CourtListener opinion 10160562

retirement benefits: our Hundred Thirty- Five Thousand Dollars & 00/100 ($435,000.00), plus post-judgment interest…. The Arbitrator further finds that payment of this amount to the plaintiff shall be accomplished by the defendant either through assignment of his pension and/or retirement benefits; or by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be approved and effectuated and ordered by the Court; and/or by payment from Don and [Liz] in any other manner acceptable to both parties. Further, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Elizabeth Anne Harshaw and against Donald W. Harshaw [and] finds that this judgment should not be dischargea


CourtListener opinion 10160562

pension: ded the sum of Four Hundred Thirty- Five Thousand Dollars & 00/100 ($435,000.00), plus post-judgment interest…. The Arbitrator further finds that payment of this amount to the plaintiff shall be accomplished by the defendant either through assignment of his pension and/or retirement benefits; or by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be approved and effectuated and ordered by the Court; and/or by payment from Don and [Liz] in any other manner acceptable to both parties. Further, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Elizabeth Anne Harshaw and against Donald W. Harshaw [and] finds that this judgme


CourtListener opinion 10160562

domestic relations order: lars & 00/100 ($435,000.00), plus post-judgment interest…. The Arbitrator further finds that payment of this amount to the plaintiff shall be accomplished by the defendant either through assignment of his pension and/or retirement benefits; or by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be approved and effectuated and ordered by the Court; and/or by payment from Don and [Liz] in any other manner acceptable to both parties. Further, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Elizabeth Anne Harshaw and against Donald W. Harshaw [and] finds that this judgment should not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, since it is specificall


CourtListener opinion 10166711

CourtListener opinion 10166711 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10166711 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 10166711

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 10166711

QDRO: e, Kathleen, divorced. During their divorce proceedings, a court entered a domestic relations order that divided Mr. Thorpe's pension benefits between him and Mrs. Thorpe. The pension fund administrator accepted the domestic relations order and entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to show in Mr. Thorpe's pension plan that part of his benefits were payable to Mrs. Thorpe. Mr. Thorpe applied for his pension in May 2008. He elected a 10-year certain pension option; the pension fund administrator confirmed the election and told Mr. Thorpe he would receive $3,847 per month. Mr. Thorpe asked Carol Lyons, a representative of th


CourtListener opinion 10166711

retirement benefits: N DAVID L. THORPE, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) Cause No. 1:19-CV-2988 RLM-MPB ) INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS ) PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W., ) ) Defendant ) OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises out of a disagreement regarding the payment of retirement benefits from a multi-employer pension plan governed by ERISA. David L. Thorpe brings two claims for pension benefits against the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, I.B.E.W. The first is a claim for pension plan benefits and rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the second is an alternative claim for benefits under a


CourtListener opinion 10166711

pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DAVID L. THORPE, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) Cause No. 1:19-CV-2988 RLM-MPB ) INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS ) PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W., ) ) Defendant ) OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises out of a disagreement regarding the payment of retirement benefits from a multi-employer pension plan governed by ERISA. David L. Thorpe brings two claims for pension benefits against the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, I.B.E.W. The first is a claim for p


CourtListener opinion 10166711

ERISA: CV-2988 RLM-MPB ) INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS ) PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W., ) ) Defendant ) OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises out of a disagreement regarding the payment of retirement benefits from a multi-employer pension plan governed by ERISA. David L. Thorpe brings two claims for pension benefits against the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, I.B.E.W. The first is a claim for pension plan benefits and rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the second is an alternative claim for benefits under a theory of estoppel. The fund moves for judgment on th


CourtListener opinion 10168308

CourtListener opinion 10168308 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10168308 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 10168308


CourtListener opinion 10168308

QDRO: These are the undisputed facts. Mr. Thorpe has been a participant in the defendant pension fund since 1978. Mr. Thorpe and his wife, Kathleen Thorpe, divorced in 2006. During their divorce proceedings, a court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that divided Mr. Thorpe's pension benefits between him and Ms. Thorpe. The order said that it was assigning "a portion of Participant's benefits under the IBEW Pension Trust Fund (the Plan) to Alternate Payee in recognition of the existence of Alternate Payee's marital rights in Participants' vested defined benefit pension plan." Mr. Thorpe is the pla


CourtListener opinion 10168308

retirement benefits: N DAVID L. THORPE, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) Cause No. 1:19-CV-2988 RLM-MPB ) INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS ) PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W., ) ) Defendant ) OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises out of a disagreement regarding the payment of retirement benefits from a multi-employer pension plan governed by ERISA. David L. Thorpe brings a claim for pension benefits and rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, I.B.E.W. The parties' cross motions for summary judgment are before the court. For the reasons set forth below, the cour


CourtListener opinion 10168308

pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DAVID L. THORPE, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) Cause No. 1:19-CV-2988 RLM-MPB ) INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS ) PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W., ) ) Defendant ) OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises out of a disagreement regarding the payment of retirement benefits from a multi-employer pension plan governed by ERISA. David L. Thorpe brings a claim for pension benefits and rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Indiana Electric


CourtListener opinion 10168308

ERISA: CV-2988 RLM-MPB ) INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS ) PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W., ) ) Defendant ) OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises out of a disagreement regarding the payment of retirement benefits from a multi-employer pension plan governed by ERISA. David L. Thorpe brings a claim for pension benefits and rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, I.B.E.W. The parties' cross motions for summary judgment are before the court. For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment


CourtListener opinion 10178855

CourtListener opinion 10178855 Extracted reporter citation: 607 F.3d 1102. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10178855 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 10178855


CourtListener opinion 10178855

QDRO: ied in 2019, is a qualified domestic relations order exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974's requirements. While this Act and the terms of the decedent's life insurance policy itself usually govern proceeds paid to beneficiaries, qualified domestic relations orders can supersede those designations. Defendant, who was married to Plaintiff's former husband at the time of his death, claims that the mediation agreement and decree are not specific enough to be a qualified domestic relations order. For the reasons stated below, all claims against Defendant are hereby dismissed. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


CourtListener opinion 10178855

ERISA: he reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. "The plausibility standard ... asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. III. DISCUSSION A. Qualified domestic relations order ERISA exemption The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, better known by its acronym "ERISA," is a federal statutory scheme that regulates private retirement and health plans. 29 U.S.C. § 1103(c)(1). Under ERISA, participants and beneficiaries of these plans are determined "in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan."


CourtListener opinion 10178855

alternate payee: ied domestic relations orders." 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(7). "A qualified domestic relations order includes any state ‘judgment, decree, or order' relating to the provision of ‘child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights' that recognizes an ‘alternate payee's right to … benefits' and meets a number of other requirements." Sun Life, 877 F.3d at 700-01 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)-(ii)). A domestic order meets the requirements of this exemption only if the order clearly specifies: (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of e


CourtListener opinion 10178855

domestic relations order: 9, is a qualified domestic relations order exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974's requirements. While this Act and the terms of the decedent's life insurance policy itself usually govern proceeds paid to beneficiaries, qualified domestic relations orders can supersede those designations. Defendant, who was married to Plaintiff's former husband at the time of his death, claims that the mediation agreement and decree are not specific enough to be a qualified domestic relations order. For the reasons stated below, all claims against Defendant are hereby dismissed. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


CourtListener opinion 10179295

CourtListener opinion 10179295 Extracted reporter citation: 877 F.3d 698. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10179295 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 10179295


CourtListener opinion 10179295

QDRO: nsurance policy pursuant to its terms. ERISA mandates that beneficiaries of life insurance plans are determined "in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1)(D). An exception exists where the parties have a "qualified domestic relations order" that clearly specifies a number of details about the plan and beneficiaries. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C). To determine if the settlement agreement met the level of specificity required by ERISA's exemption, the Court examined the agreement and applied relevant case law interpreting the statute. Plaintiff claimed that "substantial compliance" with 29 U.


CourtListener opinion 10179295

ERISA: ter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) and Local Rule 54.4. [DE 13]. Defendant Grace Ross seeks attorney's fees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") after the Court entered an Order dismissing Plaintiff Dawn Ross's claims against her. [DEs 11, 12]. Plaintiff has responded in opposition to the request for attorney's fees [DE 15] and Defendant has replied [DE 17], making this matter ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion for attorney's fees is DENIED. I. FACTUAL AND PRO


CourtListener opinion 10179295

domestic relations order: olicy pursuant to its terms. ERISA mandates that beneficiaries of life insurance plans are determined "in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1)(D). An exception exists where the parties have a "qualified domestic relations order" that clearly specifies a number of details about the plan and beneficiaries. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C). To determine if the settlement agreement met the level of specificity required by ERISA's exemption, the Court examined the agreement and applied relevant case law interpreting the statute. Plaintiff claimed that "substantial compliance" with 29 U.


