CourtListener opinion 3192113

pension: rement System, was formerly married to interested party Angela M. Batorsky, who is also a retired state employee and Retirement System member. Their 2002 judgment of divorce and incorporated stipulations of settlement required petitioner to pay a share of his pension benefits to Batorsky calculated according to the formula set forth in Majauskas v Majauskas (61 NY2d 481 [1984]). In 2005, Supreme Court (Ceresia Jr., J.) signed a domestic relations order (hereinafter the 2005 order) that, as relevant here, directed petitioner to select Batorsky as alternate payee upon his retirement and to elect a specified retirement opt


CourtListener opinion 3192113

alternate payee: culated according to the formula set forth in Majauskas v Majauskas (61 NY2d 481 [1984]). In 2005, Supreme Court (Ceresia Jr., J.) signed a domestic relations order (hereinafter the 2005 order) that, as relevant here, directed petitioner to select Batorsky as alternate payee upon his retirement and to elect a specified retirement option by which, following his death, she would receive a benefit calculated according to the Majauskas formula.1 The Retirement System subsequently calculated the survivorship benefits in accord with this plan. Petitioner thereafter sought postjudgment relief relative to the distribution of his pens


CourtListener opinion 3192113

domestic relations order: e and incorporated stipulations of settlement required petitioner to pay a share of his pension benefits to Batorsky calculated according to the formula set forth in Majauskas v Majauskas (61 NY2d 481 [1984]). In 2005, Supreme Court (Ceresia Jr., J.) signed a domestic relations order (hereinafter the 2005 order) that, as relevant here, directed petitioner to select Batorsky as alternate payee upon his retirement and to elect a specified retirement option by which, following his death, she would receive a benefit calculated according to the Majauskas formula.1 The Retirement System subsequently calculated the survivorship benefits in acc


CourtListener opinion 3192275

CourtListener opinion 3192275 Extracted reporter citation: 858 N.W.2d 865. Docket: A-15-507. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3192275 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 3192275

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 3192275

QDRO: ion, (3) the award of alimony, (4) failing to include Kayla's Edward Jones retirement account ending in 617 in its property division calculation as a marital asset, and (5) ordering Todd to pay a property equalization payment "forthwith" rather than through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. IV. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Child custody and visitation determinations are matters initially entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and although reviewed de novo on the record, the trial court's determination will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98, 858 N.W.2d 865 (2015). An appellate court also review


CourtListener opinion 3192275

retirement benefits: of $1,500 per month for a term of 5 years, based on the circumstances of the parties, and the length of their marriage. Todd's position was that there should be no award of alimony. -5- (c) Evidence Regarding Disputed Property Kayla owns four Edward Jones retirement accounts, three of which the parties agreed are marital property. However, Kayla claimed that the account ending in 617 was a nonmarital asset because it had always been solely in her name; it was initially funded by her parents in 1987, long before the marriage; and she had never made any contributions to this account. The record shows that Kayla's parents bought


CourtListener opinion 3192275

pension: . Bock v. Dalbey, 283 Neb. 994, 815 N.W.2d 530 (2012). A QDRO, generally speaking, is simply an enforcement device of the decree of dissolution. Blaine v. Blaine, 275 Neb. 87, 92, 744 N.W.2d 444, 448 (2008). A QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. Thompson v. Thompson, 18 Neb. App. 478, 785 N.W.2d 159 (2010). Stated another way, a QDRO provides a means of an alternate payee, in this case a former spouse, to receive payments from another's retirement account. Black's Law Dictionary 1360 (9th ed. 2011). - 13 - In the present case, the court did no


CourtListener opinion 3192275

alternate payee: , 92, 744 N.W.2d 444, 448 (2008). A QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. Thompson v. Thompson, 18 Neb. App. 478, 785 N.W.2d 159 (2010). Stated another way, a QDRO provides a means of an alternate payee, in this case a former spouse, to receive payments from another's retirement account. Black's Law Dictionary 1360 (9th ed. 2011). - 13 - In the present case, the court did not divide the retirement accounts; rather it awarded each party his or her own accounts, divided the remaining assets and debts, and then awarded Kayla an equalization judgment. Howev


CourtListener opinion 3193693

CourtListener opinion 3193693 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Dixon. Extracted reporter citation: 464 S.W.3d 801. Docket: sheet in Cause No. 27. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3193693 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 3193693


CourtListener opinion 3193693

QDRO: AM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CV35,624, HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Carroll Ned McElwrath appeals from the trial court's judgment denying his petition for bill of review following the trial court's issuance of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning division of Ned's federal civil service retirement benefits.1 Ned challenged the order on the due process ground that he had not been served with citation pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.102(c). For the reasons that follow we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case to the tria


CourtListener opinion 3193693

retirement benefits: MEMORANDUM OPINION Carroll Ned McElwrath appeals from the trial court's judgment denying his petition for bill of review following the trial court's issuance of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning division of Ned's federal civil service retirement benefits.1 Ned challenged the order on the due process ground that he had not been served with citation pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.102(c). For the reasons that follow we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case to the trial court for trial on the merits. BACKGROUND Ned and Valerie were divorced


CourtListener opinion 3193693

domestic relations order: 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CV35,624, HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Carroll Ned McElwrath appeals from the trial court's judgment denying his petition for bill of review following the trial court's issuance of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concerning division of Ned's federal civil service retirement benefits.1 Ned challenged the order on the due process ground that he had not been served with citation pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.102(c). For the reasons that follow we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case to the tria


CourtListener opinion 3195296

CourtListener opinion 3195296 Extracted case name: RICHARD JERONIMUS v. ZOILA MARIA JERONIMUS. Extracted reporter citation: 211 S.W.3d 216. Docket: M2014-02207-COA-R3-CV –. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3195296 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 3195296


CourtListener opinion 3195296

QDRO: hat the court erred in not ordering Husband to formulate and sign the letter of instruction transferring assets from his IRA account; in not awarding a higher amount in transitional alimony; in failing to designate a party to be responsible for processing the qualified domestic relation orders for two retirement accounts; and in granting the divorce based on Husband‟s Amended Complaint for divorce. Wife asks this court to impose restrictions on Husband‟s ability to initiate future litigation. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; Case Remanded RICHARD H. DI


CourtListener opinion 3195296

retirement benefits: to formulate and sign the letter of instruction transferring assets from his IRA account; in not awarding a higher amount in transitional alimony; in failing to designate a party to be responsible for processing the qualified domestic relation orders for two retirement accounts; and in granting the divorce based on Husband‟s Amended Complaint for divorce. Wife asks this court to impose restrictions on Husband‟s ability to initiate future litigation. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; Case Remanded RICHARD H. DINKINS, J., delivered the opi


CourtListener opinion 3195296

pension: rice account in the amount of $30,000 awarded to Wife; (5) Skyline account valued at $15,000 to Wife; (6) Ricoh 401k valued at $29,000 to Wife; (7) Ricondo 401k valued at $7,000 to Husband; (8) Ricondo IRA valued at $3,500 to Wife; (9) Northwest Airlines pension plan, divided equally; (10) 2006 F-150, valued at $9,000 to Wife; (11) 2007 Ford Expedition valued at $7,500 to Husband; (12) 2008 Hummer valued at $7,500 to Wife;8 (13) Northwest Airlines Pension Plan, which the court divided equally; the court assigned no value to this asset. The court also included six personal bank accounts of nominal value in the


CourtListener opinion 3195296

401(k): actors in Tenn. Code Ann. ' 36-4-121(c). Kinard, 986 S.W.2d at 230. The trial court identified the marital assets and divided them as follows: (1) $80,000 on deposit with the court clerk, as proceeds of sale of real estate, divided equally; (2) Fidelity 401k with a balance of $56,000 and encumbered by a loan of $10,000 to Wife; 10 (3) Schwab 401k account in the amount of $98,000 awarded to Husband; (4) T-Rowe Price account in the amount of $30,000 awarded to Wife; (5) Skyline account valued at $15,000 to Wife; (6) Ricoh 401k valued at $29,000 to Wife; (7) Ricondo 401k valued at $7,000 to Husband; (8) Ri


CourtListener opinion 3195360

CourtListener opinion 3195360 Extracted reporter citation: 487 U.S. 312. Docket: COA15-185. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3195360 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 3195360


