought that the Fidelity IRA was in D'Anne's possession Later, it was determined that it was in Skip's possession. It was to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to avoid tax consequences, which was not entered by the court until after the final judgment. 4 ¶7. In its April 18, 2011, Amended Opinion and Final Judgment,3 the court summarized the parties' agreement, finding that Skip owed D'Anne $111,500 (D'Anne's half of the house and business) that was past due, and D'Anne owed Skip $12,613.67 (Skip's ha


CourtListener opinion 859467

valuation/division: the contrary, subject to such distribution such as [non-marital assets]. 8 5. Tax and other economic consequences, and contractual or legal consequences to third parties, of the proposed distribution. [see Armstrong factor No. 9] 6. The extent to which property division may, with equity to both parties, be utilized to eliminate periodic payments and other potential sources of future friction between the parties. 7. The needs of the parties for financial security with due regard to the combination of assets, income and earning capacity (See Cheatham factors Nos. 3 & 4). 8. Any other factor which in equity should be co


CourtListener opinion 8595772

CourtListener opinion 8595772 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8595772 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 8595772


CourtListener opinion 8595772

QDRO: . Case No. 502014DR0007319. Robert S. Winess of Robert S. Winess, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant. Tracy Cardarelli (n/k/a Tracy Forgeron), Boynton Beach, pro se. GROSS, J. The question presented in this case is whether the former wife is entitled to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") providing for an increase in her distributions from the former husband's Florida Retirement System ("FRS") pension based upon her proportionate share of any cost-of-living adjustment ("COLA") received by the former husband. We hold that the former wife's right to a COLA was a vested statutory right that accrued during the marriage, so the QDRO prop


CourtListener opinion 8595772

retirement benefits: hereto as Exhibit "B". The Equitable Distribution Schedule is incorporated herein by reference and the parties are directed to comply with the division and distribution of the assets and liabilities provided therein. *** 10. With regard to the parties retirement plans (including, but not limited to, the Husband's Florida State Retirement Plan/Pension), with regard to the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's) or similar orders required to effectuate the equal division and distribution of those, the parties shall attempt to agree upon a QDRO expert to prepare all such QDRO's or similar orders . . . The Court


CourtListener opinion 8595772

pension: Beach, pro se. GROSS, J. The question presented in this case is whether the former wife is entitled to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") providing for an increase in her distributions from the former husband's Florida Retirement System ("FRS") pension based upon her proportionate share of any cost-of-living adjustment ("COLA") received by the former husband. We hold that the former wife's right to a COLA was a vested statutory right that accrued during the marriage, so the QDRO properly included COLAs. Therefore, we affirm. The parties married in 1999, and the former husband filed for dissolution of ma


CourtListener opinion 8595772

alternate payee: r a cost-of-living adjustment to the former wife on her proportionate share of any COLA received by the former husband: 9. Cost of Living Adjustment: The Plan Administrator shall increase the amount payable each month to the Alternate Payee based upon the Alternate Payee's proportionate share of any cost of living adjustments (COLA) received by the Participant. . . . The former husband preserved his objection to Paragraph 9 in the trial court. 2 The former husband now appeals the Amended QDRO, arguing that the final judgment of dissolution did not mention the existence of a COLA as a marital asset subject to distribu


CourtListener opinion 859699

CourtListener opinion 859699 Extracted case name: SCT JOAN WILLIAMS HOLLOMAN v. RONALD B. HOLLOMAN DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 859699 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 859699

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 859699

QDRO: a one-half interest in Ronald B. Holloman's Savings and Investment Plan maintained through his employer. The chancellor was asked to interpret two clauses of the property settlement agreement, the modification of the final decree of divorce and the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and additionally to determine whether Ronald was in contempt for failure to provide income and retirement fund information. ¶2. The chancellor held that the issue was the \interpretation of a contract


CourtListener opinion 859699

domestic relations order: interest in Ronald B. Holloman's Savings and Investment Plan maintained through his employer. The chancellor was asked to interpret two clauses of the property settlement agreement, the modification of the final decree of divorce and the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and additionally to determine whether Ronald was in contempt for failure to provide income and retirement fund information. ¶2. The chancellor held that the issue was the \interpretation of a contract


