CourtListener opinion 9897426

CourtListener opinion 9897426 Extracted case name: R.W. v. M.D. Extracted reporter citation: 44 N.E.3d 721. Docket: 22A-DN-1202 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9897426 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 9897426

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 9897426

QDRO: estate at $1,257,934.96 and divided it equally between the parties. [4] Husband is employed by the Morgan County Sheriff's Department and the trial court valued his present interest in his pension at $1,101,110.82. Husband's pension is not subject to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO").1 Accordingly, the court awarded the pension to Husband and ordered him to pay to Wife an equalization payment in the amount of $475,043.29. 1 Under federal law, government pensions are not subject to a QDRO. See Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d 721, 725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DN-1202


CourtListener opinion 9897426

retirement benefits: | Opinion 22A-DN-1202 | April 14, 2023 Page 2 of 8 [5] Husband does not have liquid assets sufficient to pay Wife the equalization payment, and he testified that it was "possible" that he would ignore a court order that he pay Wife one-half of his future retirement benefits to satisfy the equalization payment. Tr. p. 76. Accordingly, the trial court ordered that Husband pay Wife, over time, as follows: 15. Should Husband die prior to receiving any of his pension, Wife would have no way to obtain a significant portion of her share of the marital property or estate. In order to provide some assurance the Wife will rece


CourtListener opinion 9897426

pension: a life insurance policy as security for his equalization payment, to be made in installments, to Wife. II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it did not consider the potential tax consequences to him of giving Wife one-half of his future pension distributions. [2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions. Facts and Procedural History [3] Husband and Wife married in November 1995 and have no children together. They separated in August 2021, and Wife filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. Following the final hearing, the trial court issued its decree of dis


CourtListener opinion 9897426

domestic relations order: $1,257,934.96 and divided it equally between the parties. [4] Husband is employed by the Morgan County Sheriff's Department and the trial court valued his present interest in his pension at $1,101,110.82. Husband's pension is not subject to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO").1 Accordingly, the court awarded the pension to Husband and ordered him to pay to Wife an equalization payment in the amount of $475,043.29. 1 Under federal law, government pensions are not subject to a QDRO. See Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d 721, 725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DN-1202


CourtListener opinion 9898149

CourtListener opinion 9898149 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Bulicek. Extracted reporter citation: 800 P.2d 394. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9898149 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 9898149


CourtListener opinion 9898149

QDRO: EALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of the Marriage of No. 83845-8-I LAURIE JEAN GUDNASON DIVISION ONE Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION and HELGI GUDNASON, Respondent. BIRK, J. — Laurie Gudnason appeals a superior court order vacating a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which had divided her former spouse Helgi Gudnason's pension benefits in their dissolution. The superior court ruled the QDRO did not reflect the intent of the parties' separation contract and decree of dissolution, vacated it, and entered a new QDRO carrying out the parties' original intent. We affirm. I On February 15, 2007, Laurie1 petitio


CourtListener opinion 9898149

retirement benefits: eparate property, free from any right, claim, title or interest" of the other. The parties warranted to each other neither had "any right, title or interest in any property of any kind or description whatsoever, other than as set forth herein." Specific to retirement benefits, the contract provided, "Both parties warrant that they have no vested or non-vested interest in any pension plan, retirement plan, profit-sharing plan or any other employee benefit other than those benefits as set forth herein." (Emphasis added.) The contract allocated to Helgi "[a]ll retirement rights" accrued to him through employment including hi


CourtListener opinion 9898149

pension: UDNASON DIVISION ONE Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION and HELGI GUDNASON, Respondent. BIRK, J. — Laurie Gudnason appeals a superior court order vacating a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which had divided her former spouse Helgi Gudnason's pension benefits in their dissolution. The superior court ruled the QDRO did not reflect the intent of the parties' separation contract and decree of dissolution, vacated it, and entered a new QDRO carrying out the parties' original intent. We affirm. I On February 15, 2007, Laurie1 petitioned for dissolution of her marriage with Helgi. They had been marrie


CourtListener opinion 9898149

ERISA: locating a portion of Helgi's retirement benefits to Laurie concludes, "To be divided by QDRO to be drafted by husband's attorney no later than 30 days after entry of the Decree." In the terminology of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829, a "domestic relations order" is "any judgment, decree, or order that concerns ‘the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant' and is ‘made pursuant to a State domestic relations law (including a community property law


CourtListener opinion 9898529

CourtListener opinion 9898529 Extracted case name: In re Matter of Estate of Hein. Extracted reporter citation: 485 P.3d 953. Docket: 57492-6-II There is no record of any other filings. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9898529 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 9898529


CourtListener opinion 9898529

QDRO: other filings in the case until March 2016, when Sarah once again petitioned to reopen the estate. In this petition, Sarah claimed that in response to her motion for contempt, Prudential's position was that it would only make payments to Sarah following a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) requiring it to do so. She submitted a declaration from "a QDRO expert," Id. at 30, who stated that the 2011 stipulation and order had no effect on benefits payable under the annuity, that a QDRO would similarly not allow Sarah to collect any benefits under the annuity, and that the annuity was never an asset of the estate. Because the parties' s


CourtListener opinion 9898529

retirement benefits: ieu of her life estate in the home. In June 2011, Sarah came to an agreement with the Estate, and the parties filed a stipulation and order. The stipulation provided that Gordon held a life insurance policy with Prudential Financial from which he received retirement benefits during his lifetime. Victoria Ochs, Gordon's ex-wife, was the named beneficiary under the plan. It was the parties' understanding that this designation was automatically revoked pursuant to state statute when Gordon and Victoria divorced in 2002. Accordingly, the stipulation claimed, "The Annuity is an asset of the Decedent's estate." Clerk's Papers (C


CourtListener opinion 9898529

domestic relations order: ings in the case until March 2016, when Sarah once again petitioned to reopen the estate. In this petition, Sarah claimed that in response to her motion for contempt, Prudential's position was that it would only make payments to Sarah following a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) requiring it to do so. She submitted a declaration from "a QDRO expert," Id. at 30, who stated that the 2011 stipulation and order had no effect on benefits payable under the annuity, that a QDRO would similarly not allow Sarah to collect any benefits under the annuity, and that the annuity was never an asset of the estate. Because the parties' s


CourtListener opinion 9898529

survivor benefits: mount to be determined by the court commissioner. FACTS Gordon passed away in July 2009, and probate proceedings were initiated about two months after his death. Gordon's will left his residence to his daughter but provided a life estate for Sarah, his surviving spouse. Sarah first filed a petition for a family support award in May 2010. Her petition alleged that she was informed that she could only reside at the home if she made payments toward its taxes, mortgage, maintenance, and future repairs, which she did not believe she could afford. As a result, she began living in a one-bedroom apartment rather than continu


CourtListener opinion 9898829

CourtListener opinion 9898829 Extracted reporter citation: 640 S.W.3d 408. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9898829 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 9898829


CourtListener opinion 9898829

QDRO: ourt to rule on this motion that resulted in the dismissal of the prior appeal for lack of a final order. Sanchez v. Weeks, 2021 Ark. App. 493. On remand, the court dismissed the motion as moot. 3 that the court reopen their divorce case for the entry of a QDRO dividing the account equally between them. The court in the newly reopened 2006 divorce action granted the request and issued a QDRO dividing the 401(k) equally between Gotopo and Sanchez as of February 14, 2020—over four years into Sanchez and Weeks's marriage. After the QDRO was entered by the court in the prior divorce case, Sanchez amended his com


CourtListener opinion 9898829

retirement benefits: t Sanchez filed for divorce two weeks later. As for the 401(k), the evidence was slightly more complicated. Sanchez began working for Wal-Mart in 1996, prior to his marriage to Weeks. While he was employed by Wal-Mart, Sanchez contributed to his company's retirement plan and took advantage of its contribution matching program. At the time he began contributing to the plan, he was married to his first wife, Glexy Sanchez, now Gotopo. They divorced in 2006 after twenty years of marriage. Their divorce decree did not address the division of the 401(k) plan. Sanchez continued to contribute to the 401(k) even after he marri