CourtListener opinion 3195360

QDRO: am L. Sitton, Jr., Attorney at Law, by William L. Sitton, Jr.; and Brendle Law Firm, PLLC, by Andrew S. Brendle, for defendant. GEER, Judge. Plaintiff Craig Steven Smith appeals from the trial court's equitable distribution judgment, three corresponding qualified domestic relations orders, and a permanent child support and custody order. Plaintiff primarily argues on appeal that the trial court erred by requiring him to pay his children's private school tuition without finding that his children have a reasonable need for private schooling that a public school education cannot provide. Because the parties' combined yearly income SMITH V


CourtListener opinion 3195360

retirement benefits: ospective child support, and an unequal distribution of the marital property in her favor. The trial court entered a final equitable distribution pretrial order on 1 June 2010. In this order, the parties stipulated to classifying three of plaintiff's PwC retirement accounts -- a 401(k) plan, a "Keough" plan, and a "RBAP" plan -- as marital property until the date of separation and any post-separation accruals in those accounts as plaintiff's separate property. Also, on 23 December 2010, the parties -4- SMITH V. SMITH Opinion of the Court stipulated in writing that they would equally divide the net equity received from


CourtListener opinion 3195360

pension: o withdraw it immediately, she also admitted that she received an initial distribution of $30,000.00 from her father's 401(k), and would continue receiving yearly distributions from this account, as well as "approximately $700.00 a month" from her mother's pension, which passed to her - 27 - SMITH V. SMITH Opinion of the Court through her father's estate. Despite this evidence, the trial court's findings of fact regarding permanent child support erroneously lack any mention of these assets other than a vague allusion to her "non-retirement assets and accounts" as a partial impetus for reducing the monthly aw


CourtListener opinion 3195360

401(k): and an unequal distribution of the marital property in her favor. The trial court entered a final equitable distribution pretrial order on 1 June 2010. In this order, the parties stipulated to classifying three of plaintiff's PwC retirement accounts -- a 401(k) plan, a "Keough" plan, and a "RBAP" plan -- as marital property until the date of separation and any post-separation accruals in those accounts as plaintiff's separate property. Also, on 23 December 2010, the parties -4- SMITH V. SMITH Opinion of the Court stipulated in writing that they would equally divide the net equity received from the sale of


CourtListener opinion 3196650

CourtListener opinion 3196650 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1039 WDA 2015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3196650 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 3196650

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 3196650

QDRO: MAN, P.J., SHOGAN, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED APRIL 21, 2016 Gary L. Folmar ("Husband") appeals from the June 8, 2015 order granting Linda M. Folmar's ("Wife") petition for clarification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO").1 Wife seeks to dismiss the appeal as untimely and also requests attorney's fees incident to litigating this appeal. For the reasons that follow, we deny Wife's motions to dismiss and for counsel fees, and we affirm the trial court's order. ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 "A


CourtListener opinion 3196650

retirement benefits: arried on November 19, 1977, and Husband filed for divorce on June 14, 2012. On June 27, 2014, Husband and Wife executed a marital settlement agreement which included a paragraph that the parties would equally divide the amounts paid into Husband's 401(k) retirement account provided by his employer, Your Building Centers ("YBC"). Marriage Settlement Agreement, 6/27/14, at unnumbered 5, ¶ D. The agreement specified that the parties agreed "to execute a [QDRO] evidencing the equal division of this asset, which QDRO will be approved by the Court and presented to Standard Insurance Company2 upon completion." Id. On July 2,


CourtListener opinion 3196650

pension: __________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 "A QDRO . . . is a domestic relations order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under the [pension] plan." Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382, 395 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Berrington v. Berrington, 633 A.2d 589, 591 n.3 (Pa. 1993)). J-S17023-16 The record reflects that Husband and Wife were married on November 19, 1977, and Husband filed for divorce on June 14, 2012. On June 27, 2014, Husband and Wife executed a marital settlement agreement


CourtListener opinion 3196650

401(k): were married on November 19, 1977, and Husband filed for divorce on June 14, 2012. On June 27, 2014, Husband and Wife executed a marital settlement agreement which included a paragraph that the parties would equally divide the amounts paid into Husband's 401(k) retirement account provided by his employer, Your Building Centers ("YBC"). Marriage Settlement Agreement, 6/27/14, at unnumbered 5, ¶ D. The agreement specified that the parties agreed "to execute a [QDRO] evidencing the equal division of this asset, which QDRO will be approved by the Court and presented to Standard Insurance Company2 upon completion.


CourtListener opinion 3197762

CourtListener opinion 3197762 Extracted case name: BACKUS v. BACKUS. Docket: 1 CA-CV 14-0649 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3197762 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 3197762


CourtListener opinion 3197762

QDRO: therefore, it is at this time ordered that this spousal maintenance award shall NOT be modifiable for any reason. The decree also awarded each party various other property and one-half of the Boeing and Orange County pensions pursuant to the "pre-approved" Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") filed with the court. The Orange County pension payments terminate upon Husband's death, but 1 There is no explanation in the record or appellate briefs regarding the remaining 20 percent of Husband's Social Security benefits. 3 BACKUS v. BACKUS Decision of the Court upon Wife's death become payable to her estate. Wife's payments from the B


CourtListener opinion 3197762

retirement benefits: ng 9.38 percent and Husband receiving 90.62 percent; and (2) Husband's Social Security 2 BACKUS v. BACKUS Decision of the Court benefits, with Wife receiving 30 percent and Husband receiving 50 percent.1 The Agreement also stated: The division of these retirement accounts and assets is for the purpose of providing Wife with a spousal maintenance/ property equalization payment in the sum of $3,300 per month. The division of the assets is not in addition to the spousal maintenance/equalization payment. ¶3 The parties then presented the family court with a proposed consent decree that referred to the Agreement. The consen


CourtListener opinion 3197762

pension: ents being required thereafter: Wife's death; Husband's death; Wife's remarriage or cohabitation. The Agreement divided Husband's Boeing and Orange County pensions equally between the two spouses. It also set forth an unequal division of (1) Husband's USMC pension, with Wife receiving 9.38 percent and Husband receiving 90.62 percent; and (2) Husband's Social Security 2 BACKUS v. BACKUS Decision of the Court benefits, with Wife receiving 30 percent and Husband receiving 50 percent.1 The Agreement also stated: The division of these retirement accounts and assets is for the purpose of providing Wife with a spous


CourtListener opinion 3197762

domestic relations order: it is at this time ordered that this spousal maintenance award shall NOT be modifiable for any reason. The decree also awarded each party various other property and one-half of the Boeing and Orange County pensions pursuant to the "pre-approved" Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") filed with the court. The Orange County pension payments terminate upon Husband's death, but 1 There is no explanation in the record or appellate briefs regarding the remaining 20 percent of Husband's Social Security benefits. 3 BACKUS v. BACKUS Decision of the Court upon Wife's death become payable to her estate. Wife's payments from the B


CourtListener opinion 3198279

CourtListener opinion 3198279 Extracted reporter citation: 90 S.W.3d 10. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3198279 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 3198279


CourtListener opinion 3198279

QDRO: o each have retirement accounts with their current employer and [appellee] has a retirement account with her former employer, El Dorado School District. The parties' [sic] are awarded one-half (1/2) of each others [sic] retirement accounts to be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order as of the date of the hearing on the 5th day of December, 2012. Appellant's attorney and appellee's attorney agreed and consented to the written decree on behalf of their clients, evidenced by their signatures on the decree. The decree was signed by the trial court judge and filed of record. On March 1, 2014, appellant withdrew a lump-sum payout of hi


CourtListener opinion 3198279

retirement benefits: on December 19, 2012. The parties appeared before the trial court on December 5, 2012, to recite their agreed terms into the record and to gain approval from the trial court. The written decree provided in pertinent part: 10. The parties hereto each have retirement accounts with their current employer and [appellee] has a retirement account with her former employer, El Dorado School District. The parties' [sic] are awarded one-half (1/2) of each others [sic] retirement accounts to be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order as of the date of the hearing on the 5th day of December, 2012. Appellant's attorney and appe


CourtListener opinion 3198279

401(k): he trial court's later denial of appellant's petition is not advanced as an issue on appeal. 3 Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 233 the agreement, and appellant's attorney was asked to correct any misstatements. Regarding appellant's LOPFI retirement and appellee's 401K retirement account, appellee's attorney queried appellee: "He's gonna get half of yours and you're gonna get half of his?" Appellee responded, "That's correct." At the conclusion of the recited agreement, appellant's attorney wanted to "clarify a few things," and in particular "the retirement accounts, by each party are marital, it will be divided as of