CourtListener opinion 8598884

CourtListener opinion 8598884 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 29524 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8598884 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 8598884

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 8598884

QDRO: ses. It also provided for Smith to be named the surviving spouse if the pension plan later was modified to provide for a surviving spouse benefit. -3- {¶ 5} On September 29, 1988, the domestic relations court issued a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which restated the terms of the divorce decree regarding OP&F. Soon thereafter, the Ohio Attorney General, on behalf of OP&F, filed a motion in the domestic relations court seeking vacation of the QDRO on the ground that OP&F was expressly exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The domestic relations court agreed, and


CourtListener opinion 8598884

retirement benefits: r is entitled to survivor benefits from OP&F. The following facts are undisputed. {¶ 3} Elaine Smith ("Smith") is the former spouse of Larry Smith, a retired police officer. The two married on July 13, 1963. In December 1983, Larry applied for disability retirement benefits from OP&F, then known as the Police and Fireman's Disability and Pension Fund of Ohio. OP&F permits plan members to elect a retirement allowance payable for the retiree's lifetime or, instead, to receive an actuarial equivalent of his retirement allowance in a lesser amount payable for his life and continuing after his death to a surviving designated b


CourtListener opinion 8598884

pension: -2- {¶ 1} Elaine Smith appeals from the trial court's denial of her motion for summary judgment and its grant of summary judgment in favor of Carolyn Farmer on Smith's claims related to Farmer's receipt of survivor benefits from the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund ("OP&F"). For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment will be affirmed. I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} This action concerns whether Smith or Farmer is entitled to survivor benefits from OP&F. The following facts are undisputed. {¶ 3} Elaine Smith ("Smith") is the former spouse of Larry Smith, a retired police officer. The two


CourtListener opinion 8598884

ERISA: egarding OP&F. Soon thereafter, the Ohio Attorney General, on behalf of OP&F, filed a motion in the domestic relations court seeking vacation of the QDRO on the ground that OP&F was expressly exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The domestic relations court agreed, and on November 28, 1988, it filed an entry vacating the QDRO and ordering that Smith receive one-half of Larry's gross monthly benefit as spousal support. The entry did not mention the conditional surviving spouse benefit. {¶ 6} OP&F did not receive a copy of the 1988 divorce decree. However, it was provided cop


CourtListener opinion 865748

CourtListener opinion 865748 Extracted case name: DECEASED v. MISSISSIPPI DIVISION OF MEDICAID DATE OF JUDGMENT. Extracted reporter citation: 534 U.S. 473. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 865748 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 865748


CourtListener opinion 865748

QDRO: ed public accountant regarding the Alfords' finances and the projected depletion of their income and assets once Mr. Alford was placed in a nursing home. At the close of the hearing, counsel for Mrs. Alford requested alternative relief in the form 2 of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), transferring Mr. Alford's retirement assets in the amount of $400,000 to Mrs. Alford. ¶4. The Division did not cross-examine Mrs. Alford or the accountant, maintaining the court lacked jurisdiction. The Division argued that it had sole authority and jurisdiction to consider the matter, and that the chancery court was limited to judicial review o


CourtListener opinion 865748

domestic relations order: accountant regarding the Alfords' finances and the projected depletion of their income and assets once Mr. Alford was placed in a nursing home. At the close of the hearing, counsel for Mrs. Alford requested alternative relief in the form 2 of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), transferring Mr. Alford's retirement assets in the amount of $400,000 to Mrs. Alford. ¶4. The Division did not cross-examine Mrs. Alford or the accountant, maintaining the court lacked jurisdiction. The Division argued that it had sole authority and jurisdiction to consider the matter, and that the chancery court was limited to judicial review o


CourtListener opinion 865833

CourtListener opinion 865833 Extracted case name: R.K. v. J.K. Extracted reporter citation: 580 F.3d 1234. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 865833 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 865833