CourtListener opinion 9898829

401(k): vorcing him from the appellee, Glenn E. Weeks. On appeal, Sanchez argues that the circuit court erred in its division of the marital assets and debts, including its decision declaring the parties' home to be marital property and its allocation of Sanchez's 401(k) plan among Sanchez, Sanchez's ex-wife, and Weeks. Because the court erred in designating the parties' home as marital property and because it erred in its allocation of the 401(k), we reverse the court's division of marital property. Finally, we affirm the circuit court's allocation of marital debt. William Sanchez and Glenn Weeks were married on Nove


CourtListener opinion 9898829

valuation/division: although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. Furthermore, a circuit court has broad powers to distribute property in a divorce to achieve equitable distribution; mathematical precision is not required. Id. In reviewing a circuit court's findings, we defer to the court's superior position to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony. Id. I. Real Property 5 Sanchez first argues that the trial court erred in finding that the parties' home was a marital asset. We a


CourtListener opinion 9900831

CourtListener opinion 9900831 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: and that we would treat. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9900831 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 9900831

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 9900831

retirement benefits: RS disability benefit. The parties having briefed their respective positions, the POs are ripe for our disposition. I. KE'S PETITION Ke filed the Petition in our original jurisdiction on April 13, 2022, alleging as follows.2 Ke applied to SERS for disability retirement benefits in December 2007, 1 Darigo is identified as in-house counsel for SERS. (Petition for Review (Petition) ¶¶ 1, 9.) 2 "In ruling on preliminary objections, we accept as true all well-pleaded material allegations in the [P]etition . . . and any reasonable inferences that we may draw from the (Footnote continued on next page…) which SERS temporarily appro


CourtListener opinion 9900831

domestic relations order: nia State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) and Salvatore Darigo, in his official capacity (Darigo)1 (collectively, Respondents), to the Petition for Review (Petition) filed by Zhaojin David Ke (Ke) in our original jurisdiction challenging the validity of a Domestic Relations Order (DRO) affecting Ke's SERS disability benefit. The parties having briefed their respective positions, the POs are ripe for our disposition. I. KE'S PETITION Ke filed the Petition in our original jurisdiction on April 13, 2022, alleging as follows.2 Ke applied to SERS for disability retirement benefits in December 2007, 1 Darigo is identified as in-house


CourtListener opinion 9901551

CourtListener opinion 9901551 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Kesler. Extracted reporter citation: 427 P.3d 77. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9901551 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 9901551


CourtListener opinion 9901551

QDRO: 20, 2018, and instead valued the parties' assets at the time of dissolution. John requests we "vacate the MPSA rulings and 7 order the MPSA 30% DRIP transfer recognizes and includes the earlier $100,000+ PMPSA transfer and order the effective date of the QDRO transfer to be December 20, 2018." ¶12 Tracy asserts the District Court properly recognized the purpose of the PMPSA was to provide for Tracy's interim and immediate needs and the purpose of the MPSA was to distribute the remaining assets in a just settlement. She asserts the District Court was correct that these two distributions were meant to be read


CourtListener opinion 9901551

401(k): nder the MPSA noting John had not made various distributions required of the PMPSA and had not provided Tracy with a deed to the marital home. Additionally, the court recognized that a QDRO would be needed to transfer ownership of Tracy's portion of John's 401K. John argued the valuation date for the QDRO retirement assets should be the effective date of the MPSA. The District Court determined the valuation date for the QDRO to be November 28, 2022, the date of dissolution. John contends this was reversible error. Tracy asserts that given that none of the obligations imposed by the MPSA were performed on the e


CourtListener opinion 9901551

valuation/division: llowing the MPSA, the District Court merely noted the express intention of the MPSA—"to accomplish a just settlement of their respective property rights"—was consistent with the equitable considerations of § 40-4-202, MCA, and the court would not adopt the property division the MPSA contemplates if it is not an equitable apportionment of the marital estate. The District Court's interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the MPSA, its expressed intention to accomplish a just settlement, and with the other provisions of the agreement. ¶14 Tracy asserts that John's appeal indicates the parties did not have a meet


CourtListener opinion 9903699

CourtListener opinion 9903699 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9903699 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 9903699


CourtListener opinion 9903699

QDRO: ition, "plus any gains or losses on that amount." A postjudgment dispute as to the proper construction of this contractual provision resulted in the trial court entering an order granting Former Wife's motion to enforce the final judgment and the resulting qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). For the following reasons, we reverse. The salient facts of the case are undisputed. The value of Former Husband's interest in the retirement plan at the time of the marriage was $17,485, which Former Wife concedes is Former Husband's separate nonmarital property. The value of the plan when the dissolution of marriage litigation commenced w


CourtListener opinion 9903699

retirement benefits: pouses whose marriage was dissolved by a consent final judgment setting forth their settlement agreement.1 Pertinent here is the contractual provision approved in the judgment requiring the parties to equally divide the marital portion of Former Husband's retirement plan, which they defined as that portion of the plan acquired from the time of the marriage to the filing of the dissolution of marriage petition, "plus any gains or losses on that amount." A postjudgment dispute as to the proper construction of this contractual provision resulted in the trial court entering an order granting Former Wife's motion to enforce


CourtListener opinion 9903699

pension: ive. In Hargrave, the parties entered into a 3 property settlement agreement that was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Id. at 366. The agreement provided that the wife would receive one-half of the portion of the husband's pension plan that "accru[ed] during the marriage and income thereon." Id. Much like the present case, a postjudgment dispute arose between the parties regarding the interpretation of this contractual provision. Id. In Hargrave, and as also occurred here, the wife successfully petitioned the trial court to enter a QDRO that awarded her one-half of the entire ba


CourtListener opinion 9903699

domestic relations order: us any gains or losses on that amount." A postjudgment dispute as to the proper construction of this contractual provision resulted in the trial court entering an order granting Former Wife's motion to enforce the final judgment and the resulting qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). For the following reasons, we reverse. The salient facts of the case are undisputed. The value of Former Husband's interest in the retirement plan at the time of the marriage was $17,485, which Former Wife concedes is Former Husband's separate nonmarital property. The value of the plan when the dissolution of marriage litigation commenced w


CourtListener opinion 9904422

CourtListener opinion 9904422 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9904422 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 9904422


CourtListener opinion 9904422

QDRO: while Former Wife was a stay-at-home mother. Two years later, Former Husband moved for entry of two QDROs for the GE Savings Plan and the Lockheed Savings Plan. After holding a hearing where only these two QDROs were discussed, the lower court entered a QDRO for the GE Savings Plan and a QDRO for the Lockheed Savings Plan. Despite the Lockheed Martin Corporation Salaried Employee Retirement Program ("Lockheed Retirement Program") not being addressed in Former Husband's motion nor discussed during the hearing, the trial court also 2 entered a QDRO for the Lockheed Retirement Program. Additionally, the tria


CourtListener opinion 9904422

retirement benefits: n of marriage. In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court equitably distributed the marital assets, including "retirement assets (401k) valued at in excess of $625,000.00 as well as pension benefits" and specifically distributed two retirement plans titled "Lockheed Martin Salaried Savings" ("Lockheed Savings Plan") and the "GE Retirement Savings" ("GE Savings Plan"). All of these accounts were generated by Former Husband's employment while Former Wife was a stay-at-home mother. Two years later, Former Husband moved for entry of two QDROs for the GE Savings Plan and the Lockheed Savings Plan. Af


CourtListener opinion 9904422

pension: Appellant, John Travis ("Former Husband"), appeals the order denying his motion for rehearing and reconsideration regarding several Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) rendered by the trial court regarding the distribution of certain retirement or pension funds and the three QDROs issued after he filed his first notice of appeal. We affirm in part but vacate the February 2021 QDROs and remand for further proceedings. After over thirty years of marriage to Former Husband, Appellee, Deborah Travis ("Former Wife"), filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In the final judgment of dissolution of marri


CourtListener opinion 9904422

401(k): of marriage to Former Husband, Appellee, Deborah Travis ("Former Wife"), filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court equitably distributed the marital assets, including "retirement assets (401k) valued at in excess of $625,000.00 as well as pension benefits" and specifically distributed two retirement plans titled "Lockheed Martin Salaried Savings" ("Lockheed Savings Plan") and the "GE Retirement Savings" ("GE Savings Plan"). All of these accounts were generated by Former Husband's employment while Former Wife was a stay-at-home mother. Two