CourtListener opinion 10180256

CourtListener opinion 10180256 Extracted reporter citation: 726 F.3d 830. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10180256 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 10180256

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 10180256

QDRO: sary in cases where a statute of limitations was missed, a plea offer was not conveyed, or where an attorney had a conflict of interest. By contrast, Kentucky courts have required expert testimony in cases concerning trial preparation, trial strategy, qualified domestic relations orders, and an attorney's professional assessment of the law. Thus, the necessity of expert testimony is dictated by the nature of the alleged malpractice. If the alleged negligence involves the exercise of legal judgment or the application of complex legal principles, expert testimony is required. EQT Prod. Co. v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP, No.


CourtListener opinion 10180256

domestic relations order: ses where a statute of limitations was missed, a plea offer was not conveyed, or where an attorney had a conflict of interest. By contrast, Kentucky courts have required expert testimony in cases concerning trial preparation, trial strategy, qualified domestic relations orders, and an attorney's professional assessment of the law. Thus, the necessity of expert testimony is dictated by the nature of the alleged malpractice. If the alleged negligence involves the exercise of legal judgment or the application of complex legal principles, expert testimony is required. EQT Prod. Co. v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP, No.


CourtListener opinion 10196910

CourtListener opinion 10196910 Extracted reporter citation: 766 F.3d 87. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10196910 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 10196910

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 10196910

QDRO: hed the. . . agreement in the way [plaintiff] insists that it did." 202 F.3d at 53.Thus, Plaintiff is seeking to enforce her rights under the Planas a beneficiary, which puts her claims directlywithin the scope ofERISA preemption.See29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). B. Qualified Domestic Relations Order Exemption Plaintiff argues in her opposition that her claims should survive because she is "ask[ing] the Court to enforce her legal rights under Massachusetts domestic relations laws"and not under the Plan.[ECF No. 14 at 4]. Plaintiff does not cite to a specific provision of the Massachusetts domestic relations laws as the source of her claim to the Acc


CourtListener opinion 10196910

retirement benefits: aws ch. 208, § 34, which grants the probate court the authority to assign to either spouse "all or any part of the estate of the other, including... all vested and nonvested benefits, rights and funds accrued during the marriage and which shall include. . .retirement benefits."3 ERISA provides an exception to preemptionfor orders that are deemed by the ERISA- governed plan administrator to be qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO").4 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(7); seeBoggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 846 (1997)("QDRO's, unlike domestic relations orders in general, are exempt from . . . ERISA's general pre-emption clause.").A dom


CourtListener opinion 10196910

pension: emption clause.").A domestic relations order is "qualified"when it meets certain statutory requirements and has been provided to the plan administrators for their evaluation and adetermination as to whether it is a QDRO. SeeTrs.of Dirs.Guild of Am.-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 420 (9th Cir.),opinion amended on denial of reh'g,255 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Upon obtaining a 3 Plaintiff did not explain, either in the Complaint or in her opposition brief, what percentage of the Account, if any, was awarded to Plaintiff in the divorce proceedings. 4 Plaintiff didnot explicitly raise the QDRO


CourtListener opinion 10196910

ERISA: objection from Plaintiff, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. [ECF No. 1]. Defendants assertedthat Plaintiff, as abeneficiary of anemployee benefits plan controlled by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq.("ERISA"),alleged state law claims that were preempted by ERISA and thus subject to federal jurisdiction.Id.; see 28 U.S.C. §1331. II. STANDARDOF REVIEW On a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts, analyze those facts in the light most hospitable to the plaintiff's theory, and draw al


CourtListener opinion 10200666

CourtListener opinion 10200666 Extracted case name: THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER SHEPPARD v. WILLIAM D. MCLAUGHLIN. Extracted reporter citation: 557 F.3d 22. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10200666 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 10200666


CourtListener opinion 10200666

QDRO: would name Wendy Sheppard as the sole beneficiary of his life insurance policies for as long any alimony obligations remained outstanding. Compl., Ex. 3 (Dkt # 1- 3) at 12. The Sheppards' agreement was not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Some two years later, on August 31, 2017, Christopher Sheppard listed Wendy Sheppard on his IUOE Local 4 Census Card as his primary and sole life insurance beneficiary. Compl., Ex. 2 (Dkt # 1-2) at 3. He also checked off the 100% option for the percentage amount to be paid to his ex-wife. Id. Directly above the designated blank space for listing t


CourtListener opinion 10200666

retirement benefits: & SAVINGS AND PENSION FUNDS; SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and WENDY T. SHEPPARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS November 8, 2022 STEARNS, D.J. Debra Haslam brought this action against the trustees of her late brother's retirement benefits plan: William McLaughlin, David Shea, Jr., Paul Diminico, David Marr, Jr., Angelo Colasante, James Reger, Michael Bowes, Shane O'Neill, Michael Foley, and Christopher Fogarty (Fund Trustees); the administrator of the plan, Gregory Geiman; the insurer of the plan, Symetra Life Insurance Company (Symetra); and her late brother's ex- wife, Wendy Sheppard.


CourtListener opinion 10200666

pension: L, MICHAEL M. FOLEY, and CHRISTOPHER T. FOGARTY, in their representative capacities as Trustees and GREGORY A. GEIMAN, in his capacity as the Administrator of the INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 4 HEALTH & WELFARE, ANUUITY & SAVINGS AND PENSION FUNDS; SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and WENDY T. SHEPPARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS November 8, 2022 STEARNS, D.J. Debra Haslam brought this action against the trustees of her late brother's retirement benefits plan: William McLaughlin, David Shea, Jr., Paul Diminico, David Marr, Jr., Angelo Colasante, James R


CourtListener opinion 10200666

ERISA: ve of her late brother Christopher Sheppard's Estate. Prior to his death, Christopher Sheppard received retirement benefits from the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 4 (IUOE Local 4) Health & Welfare, Annuity & Savings, and Pension Funds (ERISA Funds). The ERISA Funds were comprised of three smaller funds: (1) the Health & Welfare Fund; (2) the Annuity & Savings Fund; and (3) the Pension Fund. 1 The Complaint sets out nine Counts against the defendants in varying combinations: (1) declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 against all defendants; (2) violation of Sections 502(a)(1)(B) and 50


CourtListener opinion 10201215

CourtListener opinion 10201215 Extracted reporter citation: 950 F.2d 816. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10201215 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 10201215


CourtListener opinion 10201215

QDRO: dress whether ERISA preempts an ARO that prohibits changes to a life-insurance beneficiary. Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 11; Guilford, 2008 WL11511491, at *3. Both courts held that the AROs—which were identical to the one at issue here—avoided preemption as "Qualified Domestic Relations Order[s] under ERISA." Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 14; Guilford, 2008 WL 11511491, at *4 (quoting Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 14). Having found that the AROs were applicable, the Phanor and Guilford courts next addressed the same question presented in this case: whether a life-insurance beneficiary change made during a divorce proceeding, in violation of an AR


CourtListener opinion 10201215

ERISA: parties to a divorce. Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 15. Michael G. Mabardy contends that Phanor and Guilford are inapposite because they concern life-insurance policies provided through plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). See id.; Guilford, 2008 WL 11511491, at *2. That fact, however, does not require a different result. The Phanor and Guilford courts did first address whether ERISA preempts an ARO that prohibits changes to a life-insurance beneficiary. Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 11; Guilford, 2008 WL11511491, at *3. Both courts held that the AROs—which were identical


CourtListener opinion 10201215

domestic relations order: her ERISA preempts an ARO that prohibits changes to a life-insurance beneficiary. Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 11; Guilford, 2008 WL11511491, at *3. Both courts held that the AROs—which were identical to the one at issue here—avoided preemption as "Qualified Domestic Relations Order[s] under ERISA." Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 14; Guilford, 2008 WL 11511491, at *4 (quoting Phanor, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 14). Having found that the AROs were applicable, the Phanor and Guilford courts next addressed the same question presented in this case: whether a life-insurance beneficiary change made during a divorce proceeding, in violation of an AR


CourtListener opinion 10201215

survivor benefits: 2008 WL 11511491, at *5. This Court agrees with that reasoning, and will follow it here. Michael G. Mabardy further contends that ARO enforcement would unfairly afford Hillary Mabardy the mutually exclusive advantages of being both a divorcing party and a surviving spouse. She was, in fact, a surviving spouse, as the divorce was not final; however, that fact is immaterial. This case involves a contract, and whether an attempted modification of that contract was lawful and enforceable. Michael S. Mabardy could have changed the beneficiary at any point before the ARO took effect, but did not. Instead, he violated the ARO t


CourtListener opinion 10203904

CourtListener opinion 10203904 Extracted reporter citation: 721 F.3d 241. Docket: 1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10203904 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 10203904


CourtListener opinion 10203904

QDRO: m any and all claims of the creditors of the beneficiary or participant, other than claims by the Maryland Department of Health." MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to "(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankruptcy case filed before January 1, 1988." MD.