CourtListener opinion 865833

QDRO: ment and contract of the parties that the Wife is to have all survivors' benefits otherwise accorded to her by law including, but not limited to, fifty-five percent (55%) of Husband's survivor annuity, upon his death from Civil Service Retirement System. A QDRO will be entered allowing Wife 50% of Husband's Military Retirement based upon Husband's years of military service during this marriage. A QDRO will be entered allowing wife 55% of Husband's Survivor Annuity upon his death from Civil Service Retirement System. After the hearing, the chancellor entered a qualified domestic-relations order ("QDRO"), dire


CourtListener opinion 865833

retirement benefits: they were not specifically mentioned in the property settlement agreement and were not accorded to her ‘by law.'" Williams, 2009 WL 1451342, at *5. ISSUES ¶3. Barbara's entitlement to the following is not at issue: (1) fifty percent of Julius's military-retirement benefits earned during the marriage and (2) fifty-five percent of Julius's civil-service survivor annuity plan. Thus, we are left with the following issues: I. Whether the chancellor erred in finding that Barbara was entitled to Julius's Military Survivor Benefit Plan. II. Whether the chancellor erred in awarding attorney fees. DISCUSSION 3 ¶4. "When thi


CourtListener opinion 865833

survivor benefits: judgment. Julius has worked as a policeman, postal carrier, and military reservist. After Julius married Wenoka Williams, Barbara moved to clarify judgment and/or for modification of the property-settlement agreement, specifically the paragraph entitled, "Survivor Benefit for Wife." Julius retired from the reserves on May 19, 2007, and exercised his option to participate in the Military Survivor Benefit Plan ("SBP"), naming Wenoka as 2 the beneficiary. In June 2007, a hearing was held on Barbara's motion. At that hearing, this language was at issue: It is the agreement and contract of the parties that the Wife is to h


CourtListener opinion 865833

valuation/division: 1983). Even though a small portion of the 2 The amount generally will be thirty-five to fifty-five percent of the monthly retirement pay depending on the age of the beneficiary. See 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 1451(a)(2), 1451(f) (1998). 7 annuity was purchased with community property (the military-retirement benefits), that court held that the former wife's "claim conflict[ed] with express terms of the SBP. A service member can provide the annuity only for his dependent children, provide the annuity for his wife, or elect not to participate in the plan at all. In any case, the decision is solely that of the service member." Id. at 7


CourtListener opinion 868100

CourtListener opinion 868100 Extracted case name: FILED v. MAY. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 868100 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 868100


CourtListener opinion 868100

QDRO: uant to Wis. Stat. § 809.61 (2009-10). It concerns a dispute over the enforceability of a pension award in a divorce judgment. The specific question we address is whether the circuit court erred when it denied Patricia Johnson's motion for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) on the grounds that the motion was barred by Wis. Stat. § 893.40, a statute of No. 2011AP1240 repose,1 which states that \action upon a judgment or


CourtListener opinion 868100

pension: County, Kathryn W. Foster, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded. ¶1 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. This case is before the court on certification from the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.61 (2009-10). It concerns a dispute over the enforceability of a pension award in a divorce judgment. The specific question we address is whether the circuit court erred when it denied Patricia Johnson's motion for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) on the grounds that the motion was barred by Wis. Stat. § 893.40, a statute of No. 2011AP1240 repose,1 which states that \action upon a judgment or


CourtListener opinion 868100

domestic relations order: s. Stat. § 809.61 (2009-10). It concerns a dispute over the enforceability of a pension award in a divorce judgment. The specific question we address is whether the circuit court erred when it denied Patricia Johnson's motion for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) on the grounds that the motion was barred by Wis. Stat. § 893.40, a statute of No. 2011AP1240 repose,1 which states that \action upon a judgment or


CourtListener opinion 871547

CourtListener opinion 871547 Extracted reporter citation: 205 P.3d 548. Docket: SCWC-29340 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 871547 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 871547

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 871547

QDRO: , the only orders that Aaron appears to challenge further are the family court's February 3, 2009 order on Bonnie's Motion to Compel Defendant to List Marital Residence for Sale, and its February 25, 2009 order denying Aaron's Motion to Compel Compliance with Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Accordingly, Aaron's challenges to other family court orders are not discussed further. -12- ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** February 3, 2009, the family court filed its Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to List Marital Residence for Sale. The order stated, inter alia, that Aaron was "not re