CourtListener opinion 9905550

CourtListener opinion 9905550 Extracted reporter citation: 935 A.2d 547. Docket: 206 WDA 2023. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9905550 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 9905550

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 9905550

QDRO: ___________________ 1 Paragraph 2 of the Final Order directed that, among other things, Husband pay $196,925 "plus the sum of the applicable rate of return that was earned on the sum . . . from March 7, 2011 through the date of the issuance of an applicable Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)" to Wife within thirty days of the issuance of the QDRO. Final Order, 6/28/13, ¶ 2. -3- J-A22001-23 shall remain responsible for payment of existing mortgage on [the marital residence] until a transfer of ownership occurs. Final Order, 6/28/13, at ¶ 10. As such, the Final Order contemplated that in the event Wife elected to purchase the house


CourtListener opinion 9905550

domestic relations order: _________ 1 Paragraph 2 of the Final Order directed that, among other things, Husband pay $196,925 "plus the sum of the applicable rate of return that was earned on the sum . . . from March 7, 2011 through the date of the issuance of an applicable Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)" to Wife within thirty days of the issuance of the QDRO. Final Order, 6/28/13, ¶ 2. -3- J-A22001-23 shall remain responsible for payment of existing mortgage on [the marital residence] until a transfer of ownership occurs. Final Order, 6/28/13, at ¶ 10. As such, the Final Order contemplated that in the event Wife elected to purchase the house


CourtListener opinion 9905550

valuation/division: n the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at No(s): FD 91-003774-002 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: November 22, 2023 Roscoe Bright ("Husband") appeals the order granting a motion to enforce equitable distribution filed by Wendy Bright ("Wife"). We affirm. This matter concerns Husband's compliance with an equitable distribution order. Husband and Wife were married in 1992. Before and during the marriage, Husband bought educational savings bonds from his employer. In 1995, he purchased the marital residence in Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, which was mortgaged and tit


CourtListener opinion 9905557

CourtListener opinion 9905557 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9905557 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 9905557


CourtListener opinion 9905557

domestic relations order: materials electronically filed in the underlying cases. See Atwood v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Co. (In re Atwood), 293 B.R. 227, 233 n.9 (9th Cir. BAP 2003). 3 Carey filed a proof of claim in the amount of $15,629.35 (State Court Judgment plus interest) for "Domestic Relations Orders." In section 5 of the proof of claim, Carey indicated that $629.35 was a domestic support obligation ("DSO") entitled to priority pursuant to § 507(a)(1)(A). Rita objected to the proof of claim, stating that she was appealing the $15,000 judgment and the $629.35 was for medical bills, not a DSO. The bankruptcy court granted Rita's objection in part b


CourtListener opinion 9905763

CourtListener opinion 9905763 Extracted case name: COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BULSON. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9905763 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 9905763

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 9905763

QDRO: CONDUCT {¶ 7} Bulson represented Amy Shepherd1 in a Madison County domestic- relations case. On January 8, 2013, the domestic-relations court issued an agreed judgment entry ordering Shepherd's former husband to execute a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to be prepared by Bulson that would effectuate the transfer of $19,427 to Shepherd from her former husband's 401(k) account. {¶ 8} Bulson did not take the necessary actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding Shepherd's frequent inquiries and attempts to contact him. In April 2021, he promised Shepherd that the QDRO would be fi


CourtListener opinion 9905763

pension: August. In his October 2021 written response, Bulson acknowledged his delay in preparing the QDRO, described his recent but unsuccessful efforts to recover computer files regarding the matter, and stated that "the next step is to submit the draft QDRO to the pension administrator for pre-approval." He stated that he expected the approval process to "take up to thirty days" and that once he received it, he would send the original QDRO to opposing counsel for the required signatures and then file the document with the court. But at the time Bulson offered that explanation to relator, he had not yet submitted the QDRO to


CourtListener opinion 9905763

401(k): e domestic-relations court issued an agreed judgment entry ordering Shepherd's former husband to execute a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to be prepared by Bulson that would effectuate the transfer of $19,427 to Shepherd from her former husband's 401(k) account. {¶ 8} Bulson did not take the necessary actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding Shepherd's frequent inquiries and attempts to contact him. In April 2021, he promised Shepherd that the QDRO would be finalized within 30 days. After making that commitment, Bulson did not accept or return Shepherd's phone calls. {¶ 9} S


CourtListener opinion 9905763

domestic relations order: recommended sanction. MISCONDUCT {¶ 7} Bulson represented Amy Shepherd1 in a Madison County domestic- relations case. On January 8, 2013, the domestic-relations court issued an agreed judgment entry ordering Shepherd's former husband to execute a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to be prepared by Bulson that would effectuate the transfer of $19,427 to Shepherd from her former husband's 401(k) account. {¶ 8} Bulson did not take the necessary actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding Shepherd's frequent inquiries and attempts to contact him. In April 2021, he promised Shepherd that the QDRO woul


CourtListener opinion 9910793

CourtListener opinion 9910793 Extracted case name: I.R. v. D.R. Docket: 22AP0020 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9910793 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 9910793


CourtListener opinion 9910793

QDRO: asserting that 10 Wife did not object to their admissibility. He, therefore, has not established that the court was required to admit them. {¶26} Regarding contempt, Husband alleges that the trial court made him bear the costs associated with preparing qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) as a penalty for discovery contempt, even though it never held a contempt hearing. In the pensions part of the decree, the court wrote that it would have preferred to divide the parties' retirement accounts by offsetting them against each other. Because of Husband's "persistent recalcitrance" in failing to provide information about all the acco


CourtListener opinion 9910793

retirement benefits: associated with preparing qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) as a penalty for discovery contempt, even though it never held a contempt hearing. In the pensions part of the decree, the court wrote that it would have preferred to divide the parties' retirement accounts by offsetting them against each other. Because of Husband's "persistent recalcitrance" in failing to provide information about all the accounts, however, it could not do so and had to order them to be divided equally. Section 3105.171(E)(5) provides that, "[i]If a spouse has substantially and willfully failed to disclose marital property, separate prop


CourtListener opinion 9910793

domestic relations order: that 10 Wife did not object to their admissibility. He, therefore, has not established that the court was required to admit them. {¶26} Regarding contempt, Husband alleges that the trial court made him bear the costs associated with preparing qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) as a penalty for discovery contempt, even though it never held a contempt hearing. In the pensions part of the decree, the court wrote that it would have preferred to divide the parties' retirement accounts by offsetting them against each other. Because of Husband's "persistent recalcitrance" in failing to provide information about all the acco


CourtListener opinion 9912164

CourtListener opinion 9912164 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Litzky. Extracted reporter citation: 335 N.E.2d 708. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9912164 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 9912164


CourtListener opinion 9912164

QDRO: trial court erred when it adopted Wife's proposed judgment entry because it did not mirror the language used in the magistrate's recommended decision. Specifically, Husband objects that the judgment entry included language that Husband should prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") within 30 days of journalization of the divorce decree, even though such language was not included in the magistrate's decision. He also objects that Wife's proposed entry included language that the issue of temporary support would remain pending and not merge into the divorce decree and that except for Wife's motion to show cause and motion f


CourtListener opinion 9912164

401(k): y division, payable by Husband in $5,000 monthly installments until fully paid. The court ordered that Husband was responsible for all debt incurred by the parties until July 1, 2020, when the temporary support order took effect. The court awarded Wife her 401(k) account that had a balance of $1,200, and further awarded Wife $54,670.50 from Husband's 401(k). The court awarded each party the vehicle he or she was driving at the time of trial and ordered that the parties were to divide by lot the items listed on Wife's personal property list. Husband now appeals. II. Law and Analysis A. Validity of the Marriage


CourtListener opinion 9912164

domestic relations order: rt erred when it adopted Wife's proposed judgment entry because it did not mirror the language used in the magistrate's recommended decision. Specifically, Husband objects that the judgment entry included language that Husband should prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") within 30 days of journalization of the divorce decree, even though such language was not included in the magistrate's decision. He also objects that Wife's proposed entry included language that the issue of temporary support would remain pending and not merge into the divorce decree and that except for Wife's motion to show cause and motion f