CourtListener opinion 10203904

retirement benefits: . CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to "(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankruptcy case filed before January 1, 1988." MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(2). Title 19 of the Health-General Article in the Maryland Code gover


CourtListener opinion 10203904

alternate payee: ded, shall be exempt from any and all claims of the creditors of the beneficiary or participant, other than claims by the Maryland Department of Health." MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to "(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankrup


CourtListener opinion 10203904

domestic relations order: all claims of the creditors of the beneficiary or participant, other than claims by the Maryland Department of Health." MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to "(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankruptcy case filed before January 1, 1988." MD.


CourtListener opinion 10207150

CourtListener opinion 10207150 Extracted reporter citation: 669 F.3d 448. Docket: of months Stone was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10207150 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 10207150

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 10207150

QDRO: perty Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement"), which guaranteed that Lee would receive 50% of Stone's federal retirement benefits.1 ECF No. 12 at 37. Also as part of the Settlement Agreement, Lee was responsible for filing with OPM what is known as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), a necessary precondition to OPM awarding benefits to her as part of the divorce 1 The Settlement Agreement specified that Lee would receive 50% of Stone's self-only annuity based on the total number of months Stone was in the retirement plan during the marriage. ECF No. 12 at 36–38. settlement. ECF No. 12 at 37. In 2015, the Calvert County


CourtListener opinion 10207150

retirement benefits: 1 * * * *** MEMORANDUM OPINION The Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") moves to dismiss the action commenced when the Circuit Court for Calvert County ordered the agency to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failure to issue retirement benefits consistent with court-ordered division of marital property. ECF No. 11. Finding no hearing necessary, see Loc. R. 105.6, and for the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. I. Background Heidi Lee and Elmer Stone were married in 1991 and divorced in 2015. ECF No. 12 at 30; 1-1 at 38–39. This was Elmer Stone's second marriage. See ECF No


CourtListener opinion 10207150

pension: afood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448, 452 (4th Cir. 2012). Although the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), permits the matter to be in this Court, the Court's jurisdiction extends "only as far as the state court's jurisdiction." L. Off. of Mark Kotlarsky Pension Plan v. Hillman, No. TDC-14-3028, 2015 WL 5021399, at *6 (D. Md. Aug. 21, 2015) (citing Palmer v. City Nat'l Bank of W. Virginia, 498 F.3d 236, 244 (4th Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, if the Calvert County Circuit Court lacks jurisdiction at the time of removal, so too does this Court. See Palmer, 498 F.3d at 244; see also Robinson v. Dep't of Justice, No. R


CourtListener opinion 10207150

domestic relations order: lement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement"), which guaranteed that Lee would receive 50% of Stone's federal retirement benefits.1 ECF No. 12 at 37. Also as part of the Settlement Agreement, Lee was responsible for filing with OPM what is known as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), a necessary precondition to OPM awarding benefits to her as part of the divorce 1 The Settlement Agreement specified that Lee would receive 50% of Stone's self-only annuity based on the total number of months Stone was in the retirement plan during the marriage. ECF No. 12 at 36–38. settlement. ECF No. 12 at 37. In 2015, the Calvert County


CourtListener opinion 10213309

CourtListener opinion 10213309 Extracted reporter citation: 489 U.S. 101. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10213309 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 10213309


CourtListener opinion 10213309

QDRO: ty-five years old and is currently single and living alone. She was married for thirty-nine years to Carl Zirbel ("Zirbel"), a former employee of Defendant's and a participant in the plan. Plaintiff and Zirbel were divorced in January 2009. (Dkt. 25-5.) A qualified domestic relations order for the plan was entered on February 6, 2009. (Dkt. 25-4.) Pursuant to the order, Plaintiff was to receive fifty percent of the marital portion of Zirbel's total benefits both prior to and after his death. (Id. at PgID 931-32.) Plaintiff testified that she believed she would receive fifty percent of the marital portion of Zirbel's benefits during his li


CourtListener opinion 10213309

retirement benefits: DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DONNA JEAN ZIRBEL, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No. 18-13212 v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds FORD MOTOR COMPANY, as Sponsor and Plan Administrator for the FORD MOTOR COMPANY GENERAL RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. ________________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE PLAN ADMINSTRATOR AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIMS [25] AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AND ITS COUNTERCLAIMS [26] Pla


CourtListener opinion 10213309

pension: the district court," they "requir[e] no deference to any administrator's action or decision"). Rule 56 standards also apply to Defendant's counterclaim for the reimbursement of the overpayment of benefits. See, e.g., Longuski v. Iron Workers' Local No. 25 Pension Plan, No. 11-11595, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52177, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 13, 2012) (applying Rule 56 standards to a plan's motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for reimbursement of overpayment of benefits). Under Rule 56, summary judgment is appropriate if "‘the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the m


CourtListener opinion 10213309

ERISA: isputedly overpaid $243,189.70 in benefits by the Ford Motor Company General Retirement Plan ("the plan"), which is administered by Defendant Ford Motor Company ("Defendant"). She brings this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), in an attempt to avoid repayment of that amount. Defendant has filed a countersuit under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), seeking recoupment of the overpaid benefits. The matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for judgment to reverse the decision of the plan administrator and for summary judgment on Defendant's


CourtListener opinion 10214009

CourtListener opinion 10214009 Extracted case name: HON. TERRENCE G. BERG v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION KAIJA MENYON PACK. Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 242. Docket: 26. But Pack later. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10214009 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 10214009


CourtListener opinion 10214009

QDRO: preceding the Participant's date of death in the case of benefits payable as a Qualified Pre-retirement Survivor Annuity, as set forth in Section 6.1 A former Spouse will be treated as the Spouse or Surviving Spouse to the extent provided under the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, as described in Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code. ECF No. 20-2, PageID.124. Accordingly, the terms of the pension plan provide that to comply with ERISA's "clear mandate that plan administrators follow plan documents to determine the designated beneficiary," death benefits shall be awarded to Edwards's "legal Surviving spouse." Metro. L


CourtListener opinion 10214009

pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ROOFERS LOCAL 149 2:19-cv-10628 PENSION FUND, Plaintiff, HON. TERRENCE G. BERG v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION KAIJA MENYON PACK and FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIANA PERRY, Defendants. As a member of Roofers Local 149, Charles Edwards, Jr. left a monthly annuity benefit to his wife when he died. Unfortunately, because of irregularities in finalizing an earlier divorce, he also left a dispute


CourtListener opinion 10214009

ERISA: of the Fund. BACKGROUND The Roofers Local 149 Pension Fund (the "Fund") is established and administered pursuant to Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 186, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1971 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. According to the Fund's pension plan, the "surviving spouse" of a participant who dies before retirement is eligible to receive a monthly survivor annuity benefit.2 See ECF No. 20-2 (Excerpt from Am. and Restatement of Roofers Local No. 149 Pens. Plan). See also ECF No. 20-2, PageID.124 (supplying a definition of "Spouse or


CourtListener opinion 10214009

domestic relations order: ng the Participant's date of death in the case of benefits payable as a Qualified Pre-retirement Survivor Annuity, as set forth in Section 6.1 A former Spouse will be treated as the Spouse or Surviving Spouse to the extent provided under the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, as described in Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code. ECF No. 20-2, PageID.124. Accordingly, the terms of the pension plan provide that to comply with ERISA's "clear mandate that plan administrators follow plan documents to determine the designated beneficiary," death benefits shall be awarded to Edwards's "legal Surviving spouse." Metro. L


CourtListener opinion 10217808

CourtListener opinion 10217808 Extracted reporter citation: 150 F.3d 609. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10217808 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 10217808