CourtListener opinion 3198279

domestic relations order: e retirement accounts with their current employer and [appellee] has a retirement account with her former employer, El Dorado School District. The parties' [sic] are awarded one-half (1/2) of each others [sic] retirement accounts to be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order as of the date of the hearing on the 5th day of December, 2012. Appellant's attorney and appellee's attorney agreed and consented to the written decree on behalf of their clients, evidenced by their signatures on the decree. The decree was signed by the trial court judge and filed of record. On March 1, 2014, appellant withdrew a lump-sum payout of hi


CourtListener opinion 3198632

CourtListener opinion 3198632 Extracted reporter citation: 859 A.2d 511. Docket: 1147 MDA 2015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3198632 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 3198632


CourtListener opinion 3198632

QDRO: FC-2012-021531-D1 BEFORE: PANELLA, STABILE, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED APRIL 27, 2016 Appellant, Thomas E. Bortz ("Husband"), appeals from the order entered in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas. Husband contends the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") regarding his City of Williamsport Police Pension Plan is not consistent with his and Appellee's, Stacie L. Bortz's ("Wife"), Marriage Settlement Agreement ("MSA").1 We affirm. At the hearing on the Petition for Contempt/Petition for Enforcement of Property Settlement Agreement filed by Wife on April 17, 2015, the parties stipulated, inter a


CourtListener opinion 3198632

retirement benefits: 16. Employment Benefits. The parties hereto have reached agreement regarding the retaining of and distribution of their respective employment benefits as follows: * * * B. Wife's retirement. The parties agree that all of the marital portion of Wife's retirement account(s) and/or pension plan(s) through her employment with Lycoming County shall be divided between the parties such that Wife will receive Fifty-Five Percent (55%) of the martial portion and Husband will receive Forty-Five (45%) of the martial portion pursuant to current law. For purposes of determining the marital portion, the parties agree that they we


CourtListener opinion 3198632

pension: RALD, J.: FILED APRIL 27, 2016 Appellant, Thomas E. Bortz ("Husband"), appeals from the order entered in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas. Husband contends the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") regarding his City of Williamsport Police Pension Plan is not consistent with his and Appellee's, Stacie L. Bortz's ("Wife"), Marriage Settlement Agreement ("MSA").1 We affirm. At the hearing on the Petition for Contempt/Petition for Enforcement of Property Settlement Agreement filed by Wife on April 17, 2015, the parties stipulated, inter alia, to the following facts: "[T]hey entered into a [MSA] *


CourtListener opinion 3198632

domestic relations order: 1531-D1 BEFORE: PANELLA, STABILE, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED APRIL 27, 2016 Appellant, Thomas E. Bortz ("Husband"), appeals from the order entered in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas. Husband contends the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") regarding his City of Williamsport Police Pension Plan is not consistent with his and Appellee's, Stacie L. Bortz's ("Wife"), Marriage Settlement Agreement ("MSA").1 We affirm. At the hearing on the Petition for Contempt/Petition for Enforcement of Property Settlement Agreement filed by Wife on April 17, 2015, the parties stipulated, inter a


CourtListener opinion 3198639

CourtListener opinion 3198639 Extracted case name: TRKULA v. TRKULA. Docket: 1 CA-CV 15-0598 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3198639 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 3198639

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 3198639

QDRO: ues of several bank accounts, Father's federal retirement benefits, pension and unpaid sick leave, and her property in Father's possession. However, the Agreement addressed the return of Mother's property in Father's possession and the division of a 401(K) by QDRO. Father's response to the objections was, in part, that most of these issues were subject to a discovery dispute that had been waived by entry of the Agreement. ¶11 The trial court's determination that the Agreement was complete is supported by the parties' representation to the settlement judge that there was nothing else to discuss about the Agreement af


CourtListener opinion 3198639

retirement benefits: s not support Mother's argument that there were property issues left unresolved in the Agreement. In her objections to the proposed Decree filed in the family court, Mother contended that there were unresolved issues of several bank accounts, Father's federal retirement benefits, pension and unpaid sick leave, and her property in Father's possession. However, the Agreement addressed the return of Mother's property in Father's possession and the division of a 401(K) by QDRO. Father's response to the objections was, in part, that most of these issues were subject to a discovery dispute that had been waived by entry of the Agreement.


CourtListener opinion 3198639

pension: s argument that there were property issues left unresolved in the Agreement. In her objections to the proposed Decree filed in the family court, Mother contended that there were unresolved issues of several bank accounts, Father's federal retirement benefits, pension and unpaid sick leave, and her property in Father's possession. However, the Agreement addressed the return of Mother's property in Father's possession and the division of a 401(K) by QDRO. Father's response to the objections was, in part, that most of these issues were subject to a discovery dispute that had been waived by entry of the Agreement. ¶11 The


CourtListener opinion 3198639

401(k): solved issues of several bank accounts, Father's federal retirement benefits, pension and unpaid sick leave, and her property in Father's possession. However, the Agreement addressed the return of Mother's property in Father's possession and the division of a 401(K) by QDRO. Father's response to the objections was, in part, that most of these issues were subject to a discovery dispute that had been waived by entry of the Agreement. ¶11 The trial court's determination that the Agreement was complete is supported by the parties' representation to the settlement judge that there was nothing else to discuss about the Agre


CourtListener opinion 3200167

CourtListener opinion 3200167 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3200167 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 3200167


CourtListener opinion 3200167

QDRO: cient to pay Jeffrey's child support obligation through Emily's minority and Jeffrey's spousal support obligation to Karen. Jeffrey also agreed that Karen would be allowed to claim Emily as a tax deduction each year. ¶ 14 On May 8, 2013, Jeffrey signed a qualified domestic relations order which was entered by the circuit court on May 21, 2013. The qualified domestic relations order divided the "marital share" of Jeffrey's retirement account equally between Jeffrey and Karen and confirmed that Jeffrey and Karen were still in agreement with the terms of the settlement that had been incorporated into the final judgment order. ¶ 15 On A


CourtListener opinion 3200167

retirement benefits: to claim Emily as a tax deduction each year. ¶ 14 On May 8, 2013, Jeffrey signed a qualified domestic relations order which was entered by the circuit court on May 21, 2013. The qualified domestic relations order divided the "marital share" of Jeffrey's retirement account equally between Jeffrey and Karen and confirmed that Jeffrey and Karen were still in agreement with the terms of the settlement that had been incorporated into the final judgment order. ¶ 15 On August 19, 2013, Jeffrey filed a motion to vacate the judgment for dissolution of marriage pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 201


CourtListener opinion 3200167

domestic relations order: ay Jeffrey's child support obligation through Emily's minority and Jeffrey's spousal support obligation to Karen. Jeffrey also agreed that Karen would be allowed to claim Emily as a tax deduction each year. ¶ 14 On May 8, 2013, Jeffrey signed a qualified domestic relations order which was entered by the circuit court on May 21, 2013. The qualified domestic relations order divided the "marital share" of Jeffrey's retirement account equally between Jeffrey and Karen and confirmed that Jeffrey and Karen were still in agreement with the terms of the settlement that had been incorporated into the final judgment order. ¶ 15 On A


CourtListener opinion 3201139

CourtListener opinion 3201139 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Nolder. Extracted reporter citation: 976 S.W.2d 856. Docket: sheet that Holoubek was entitled to 35. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3201139 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 3201139


CourtListener opinion 3201139

QDRO: TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A (West 2005) (TEX. STATE BAR R. art. X, § 9); see also TEX. DISCIPLINARY RULES PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.04(d), (e). 6 situation that necessitated an attorney's services by her own negligence in failing to secure a qualified domestic relations order after the 1993 hearing, that attorney fees are not recoverable under Section 9.205 of the Texas Family Code5 under the facts of this case, and that the award of attorney fees was barred by res judicata since no attorney fees were awarded in the 1993 hearing. However, at trial Lee did not object to the testimony of Holoubek's counsel regarding attorney f


CourtListener opinion 3201139

retirement benefits: to recover her share of Lee's retirement benefits that had not been divided in their divorce decree. After a very short hearing before the bench, the County Court at Law in Rusk County awarded Holoubek judgment for $76,935.68, representing her share of the retirement benefits Lee received upon his retirement in 2006, plus a reasonable rate of return for nine years, and imposed a lien on Lee's retirement accounts. In addition, the trial court awarded Holoubek attorney fees in the amount of $30,774.27. After the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, Lee appealed. Lee complains that there is legally and


CourtListener opinion 3201139

domestic relations order: CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A (West 2005) (TEX. STATE BAR R. art. X, § 9); see also TEX. DISCIPLINARY RULES PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.04(d), (e). 6 situation that necessitated an attorney's services by her own negligence in failing to secure a qualified domestic relations order after the 1993 hearing, that attorney fees are not recoverable under Section 9.205 of the Texas Family Code5 under the facts of this case, and that the award of attorney fees was barred by res judicata since no attorney fees were awarded in the 1993 hearing. However, at trial Lee did not object to the testimony of Holoubek's counsel regarding attorney f