CourtListener opinion 9912164

valuation/division: on. The trial court issued a judgment entry granting the parties a divorce, ordering that Husband be granted his separate property consisting of SAM Corp., and the Tungsten Road, Countryside Road, and Slate Court properties, and awarding Wife $132,000 in property division, payable by Husband in $5,000 monthly installments until fully paid. The court ordered that Husband was responsible for all debt incurred by the parties until July 1, 2020, when the temporary support order took effect. The court awarded Wife her 401(k) account that had a balance of $1,200, and further awarded Wife $54,670.50 from Husband's 401(k). The


CourtListener opinion 9914192

CourtListener opinion 9914192 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Goldsmith. Docket: 1-22-0510 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9914192 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 9914192


CourtListener opinion 9914192

QDRO: ettled their divorce and, in doing so, agreed that Amanda would receive 100% of Michael's employee retirement fund, operated by Fidelity, the present value of which they estimated at roughly $300,000. They entered into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to reflect that transfer. Once that occurred, Amanda attempted to "cash out" those retirement benefits, opting for a lump-sum payment rather than a retirement annuity; No. 1-22-0510 she decided that her need for immediate cash was more important to her than a pension upon retirement. The cash-out value under this benefit plan, Fidelity told her, was cl


CourtListener opinion 9914192

retirement benefits: employee retirement fund, operated by Fidelity, the present value of which they estimated at roughly $300,000. They entered into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to reflect that transfer. Once that occurred, Amanda attempted to "cash out" those retirement benefits, opting for a lump-sum payment rather than a retirement annuity; No. 1-22-0510 she decided that her need for immediate cash was more important to her than a pension upon retirement. The cash-out value under this benefit plan, Fidelity told her, was closer to $440,000. ¶3 When he learned of this cash-out value, Michael sought a reformation of the marita


CourtListener opinion 9914192

pension: reflect that transfer. Once that occurred, Amanda attempted to "cash out" those retirement benefits, opting for a lump-sum payment rather than a retirement annuity; No. 1-22-0510 she decided that her need for immediate cash was more important to her than a pension upon retirement. The cash-out value under this benefit plan, Fidelity told her, was closer to $440,000. ¶3 When he learned of this cash-out value, Michael sought a reformation of the marital settlement agreement under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure. See 735 ILCS 5/2- 1401 (West 2020). Michael argued mutual mistake—that he did not realize


CourtListener opinion 9914192

ERISA: calculated in the same manner as the Alternate Payee's share of the Participant's accrued vested benefit is calculated pursuant to this Order." ¶ 13 In October 2019, Fidelity wrote Amanda a letter indicating that it approved the QDRO as "qualified" under ERISA and the IRS Code as appropriate. The Plan also informed Amanda, the "Alternate Payee," that, "As of 12/1/2019, the total estimated value of the benefit you are eligible to receive as a one-time lump sum payment is $440,124.35. If you choose not to take your benefit as a lump-sum payment, you may receive this estimated benefit amount as any one of the


CourtListener opinion 9918439

CourtListener opinion 9918439 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9918439 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 9918439

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 9918439

domestic relations order: substantial and unjustifiable risk that such circumstances are likely to exist. [Cite as State v. Haugh, 2024-Ohio-79.] {¶23} Appellant argues his conduct did not violate the terms of the CPO because he reasonably believed the terms of a Lorain County domestic relations order "overrode the issues of contact with the minor child." Brief, 6. Appellant further argues sending a "loving note to a child from her father" cannot be a criminal violation and there is no evidence the parental-alienation meme was intended to be seen by Jane Doe. {¶24} We disagree with appellant's characterization of the evidence. As appellee point


CourtListener opinion 9918441

CourtListener opinion 9918441 Extracted reporter citation: 205 N.E.3d 1203. Docket: OT-23-013 Appellee Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9918441 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 9918441

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 9918441

QDRO: l for Wife]: Right. So 17, 17 minus 14 makes. Fourteen minus three. [Counsel for Wife]: Oh, Yeah, yeah, yeah. I got ya. 11,000 [Counsel for Wife]: Yup. $11,593. The [Husband's] pension through Biro Manufacturing would be divided between, for the QDRO. The dates would be June 25th, 2014 to March 9, 2023. The parties will equally split the cost of the preparation and filing of the QDRO. Personal property at the, at the marital residence to be divided, the equity between the parties. If the parties are unable to agree, the Court reserve jurisdiction over that issue. Each party will keep whateve


CourtListener opinion 9918441

pension: for Wife]: Fourteen, right? Well, we adjust for the 3,000. [Counsel for Wife]: Right. So 17, 17 minus 14 makes. Fourteen minus three. [Counsel for Wife]: Oh, Yeah, yeah, yeah. I got ya. 11,000 [Counsel for Wife]: Yup. $11,593. The [Husband's] pension through Biro Manufacturing would be divided between, for the QDRO. The dates would be June 25th, 2014 to March 9, 2023. The parties will equally split the cost of the preparation and filing of the QDRO. Personal property at the, at the marital residence to be divided, the equity between the parties. If the parties are unable to agree, the Court


CourtListener opinion 9925758

CourtListener opinion 9925758 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hunter. Extracted reporter citation: 295 P.3d 736. Docket: 84708-2-I/21 III Kathy next asserts that the superior. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9925758 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 9925758


CourtListener opinion 9925758

QDRO: KATHY JO ROHRS, No. 84708-2-I Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION and JOEL DAMON ROHRS, Respondent. DWYER, J. — Kathy Rohrs appeals from an order of the superior court confirming an arbitration award and correcting a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) previously entered by the court. On appeal, Kathy asserts that the superior court erred by confirming the arbitration award because, she avers, several statutory bases exist upon which the superior court should have vacated the award. Kathy also asserts that the superior court erred by correcting its QDRO because, she contends, the court did not have t


CourtListener opinion 9925758

retirement benefits: and replaced "Respondent" or "Husband" with "Joel" in several of the writings at issue on appeal. 2 As applicable here, a QDRO entered by a superior court is a legal instrument that would create and recognize Kathy's right to receive some portion of Joel's retirement plan benefits. 2 No. 84708-2-I/3 This provision reflected the parties' agreement that Judge Robinson's authority to act as arbitrator would terminate when their final writings were entered as an order of the superior court, unless the parties agreed otherwise in a later writing. Between December 2021 and March 2022, Kathy and Joel submitted several disp


CourtListener opinion 9925758

ERISA: W 7.04A.230(1)(d) because one of the arbitrator's factual findings was that the plan administrator rejected Kathy's QDRO and, according to Kathy, the plan administrator's rejection of Kathy's QDRO violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), codified at 29 U.S.C., ch. 18. Kathy here misses the mark. RCW 7.04A.230(1)(d) regards vacatur of an arbitration award due to an arbitrator exceeding their arbitral powers. The plan administrator is not the arbitrator, and Kathy provides no decisional authority in support of such a conflation. Additionally, Kathy vaguely asserts that a purportedly errone


CourtListener opinion 9925758

401(k): agreement was initially memorialized in a writing captioned as a "CR2A Stipulation and Agreement." The initial writing reflected, in pertinent part, the parties' agreement that [Kathy][1] shall receive the following property: . . . [Joel's] John Hancock 401(k) funds at the time the Decree is entered. No distributions or changes in investment will be made by [Joel] to this account until the QDRO is recognized by the Plan Administrator and the monies are segregated for [Kathy]).[2] .... [Joel] shall receive the following property: . . . [Joel's] [Phantom Stock Appreciation Plan (PSAP)] with his employer[.] [J


CourtListener opinion 9926325

CourtListener opinion 9926325 Docket: 23CA011939 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9926325 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 9926325


CourtListener opinion 9926325

QDRO: OURNAL ENTRY Dated: January 22, 2024 STEVENSON, Judge. {¶1} Leslie Gustafson-Jowiski appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which upheld a magistrate's decision amending an original stipulated qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). This Court reverses and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. {¶2} This is not the first appeal filed by Ms. Gustafson-Jowiski ("Wife"). Wife first appealed the trial court's judgment in Jowiski v. Gustafson-Jowiski, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 21CA011807, 2022-Ohio-2816 ("Jowiski I"). This Court summarized the pertinent