CourtListener opinion 10217808

QDRO: that would provide Plaintiff Antonia Perrone with monthly pension payments if he predeceased her. This election form instructed that the benefit could be "changed or cancelled" if the Perrones "bec[a]me divorced and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ["QDRO" did] not prohibit cancellation of the surviving spouse coverage." [ECF No. 15-1, PageID.95]. The Perrones were married when Antonio Perrone made this election. Antonia was still married to Antonio Perrone when he retired from Ford in February 2004. However, they divorced in 2006. The Judgment of Divorce executed by Plaintiff and Mr. Perrone – and e


CourtListener opinion 10217808

retirement benefits: nd her appeal. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Procedural Challenge to the Administrative Record and Request for Limited Discovery. [ECF No. 15]. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Procedural Challenge. II. BACKGROUND As a member of the Ford Motor Company-UAW Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), Antonio Perrone elected survivor's benefits that would provide Plaintiff Antonia Perrone with monthly pension payments if he predeceased her. This election form instructed that the benefit could be "changed or cancelled" if the Perrones "bec[a]me divorced and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ["QDRO" did] not prohibit cancellation of


CourtListener opinion 10217808

pension: ECF No. 15]. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Procedural Challenge. II. BACKGROUND As a member of the Ford Motor Company-UAW Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), Antonio Perrone elected survivor's benefits that would provide Plaintiff Antonia Perrone with monthly pension payments if he predeceased her. This election form instructed that the benefit could be "changed or cancelled" if the Perrones "bec[a]me divorced and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ["QDRO" did] not prohibit cancellation of the surviving spouse coverage." [ECF No. 15-1, PageID.95]. The Perrones were married when Antonio Perrone made this electi


CourtListener opinion 10217808

ERISA: RD OF ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. ___________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PROCEDURAL CHALLENGE TO ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND REQUEST FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY [ECF No. 15] I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Antonia Perrone brings this suit under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) for surviving spouse benefits. Defendant Ford Motor Company-UAW Retirement Board of Administration (the "Board") denied Plaintiff's claim for benefits and her appeal. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Procedural Challenge to the Administrative Record and Request for Limited Discovery. [ECF No. 15]. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Procedural


CourtListener opinion 10219312

CourtListener opinion 10219312 Extracted reporter citation: 643 F.3d 162. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10219312 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 10219312

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 10219312

QDRO: 2. Both Clarke and Pilkington contributed to the account. Compl. ¶ 5. Clarke was married to Noel Anthony Clarke from October 22, 1996 until they divorced on December 22, 2004. Id. ¶ 6. Pursuant to the judgment of divorce, a Michigan state court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on January 20, 2006. Id. ¶ 8; Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss at 3. The QDRO required the proceeds of Clarke's 401(k) retirement account to be divided evenly between Clarke and her ex-husband. Compl. ¶ 9. Clarke alleges that on March 21, 2006, she "received notification that [Pilkington] transferred a total of $30,631.50 to [her ex-husband]." Id. ¶ 11.


CourtListener opinion 10219312

retirement benefits: on contained in the magistrate judge's R&R to grant Pilkington's motion to dismiss.1 I. BACKGROUND Clarke brings this action against Pilkington, her former employer, alleging that it breached its fiduciary duty by disbursing her employer-sponsored 401(k) retirement plan entirely to her ex- 1 Because oral argument will not aid the Court's decisional process, the issues will be decided based on the parties' briefing and the R&R. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). In addition to the motion to dismiss, the briefing for the motion includes Clarke's response (Dkt. 9) and Pilkington's reply (Dkt. 10). In a


CourtListener opinion 10219312

pension: tions to dismiss, a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds should be granted when the statement of the claim affirmatively shows that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle [plaintiff] to relief." New Eng. Health Care Emps. Pension Fund v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 336 F.3d 495, 501 (6th Cir. 2003) (punctuation modified). When one can determine from the face of the complaint that the statute of limitations has run, dismissal is appropriate. Am. Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 839 F.3d 458, 464 (6th Cir. 2016). The Court is required to "construe the complaint in


CourtListener opinion 10219312

ERISA: hat Pilkington paid the account funds to her ex-husband in breach of its fiduciary duties to her under the plan. Pilkington removed the case to this Court, asserting that Clarke's claim is preempted by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, which Clarke did not challenge. Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1). Pilkington then filed its motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It argues that, based on any reading of the allegations, Clarke's claim is time- barred under ERISA. Mot. to Dismiss at 3–10. The magistrate judge found that Clarke's claim is ti


CourtListener opinion 10220518

CourtListener opinion 10220518 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10220518 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 10220518


CourtListener opinion 10220518

QDRO: surance proceeds because ERISA preempts state law and she was the named beneficiary. (See ECF No. 24, PageID.332–334.) She also argues that there is no exemption to ERISA preemption because the divorce decree is not a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). (Id.) Periyasamy disagrees. (ECF No. 27, PageID.458–461.) As the R&R explained, ERISA is the federal statute that governs employee benefit welfare plans. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. Under ERISA, federal law must supersede all state laws which "relate to" an ERISA plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). And "[t]he designation of beneficiaries plainly r


CourtListener opinion 10220518

ERISA: Co., 95 F. App'x 132, 135 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Skousen v. Brighton High Sch., 305 F.3d 520, 526 (6th Cir. 2002)). III. Analysis In her summary judgment motion, Subramaniam argues that she is entitled to the decedent's life insurance proceeds because ERISA preempts state law and she was the named beneficiary. (See ECF No. 24, PageID.332–334.) She also argues that there is no exemption to ERISA preemption because the divorce decree is not a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). (Id.) Periyasamy disagrees. (ECF No. 27, PageID.458–461.) As the R&R explained, ERISA is the federal statute that go


CourtListener opinion 10220518

alternate payee: ir. 2005). To qualify as a QDRO, the divorce decree must meet the requirements in 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McDonald, 395 F. Supp. 3d 886, 890 (E.D. Mich. 2019). Among other requirements, the divorce decree must identify an alternate payee who would "receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). Both Periyasamy and Subramaniam agree that the divorce decree lacks the requisite information and is not a QDRO. ECF No. 20, PageID.266; ECF No. 21, PageID.295. Thus, the divorce decree is not exempt from pree


CourtListener opinion 10220518

domestic relations order: cMillan v. Parrott, 913 F.2d 310, 311 (6th Cir. 1990), on reh'g, 922 F.2d 841 (6th Cir. 1990). Generally, divorce decrees purporting to affect the benefits payable under an ERISA plan are not exempt, but a divorce decree that constitutes a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is exempt from ERISA's coverage. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1144(a), 1056(d)(3)(A); Unicare Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Craig, 157 F. App'x 787, 791 (6th Cir. 2005). To qualify as a QDRO, the divorce decree must meet the requirements in 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McDonald, 395 F. Supp. 3d 886, 890 (E.D. Mich. 2019). Among other r


CourtListener opinion 10227696

CourtListener opinion 10227696 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: Nos. 8. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10227696 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 10227696


CourtListener opinion 10227696

QDRO: ntsman would pay spousal maintenance, and also specifically provided that a portion of Mr. Huntsman's pension benefit in the Defendant 3M Employee Retirement Income Plan ("ERIP") would go to Mrs. Huntsman. To that end, the Washington County court issued a qualified domestic relations order under ERISA, directing Defendant 3M Plan Administrator1 regarding the division of the pension benefit. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(G)(ii) (procedures for qualification of domestic relations orders under ERISA). Mr. Huntsman began receiving his monthly pension benefit of $3,259.09 in 2007. Shortly thereafter, he moved the Washington County court to red


CourtListener opinion 10227696

retirement benefits: e state courts have already ruled on Mr. Huntsman's claim that the direct payments to Mrs. Huntsman violate state and federal wage and garnishment laws, see id. at *8 (rejecting as raised for the first time on appeal Mr. Huntsman's argument that use of his retirement account to satisfy maintenance obligations violates federal and state wage and garnishment laws), and have determined that the state court was within its authority to order the payment of Mrs. Huntsman's attorney's fees from the pension payments. See id. at *9 (affirming district court's attorney's fees award to Mrs. Huntsman). Preclusion principles bar Mr. Hu


CourtListener opinion 10227696

pension: an, dissolved their 31-year marriage. He has brought no fewer than 18 state-court appeals over the past 19 years, at least one of which is still pending. This lawsuit seeks to force his former employer, Defendant 3M Company, to stop giving a portion of his pension proceeds to his ex-wife. Indeed, Mr. Huntsman is a restricted filer in state court because of how often he has challenged the property divisions from the divorce. Huntsman v. Huntsman, No. A12- 2147, 2013 WL 5777908, at *8 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2013); see also Huntsman v. Huntsman, No. A19-40, 2019 WL 3293806, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. July 22, 2019) ("I