CourtListener opinion 3202604

CourtListener opinion 3202604 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JULIA HEATH-CLARK AND RICHARD ALAN CLARK Upon the Petition of JULIA HEATH-CLARK. Extracted reporter citation: 690 N.W.2d 279. Docket: 15-0525. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3202604 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 3202604


CourtListener opinion 3202604

QDRO: ______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey D. Farrell, Judge. Husband appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a declaratory order and his application for an order nunc pro tunc to amend the parties' qualified domestic relations order. AFFIRMED. Kodi A. Brotherson of Becker & Brotherson Law Offices, Sac City, for appellant. Thomas P. Graves of Graves Law Firm, P.C., Clive, for appellee. Heard by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ. 2 MCDONALD, Judge. Richard Clark appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a declaratory order and his application for


CourtListener opinion 3202604

retirement benefits: domestic relations order (QDRO). Richard maintains the QDRO should be amended to reflect the intent of the parties at the time they entered the dissolution decree. Specifically, he contends the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System ("IPERS") calculates retirement benefits in a way neither party expected or intended and, as a result, Julia Clark receives more of his retirement benefit than intended. I. Richard and Julia married on May 24, 1970. They dissolved their marriage by stipulated decree on September 23, 2002. In pertinent part, the decree provides: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that [Julia] s


CourtListener opinion 3202604

pension: substantive order. See Kremenitzer v. Kremenitzer, [838 A.2d 1026, 1028 (Conn. Ct. App. 2004)] 2 "Because of certain anti-alienation restrictions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the federal tax code, a QDRO must be filed for every pension division undertaken pursuant to a divorce." Brown, 776 N.W.2d at 647–48 (citing Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 566 A.2d 767, 768–71 (Md. 1989)). "ERISA does not require a QDRO to be a part of the actual judgment in a case." In re Marriage of Bruns, 535 N.W.2d 157, 162 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citing Baird v. Baird, 843 S.W.2d 388, 392 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992), and Rohrbeck,


CourtListener opinion 3202604

ERISA: dministrator to make certain specified payments to the ex-spouse.2 See id.; see also Breslin v. Synnott, 54 A.3d 525, 527 (Vt. 2012) (citing 2 B. Turner, Equitable Division of Property § 6:20, at 113 (3d ed. 2005)). A QDRO is defined in relevant part by [ERISA] as a domestic relations order "which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). In order for the QDRO to be qualified—for the Q to be added to the DRO—


CourtListener opinion 3202606

CourtListener opinion 3202606 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DONALD L. SEALS AND JACQUELYN F. MIHM SEALS Upon the Petition of DONALD L. SEALS. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 14-1348. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3202606 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 3202606

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 3202606

QDRO: his name. The court also allocated the banking and cash investment accounts between the parties. Ultimately, the court ordered Jackie to pay Don a property equalization payment in the amount of $386,181.10 pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to be paid out of, at Jackie's election, either her Salaried RSP or her Automation RSP. The court also ordered Jackie be responsible for paying the outstanding loans against her Salaried RSP but allowed her a credit in the property distribution, finding the loans constituted a marital debt. Additionally, the court found Don was "under employed consid


CourtListener opinion 3202606

retirement benefits: al, Jackie made contributions to her retirement plans in the amount of $73,282.30. 8 Don and Jackie both testified the rental home Don was residing in could bring rent in the amount of $900 to $1100 per month. 7 With regard to the division of the parties' retirement accounts, the court distributed to Jackie the accounts in her name and to Don the accounts in his name. The court also allocated the banking and cash investment accounts between the parties. Ultimately, the court ordered Jackie to pay Don a property equalization payment in the amount of $386,181.10 pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to be


CourtListener opinion 3202606

pension: make the mortgage payments for the large loan at Farmers State Bank but were still in arrears and the bank had threatened foreclosure. The parties also accumulated substantial retirement savings throughout their twenty-seven-year marriage. Jackie held a pension and two 401(k) accounts with her employer, Rockwell Collins. At the time of trial, Jackie's Rockwell Collins Salaried Retirement Savings Plan (Salaried RSP) was valued at $579,584.233 and her Rockwell Collins Automation Retirement Savings Plan 1 The parties held the marital home and the Davenport rental home in joint tenancy. Jackie held title to all f


CourtListener opinion 3202606

401(k): eals the economic provisions of the district court's decree dissolving his marriage to Jacquelyn Mihm Seals, as amended by the court's subsequent ruling regarding the parties' posttrial motions. Don contends the district court erred in (1) valuing Jackie's 401(k) at the time of separation instead of at the time of trial; (2) calculating child support by imputing income to him; and (3) failing to award him attorney fees after Jackie backed out of a proposed settlement agreement. Jackie requests appellate attorney fees. Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Don a


CourtListener opinion 3203256

CourtListener opinion 3203256 Extracted reporter citation: 487 F3d 317. Docket: 324146 Van Buren Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3203256 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 3203256


CourtListener opinion 3203256

QDRO: ent agreement and the divorce judgment provided that plaintiff was awarded 50 percent of defendant's defined benefit plan that accrued during the marriage.4 The settlement agreement indicated that three years after entry of the judgment of divorce, an amended QDRO "shall enter" awarding plaintiff 100 percent "of said account," with plaintiff to immediately withdraw the funds, pay income taxes, and then "apply the remaining balance to the indebtedness on the [landscaping and tree farm business]," i.e., the $64,000 debt.5 This provision did not state whether it pertained to the defined benefit plan or the defined contr


CourtListener opinion 3203256

retirement benefits: installment on defendant's $64,000 debt. 4 The division of the defined contribution and defined benefit plans was to be made pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs); there are no QDROs in the record. The settlement agreement stated that both retirement plans were held by defendant through his employer Pfizer. 5 Immediately following the quoted language about applying the withdrawn retirement funds to the remaining balance, the settlement agreement stated, "A QDRO shall be entered by submission of amended QDRO under the 7-day Rule. (This payment shall be applied to the next annual payment due.) No additional Q


CourtListener opinion 3203256

pension: 504 US 753, 765; 112 S Ct 2242; 119 L Ed 2d 519 (1992), the United States Supreme Court, construing the Bankruptcy Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 USC 1001 et seq., held that "a debtor's interest in an ERISA- qualified pension plan may be excluded from the property of the bankruptcy estate[.]" We also note that a 401(k) account is generally exempt in bankruptcy. 11 USC 522(d)(10)(E); see also MCL 600.5451(1)(l) (applicable if debtor chooses state exemption scheme). -4- when the debtor proved an inability to pay the debt or when a discharge would benefit the debtor more than it


CourtListener opinion 3203256

ERISA: ined benefit plans."); 26 USC 401(k); 29 USC 1002(34). 11 In Patterson v Shumate, 504 US 753, 765; 112 S Ct 2242; 119 L Ed 2d 519 (1992), the United States Supreme Court, construing the Bankruptcy Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 USC 1001 et seq., held that "a debtor's interest in an ERISA- qualified pension plan may be excluded from the property of the bankruptcy estate[.]" We also note that a 401(k) account is generally exempt in bankruptcy. 11 USC 522(d)(10)(E); see also MCL 600.5451(1)(l) (applicable if debtor chooses state exemption scheme). -4- when the debtor proved a


CourtListener opinion 3203286

CourtListener opinion 3203286 Extracted case name: SICKLER v. SICKLER. Extracted reporter citation: 808 N.W.2d 867. Docket: S-15-594. 1. Contempt:. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3203286 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 3203286


CourtListener opinion 3203286

QDRO: court denied the "request to reduce retirement benefits for either party by anticipated but nevertheless speculative tax consequences." The total balance for the IRA account in April 2001 was $305,587.44. The court's order made no reference to the need for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with respect to the IRA. Steven moved for a new trial. As a result of the motion, the court adjusted the award of the IRA by decreasing Madeline's - 525 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports SICKLER v. SICKLER Cite as 293 Neb. 521 award by $3,100 and increasing Steven's award by $3,100. Steven appealed the order but later dismissed


CourtListener opinion 3203286

retirement benefits: were divorced in April 2001. As part of the property division, the court awarded to Madeline 18.6 percent of an IRA held under Steven's name. The dissolution decree listed the amount of the award to Madeline as $45,786. The court denied the "request to reduce retirement benefits for either party by anticipated but nevertheless speculative tax consequences." The total balance for the IRA account in April 2001 was $305,587.44. The court's order made no reference to the need for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with respect to the IRA. Steven moved for a new trial. As a result of the motion, the court adjusted the award