CourtListener opinion 9926325

retirement benefits: ') married in 1982, legally separated in 1996, and divorced in 1997. As part of the divorce, the trial court issued a stipulated qualified domestic relations order (‘QDRO'). In it, the trial court determined that Wife was entitled to one-half of Husband's retirement benefits from the Ford Motor Company for years the parties were married. Specifically, it stated that: 2 [T]he amount payable to [Wife] shall be the amount otherwise payable to [Husband] as follows: one-half (1/2) of the fraction the numerator of which is the number of years [Husband] participated in said plan while married to [Wife], the denominator of whic


CourtListener opinion 9926325

pension: rders as it deems necessary to provide [Wife] with all benefits to which she is entitled or that are necessary to effectuate the terms of the Plan[.]' In 2020, Husband filed a ‘Motion to Modify and Clarify Judgment Entry Regarding [Husband's] Retirement and Pension' (‘Motion to Modify'). In it, he asserted that he worked for Ford for 12 years while the parties were married, continued to work there after the divorce, and was set to retire after working there for over 35 years. He asserted that, while he was married to Wife, he did not actively contribute to his retirement. According to Husband, had he continued to not


CourtListener opinion 9926325

domestic relations order: RY Dated: January 22, 2024 STEVENSON, Judge. {¶1} Leslie Gustafson-Jowiski appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which upheld a magistrate's decision amending an original stipulated qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). This Court reverses and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. {¶2} This is not the first appeal filed by Ms. Gustafson-Jowiski ("Wife"). Wife first appealed the trial court's judgment in Jowiski v. Gustafson-Jowiski, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 21CA011807, 2022-Ohio-2816 ("Jowiski I"). This Court summarized the pertinent


CourtListener opinion 9926843

CourtListener opinion 9926843 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of CANDY and TERENCE BONNER. Extracted reporter citation: 35 Cal.4th 15. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9926843 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 9926843


CourtListener opinion 9926843

QDRO: made direct payments to Candy for her share of his pension until the pension administrator started making payments to Candy in 2017. "Candy worked for the County of San Diego during the marriage, and she retired in 2019. In 2019, Terence stipulated to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that divided Candy's pension. "During the marriage, the parties purchased a house in El Cajon and a house in Campo. After the date of separation until July 2013, the parties lived together in the Campo house. After that date, Candy moved into the El Cajon house. The El Cajon house produced rental income during the parties' entire separation,


CourtListener opinion 9926843

pension: l court entered a judgment of dissolution as to the parties' marital status only. "Terence is retired from employment with an agency of the federal government, where he worked from May 1978 until May 2010. Since retirement, Terence has received a federal pension, but he did not share the pension with Candy for the first two years after separation. In July 2014, in response to a request filed by Candy, the trial court ordered Terence to pay Candy half of his pension on a going forward basis. A domestic relations order (DRO) was created to implement the division. Terence made direct payments to Candy for her sh


CourtListener opinion 9926843

domestic relations order: t payments to Candy for her share of his pension until the pension administrator started making payments to Candy in 2017. "Candy worked for the County of San Diego during the marriage, and she retired in 2019. In 2019, Terence stipulated to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that divided Candy's pension. "During the marriage, the parties purchased a house in El Cajon and a house in Campo. After the date of separation until July 2013, the parties lived together in the Campo house. After that date, Candy moved into the El Cajon house. The El Cajon house produced rental income during the parties' entire separation,


CourtListener opinion 9927000

CourtListener opinion 9927000 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9927000 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 9927000

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 9927000

QDRO: lue, and Mr. Bible objected to his retirement being subject to equitable distribution. At the January 31, 2023, final hearing the family court ordered that Mr. Bible's remaining $14,500.00 retirement amount be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Ms. Bible again objected to the family court's decision to use the appraisal value for the marital home rather than using a square footage replacement value calculation, as provided in the Agreement. Additionally, the family court held that Ms. Bible was entitled credit for 50% of 117 payments on the mortgage at $855.62 per payment, for a total of $54,00


CourtListener opinion 9927000

domestic relations order: and Tina Gilbert has no retirement at the time of marriage." The family court held that only the premarital $16,500.00 portion of Mr. Bible's retirement was excluded by the Agreement and ordered that the remaining balance of $14,500.00 be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). We agree with Mr. Bible for this assignment of error. The Agreement clearly and unambiguously states that each party waived any interest in the other's retirement. Therefore, we reverse the family court's ruling as to Mr. Bible's retirement. Pursuant to the Agreement, Ms. Bible should not receive any of Mr. Bible's retirement. Accordingly, as to t


CourtListener opinion 9927000

valuation/division: d that only $16,500.00 of Mr. Bible's $31,000.00 retirement was excluded by the Agreement. Ms. Bible objected to the marital home's value being determined by appraisal rather than by replacement value, and Mr. Bible objected to his retirement being subject to equitable distribution. At the January 31, 2023, final hearing the family court ordered that Mr. Bible's remaining $14,500.00 retirement amount be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Ms. Bible again objected to the family court's decision to use the appraisal value for the marital home rather than using a square footage replacement value calculation, as prov


CourtListener opinion 9927846

CourtListener opinion 9927846 Extracted reporter citation: 979 N.W.2d 867. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9927846 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 9927846

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 9927846

QDRO: vision regarding the division of husband's pension benefits: Respondent is entitled to a marital interest share of petitioner's Honeywell Retirement Benefit Plan to be computed pursuant to the formula set forth in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which is a separate document and incorporated by reference. The respondent is awarded all interest in his NWA, Inc. pension plan except as set forth in the aforesaid QDRO. (Emphasis added.) Despite the J&D's reference to a QDRO, no QDRO was ever submitted to the court for approval or filed in the dissolution proceeding. As a result, the dissolution


CourtListener opinion 9927846

retirement benefits: , Inc., and specified the value of those benefits at the time of dissolution. The J&D also included the following provision regarding the division of husband's pension benefits: Respondent is entitled to a marital interest share of petitioner's Honeywell Retirement Benefit Plan to be computed pursuant to the formula set forth in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which is a separate document and incorporated by reference. The respondent is awarded all interest in his NWA, Inc. pension plan except as set forth in the aforesaid QDRO. (Emphasis added.) Despite the J&D's reference to a QDRO, no QDRO was ever sub


CourtListener opinion 9927846

pension: challenges the district court's partial denial of her motion to amend the parties' dissolution judgment and decree (J&D), arguing that the district court erred by denying her request for an amendment specifying that she is entitled to half of respondent's pension plan. Because the district court did not consider whether appellant may be entitled to the requested relief based on the supreme court's decision in Pooley v. Pooley, 979 N.W.2d 867 (Minn. 2022), we reverse and remand. FACTS Appellant Mary Jean Latterell (wife) and respondent Chriss O. Latterell (husband) dissolved their marriage by a J&D, entered on


CourtListener opinion 9927846

valuation/division: was entitled to half of husband's Northwest Airlines pension benefits pursuant to the QDRO. In an affidavit supporting her motion, wife stated that she understood the "marital interest share" language in the J&D to mean that she was entitled to "50% of the marital portion of the [Northwest Airlines pension]." Wife also stated that it was her understanding that husband's attorney was responsible for preparing and submitting a QDRO for approval by the dissolution court in 1993 but never did so. Husband opposed the motion. Husband acknowledged that the J&D was "fraught with errors and omissions," including references to a


CourtListener opinion 9928185

CourtListener opinion 9928185 Extracted case name: BETH E. ANKETELL v. MARTIN KULLDORFF. Extracted reporter citation: 263 A.3d 972. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9928185 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 9928185


CourtListener opinion 9928185

QDRO: granting the plaintiff's postjudgment motion for clarification and for postjudgment interest. In accordance with the dissolution judgment, the defendant was required to transfer $175,000 from the retirement funds of his choice to the plaintiff by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In its decision, the trial court indicated that such amount could be adjusted to reflect any gains or losses that occurred prior to the judg- ment. The defendant appealed from the dissolution judgment, asserting claims of error unrelated to the division of his retirement funds. The orders of the judgment were stayed during the pending appeal, a