CourtListener opinion 10227696

ERISA: also specifically provided that a portion of Mr. Huntsman's pension benefit in the Defendant 3M Employee Retirement Income Plan ("ERIP") would go to Mrs. Huntsman. To that end, the Washington County court issued a qualified domestic relations order under ERISA, directing Defendant 3M Plan Administrator1 regarding the division of the pension benefit. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(G)(ii) (procedures for qualification of domestic relations orders under ERISA). Mr. Huntsman began receiving his monthly pension benefit of $3,259.09 in 2007. Shortly thereafter, he moved the Washington County court to reduce his spou


CourtListener opinion 10230230

CourtListener opinion 10230230 Extracted reporter citation: 588 F.3d 585. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10230230 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 10230230


CourtListener opinion 10230230

QDRO: ally provided to a defined contribution plan by the plan's ‘recordkeeper,'" and that "[n]early all recordkeepers in the marketplace offer the same range of services." Compl. ¶ 60. The Complaint identifies "managed account services, self-directed brokerage, Qualified Domestic Relations Order processing, and loan processing" as generic examples of these services. Id. Participant-disclosure forms filed by Defendants in support of their motion (and embraced by the pleadings, Matousek, 51 F.4th at 279) seem to show that the Plan's recordkeeper, Merrill Lynch, processed participants' investment directives, kept track of participant accounts and


CourtListener opinion 10230230

retirement benefits: just alleging that ‘costs are too high, or returns are too low.'" Matousek, 51 F.4th at 278 (quoting Davis, 960 F.3d at 484). II2 The Plan. The Plan is a defined contribution 401(k) and profit-sharing plan. In a defined contribution plan, "participants' retirement benefits are limited to the value of their own individual investment accounts, which is determined by the market performance of employee and employer contributions, less expenses." Tibble v. Edison Int'l, 575 U.S. 523, 525 (2015). Here, Plan participants may contribute to their individual accounts, and Taylor Corporation contributes via matching contributions


CourtListener opinion 10230230

ERISA: nts. Plaintiffs claim that their former employer, Taylor Corporation, its Board of Directors, Fiduciary Investment Committee, and every individual who served as a director or Fiduciary Investment Committee member during the relevant period,1 all violated ERISA by mismanaging the corporation's defined-contribution 401(k) and profit-sharing 1 Plaintiffs allege that the relevant "Class Period" starts February 14, 2016, and runs through the entry of any final judgment in this case. Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 1 n.2. plan (the "Plan"). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by authorizing t


CourtListener opinion 10230230

401(k): orporation, its Board of Directors, Fiduciary Investment Committee, and every individual who served as a director or Fiduciary Investment Committee member during the relevant period,1 all violated ERISA by mismanaging the corporation's defined-contribution 401(k) and profit-sharing 1 Plaintiffs allege that the relevant "Class Period" starts February 14, 2016, and runs through the entry of any final judgment in this case. Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 1 n.2. plan (the "Plan"). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by authorizing the Plan to pay unreasonably high recordkeeping fees, allowing


CourtListener opinion 10233414

CourtListener opinion 10233414 Extracted reporter citation: 863 F.2d 33. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10233414 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 10233414

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 10233414

QDRO: At retirement, Plaintiff elected the Single-Life Annuity/36- month Guarantee, Level Income Option pension, which provides a higher benefit until age 62 or 65 (the participant's choice,) at which point the benefit is reduced. At retirement, Plaintiff had two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") in favor of his two ex-spouses that the Trust was required to account for in determining the amount of the Plaintiff's monthly pension benefit. On July 20, 2011, then-Pension Coordinator Alicia Schonaerts-Difani, on behalf of the Trust, informed Plaintiff that he would be receiving a monthly pension benefit of $3,432.00 per month, which wo


CourtListener opinion 10233414

retirement benefits: s employer's erroneous written statement of what his early retirement benefits would be" an estoppel claim is "not actionable where the plaintiff had failed to establish that the estoppel would merely hold his employer to a plausible interpretation of the retirement plan, rather than a modification of the plan." Slice, 34 F.3d at 635 (citing Law v. Ernst & Young, 956 F.2d 364, 367–68 (1st Cir.1992)). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any plausible interpretation of the Trust that would allow it to pay him a benefit without the proper early retirement and QDRO adjustments. Rather, the Plan Document plainly sets out the ea


CourtListener opinion 10233414

pension: Univ. of Arkansas Bd. of Trustees, 863 F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2017). Defendants' facts are deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 4.01(E). The undisputed facts are as follows: Construction Laborers' Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis ("the Trust") is a Taft-Hartley employee benefit plan that is jointly administered by a Board of Trustees comprised of six union-appointed trustees and six employer-appointed trustees. Defendants Gary Elliott, Don Willey, David Gillick, and William L. Luth are four of the Trustees of the Trust. Jeanette Scopino ("Scopino") is


CourtListener opinion 10233414

ERISA: iott, Don Willey, David Gillick, and William L. Luth are four of the Trustees of the Trust. Jeanette Scopino ("Scopino") is the Pension Director of the Trust. The Trust is an employee benefit plan as defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., and is subject to that Act. The Trust is financed by contributions from employers who are signatory to collective bargaining agreements with Laborers Locals 42 and 110 and the Eastern Missouri Laborers' District Council. Signatory employers make contributions to the Trust for each hour of work performed by an emplo


CourtListener opinion 10233730

CourtListener opinion 10233730 Extracted reporter citation: 478 F.2d 719. Docket: number as a conjoined proceeding. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10233730 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 10233730


CourtListener opinion 10233730

QDRO: Agreement ("Agreement"), and the circuit court entered a final judgment of dissolution awarding Lorraine child support and a portion of Steven's pension benefits. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. On August 24, 2016, Defendants submitted a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to the divorce court, which assigned Lorraine 100% of Steven's lump sum benefit amount and monthly annuity benefits. Id. ¶ 19. The QDRO similarly awarded Lorraine 100% of the Braziles' marital home on Vienna Avenue (the "Vienna property"). Id. ¶ 20. In this case, the Government alleges that the state court judgment awarded Lorraine all the marital a


CourtListener opinion 10233730

pension: 25, 2013. Id. ¶ 16. On August 29, 2013, Defendants entered into a voluntary Property Settlement and Separation Agreement ("Agreement"), and the circuit court entered a final judgment of dissolution awarding Lorraine child support and a portion of Steven's pension benefits. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. On August 24, 2016, Defendants submitted a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to the divorce court, which assigned Lorraine 100% of Steven's lump sum benefit amount and monthly annuity benefits. Id. ¶ 19. The QDRO similarly awarded Lorraine 100% of the Braziles' marital home on Vienna Avenue (the "Vienna property"). Id.


CourtListener opinion 10241105

CourtListener opinion 10241105 Extracted reporter citation: 520 U.S. 833. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10241105 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 10241105


CourtListener opinion 10241105

QDRO: the state court entered 1 The underlying facts are not entirely clear from the documents filed in this case. The following attempts to glean the relevant facts from those documents. All page numbers are those generated by the Court's CM/ECF system. a 2004 Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO").2 (Id.) The QDRO directed how pension benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan would be distributed between the Hoots. (Id.) As of December 2003, the benefits at issue were valued at $25,092.00. (Id., p. 2.) On February 23, 2018, and with leave of the state court, Mr. Hoot filed an Amended Motion to Modify Amended Judgment of Dissolutio


CourtListener opinion 10241105

pension: DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION KELLY LYNN HOOT, ) ) Petitioner/Third-Party Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 19-03068-CV-S-BP ) RONALD EDWARD HOOT, ) ) Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN, ) ) Third-Party Defendant. ) ORDER AND OPINION DENYING THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF RONALD HOOT'S MOTION TO REMAND This lawsuit, originally filed in state court, was removed to federal court by Third-Party Defendant AT&T Pension Benefit Plan (the "Plan") on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Third-Party Plaintiff Ronald Hoot ("M


CourtListener opinion 10241105

ERISA: lan removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-6); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441. Although Mr. Hoot's motion does not expressly state a federal claim, the Notice of Removal argues that removal is proper because "ERISA completely preempts state law claims that concern the administration of a benefit plan governed by ERISA or seek recovery of benefits under an ERISA-governed Plan." (Doc. 1, p. 4 (citing cases)). On March 6, 2019, Mr. Hoot filed the pending motion to remand. (Doc. 8.) The motion does not argue a lack of federal question jurisdiction. Instead, Mr. Hoot