CourtListener opinion 871547

retirement benefits: s. See Richter, 108 Hawai#i at 506-07, 122 P.3d at 286-87. In the instant case, the family court ordered, in pertinent part: [Aaron] shall pay to [Bonnie] her net share of her interest in the [marital residence] and her interest in [Aaron's] other deposit/retirement accounts after [Aaron's] interest in [Bonnie's] retirement accounts, deposit accounts and in Caplans have been set-off, with payment to be made by February 27, 2009 or the establishment of an escrow account by February 27, 2009 to effect such payment to [Bonnie] no later than March 27, 2009[.] Aaron argues that the Supplemental Divorce Decree did not requi


CourtListener opinion 871547

domestic relations order: orders that Aaron appears to challenge further are the family court's February 3, 2009 order on Bonnie's Motion to Compel Defendant to List Marital Residence for Sale, and its February 25, 2009 order denying Aaron's Motion to Compel Compliance with Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Accordingly, Aaron's challenges to other family court orders are not discussed further. -12- ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** February 3, 2009, the family court filed its Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to List Marital Residence for Sale. The order stated, inter alia, that Aaron was "not re


CourtListener opinion 871547

valuation/division: , that no "Marital Separate Property" or appreciation on that property can ever be awarded to a non-owning spouse[?] B. Did the [ICA] commit grave error when it affirmed post-decree orders issued by the family court, without jurisdiction, which modified property division in the absence of a timely motion under [Hawai#i Family Court Rules (HFCR)] Rule 59? -3- ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** We hold that the ICA erred in stating that the family court has the "authority to award Marital Separate Property to a non-owning spouse" under Schiller. Kakinami, 2011 WL 1836718, at *2. As


CourtListener opinion 873579

CourtListener opinion 873579 Extracted case name: EVELYN STEPHENS v. OPM. Docket: PH-0831-12-0106-I-1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 873579 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 873579


CourtListener opinion 873579

QDRO: ed Mr. Stephens in July 1997 in the Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, in Alleghe- ny County, Pennsylvania ("Court of Common Pleas"). On February 4, 2000, the former couple agreed to an equita- ble distribution of marital property, each by duly signing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). The Court of Common Pleas entered those orders. Pursuant to the QDROs, each spouse granted the other a portion of the retirement annuity each would enjoy upon retirement. Mr. Stephens has retirement annuity benefits pursuant to the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS"), and Ms. Stephens has retirement annuity benefits u


CourtListener opinion 873579

retirement benefits: DRO: because Ms. Stephens's QDRO was not acceptable for processing by OPM in the first place, OPM should have rejected the QDRO without engaging in any interpretation of it. In January 1992, OPM proposed extensive regulations to govern Court Orders Affecting Retirement Benefits (the three types of retirement benefits being employee annui- ties, refunds of employee contributions, and survivor annuities). See Court Orders Affecting Retirement Bene- fits, 57 Fed. Reg. 120 (proposed Jan. 2, 1992) (to be codi- fied at 5 C.F.R. pt. 831 et al.). The proposed regulations defined as unprocessable by OPM all court orders labeled "qualified


CourtListener opinion 873579

ERISA: Orders Affecting Retirement Bene- fits, 57 Fed. Reg. 120 (proposed Jan. 2, 1992) (to be codi- fied at 5 C.F.R. pt. 831 et al.). The proposed regulations defined as unprocessable by OPM all court orders labeled "qualified domestic relations order" or issued on ERISA forms. The reason for this proposed exclusion is that ERISA created the term QDRO to describe a court order that divides retirement benefits under ERISA plans. Those retirement benefits can differ from retirement EVELYN STEPHENS v. OPM 5 benefits under CSRS. As OPM explained in the final regulation, "[w]e decided to prohibit use of this label because we ha