CourtListener opinion 9928185

retirement benefits: ity number, but I'm . . . glad that she has provided [it] at this time. They haven't sent a bill yet. As soon as they send a bill, I will pay my part of it. There's one issue . . . I thought they were charging per company, but they [are] actually charging per retirement account, and my retirement is split into more than half a dozen different accounts, so I specified three accounts, but I think they are going to—I'm going to revise that. I'll send them an email later today. So there [are] only two accounts. . . . I don't have enough money in one account. I can't do one account, so I have to do two. But that will save both me and [


CourtListener opinion 9928185

domestic relations order: he plaintiff's postjudgment motion for clarification and for postjudgment interest. In accordance with the dissolution judgment, the defendant was required to transfer $175,000 from the retirement funds of his choice to the plaintiff by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In its decision, the trial court indicated that such amount could be adjusted to reflect any gains or losses that occurred prior to the judg- ment. The defendant appealed from the dissolution judgment, asserting claims of error unrelated to the division of his retirement funds. The orders of the judgment were stayed during the pending appeal, a


CourtListener opinion 9928362

CourtListener opinion 9928362 Extracted reporter citation: 550 U.S. 544. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9928362 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 9928362


CourtListener opinion 9928362

QDRO: y, but it seems to allege that her ex-husband "never reported or disclosed" their marriage "to the GM . . . [b]enefits office." Id. "Nevertheless," Saunders says she is entitled to pension benefits either under her ex-husband's pension plan or pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") within the meaning of ERISA. Id. Saunders sued her ex-husband and PBGC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Id. at 1. The Georgia court dismissed Saunders' ex-husband from the case for want of personal jurisdiction, Dkt. 40, and then transferred her remaining claims against PBGC to this district, Dkt. 50. PBGC move


CourtListener opinion 9928362

pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEBORAH A. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, v. No. 23-cv-2154 (DLF) MALACHIAH SAUNDERS, et al., Defendants. ORDER Deborah A. Saunders, proceeding pro se, seeks relief from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Before the Court is PBGC's Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 49. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion. Saunders is the ex-wife of Malachiah Saunders, a former employee of General Motors. Pl.'s Pet. for Decla


CourtListener opinion 9928362

ERISA: Plaintiff, v. No. 23-cv-2154 (DLF) MALACHIAH SAUNDERS, et al., Defendants. ORDER Deborah A. Saunders, proceeding pro se, seeks relief from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Before the Court is PBGC's Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 49. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion. Saunders is the ex-wife of Malachiah Saunders, a former employee of General Motors. Pl.'s Pet. for Declaratory J. & Injunctive Relief at 2, Dkt. 5. Her complaint is not a model of clarity, but it seems to all


CourtListener opinion 9928362

alternate payee: n plan, her complaint does not "plead[] factual content" that makes the contention "plausible." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Indeed, her filings do not quote, cite, or summarize the terms of the General Motors plan. They allege that Saunders has "rights" as an "alternate payee" and is "qualified" as a "former-spouse" under that plan, Pl.'s Pet. at 2–3, Dkt. 5, but those assertions amount to legal conclusions that the Court may properly disregard, see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 2 Nor does Saunders plausibly allege that PBGC must award her benefits pursuant to a QDRO. Although ERISA says that "benefits provided under [a] plan


CourtListener opinion 9931428

CourtListener opinion 9931428 Docket: twenty-two. 6. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9931428 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 9931428


CourtListener opinion 9931428

QDRO: distribution of the marital estate, the family court awarded Wife the following: (1) $28,957 from various bank accounts; (2) one-half of the balances from retirement accounts and a thrift savings plan with Husband being responsible for the preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders; (3) one-half of Husband's pension; and (4) proceeds from the sale of the marital home allocated by separate order. Additionally, Wife was ordered to vacate the marital home by January 31, 2022. Wife, then pro se, appealed the family court's order to circuit court on January 6, 2022. The circuit court denied her appeal because "all grounds [Wife] raise[d


CourtListener opinion 9931428

retirement benefits: pellate Procedure. Next, we address Wife's tenth assignment of error. In this error, she contends that the circuit court erred when it remanded the case to family court for additional findings of fact regarding the taxes paid by Husband for withdrawals from retirement accounts and asserts that she did not receive her one-half share of said withdrawals. Upon review, we find that this assignment of error lacks merit. First, Wife provided no documentation on appeal to support her argument. Second, the issue was remanded with instructions for the family court to gather additional information as to the withdrawals from the retirement


CourtListener opinion 9931428

pension: ife the following: (1) $28,957 from various bank accounts; (2) one-half of the balances from retirement accounts and a thrift savings plan with Husband being responsible for the preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders; (3) one-half of Husband's pension; and (4) proceeds from the sale of the marital home allocated by separate order. Additionally, Wife was ordered to vacate the marital home by January 31, 2022. Wife, then pro se, appealed the family court's order to circuit court on January 6, 2022. The circuit court denied her appeal because "all grounds [Wife] raise[d] for appeal 2 pertain[ed] to her


CourtListener opinion 9931428

domestic relations order: ion of the marital estate, the family court awarded Wife the following: (1) $28,957 from various bank accounts; (2) one-half of the balances from retirement accounts and a thrift savings plan with Husband being responsible for the preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders; (3) one-half of Husband's pension; and (4) proceeds from the sale of the marital home allocated by separate order. Additionally, Wife was ordered to vacate the marital home by January 31, 2022. Wife, then pro se, appealed the family court's order to circuit court on January 6, 2022. The circuit court denied her appeal because "all grounds [Wife] raise[d


CourtListener opinion 9940102

CourtListener opinion 9940102 Extracted case name: S.M.C. v. W.P.C. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 44 WDA 2023. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9940102 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 9940102

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 9940102

QDRO: marital residence. Id. at 50. However, the trial court changed this recommendation, awarding the equity in the marital residence to Wife. Id. Instead, Husband received $457,041.00 of Wife's IRA and 401(k), which, he complains, is only accessible through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Id. According to Husband, he will incur a mandatory 20% tax withholding if he attempts to access these funds. Id. - 19 - J-S46019-23 Husband argues the master and trial court improperly considered only his reasonable needs, without taking into consideration his standard of living obtained during the marriage. Id. at 51. Our standard of review rega


CourtListener opinion 9940102

retirement benefits: 701. The master addressed each of these factors in the MRR. See MRR, 12/23/20, at 14-17. In its opinion, the trial court explained its decision not to award Husband alimony: The Wife is employed with Genzyme Corporation making $9,801.42 per month, with retirement benefits, a company car, and medical and life insurance. [Husband] is employed by Humility of Mary with a net monthly income of $2,125.34, with retirement benefits and medical benefits. The Husband has an associate[s] degree in marketing and experience in the managerial field. However, during the marriage, the Husband decided to become a farmer and operated a


CourtListener opinion 9940102

pension: ncome of $33,000.00 per year. 9 J-S46019-23 c. Based on Wife's representations, her net monthly income was determined to be $9,035.19. Spousal support was calculated at $2,050.06 minus child support. d. Wife testified at the Master's Hearing that her pension contribution was not mandatory. e. On August 20, 2020, Husband filed for an upward modification of support retroactive to November 19, 2019, "the date [Wife] knew her pension was nonmandatory." Husband's Brief at 24. f. Without any calculations, the trial court modified Wife's monthly support obligation to $717.53, an increase of $96.25. See gener


CourtListener opinion 9940102

401(k): perly relied on the domestic relations order, which was calculated without the benefit of Wife's 2019 tax return and W-2. Id. Husband further claims the trial court failed to consider that Wife's company provides her with a company car, a 150% match on her 401(k) contributions, and medical and dental insurance. Id. Husband asserts the master and court ignored the fact that he worked as a farmer, has an annual gross income of $33,000, and a net income of $2,125.34 per month. Id. at 45-46. In addition, Wife is 49 years old and in good health, while Husband is 54 years old and has a prior history of skin cancer.