CourtListener opinion 10241105

domestic relations order: court entered 1 The underlying facts are not entirely clear from the documents filed in this case. The following attempts to glean the relevant facts from those documents. All page numbers are those generated by the Court's CM/ECF system. a 2004 Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO").2 (Id.) The QDRO directed how pension benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan would be distributed between the Hoots. (Id.) As of December 2003, the benefits at issue were valued at $25,092.00. (Id., p. 2.) On February 23, 2018, and with leave of the state court, Mr. Hoot filed an Amended Motion to Modify Amended Judgment of Dissolutio


CourtListener opinion 10260965

CourtListener opinion 10260965 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10260965 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 10260965


CourtListener opinion 10260965

QDRO: in 2010. (Id.) ERISA allows a participant's benefit under a pension plan to be assigned pursuant to a "domestic relations order" issued and approved by the family law court once the domestic relations order is determined, by the plan administrator, to be a qualified domestic relations order. Plaintiff's interest in the Plan was included in the equitable distribution of marital assets. (Id.) On February 26, 2013, the family court issued a domestic relations order dividing Plaintiff's pension benefit under the Plan between him and his then-wife, "the alternate payee". (Doc. No. 1, p. 5.) The domestic relations order indicated "[t]he Altern


CourtListener opinion 10260965

retirement benefits: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00512-FDW-SCR DAVID GASPER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) EIDP, INC., THE PENSION AND ) RETIREMENT PLAN, CORTEVA, INC., and ) THE BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE ) COMMITTEE, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. No. 7). This matter has been fully briefed, (Doc. Nos. 8, 11, 12), and is ripe for ruling. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. I. BAC


CourtListener opinion 10260965

pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00512-FDW-SCR DAVID GASPER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) EIDP, INC., THE PENSION AND ) RETIREMENT PLAN, CORTEVA, INC., and ) THE BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE ) COMMITTEE, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. No. 7). This matter has been fully briefed, (Doc. Nos. 8, 11, 12), and is ripe for ruling. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Moti


CourtListener opinion 10260965

ERISA: 11, 12), and is ripe for ruling. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed his Complaint with this Court on August 14, 2023, asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against Defendants EIDP, Inc., formerly known as E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; Corteva, Inc.; the Pension and Retirement Plan; and the Benefit Plans Administrative Committee. (Doc. No. 1.) A summary of the facts alleged in the Complaint is as follows: Plaintiff began his employment with EIDP on February 1, 1984, and began participating and accr


CourtListener opinion 10262507

CourtListener opinion 10262507 Extracted reporter citation: 521 U.S. 591. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10262507 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 10262507

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 10262507

QDRO: the Long-Term Savings Plan to the RSP. See Mutual of Omaha Long-Term Savings Plan, Form 5500 (2018), available at www.efast.dol.gov. 2 Capitalized terms in this Order will have the same meaning and definition as in the Settlement Agreement. subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or both of the Plans at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are all current and/or former employees of Defendants who were members of the Administration Committee, Investment Committee, and/or IMOC during the Class Period. Id. at § 2.9. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that De


CourtListener opinion 10262507

retirement benefits: n1 (together, the "Plans") against defendants Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company ("Mutual of Omaha"), its wholly-owned subsidiary United of Omaha Insurance Company ("United") and the individual "John Doe" defendants who are current or former members of the Retirement Plans Administration Committee ("Administration Committee"), the Retirement Plans Investment Committee ("Investment Committee") and/or the Investment Manager Oversight Committee ("IMOC") (collectively referred to as "Mutual" or "Defendants"). Mutual and the named plaintiffs have entered into the Settlement Agreement to resolve all claims asserted in this E


CourtListener opinion 10262507

pension: yet exist. Effective January 1, 2019, the Long-Term Savings Plan was split into two plans with the split determined on whether participants were active participants in or excluded from the Mutual of Omaha Retirement Income Plan ("MORIP"), a defined benefit pension plan. Participants eligible for the MORIP remained in the Long-Term Savings Plan while non-eligible participants were transferred to the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan ("RSP"), a new defined contribution plan established by Mutual. Effective January 16, 2019, Long-Term Savings Plan investments in the amount of $339,231,855 were transferre


CourtListener opinion 10262507

ERISA: plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a settlement and for certification of the proposed settlement class, Filing No. 101. This is a purported class action for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Tamera S. Lechner, Regina K. White and Steven D. Gifford (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "Named Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long-Term Savings Plan and the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan1 (the "Pl


CourtListener opinion 10262794

CourtListener opinion 10262794 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10262794 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 10262794


CourtListener opinion 10262794

ERISA: eptember 18, 2020, Filing No. 101-2, Ex. A (hereinafter, the "Settlement Agreement") and on the plaintiffs' application for an award of attorney fees, Filing No. 105. This is an action for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and personal jurisdiction over all parties to the action, including all members of the settlement Class. The Court held a fairness hearing on the motion on February 1, 2021. Class counsel and counsel for the defendants appeared at the hearing by videoconferenc


CourtListener opinion 10262794

401(k): IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA TAMERA S. LECHNER, Individually, on behalf of the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long- Term Savings Plan and on behalf of a class 8:18CV22 of all those similarly situated; REGINA K. WHITE, Individually, on behalf of the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long-Term Savings Plan and on behalf of a class of all those similarly situated; and STEVEN D. GIFFORD, Individually, on behalf of the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long-Term Savings Plan and FINA


CourtListener opinion 10262794

alternate payee: gs Plans and the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Retirement Savings Plans (the "Plans") at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in one or both of the Plans at any time during the Class Period, and/or Alternate Payee, in the case of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or both of the Plans at any time during the Class period. Excluded from this Class are all current and/or former employees of Defendants who were members of the Administration Committee, Investment Committee, and IMOC during the Class Period. See Fili


CourtListener opinion 10262794

domestic relations order: (the "Plans") at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in one or both of the Plans at any time during the Class Period, and/or Alternate Payee, in the case of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or both of the Plans at any time during the Class period. Excluded from this Class are all current and/or former employees of Defendants who were members of the Administration Committee, Investment Committee, and IMOC during the Class Period. See Filing No. 102, Memorandum and Order. In accordance with the Court's orders,


CourtListener opinion 10267305

CourtListener opinion 10267305 Extracted reporter citation: 424 U.S. 800. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10267305 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 10267305


CourtListener opinion 10267305

QDRO: ederal Rights): It is not clear that the state courts are adequate because the Probate Court likely does not have jurisdiction over the life insurance policies, which are non-probate assets, and ERISA preempts the MSA unless it meets the definition of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (""ODRO"), which it does not. (/d. at 11-12.) This factor weighs against abstention. (/d. at 12.) Factor 7 (Forum Shopping): The federal action was filed first, and Cari and William have ignored the deadlines to answer, instead "furiously filing motions in state court in an effort to manufacture" parallel proceedings. (/d.) Abstention would encourag


CourtListener opinion 10267305

ERISA: plan was maintained by one of the Decedent's former employers, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"), KPMG LLP, and Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y"). (Id. Jf 9, 14, 22.) The KPMG and PwC plans are purportedly governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). (Ud. [ff 16, 24; Mem. in Support of Mot. to Stay 2, ECF No. 21-1.) On June 7, 2018, the designated beneficiary of each plan was changed to Dena, the Decedent's wife. (MetLife's Am. Compl. {J 2, 12, 20, 28.) Before that, the beneficiary of the PwC plan was William, the Decedent's brother; the beneficiary of the KPMG plan was Cari, the Decedent's ex-wif


CourtListener opinion 10267305

domestic relations order: hts): It is not clear that the state courts are adequate because the Probate Court likely does not have jurisdiction over the life insurance policies, which are non-probate assets, and ERISA preempts the MSA unless it meets the definition of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (""ODRO"), which it does not. (/d. at 11-12.) This factor weighs against abstention. (/d. at 12.) Factor 7 (Forum Shopping): The federal action was filed first, and Cari and William have ignored the deadlines to answer, instead "furiously filing motions in state court in an effort to manufacture" parallel proceedings. (/d.) Abstention would encourag


CourtListener opinion 10279245

CourtListener opinion 10279245 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 8 in this regard. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10279245 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 10279245