CourtListener opinion 3203286

domestic relations order: ed the "request to reduce retirement benefits for either party by anticipated but nevertheless speculative tax consequences." The total balance for the IRA account in April 2001 was $305,587.44. The court's order made no reference to the need for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with respect to the IRA. Steven moved for a new trial. As a result of the motion, the court adjusted the award of the IRA by decreasing Madeline's - 525 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports SICKLER v. SICKLER Cite as 293 Neb. 521 award by $3,100 and increasing Steven's award by $3,100. Steven appealed the order but later dismissed


CourtListener opinion 3203286

valuation/division: Debt," as stated in state constitutional prohibitions of imprisonment for debt, is generally viewed as an obligation to pay money from the debtor's own resources, which arose out of a consensual transaction between the creditor and the debtor. 12. Divorce: Property Division: Constitutional Law: Contempt: Debtors and Creditors. Contempt for noncompliance with a property division award in a dissolution decree does not originate in an action for the col- lection of debt, or from an obligation, through a consensual transaction between the creditor and the debtor, to pay money from the debtor's own resources. Therefore, enforc


CourtListener opinion 3203370

CourtListener opinion 3203370 Extracted reporter citation: 249 P.3d 1070. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3203370 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 3203370


CourtListener opinion 3203370

QDRO: specified that 100% of the "qualified portion" of the BP pension would go to Patton, while the "nonqualified portion" would remain with Herring. But the agreement contained the caveat that the parties needed to verify that the BP pension could be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and that they "must see numbers the percentages are based on[:] current values." The agreement next provided that 45% of the Fidelity Roth IRA account would be distributed to Patton and 55% would be distributed to Herring, but it explained that this transfer was subject to an equalization mechanism that the parties had created to deal with the uncert


CourtListener opinion 3203370

retirement benefits: tlement and the $464,346 that he received (and Patton lost) as a result of Patton's early benefit election, for a total of $609,000 of pension benefit to Herring. This unanticipated shift substantially changed the percentages of the originally estimated total retirement account that each party was to receive. -17- 7105 Now that Herring has received substantially more and Patton has received substantially less than the amounts that they bargained for, this disparity triggers the equitable reallocation provision relating to the BP pension and the Roth IRA "escrowed" funds. It was therefore error to conclude that the reallocation


CourtListener opinion 3203370

pension: , and Bolger, Justices. FABE, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A divorcing couple reached a settlement agreement that was incorporated into a divorce decree issued by the superior court. The settlement provided that the qualified marital portion of the husband's pension would be distributed to the wife and the nonqualified portion would be distributed to the husband, subject to a provision for equitable reallocation if the values of those portions changed significantly. The settlement also described four firearms and ammunition that the husband would deliver to the wife. After the decree issued, the wife's portion of the


CourtListener opinion 3203370

domestic relations order: that 100% of the "qualified portion" of the BP pension would go to Patton, while the "nonqualified portion" would remain with Herring. But the agreement contained the caveat that the parties needed to verify that the BP pension could be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and that they "must see numbers the percentages are based on[:] current values." The agreement next provided that 45% of the Fidelity Roth IRA account would be distributed to Patton and 55% would be distributed to Herring, but it explained that this transfer was subject to an equalization mechanism that the parties had created to deal with the uncert


CourtListener opinion 3205258

CourtListener opinion 3205258 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of CYNTHIA. Extracted reporter citation: 203 Cal.App.3d 705. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3205258 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 3205258

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 3205258

QDRO: th from May 1, 2013 until May 1, 2016; $500 per month from May 1, 2016 until 2017; and zero beginning May 1, 2017. 3 The tentative statement of decision was not included in the record on appeal. 6 The trial court also ordered the parties to "resolve the QDRO[4] issue by June 1, 2013," with respect to Huebner's representations that although Josefson was entitled to payment of $1,500 per month as her share of his City of Palo Alto pension she had failed to cooperate with finalizing the division of the pension. The court stated that Josefson's entitlement to a portion of Huebner's pension was a "key factor" in red


CourtListener opinion 3205258

retirement benefits: be possible for either party to live at the marital standard 4 A " ‘QDRO is a subset of "domestic relations orders" that recognizes the right of an alternate payee to "receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under [a retirement benefits] plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I).' [Citations.]" (In re Marriage of Padgett (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 830, 840.) 7 of living in the future. The court noted that there was no credible evidence that Huebner had earned "significant money" due to his contractor's license. Josefson's March 2013 income and expense declaration was found not to be credible,


CourtListener opinion 3205258

pension: ental properties and believes that she is not able to meet her current expenses without receiving spousal support of $2,600 per month. According to Huebner, Josefson is now eligible to receive payments of $1,500 per month as her share of his City of Palo Alto pension. Huebner's current job title with the City of Palo Alto is manager, facilities maintenance, and his annual salary is $111,000. He submitted a November 16, 2012 income and expense declaration in which he stated that his gross monthly income as an employee of the City of Palo Alto is $9,259 and his total monthly expenses are $7,305. 4. Expert Witness Testim


CourtListener opinion 3205258

alternate payee: trial court determined that he had the ability to pay spousal support for a period of time, but it would not be possible for either party to live at the marital standard 4 A " ‘QDRO is a subset of "domestic relations orders" that recognizes the right of an alternate payee to "receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under [a retirement benefits] plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I).' [Citations.]" (In re Marriage of Padgett (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 830, 840.) 7 of living in the future. The court noted that there was no credible evidence that Huebner had earned "significant money" due


CourtListener opinion 3206207

CourtListener opinion 3206207 Extracted case name: JACKSON v. MATTHEWS. Extracted reporter citation: 424 U.S. 319. Docket: 1 CA-CV 15-0096 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3206207 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 3206207


CourtListener opinion 3206207

QDRO: of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 Mark Matthews appeals from the superior court's entry of two qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs"). For reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Matthews and Tabatha Jackson entered into a property settlement agreement in connection with their divorce. The agreement provided that QDROs would be issued granting Jackson 50% of Matthews's retirement and 401(k) benefits that had accrued during the marriage until Januar


CourtListener opinion 3206207

retirement benefits: See Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, 232 Ariz. 173, 175, ¶ 10 (App. 2013). ¶9 In Johnson v. Johnson, 195 Ariz. 389 (App. 1999), this court considered the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-1551(B) after an ex-wife waited more than 15 years to pursue her right to retirement benefits granted in a property settlement agreement. Under the agreement, the ex-wife was entitled to monthly installment payments of the ex-husband's retirement benefits, but the ex-wife did not sue to collect unpaid benefits until long after the retirement payments commenced. Id. at 390, ¶¶ 2, 5. Applying A.R.S. § 12-1551(B), this court held that the statute prec


CourtListener opinion 3206207

401(k): w, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Matthews and Tabatha Jackson entered into a property settlement agreement in connection with their divorce. The agreement provided that QDROs would be issued granting Jackson 50% of Matthews's retirement and 401(k) benefits that had accrued during the marriage until January 14, 2003, when the dissolution petition was served. The agreement stated that the QDROs would be "prepared by attorney Richard Underwood with the cost equally divided between the parties," and that "[b]oth parties agree to cooperate in the process of securing such benefits." ¶3 Approximately nine


CourtListener opinion 3206207

domestic relations order: urt MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 Mark Matthews appeals from the superior court's entry of two qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs"). For reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Matthews and Tabatha Jackson entered into a property settlement agreement in connection with their divorce. The agreement provided that QDROs would be issued granting Jackson 50% of Matthews's retirement and 401(k) benefits that had accrued during the marriage until Januar


CourtListener opinion 3207206

CourtListener opinion 3207206 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3207206 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 3207206


CourtListener opinion 3207206

QDRO: s and Robert McAdams had their marriage dissolved via a Decree of Dissolution which was journalized on December 22, 1998. In 1998, Ohio did not let retirement benefits from the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (\OPERS\") be divided through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order


CourtListener opinion 3207206

retirement benefits: rom the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations TYACK, J. {¶ 1} Christine McAdams and Robert McAdams had their marriage dissolved via a Decree of Dissolution which was journalized on December 22, 1998. In 1998, Ohio did not let retirement benefits from the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (\OPERS\") be divided through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order


CourtListener opinion 3207206

domestic relations order: rt McAdams had their marriage dissolved via a Decree of Dissolution which was journalized on December 22, 1998. In 1998, Ohio did not let retirement benefits from the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (\OPERS\") be divided through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order