CourtListener opinion 9941228

CourtListener opinion 9941228 Extracted reporter citation: 199 S.W.3d 279. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9941228 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 9941228


CourtListener opinion 9941228

QDRO: 2.20 out of an Edward Jones retirement account. All three accounts were kept invested in "numerous funds, stocks, bonds, and other assets" that fluctuate in value. Each account was to be divided pursuant to the Decree and as "more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court." The decree award included "interest, dividends, gains, or losses" on the awards, but did not reflect the amounts of cash and/or securities contained in the accounts in question.2 What, at first blush, appears to state a monetary award of $1,062,242.20 out of the designated Edward Jones account was subsequently clarified by an orde


CourtListener opinion 9941228

retirement benefits: we issued our mandate on April 19, 2021. 2 III. Analysis The September 7, 2018, divorce decree awarded Kathryn two Merrill Lynch investment accounts, with a combined value of $548,177.25, and the equivalent value of $1,062,242.20 out of an Edward Jones retirement account. All three accounts were kept invested in "numerous funds, stocks, bonds, and other assets" that fluctuate in value. Each account was to be divided pursuant to the Decree and as "more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court." The decree award included "interest, dividends, gains, or losses" on the awards, but di


CourtListener opinion 9941228

domestic relations order: f an Edward Jones retirement account. All three accounts were kept invested in "numerous funds, stocks, bonds, and other assets" that fluctuate in value. Each account was to be divided pursuant to the Decree and as "more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court." The decree award included "interest, dividends, gains, or losses" on the awards, but did not reflect the amounts of cash and/or securities contained in the accounts in question.2 What, at first blush, appears to state a monetary award of $1,062,242.20 out of the designated Edward Jones account was subsequently clarified by an orde


CourtListener opinion 9941228

valuation/division: early 1990s and sought a divorce in 2017. The trial court granted the divorce and divided the parties' marital estate, awarding Kathryn part or all of three brokerage accounts. When George appealed the trial court's decision, we affirmed the lower court's property division, and our Supreme Court denied George's petition for review. See Danner v. Danner, No. 09-18-00385-CV, 2020 WL 6325725 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 29, 2020, pet. denied). During the lengthy appellate process, 1 Kathryn was denied access to the brokerage accounts awarded to her and, therefore, sought interest on the value of those accounts. The trial court


CourtListener opinion 9941296

CourtListener opinion 9941296 Extracted case name: MR LOYD JEFFREY BOWERS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT v. FAMILY DIVISION HONORABLE RICHARD A. WOESTE. Extracted reporter citation: 235 S.W.3d 1. Docket: 2023-CA-0102-MR LOYD JEFFREY BOWERS APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9941296 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 9941296


CourtListener opinion 9941296

QDRO: to, in return for -6- getting the total equity in the automobile, Husband was awarded the total possible profit from a children's book he wrote. Husband was ordered to equally divide his 401K and stock. The family court ordered the parties to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate said division. The cost of such was divided in proportion to the parties' percentage of income with Husband paying 85% and Wife paying 15%. Each party was ordered to pay the debt incurred in his or her sole name. The family court determined that the outstanding tax debt of $10,074 was marital and ordered it to be paid in proportion to the


CourtListener opinion 9941296

401(k): Newport, Kentucky, and Walnut Creek, California. The family court awarded Husband the $45,000 equity in the California condominium, finding that he used half of the proceeds from the sale of the Newport, Kentucky, property, and a loan he took out from his 401K to assist with the down payment for the Walnut Creek, California condominium. Wife had a 2017 Mercedes GLA with a value of $29,024 and with debt attached of $25,846. Husband had a 2018 Audi Q3 with a value of $22,500 and with a debt attached of $22,966.28. Husband had a $114,161.29 401K Plan. Husband took a loan out on the 401K Plan. The parties agree


CourtListener opinion 9941296

domestic relations order: urn for -6- getting the total equity in the automobile, Husband was awarded the total possible profit from a children's book he wrote. Husband was ordered to equally divide his 401K and stock. The family court ordered the parties to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate said division. The cost of such was divided in proportion to the parties' percentage of income with Husband paying 85% and Wife paying 15%. Each party was ordered to pay the debt incurred in his or her sole name. The family court determined that the outstanding tax debt of $10,074 was marital and ordered it to be paid in proportion to the


CourtListener opinion 9943195

CourtListener opinion 9943195 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Kehoe and Farkas. Docket: 1-23-0941 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9943195 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 9943195


CourtListener opinion 9943195

QDRO: respondent's 401(k) plan. ¶2 The petitioner, Lori K. Plier (Lori), appeals from an order of the circuit court granting the motion of the respondent, David G. Plier (David), to enforce their Judgement for Dissolution of No. 1-23-0941 Marriage and amend the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered pursuant to that order. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. ¶3 The facts relevant to our disposition of this appeal are not in dispute. The parties were married on May 29, 1999. Irreconcilable differences arose between them, resulting in a breakdown of their marriage. As a consequence, Lori filed a petition for dissolution of the mar


CourtListener opinion 9943195

retirement benefits: itten Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), purporting to settle between them, among other things, the division of property. Relevant to the issues in this case, are the following provisions of Article XIII, paragraph 8.1 of the MSA: "A. David has a 401(k) retirement plan with his employer, Retail First, Inc., valued at $90,000 as of March 1, 2022. Documentation will be provided to verify the current amount. B. Lori shall be entitled to 50% of this 401(k) account as of the date of entry of the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage. C.. A QDRO shall be drafted by Lori's attorney to effect the transfer of such funds a


CourtListener opinion 9943195

401(k): ed the circuit court's order granting the respondent's motion to enforce the parties dissolution judgement and entering an amended QRDO, finding that the parties' marital settlement agreement was unambiguous on the issue of the division of the respondent's 401(k) plan. ¶2 The petitioner, Lori K. Plier (Lori), appeals from an order of the circuit court granting the motion of the respondent, David G. Plier (David), to enforce their Judgement for Dissolution of No. 1-23-0941 Marriage and amend the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered pursuant to that order. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. ¶3


CourtListener opinion 9943195

alternate payee: et forth verbatim as the judgement of this Court. ¶7 On that same date, the circuit court entered a QDRO relating to David's 401(k) plan that was drafted by Lori's attorney and which, in the first paragraph of paragraph 7, stated as follows: "7. Amount of Alternate Payee's Benefit. This order assigns to the Alternate Payee [Lori] -3- No. 1-23-0941 an amount equal to Fifty Percent (50%) of the Participant's Account Balance accumulated under the Plan as of May 27, 2022 (or the closest valuation date thereto) plus any interest and investment earnings or losses attributable thereon for periods subsequent to May 27, 2


CourtListener opinion 9946288

CourtListener opinion 9946288 Extracted case name: VAN CAMP v. VAN CAMP. Extracted reporter citation: 537 P.3d 807. Docket: 1 CA-CV 23-0297 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9946288 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 9946288

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 9946288

QDRO: enting time followed, resulting in more than 400 post-decree docket entries. ¶3 In May 2022, Mother filed a petition to enforce, arguing Father failed to pay her portion of their 1st Bank Savings Account, "failed to pay his 50% share of the cost of preparing QDRO's" for Father's Motorola 401K account, and failed to pay all his spousal maintenance obligations. In September 2022, before the court ruled on Mother's petition to enforce, Father filed a petition to modify spousal maintenance.2 1 The facts and procedural history recited are limited to those relevant to this specific appeal; additional information is avai


CourtListener opinion 9946288

retirement benefits: N CAMP Decision of the Court not know whether Mother is presently employed full time as a teacher or has begun training and employment"; (2) he speculated "Mother's residential property has skyrocketed [in value]"; (3) "[he] believes that [the] value of the retirement accounts awarded to Mother have substantially increased" and (4) because the three children were no longer minors, "Mother's monthly reasonable needs have substantially decreased." By failing to allege or provide any basis for changed circumstances, Father has shown no error in the court concluding he did not prove a substantial and continuing change. See Trantor v


CourtListener opinion 9946288

401(k): g in more than 400 post-decree docket entries. ¶3 In May 2022, Mother filed a petition to enforce, arguing Father failed to pay her portion of their 1st Bank Savings Account, "failed to pay his 50% share of the cost of preparing QDRO's" for Father's Motorola 401K account, and failed to pay all his spousal maintenance obligations. In September 2022, before the court ruled on Mother's petition to enforce, Father filed a petition to modify spousal maintenance.2 1 The facts and procedural history recited are limited to those relevant to this specific appeal; additional information is available in Marriage of Van Camp