CourtListener opinion 10279245

pension: n file a motion that explains why there is good cause to limit access to certain specific documents." Trading Techs., Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc., No. 10 C 715, 2011 WL 1547769, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 22, 2011); see also Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Mississippi Warehouse Corp., 853 F. Supp. 1053, 1060 (N.D. Ill. 1994) ("[I]t would be unusual if one co-defendant . . . could view the documents that the other co-defendant . . . could not."). "Limiting access by [a defendant] to documents designated as confidential by [another party] . . . is unnecessary in light of the safeguards" a protective


CourtListener opinion 10279245

domestic relations order: rms NMLA should use to find them, no later than Friday, December 6, 2019. g. With respect to Request No. 8, Plaintiff also asks the Court to compel NMLA to produce the client file regarding the client for whom Plaintiff was instructed to draft a qualified domestic relations order, the execution of which allegedly contributed to NMLA's decision to discharge Plaintiff. NMLA, in turn, asks the Court to direct it how to protect the client's confidentiality rights in responding to Request No. 8 in this regard. The Court directs NMLA to produce Plaintiff's timesheets regarding the client file at issue. In addition, the Court directs


CourtListener opinion 10286232

CourtListener opinion 10286232 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McFarland. Extracted reporter citation: 71 S.W.3d 529. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10286232 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 10286232

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 10286232

QDRO: defined-contribution plan similar to a 401(k) that is available to civil-service employees who want to supplement their retirement-annuity benefits under . . . FERS." Randall B. Wilhite et al., O'CONNOR'S TEX. FAM. LAW HANDBOOK § 10.1 (2024) (quoting Shulman, QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER HANDBOOK ch. 2-A, § 30.10 (3d. ed. 2006 & Supp. 2017)). -2- 04-22-00362-CV Paso 2015, no pet.) (citing Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. 1981)). We review a trial court's division of marital property for an abuse of discretion. Murff, 615 S.W.2d at 698. A trial court "enjoys wide latitude in dividing the marital estate," and we "presume that t


CourtListener opinion 10286232

retirement benefits: value of the home at the time of trial was $300,000. According to Steve, the balance on the mortgage was $219,187.60, which resulted in $80,000 of equity in the home. Alma testified that the assessed value of the home was $264,110. Alma testified she had a retirement account in the amount of $6,168.78. She testified the value of the assets of the marital estate was $192,808.14, which included equity in the house, equity in the vehicles, and the value of the TSP and Alma's retirement account. She testified the total debts of the marital estate were $39,717.26. Steve testified he completed high school and three years of coll


CourtListener opinion 10286232

401(k): 7) the size of the separate estates; (8) the nature of the property; and (9) the disparity of income or earning capacity. Kaftousian v. Rezaeipanah, 511 S.W.3d 618, 621-22 (Tex. App.—El 1 "The Thrift Savings Plan is a defined-contribution plan similar to a 401(k) that is available to civil-service employees who want to supplement their retirement-annuity benefits under . . . FERS." Randall B. Wilhite et al., O'CONNOR'S TEX. FAM. LAW HANDBOOK § 10.1 (2024) (quoting Shulman, QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER HANDBOOK ch. 2-A, § 30.10 (3d. ed. 2006 & Supp. 2017)). -2- 04-22-00362-CV Paso 2015, no pet.) (citing Mur


CourtListener opinion 10286232

domestic relations order: ntribution plan similar to a 401(k) that is available to civil-service employees who want to supplement their retirement-annuity benefits under . . . FERS." Randall B. Wilhite et al., O'CONNOR'S TEX. FAM. LAW HANDBOOK § 10.1 (2024) (quoting Shulman, QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER HANDBOOK ch. 2-A, § 30.10 (3d. ed. 2006 & Supp. 2017)). -2- 04-22-00362-CV Paso 2015, no pet.) (citing Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. 1981)). We review a trial court's division of marital property for an abuse of discretion. Murff, 615 S.W.2d at 698. A trial court "enjoys wide latitude in dividing the marital estate," and we "presume that t


CourtListener opinion 10287389

CourtListener opinion 10287389 Extracted reporter citation: 559 F.2d 557. Docket: 7 19 Defendant. 20 Before the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10287389 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 10287389


CourtListener opinion 10287389

QDRO: e to the Internal Revenue Service while he 24 was actually married, presumably for additional financial gain. 25 14. After paying Dunlap these pension benefits for nearly ten years, the Plan was 26 presented with a request for information regarding a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 27 1 ("QDRO"). It was then that the Plan realized that Dunlap was not single, but married, and had 2 been married since 1998, despite the fraudulent statements on his pension application. 3 15. Due to fraudulent information included on his application, the Plan paid Dunlap an 4 amount to which Dunlap was not entitled. 5 16. The Plan's terms state that


CourtListener opinion 10287389

pension: s.com 6 Email: bcloveland@bhfs.com 7 Email: chumes@bhfs.com 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Case No. 2:18-cv-02163-JAD-VCF 12 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND LABORERS JOINT PENSION TRUST 13 FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA; THE 14 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND Order Granting Motion for Default Judgment LABORERS JOINT PENSION TRUST and Entering Final Judgment 15 FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA, [AMENDED PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiffs, GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT 16 JUDGMENT vs. 17 18 REGINALD DUNLAP, an individual, ECF No. 7 19 Defendant. 20 Before t


CourtListener opinion 10287389

ERISA: Pension Trust for Southern Nevada and the Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension 4 Trust for Southern Nevada. 5 2. The Board of Trustees is made up of fiduciaries of the Plan for purposes of the 6 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). 7 3. The Plan is an employee benefit plan as defined in ERISA. 8 4. The Defendant Reginald Dunlap is an individual who is a resident of the State of 9 Nevada. 10 5. Dunlap was a Participant in the Plan accruing pension benefits to his account. 11 6. Dunlap applied for payment of pension benefits from the Plan in December 2007. 12 7. The Plan offers


CourtListener opinion 10287389

401(k): Trust Funds will suffer prejudice if 15 default judgment is not entered because they "‘will likely be without other recourse for recovery' 16 if default judgment is not entered in their favor." Tr. of the Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers 17 Local 13 Defined Contribution Pension Trust for S. Nev. v. Tile Concepts, Inc., No. 2:16-cv- 18 01067-GMN-GWF, 2016 WL 8077987 (D. Nev. Dec. 7, 2016) (quoting Liberty Ins. 19 Underwriters, Inc. v. Scudier, 53 F. Supp. 3d 1308, 1318 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013)). Dunlap 20 fraudulently obtained pension benefits contradictory to the Plan's terms and ERISA. Dunlap has 21 refused to pa


CourtListener opinion 10288978

CourtListener opinion 10288978 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 317. Docket: 1. The interpleader complaint asks the 14. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10288978 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 10288978


CourtListener opinion 10288978

QDRO: C Corp. v. Holliday, 17 498 U.S. 52, 58–59 (1990) (ERISA preempting Pennsylvania's subrogation law related to an 18 ERISA-governed insurance plan), Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1062 (ERISA 19 preempting a Nevada constructive trust intended to avoid a qualified domestic relations order 20 enforceable under ERISA), with Travelers, 514 U.S. at 661 (ERISA did not preempt New York 21 statute requiring hospitals to collect surcharges from commercial insurers because the statute 22 shared too tenuous a relationship to ERISA-governed plans), Dishman, 269 F.3d at 983 (ERISA 23 did not preempt California tort for unreasonably intrusive investi


CourtListener opinion 10288978

retirement benefits: o 14 which Roy Lohrengel responded (ECF No. 45), and Pompa replied (ECF No. 46). In this 15 interpleader action, Dish Network asks the Court to determine whether Debra Pompa or Roy 16 Lohrengel is entitled to non-party Larry Lohrengel's Dish Network 401(k) retirement account. 17 Larry Lohrengel passed away on July 25, 2012. Before Larry's death, Debra Pompa became 18 beneficiary to Larry's Dish Network retirement account, which was governed by the Employee 19 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As the sole beneficiary, Pompa believed 20 herself to be entitled to 100% of the plan proceeds. Larry's father, and i


CourtListener opinion 10288978

ERISA: k 401(k) retirement account. 17 Larry Lohrengel passed away on July 25, 2012. Before Larry's death, Debra Pompa became 18 beneficiary to Larry's Dish Network retirement account, which was governed by the Employee 19 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As the sole beneficiary, Pompa believed 20 herself to be entitled to 100% of the plan proceeds. Larry's father, and interpleaded defendant 21 Roy Lohrengel, claims that Pompa's beneficiary designation is void under NRS § 155.097 22 because Pompa qualified as Larry's caregiver and was therefore not entitled to become his 23 beneficiary. Roy also claim