CourtListener opinion 3207224

CourtListener opinion 3207224 Extracted case name: THOMPSON v. THOMPSON. Extracted reporter citation: 892 P.2d 1053. Docket: 1 CA-CV 15-0596 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3207224 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 3207224


CourtListener opinion 3207224

QDRO: Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 346, ¶ 5 (App. 1998) (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 152 Ariz. 317, 323 (1987)). 2 THOMPSON v. THOMPSON Decision of the Court America, Chase, Kohl's, Genesis, and Cox Communications. The family court ordered the parties to have a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) prepared to properly distribute the pension funds, with the preparation costs to be shared equally. The court also ordered Father to make an equalization payment of $3,911 following allocation of the parties' vehicles. Mother was awarded seventy-five percent of her attorneys' fees and costs. ¶4 Shortly after the family court entered the dissolution


CourtListener opinion 3207224

pension: e Children and awarded the dependent child tax deduction for S.T. every year and for B.T. every two out of three years. ¶3 Within the decree, the family court ordered an equal division of the parties' community property, which included UPS common stock and a pension, and an equal division of their community debts to Bank of 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the family court's orders. See Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 346, ¶ 5 (App. 1998) (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 152 Ariz. 317, 323 (1987)). 2 THOMPSON v. THOMPSON Decision of the Court America, Chase, Kohl's, Genesis, and Co


CourtListener opinion 3207224

401(k): owing allocation of the parties' vehicles. Mother was awarded seventy-five percent of her attorneys' fees and costs. ¶4 Shortly after the family court entered the dissolution decree, Mother filed a motion to amend the decree to address allocation of Father's 401(k) account. In September 2013, the court granted Mother's motion and ordered the 401(k) account to be split evenly between Mother and Father. ¶5 In February 2014, Father sold all of the UPS stock, including Mother's portion, without her knowledge. Additionally, he had not paid any portion of his share of the community debts, and both parties were unable to co


CourtListener opinion 3207224

domestic relations order: , 193 Ariz. 343, 346, ¶ 5 (App. 1998) (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 152 Ariz. 317, 323 (1987)). 2 THOMPSON v. THOMPSON Decision of the Court America, Chase, Kohl's, Genesis, and Cox Communications. The family court ordered the parties to have a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) prepared to properly distribute the pension funds, with the preparation costs to be shared equally. The court also ordered Father to make an equalization payment of $3,911 following allocation of the parties' vehicles. Mother was awarded seventy-five percent of her attorneys' fees and costs. ¶4 Shortly after the family court entered the dissolution


CourtListener opinion 3207873

CourtListener opinion 3207873 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Fisher. Extracted reporter citation: 44 N.E.3d 721. Docket: 34A02-1509-DR-1433 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3207873 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 3207873

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 3207873

QDRO: arded 23.5% of his CSRS pension to Mary. (Appellant's App. p. 12). Also, in order to effectuate an equal division of the estate, the trial court ordered Timothy to "pay an equalizing judgment of $133,938.07 to [Mary]. [Timothy] shall pay this amount by [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)] from his [TSP] account with any balance paid within [thirty] days thereafter." (Appellant's App. p. 16). 1 [7] On February 18, 2015, Mary filed a "Motion to Correct Errors [sic]," alleging, in relevant part, that the trial court erred by: awarding the marital real estate to Timothy; ordering Timothy to pay an equalizing judgment to Mary via


CourtListener opinion 3207873

retirement benefits: y-one years to be a homemaker and raise the children" as she "had [s]ocial [s]ecurity earnings and was employed all but five (5) years of the marriage." (Appellant's App. pp. 25, 35). Thus, the trial court found that it "fail[ed] to consider the overall retirement benefits to be received by both parties." (Appellant's App. p. 24). Finding that Mary will receive a monthly pension of $550 plus a monthly social security payment of $2,005, the trial court reduced Mary's share of Timothy's pension from 23.5% to 10% as of the filing date. The trial court noted that "[i]f this division results in an unequal division of ve


CourtListener opinion 3207873

pension: ues on appeal, three of which we find dispositive and restate as follows: (1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the marital residence to Timothy; (2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its valuation of Timothy's pension; and (3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding 10% of Timothy's pension to Mary and by failing to order that Mary is entitled to a surviving spouse benefit. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY [4] On June 6, 1982, Timothy and Mary were married. The marriage produced two children, who are both now grown. Prior to the marriage, Timothy


CourtListener opinion 3207873

ERISA: "Motion to Correct Errors [sic]," alleging, in relevant part, that the trial court erred by: awarding the marital real estate to Timothy; ordering Timothy to pay an equalizing judgment to Mary via a 1 Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), "pension benefits may be assigned or alienated from the plan participant only if the order alienating the benefit is a [QDRO]." Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d 721, 725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. However, a "governmental plan" is not governed by ERISA. Id.; see 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(32), 1003(b)(1). As neither party has indicated that the QDRO wa


CourtListener opinion 3208741

CourtListener opinion 3208741 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3208741 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 3208741


CourtListener opinion 3208741

pension: pursuant to a judgment of divorce that incorporated, but did not merge, the terms of a stipulated partial settlement agreement regarding the division of certain specified property, including the husband's New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System pension. In January 2011, shortly after the husband retired, the wife moved for entry of a domestic relations order (hereinafter DRO) awarding her a marital share of the husband's pension valued as of the date of his retirement – namely, September 28, 2010. The -2- 521952 husband cross-moved for entry of a different DRO awarding the wife a marital share of his pe


CourtListener opinion 3208741

domestic relations order: pulated partial settlement agreement regarding the division of certain specified property, including the husband's New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System pension. In January 2011, shortly after the husband retired, the wife moved for entry of a domestic relations order (hereinafter DRO) awarding her a marital share of the husband's pension valued as of the date of his retirement – namely, September 28, 2010. The -2- 521952 husband cross-moved for entry of a different DRO awarding the wife a marital share of his pension valued as of the date of commencement of the divorce action, which was May 21, 1998. The difference in


CourtListener opinion 3208870

CourtListener opinion 3208870 Extracted case name: CARRANZA v. GONZALES. Extracted reporter citation: 9 P.3d 1046. Docket: 1 CA-CV 15-0148 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3208870 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 3208870


CourtListener opinion 3208870

QDRO: r an order consistent with Kelly. BACKGROUND ¶2 During the marriage, both parties worked for the USPS. The 1995 divorce decree awarded each party one-half of the community interest in the other's USPS pension, to be distributed through a separately entered qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). 1 It was not until 2013, after both parties had retired, when Richard Gonzales (Husband) requested the court enter an order awarding him one-half of the community interest in Wife's pension. ¶3 Although both parties were employed by the USPS, Wife participated in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), which does not include Social Security. Se


CourtListener opinion 3208870

pension: MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined. T H O M P S O N, Judge: ¶1 Irene Carranza (Wife) appeals from a family court order allocating the pension she earned as an employee of the United States Postal Service (USPS). The family court correctly applied Arizona Revised Statue (A.R.S.) § 25-211 as it existed at the time the parties divorced in 1995. However, the court erred when it failed to apply Kelly v. Kelly, 198 Ariz. 307, 9 P.3d 1046 (2000), in the 2015 order allocating Wife's pension. Accordingly,


CourtListener opinion 3208870

domestic relations order: consistent with Kelly. BACKGROUND ¶2 During the marriage, both parties worked for the USPS. The 1995 divorce decree awarded each party one-half of the community interest in the other's USPS pension, to be distributed through a separately entered qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). 1 It was not until 2013, after both parties had retired, when Richard Gonzales (Husband) requested the court enter an order awarding him one-half of the community interest in Wife's pension. ¶3 Although both parties were employed by the USPS, Wife participated in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), which does not include Social Security. Se


CourtListener opinion 3208870

valuation/division: er improperly awarded Husband a portion of her pension that was Wife's separate property. ¶6 We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Merrill v. Merrill, 230 Ariz. 369, 372, ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 880, 883 (App. 2012). At the time the decree was entered, community property was defined as all property acquired during the marriage. See 1998 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 280, § 3 (2nd Reg. Sess.) (adding language now found in current version of § 25-211 (A)(2)). The language Wife relies on was not part of § 25-211(A)(2) until 1998, three years after the parties' decree was entered. The legislature expressly stated that this change in st


CourtListener opinion 3209199

CourtListener opinion 3209199 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3209199 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 3209199