CourtListener opinion 873579

domestic relations order: phens in July 1997 in the Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, in Alleghe- ny County, Pennsylvania ("Court of Common Pleas"). On February 4, 2000, the former couple agreed to an equita- ble distribution of marital property, each by duly signing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). The Court of Common Pleas entered those orders. Pursuant to the QDROs, each spouse granted the other a portion of the retirement annuity each would enjoy upon retirement. Mr. Stephens has retirement annuity benefits pursuant to the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS"), and Ms. Stephens has retirement annuity benefits u


CourtListener opinion 873622

CourtListener opinion 873622 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of BOYD KEVIN and VICKI L. WEAVER. BOYD KEVIN WEAVER. Extracted reporter citation: 200 Cal.App.4th 1401. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 873622 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 873622

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 873622

QDRO: file a written order until December 9, 2011. 2 order, commanding Vicki to pay $1,000 per month; (2) fixed child support arrears at $19,808 and ordered payment forthwith by Vicki to Boyd; (3) ordered Vicki to pay Boyd $875 for her share of preparing QDROs (Qualified Domestic Relations Orders); and (4) took costs, fees, and sanctions for the entire matter under submission. The trial court later awarded Boyd $20,000 for attorney fees. On October 21, 2011, Vicki filed a motion to set aside the trial court‘s child support order under the excusable neglect (or ―discretionary‖) provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 4733 and also filed a moti


CourtListener opinion 873622

domestic relations order: itten order until December 9, 2011. 2 order, commanding Vicki to pay $1,000 per month; (2) fixed child support arrears at $19,808 and ordered payment forthwith by Vicki to Boyd; (3) ordered Vicki to pay Boyd $875 for her share of preparing QDROs (Qualified Domestic Relations Orders); and (4) took costs, fees, and sanctions for the entire matter under submission. The trial court later awarded Boyd $20,000 for attorney fees. On October 21, 2011, Vicki filed a motion to set aside the trial court‘s child support order under the excusable neglect (or ―discretionary‖) provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 4733 and also filed a moti


CourtListener opinion 874263

CourtListener opinion 874263 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hunt. Extracted reporter citation: 219 P.3d 448. Docket: 35751 DEBRA A. BORLEY. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 874263 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 874263


CourtListener opinion 874263

QDRO: loyed by United Airlines and has a pension, either with United Airlines, or now with Pension Benefit Guarantee Association. Wife shall receive fifty percent (50%) of the benefit accumulated by Husband during the marriage to be set over to her pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. After the Decree was entered and the Agreement was approved by the magistrate court, Borley filed a ―Motion to Divide Omitted Asset‖ in which she asked the court to divide both the convertible notes and the stock allocations obtained by Smith in February and March of 2006. 2 Smith filed an answer and, after numerous procedural maneuvers, the court dec


CourtListener opinion 874263

retirement benefits: ion. I. Facts and Procedural History Smith and Borley were married on August 1, 1988. Smith started working as a United Airlines (United) pilot in 1990. In 1992, United filed for bankruptcy protection. As a result, United pilots lost their Defined Benefits Retirement Plan (A Plan), but were otherwise compensated by insurance payments through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and certain convertible notes as follows: 1 7. Convertible Notes. In the event that the A Plan is terminated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1341 or § 1342 following judicial approval of such termination, the Revised 2003 Pilot Agreement and t


CourtListener opinion 874263

pension: ith started working as a United Airlines (United) pilot in 1990. In 1992, United filed for bankruptcy protection. As a result, United pilots lost their Defined Benefits Retirement Plan (A Plan), but were otherwise compensated by insurance payments through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and certain convertible notes as follows: 1 7. Convertible Notes. In the event that the A Plan is terminated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1341 or § 1342 following judicial approval of such termination, the Revised 2003 Pilot Agreement and the Plan of Reorganization shall provide for the issuance of $550 Million of UAL co


CourtListener opinion 874263

domestic relations order: nited Airlines and has a pension, either with United Airlines, or now with Pension Benefit Guarantee Association. Wife shall receive fifty percent (50%) of the benefit accumulated by Husband during the marriage to be set over to her pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. After the Decree was entered and the Agreement was approved by the magistrate court, Borley filed a ―Motion to Divide Omitted Asset‖ in which she asked the court to divide both the convertible notes and the stock allocations obtained by Smith in February and March of 2006. 2 Smith filed an answer and, after numerous procedural maneuvers, the court dec