CourtListener opinion 10288978

401(k): 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, as Plan Case No. 2:17-cv-1601-KJD-CWH Administrator and on behalf of DISH 8 NETWORK CORPORATION 401(K) PLAN, ORDER 9 Plaintiff in Interpleader, 10 v. 11 DEBRA POMPA and ROY LOHRENGEL, 12 Defendants/Crossclaimants in Interpleader. 13 Before the Court is Debra Jean Pompa's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) to 14 which Roy Lohrengel responded (ECF No. 45), and Pompa replied (ECF No. 46). In this 15 interpleader action, Dish Network asks the C


CourtListener opinion 10316845

CourtListener opinion 10316845 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: number 19-CV- 3859. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10316845 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 10316845

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 10316845

domestic relations order: matrimonial in nature should abstain from exercising jurisdiction so long as there is no obstacle to their full and fair determination in state courts."); Sobel v. Prudenti, 25 F. Supp. 3d 340, 354-55 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("Plaintiff asks the Court to ‘undo' the domestic relations orders issued by the state courts, . . . However, under the domestic relations exception, this Court cannot and will not provide the relief Plaintiff seeks."). And "[w]hile the domestic relation exception itself is narrow, it applies generally to issues relating to the custody of minors." Mitchell-Angel, No. 95-7937, at *2 (internal citations omitted) (citing


CourtListener opinion 10318275

CourtListener opinion 10318275 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: and note service on the docket. Plaintiff has conse. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10318275 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 10318275


CourtListener opinion 10318275

domestic relations order: atrimonial in nature should abstain from exercising jurisdiction so long as there is no obstacle to their full and fair determination in state courts."); Sobel v. Prudenti, 25 F. Supp. 3d 340, 354-55 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("Plaintiff asks the Court to ‘undo' the domestic relations orders issued by the state courts, . . . However, under the domestic relations exception, this Court cannot and will not provide the relief Plaintiff seeks."). And "[w]hile the domestic relation exception itself is narrow, it applies generally to issues relating to the custody of minors." Mitchell-Angel, No. 95-7937, at *2 (internal citations omitted) (citin


CourtListener opinion 10319152

CourtListener opinion 10319152 Extracted reporter citation: 927 F.3d 81. Docket: Number 29. Dated: December 5. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10319152 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 10319152

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 10319152

QDRO: udgment of Divorce, dated March 13, 2009, provided that the Plan at issue "shall be divided equally, fifty (50%) percent each between the parties" and that "[t]he parties shall facilitate such QDROs as required to accomplish the division of" the assets. A QDRO is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under 29 U.S.C. § 1056(3)(B)(i).1 A QDRO was issued on December 23, 2015, by the Bronx County Supreme Court, which "assigns to the Alternate Payee [Plaintiff] an amount equal to FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of the Participant's [Defendant Adelsberg's] vested accrued benefit under the Plan as of December 7, 2006." On the s


CourtListener opinion 10319152

pension: STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: nnn nnn nena nnn oon nn nnn no nnn ------- XK DATE FILED:_12/5/2019 KENNETH AMRON, : Plaintiff, : : 18 Civ. 11336 (LGS) -against- : : OPINION AND ORDER YARDAIN INC. PENSION PLAN, et al., : Defendants. : LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: Plaintiff Kenneth Amron brings this action against Defendants Yardain Inc. Pension Plan (the "Plan"), Yardain Inc. (the "Company"') and Sandra Adelsberg, alleging breach of contract and violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et s


CourtListener opinion 10319152

ERISA: : Plaintiff Kenneth Amron brings this action against Defendants Yardain Inc. Pension Plan (the "Plan"), Yardain Inc. (the "Company"') and Sandra Adelsberg, alleging breach of contract and violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Defendants move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (the "Complaint') pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the Complaint, documents appended to or referenced in the Complaint, and ar


CourtListener opinion 10319152

401(k): hat [a] Marital Right to a benefit accrued under the Plan ceases" is December 7, 2006, when Defendant Adelsberg filed for divorce. As noted above, the Plan is a defined benefit plan in which Defendant Adelsberg was fully vested by December 2006, and not a defined contribution plan where the benefit grows as vested after 6 years of service). If Defendant Adelsberg was not fully vested in the Plan in 2006, pursuant to the QDRO Plaintiff would not share in any increase in value due to Defendant Adelsberg's subsequent years of benefit service. additional amounts are contributed each year of employment. Therefore, no reduction,


CourtListener opinion 10321610

CourtListener opinion 10321610 Extracted case name: LLC v. GKO. Extracted reporter citation: 861 F. Supp. 2d 262. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10321610 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 10321610


CourtListener opinion 10321610

QDRO: use of Maxim Waldbaum, contends that she has marital property rights to his Plan account, for which she is the designated beneficiary. Christine Waldbaum, Mr. Waldbaum's former spouse, contends that his Plan account has been assigned to her pursuant to a "qualified domestic relations order" issued by a New Jersey state court. This Court previously denied Ren's motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. Ren has moved for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 52) Christine Waldbaum has moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 59) For the reasons set forth below, Ren's motion for reconsideration will be denied, and Christine Waldbaum's motion fo


CourtListener opinion 10321610

ERISA: SHARING PLAN and MAXIM WALDBAUM, Defendants. PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.: The Plan Administrator of the Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan brings this interpleader action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., to resolve competing claims to a 401(k) account. Maxim Waldbaum is a participant in the Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the "Plan"). Defendant Yunling Ren, the current spouse of Maxim Waldbaum, contends that she has marital property rights to his Plan account, for which she is the designated beneficiary.


CourtListener opinion 10321610

401(k): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EATON & VAN WINKLE, LLP, as the Plan Administrator of the EATON & VAN WINKLE LLP 401(k) PROFIT SHARING ORDER PLAN, Plaintiff, 17 Civ. 6118 (PGG) -against- YUNLING REN and CHRISTINE WALDBAUM, Defendants. YUNLING REN, Plaintiff, -against- 17 Civ. 1535 (PGG) THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF EATON & VAN WINKLE LLP 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN and MAXIM WALDBAUM, Defendants. PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.: The Plan Administrator of the


CourtListener opinion 10321610

alternate payee: tment of NJ Superior Court's Order as [a] QDRO." (Id.) In the March 26, 2019 Order, this Court held that, "pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(G)-Gi), the New Jersey Superior Court was authorized to award Mr. Waldbaum's 401(k) Plan account to an alternate payee such as Defendant Waldbaum." (March 26, 2019 Order (Dkt. No. 49) at 14) As discussed above, Nicholls demonstrates that a "qualified domestic relations order" can affect a third-party's unmatured interest in a 401(k) account. Ren's arguments to the contrary were rejected in the March 26, 2019 Order. (Id. at 14, 18) Ren also complains that this Court "va


CourtListener opinion 10321613

CourtListener opinion 10321613 Extracted case name: LLC v. GKO. Extracted reporter citation: 861 F. Supp. 2d 262. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10321613 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 10321613


CourtListener opinion 10321839

CourtListener opinion 10321839 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 317. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10321839 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 10321839


CourtListener opinion 10321839

QDRO: Fort Dearborn Life Ins. Co. v. Uebler-Otoka, No. 07CV771C, 2010 WL 11549445, at *2–3 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2010) (concluding that an automatic order in a divorce action where a party died prior to the entry of a final judgment of divorce did not constitute a qualified domestic relations order because it became moot upon the decedent's death). The Court must next consider whether Mary-Anne had the authority to make beneficiary designation changes. As indicated above, on February 26, 2016, Mary-Anne was appointed power of attorney for Daniel. Following Daniel's stroke, for several weeks, Mary-Anne communicated with Bloomberg regarding issue


CourtListener opinion 10321839

pension: d cause of action, seeking a declaratory judgment that the beneficiary designation are null and void based on Mary-Anne's lack of authority is dismissed. according to ordinary principles of contract law." Latronica v. Local 1430 Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Pension Fund, No. 17-CV-00550 (NSR), 2019 WL 3997989, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2019) (quoting CNH Indus. N.V. v. Reese, 138 S. Ct. 761, 763 (2018)). Accordingly, the Court must first determine whether the language of the Plan Document and Certificate of Insurance is ambiguous such that "it is capable of more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a reaso