CourtListener opinion 3209199

QDRO: cient to pay Jeffrey's child support obligation through Emily's minority and Jeffrey's spousal support obligation to Karen. Jeffrey also agreed that Karen would be allowed to claim Emily as a tax deduction each year. ¶ 14 On May 8, 2013, Jeffrey signed a qualified domestic relations order which was entered by the circuit court on May 21, 2013. The qualified domestic relations order divided the "marital share" of Jeffrey's retirement account equally between Jeffrey and Karen and confirmed that Jeffrey and Karen were still in agreement with the terms of the settlement that had been incorporated into the final judgment order. ¶ 15 On A


CourtListener opinion 3209199

retirement benefits: to claim Emily as a tax deduction each year. ¶ 14 On May 8, 2013, Jeffrey signed a qualified domestic relations order which was entered by the circuit court on May 21, 2013. The qualified domestic relations order divided the "marital share" of Jeffrey's retirement account equally between Jeffrey and Karen and confirmed that Jeffrey and Karen were still in agreement with the terms of the settlement that had been incorporated into the final judgment order. ¶ 15 On August 19, 2013, Jeffrey filed a motion to vacate the judgment for dissolution of marriage pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 201


CourtListener opinion 3209199

domestic relations order: ay Jeffrey's child support obligation through Emily's minority and Jeffrey's spousal support obligation to Karen. Jeffrey also agreed that Karen would be allowed to claim Emily as a tax deduction each year. ¶ 14 On May 8, 2013, Jeffrey signed a qualified domestic relations order which was entered by the circuit court on May 21, 2013. The qualified domestic relations order divided the "marital share" of Jeffrey's retirement account equally between Jeffrey and Karen and confirmed that Jeffrey and Karen were still in agreement with the terms of the settlement that had been incorporated into the final judgment order. ¶ 15 On A


CourtListener opinion 3210648

CourtListener opinion 3210648 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3210648 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 3210648

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 3210648

QDRO: ife"), was receiving a greater monthly benefit from his pension than she was entitled to under the terms of the parties' martial settlement agreement (MSA) and controlling law. We reverse and remand for entry of an amended qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") 1 consistent with this opinion. The parties divorced in 1995. They resolved the relevant issues in their divorce by entering into a MSA which was incorporated into the final 1 "A QDRO is, in pertinent part, a ‘domestic relations order . . . which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the


CourtListener opinion 3210648

retirement benefits: ets because it included post-dissolution income in calculating the husband's pension plan. Further, the court should have looked to the statutory provisions of sections 61.075(5)(a) (defining "marital assets") and 61.076(1) 3 (outlining the distribution of retirement plans upon dissolution of a marriage) to reach the correct ruling that the amended QDRO was not in compliance with the MSA and final judgment. §§ 61.075(5)(a), 61.076(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). More compelling, by the time the trial court entered the original QDRO, the Florida Supreme Court had rejected the "deferred division of benefits" calculation adopted in De


CourtListener opinion 3210648

pension: appellee. DAMOORGIAN, J. David Storey ("Former Husband") appeals from an order denying his motion for relief from judgment. In his motion, Former Husband argued that appellee, Delfina Storey ("Former Wife"), was receiving a greater monthly benefit from his pension than she was entitled to under the terms of the parties' martial settlement agreement (MSA) and controlling law. We reverse and remand for entry of an amended qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") 1 consistent with this opinion. The parties divorced in 1995. They resolved the relevant issues in their divorce by entering into a MSA which was incorpor


CourtListener opinion 3210648

ERISA: Petitioner/Wife is entitled to 50% of the value of the Respondent/Husband's pension benefits accumulated through November 1994. All accumulations after November, 1994, belong to the Respondent/Husband. The parties agree to submit for execution a Qualified ERISA Section 206(d) Internal Revenue Code Section 414(p). The Order will then be submitted to the Federal Employees Pension Plan Administrator and if determined by the administrator that said plan is incomplete or in need of modification, the Order shall be adjusted as needed to accomplish this transfer and an amended Order submitted for execution by the C


CourtListener opinion 3211267

CourtListener opinion 3211267 Extracted reporter citation: 335 N.W.2d 503. Docket: of monthly checks. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3211267 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 3211267


CourtListener opinion 3211267

QDRO: they exist as of October 25, 2001, which was the date of the original pre-hearing conference and the date of valuation set by Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1. These accounts shall be awarded and distributed pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which shall be set forth in a separate document. . . . The [c]ourt shall retain jurisdiction to carry out and effectuate the assignment of said retirement benefits. The responsibility of preparing said QDRO shall be solely that of [husband]. It does not appear that [husband] has any vested pension or retirement accounts with cash value, however, if


CourtListener opinion 3211267

retirement benefits: addressing distribution of wife's benefits under the United States Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), which she earned during her employment by the United States Postal Service from October 1980 until her retirement in January 2013. With respect to retirement benefits, the judgment and decree provided: [Husband] is awarded 50% of [wife]'s retirement and pension fund through her employment at United States Postal Service, as they exist as of October 25, 2001, which was the date of the original pre-hearing conference and the date of valuation set by Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1. These accounts shall be awarded and


CourtListener opinion 3211267

pension: e Elmo, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and Kirk, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION KIRK, Judge Appellant-wife challenges the district court's denial of her motion to amend an order dividing her pension benefits following the dissolution of her marriage to respondent- husband. Because the order effectuates the intent of the parties, as expressed in their stipulated judgment and decree, we affirm. FACTS Appellant-wife Debra Kay Baxter and respondent-husband Leon Asle Baxter were married from June 1981 until April 2002, when the marriage was dissolved


CourtListener opinion 3211267

ERISA: ns Court Order." For ease of reference, it is referred to as the DRO. Courts may review a plan administrator's determination that a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is "qualified" for purposes of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). See Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp., 776 N.W.2d 684, 693 (Minn. 2009); 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i) (2012 & Supp. 2014) (defining QDRO). However, CSRS is exempt from ERISA because it is a "governmental plan." See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1003(b)(1), 1051 (2012) (exempting a "governmental plan" from ERISA); 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32) (2012) (defining "governmental plan").


CourtListener opinion 3212877

CourtListener opinion 3212877 Extracted case name: MALLEK v. US PER CURIAM. Extracted reporter citation: 680 F.3d 1377. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3212877 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 3212877

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 3212877

QDRO: Mr. Mallek, which would provide Mr. Mallek monthly payments guaranteed for 30 years and for the life of Mr. Mallek. The settlement agreement stated that the annuity payments were non-assignable. On June 6, 2008, a California state judge approved a stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which was signed by Mr. Mallek and his former wife. Under the QDRO, Mr. Mallek assigned a portion of his monthly annuity payments to Ms. Mallek. On August 18, 2015, Mr. Mallek filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that DHS breached the settlement agreement by allowing the assignment of a portion of his monthly annuity payment.


CourtListener opinion 3212877

domestic relations order: , which would provide Mr. Mallek monthly payments guaranteed for 30 years and for the life of Mr. Mallek. The settlement agreement stated that the annuity payments were non-assignable. On June 6, 2008, a California state judge approved a stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which was signed by Mr. Mallek and his former wife. Under the QDRO, Mr. Mallek assigned a portion of his monthly annuity payments to Ms. Mallek. On August 18, 2015, Mr. Mallek filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that DHS breached the settlement agreement by allowing the assignment of a portion of his monthly annuity payment.


CourtListener opinion 3213433

CourtListener opinion 3213433 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SETH H. CRAWFORD AND TRICIA L. FAIRCHILD Upon the Petition of SETH H. CRAWFORD. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 15-1694. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3213433 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 3213433


CourtListener opinion 3213433

QDRO: failed to properly consider the section 598.21(5) factors; should have attributed a negative net worth to Tricia at the time of the parties' marriage due to her student loans; should have required the transfer of the equalization payment to occur through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO); improperly determined that Seth dissipated marital assets by taking out a loan against his 401(k); and should not have ordered that Seth's pension be divided. He also contends the equalization sum should have been fixed in the amount of $177,839. Specifically, Seth claims the district court failed to consider: 1. This was a short marriage.