CourtListener opinion 883030

CourtListener opinion 883030 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARGARET H. BOHARSKI. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 92-055. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 883030 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 883030

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 883030

QDRO: ict Court found George in contempt of court for failing to make the temporary maintenance payments. The District Court ordered George jailed for 40 days, with 10 days suspended. In this same order, the court also entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, 29 U.S.C. 5 lO562(d) (3). A QDRO is a method of intercepting payments intended for one spouse and then directing these payments to the other spouse. A QDRO must be made pursuant to the existing state domestic relations laws. 29 U.S.C. 5 1056. The QDRO in this case directed that George's union pension disabilit


CourtListener opinion 883030

pension: at all of his income was disability income which was exempt and he refused to pay the temporary maintenance. George's income consisted of monthly social security disability payments of $906, monthly workers' compensation benefits of $500.40, and monthly union pension disability payments of $363.50 at the time of final decree and slightly less at time of temporary order. George had no other sources of income. Pursuant to a motion by Margaret, on September 19, 1990, the District Court found George in contempt of court for failing to make the temporary maintenance payments. The District Court ordered George jailed for 40


CourtListener opinion 883030

domestic relations order: tember 19, 1990, the District Court found George in contempt of court for failing to make the temporary maintenance payments. The District Court ordered George jailed for 40 days, with 10 days suspended. In this same order, the court also entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, 29 U.S.C. 5 lO562(d) (3). A QDRO is a method of intercepting payments intended for one spouse and then directing these payments to the other spouse. A QDRO must be made pursuant to the existing state domestic relations laws. 29 U.S.C. 5 1056. The QDRO in this case directed that George's union pension dis


CourtListener opinion 883030

valuation/division: efits to George. The District Court then awarded the union pension disability benefits to Margaret, with the QDRO to remain in place. Additionally, George was to pay to Margaret the sum of $298.33 per month for 3 6 months out of income received by him, as an equitable distribution of property and as maintenance. The time period of payment was made to coincide with her eligibility in the future for social security benefits. The court also found that George could make all payments and maintain his lifestyle and maintain his standard of living. George brought this appeal from the District Court's entry of the decree of dissolution conte


CourtListener opinion 885478

CourtListener opinion 885478 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LINDA K. HARKIN. Docket: 99-080. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 885478 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 885478


CourtListener opinion 885478

QDRO: n entered by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶2 This appeal raises the following issues: ¶3 1. Whether the District Court erred in entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order? ¶4 2. Whether the District Court erred in dividing the marital estate? ¶5 3. Whether the District Court erred in awarding maintenance? ¶6 4. Whether the District Court erred in awarding attorney fees? FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶7 The Respondent and Appellant, John E. Harkin (\Jack\")


CourtListener opinion 885478

domestic relations order: by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶2 This appeal raises the following issues: ¶3 1. Whether the District Court erred in entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order? ¶4 2. Whether the District Court erred in dividing the marital estate? ¶5 3. Whether the District Court erred in awarding maintenance? ¶6 4. Whether the District Court erred in awarding attorney fees? FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶7 The Respondent and Appellant, John E. Harkin (\Jack\")


CourtListener opinion 885737

CourtListener opinion 885737 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of BETH LAUREN MORGENSTERN. Extracted reporter citation: 893 P.2d 860. Docket: 00-605. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 885737 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 885737


CourtListener opinion 885737

QDRO: the monthly support ordered was excessive. On June 23, 2000, the District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The District Court entered judgment for unpaid child support and medical insurance cost plus interest, and authorized a qualified domestic relations order requiring the transfer of any pension or retirement plan held for Mark's benefit to satisfy Mark's arrearages. The court reduced the amount to be paid monthly from $1,222.00 to $504.00 per month effective November 1, 1999. The court further concluded that, due to uncertainties of both parties' income, the support obligation should be reviewed and recalculat