CourtListener opinion 3213433

pension: s rulings regarding custody, visitation, child support, alimony, attorney fees, division of personal property, and the amount of the equalization payment. We modify the decree to eliminate the award of alimony and the award and requirement to divide Seth's pension account. On all other issues raised, we affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Seth Crawford and Tricia Fairchild were married in 2011, but had maintained a romantic relationship since 2001. The parties have one child, E.K.C., born in 2013. Seth is a high-level executive at Deere & Company (Deere), where he has worked for eighteen years. Seth


CourtListener opinion 3213433

401(k): s due to the loss of his yearly bonus1 because he failed to timely report a romantic relationship with another Deere employee within the same sub-organization. At the time of trial, in addition to income from his base salary, Seth had assets including: a 401(k) account; a Deere pension; tax-deferred income accounts; stock options from Deere; brokerage accounts with UBS and E-Trade; 1 Seth testified the bonus would have been greater than his annual salary. 3 a Health Savings Account; an ownership interest in two limited liability corporations—3501 LEB, L.L.C. and 960 W River Center, L.L.C.—for purposes of ow


CourtListener opinion 3213433

domestic relations order: properly consider the section 598.21(5) factors; should have attributed a negative net worth to Tricia at the time of the parties' marriage due to her student loans; should have required the transfer of the equalization payment to occur through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO); improperly determined that Seth dissipated marital assets by taking out a loan against his 401(k); and should not have ordered that Seth's pension be divided. He also contends the equalization sum should have been fixed in the amount of $177,839. Specifically, Seth claims the district court failed to consider: 1. This was a short marriage.


CourtListener opinion 3214258

CourtListener opinion 3214258 Extracted reporter citation: 397 F3d 103. Docket: 324105 Delta Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3214258 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 3214258

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 3214258

QDRO: but gave defendant until December 31, 2013, to file a motion to reinstate spousal support. LaBute received the couple's property in Alger County and $9,484.20 from defendant's Roth IRA. Her attorney, Russell Hall, drew up a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to transfer the money from the IRA to LaBute. Defendant refused to sign the QDRO, causing Hall to file a motion seeking authorization. Hall informed defendant of the hearing in a letter dated November 8, 2013, and in that letter invited defendant to call his office with any questions about the QDRO. Defendant telephoned Hall on November 20, 2013, two day


CourtListener opinion 3214258

retirement benefits: ia e-mails to accuse LaBute of HIPAA violations if she did not accede to his requests. The purpose of defendant's threatening e-mails was to obtain pecuniary advantage in the form of $1,000 in monthly child support and a waiver of LaBute's lawful claim to his retirement account, and to force her to file a petition with the court that would result in defendant's joint custody of their son. The threats were clearly designed to force LaBute to abandon legal rights granted her by the JOD. Harris, 495 Mich at 136. Thus, a reasonable juror could find that defendant acted with the requisite malice and violated MCL 750.213 when, in reckle


CourtListener opinion 3214585

CourtListener opinion 3214585 Extracted reporter citation: 873 S.W.2d 368. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3214585 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 3214585


CourtListener opinion 3214585

QDRO: 50% portion of the income accrued from June 6, 1993 until July 17, 1998, of the Public Sector Service Center Deferred Compensation account no. [XXX], arising out of Michael A. Sarro's employment with VIA Metropolitan Transit, more particularly defined in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court." -2- 04-15-00392-CV TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(f). Michael responds that Joyce is not entitled to a new trial because she failed to timely request the reporter's record, and Joyce was at fault regarding the destruction of the reporter's notes. In Piotrowski v. Minns, the Texas Supreme Court addressed an issue similar to the issue pre


CourtListener opinion 3214585

retirement benefits: gned until April 1, 2015. In a separate letter order, the trial court concluded the date of the divorce was August 17, 2004. On May 1, 2015, Joyce filed a motion for new trial stating she wanted to appeal the division of the marital estate as to Michael's retirement benefits and pension; 1 however, the court reporter informed her that the reporter's notes from the 2004 trial had been destroyed. Joyce attached to her motion for new trial email correspondence from the court reporter informing Joyce's attorney that she was only required to keep her notes for three years, and the notes no longer existed. The trial court denied


CourtListener opinion 3214585

pension: . In a separate letter order, the trial court concluded the date of the divorce was August 17, 2004. On May 1, 2015, Joyce filed a motion for new trial stating she wanted to appeal the division of the marital estate as to Michael's retirement benefits and pension; 1 however, the court reporter informed her that the reporter's notes from the 2004 trial had been destroyed. Joyce attached to her motion for new trial email correspondence from the court reporter informing Joyce's attorney that she was only required to keep her notes for three years, and the notes no longer existed. The trial court denied the motion f


CourtListener opinion 3214585

domestic relations order: on of the income accrued from June 6, 1993 until July 17, 1998, of the Public Sector Service Center Deferred Compensation account no. [XXX], arising out of Michael A. Sarro's employment with VIA Metropolitan Transit, more particularly defined in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court." -2- 04-15-00392-CV TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(f). Michael responds that Joyce is not entitled to a new trial because she failed to timely request the reporter's record, and Joyce was at fault regarding the destruction of the reporter's notes. In Piotrowski v. Minns, the Texas Supreme Court addressed an issue similar to the issue pre


CourtListener opinion 3215890

CourtListener opinion 3215890 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3215890 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 3215890


CourtListener opinion 3215890

QDRO: y the parties, that the "[MSA] shall not be merged in the Final Judgment but shall survive same." Additionally, the final judgment retained jurisdiction to enter further orders to enforce the MSA and to enter appropriate qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO"). The MSA included provisions regarding two retirement plans that were listed as the H. Bruce Jones M.D., P.A. Money Purchase Pension Plan and the H. Bruce Jones M.D., P.A. Profit Sharing Plan. It also stated that the Husband agreed to be the trustee of both plans. In 2005, the trial court entered QDROs regarding both retirement plans. Both QDROs state


CourtListener opinion 3215890

retirement benefits: lant, Edward Golden ("the Curator"), as curator for the Estate of Katherine Jones ("the Wife"), appeals the trial court's order dismissing his complaint, with prejudice, filed against Appellee, Carol Jones ("the Trustee"), as the successor trustee for certain retirement plans for H. Bruce Jones ("the Husband"). We reverse the trial court after determining the trial court erred in dismissing the initial complaint with prejudice without giving at least one opportunity to amend, and in not transferring the complaint to another division of the court, if the complaint should have been filed as an independent action. Factual Backgr


CourtListener opinion 3215890

pension: APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT EDWARD I. GOLDEN, as Curator of the Estate of Katherine Jones, Appellant, v. CAROL ANN JONES, as Successor Trustee of the H. Bruce Jones, M.D., P.A. Money Purchase Plan and the H. Bruce Jones, M.D., P.A. Pension and Profit Sharing Plan, Appellees. No. 4D14-3063 [June 22, 2016] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Laura M. Watson, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE 99- 013968 (42). William H. Glasko of Golden Glasko & Associates, P.A., Miami, for appellant. Robin F. Hazel of Hazel Law, P.A., Pembroke Pines, for appel


CourtListener opinion 3215890

domestic relations order: icate the Complaint seeks something other than a judgment for damages. In summarizing the relief sought, the Complaint "requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment against the Trustee enforcing and compelling compliance with the August 2, 2005 Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (the Judgments), determining the current value of the Disputed Assets[,] . . . awarding prejudgment interest, . . . and, if the Trustee is found in civil contempt, order compensatory and/or coercive fines, and granting any additional relief which this Court deems appropriate." We agree that the Complaint was subject to dismissal because it is unclear wha


CourtListener opinion 3217472

CourtListener opinion 3217472 Extracted case name: CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. HOSKINS. Extracted reporter citation: 454 S.W.3d 289. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3217472 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 3217472

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 3217472

QDRO: count. Count Two: The Amer Dissolution {¶ 15} Hoskins agreed to represent Gretchen Puff Amer in the dissolution of her marriage in 2010. During the representation, he drafted a separation agreement providing that "legal counsel for the Wife should draft the QDRO's [Qualified Domestic Relations Orders] necessary to divide the marital retirement 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO assets." (Brackets sic.) Hoskins failed to prepare a QDRO and failed to respond to Amer's numerous requests that he do so. {¶ 16} On these facts, the board found that Hoskins neglected Amer's legal matter in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, failed t


CourtListener opinion 3217472

domestic relations order: The Amer Dissolution {¶ 15} Hoskins agreed to represent Gretchen Puff Amer in the dissolution of her marriage in 2010. During the representation, he drafted a separation agreement providing that "legal counsel for the Wife should draft the QDRO's [Qualified Domestic Relations Orders] necessary to divide the marital retirement 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO assets." (Brackets sic.) Hoskins failed to prepare a QDRO and failed to respond to Amer's numerous requests that he do so. {¶ 16} On these facts, the board found that Hoskins neglected Amer's legal matter in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, failed to reasonably communicate with her in v


CourtListener opinion 3218794

CourtListener opinion 3218794 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Nickels. Extracted reporter citation: 900 N.E.2d 454. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3218794 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 3218794

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.