CourtListener opinion 9946288

domestic relations order: r's Petition to Enforce. ¶14 Father argues the superior court erred by granting Mother's May 2022 petition to enforce Father's payment obligations under the decree. The resulting March 2023 ruling ordered Father to pay $500 for his "portion of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order preparation fees" for Father's Motorola 401K account. ¶15 On appeal, Father only addresses the order that he pay $500 for preparation of the QDRO fees, asserting Mother's claim for that payment was time-barred under A.R.S. § 25-318(P). Father has not cited, and the court has not found, any legal authority applying the language of A.R.S. 25-318(P) to the en


CourtListener opinion 9948775

CourtListener opinion 9948775 Extracted case name: C.L.A. v. D.P.M. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: reflects service of his motions was perfected on Wi. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9948775 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 9948775


CourtListener opinion 9948775

QDRO: ting the OCSS Recommendation resulted in an unresolved matter that required further action and, therefore, rendered the May 25, 2023 order not a final, appealable order. Husband analogizes the OCSS Recommendation to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and argues neither vehicle requires further adjudication on the merits of the case but are simply ministerial tools used in furtherance of an order. A "QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. Wife argues tha


CourtListener opinion 9948775

pension: tion to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and argues neither vehicle requires further adjudication on the merits of the case but are simply ministerial tools used in furtherance of an order. A "QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. Wife argues that any judgment that leaves issues unresolved is not a final, appealable order. Wife also argues that consistent with the holding in M.E.D. v. P.K., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112070, 2023-Ohio-3471, the current appea


CourtListener opinion 9948775

domestic relations order: ence of a court order adopting the OCSS Recommendation resulted in an unresolved matter that required further action and, therefore, rendered the May 25, 2023 order not a final, appealable order. Husband analogizes the OCSS Recommendation to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and argues neither vehicle requires further adjudication on the merits of the case but are simply ministerial tools used in furtherance of an order. A "QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. Wife arg


CourtListener opinion 9949740

CourtListener opinion 9949740 Extracted reporter citation: 204 A.3d 1102. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9949740 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 9949740


CourtListener opinion 9949740

QDRO: led an objection to defendant's motion for summary judgment on September 20, 2021. The next day, hours before a hearing on the parties' motions, plaintiff filed an amended motion, styled as an "amended motion for relief from judgment and to compel entry of QDRO with survivorship language," 4 under Rule 60(b). In the amended motion, plaintiff focused less on the express reference to COLAs and pre-retirement options and more on the language that she was entitled 4 A "QDRO" is a qualified domestic relations order. -5- to "any benefits such as" those expressly stated. "A survivorship annuity," she reasoned, "f


CourtListener opinion 9949740

retirement benefits: e. The provision reads, in relevant part, "in the event that [defendant] is entitled to receive a pension * * * as a result of his employment as a civilian with the federal government, [plaintiff] shall be entitled to receive one-half [sic] of his civilian retirement plan from the date of his employment until June 30, 2018." Two weeks after the nominal divorce hearing, on July 16, 2018, the Family Court entered a decision pending entry of final judgment, presented by defendant's attorney, that incorporated the agreement "as a separate, independent contract." Nevertheless, the provisions relating to defendant's pensions


CourtListener opinion 9949740

pension: as her motion to adjudge the defendant in contempt. At the heart of the plaintiff's several arguments on appeal is a belief that her marital settlement agreement with the defendant, her ex-husband, entitles her to survivor benefits in his federal civilian pension. This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the plaintiff's written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this 1 The defendant did not partic


CourtListener opinion 9949740

domestic relations order: nd to compel entry of QDRO with survivorship language," 4 under Rule 60(b). In the amended motion, plaintiff focused less on the express reference to COLAs and pre-retirement options and more on the language that she was entitled 4 A "QDRO" is a qualified domestic relations order. -5- to "any benefits such as" those expressly stated. "A survivorship annuity," she reasoned, "falls into that category of ‘any benefit.'" In the alternative, plaintiff argued that the agreement was "ambiguous regarding the issue of the entitlement to a survivorship option." The plaintiff's motions for relief from judgment, contempt, entry of a qu


CourtListener opinion 9950942

CourtListener opinion 9950942 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: sheet in the Clerk. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9950942 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 9950942

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 9950942

domestic relations order: ef. Although the appellate record includes a few documents in the Clerk's Record from Mother's and Frank's divorce—the Original Petition For Divorce, Frank's answer, the Mediated Settlement Agreement, the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce, and some Qualified Domestic Relations Orders—it doesn't include the information mentioned in the Agreed Decree, specifically "the record of testimony" that the trial court noted "was duly reported by the Court reporter for [the] 418th Judicial District Court." Additionally, the docket sheet in the Clerk's Record includes docket entries relevant to the proceedings in Mother's and Frank's divorce.


CourtListener opinion 9952811

CourtListener opinion 9952811 Extracted case name: S.D. v. G.D. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 23S-DN-245. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9952811 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 9952811

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 9952811

QDRO: . A court must also "consider the tax consequences of the property disposition." Id. § -7. This case turns on the application of these statutes to Husband's government pension—the bulk of the marital estate. Often, pension benefits can be assigned through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which streamlines the division of marital property in dissolution actions by requiring plan administrators to pay the benefits directly to a former spouse. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d); Pond v. Pond, 700 N.E.2d 1130, 1134 n.8 (Ind. 1998). But governmental plans, such as Husband's police pension, cannot be divided through a QDRO. Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E.


CourtListener opinion 9952811

pension: monious. When a divorce falls toward the latter end of that spectrum, as is the case here, Indiana law provides courts with useful tools to secure each party's share. The trial court here used one such tool to secure a wife's portion of her husband's police pension—the bulk of the marital estate. Throughout the case, the husband defiantly claimed his wife was not entitled to any of his pension and that he would likely ignore any court order to that effect. In response, the court ordered the husband to obtain and subsidize a life insurance policy to ensure the wife received her share. The husband now challenges the tri


CourtListener opinion 9952811

domestic relations order: e, his police pension had a market value of $1,101,110.82, constituting over 85% of the $1,257,934.96 marital estate. Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-DN-245 | March 20, 2024 Page 2 of 9 Because Husband's pension could not be divided through a qualified domestic relations order, the parties' stipulated marital balance sheet proposed an equal distribution of assets that awarded the pension to Husband and an equalization payment to Wife. Yet both in and out of court, Husband persistently stated he was not willing to share his pension with Wife. As a result, Wife expressed concern that she "will get nothing and he will pay me nothing


CourtListener opinion 9952811

valuation/division: iana Court of Appeals No. 22A-DN-1202 Opinion by Chief Justice Rush Justices Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur. Rush, Chief Justice. Among the many issues trial courts must resolve in dissolution cases is ensuring each party receives a fair and equitable distribution of the marital estate. But divorces can run the gamut from amicable to acrimonious. When a divorce falls toward the latter end of that spectrum, as is the case here, Indiana law provides courts with useful tools to secure each party's share. The trial court here used one such tool to secure a wife's portion of her husband's police pension—the bulk of the


CourtListener opinion 9955748

CourtListener opinion 9955748 Extracted case name: MR SOUMAYA JABRAZKO APPELLANT APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE TERRI KING SCHOBORG. Extracted reporter citation: 245 S.W.3d 222. Docket: 2023-CA-0336-MR SOUMAYA JABRAZKO APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9955748 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 9955748


CourtListener opinion 9955748

QDRO: he proceeds into a savings account. Wife lives in the marital home, which had a stipulated value of $737,500 at the time of dissolution. The parties have no children. The family court ordered that the parties' retirement accounts be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The court evenly divided the parties' various cash accounts. Husband was awarded his one- -4- half share of equity in the marital home. The net result is that Wife owed Husband $222,260.08. The primary issue on appeal is whether the family court erred in its assessment of Wife's Savings Account2 as marital property, and thus, whether it also


CourtListener opinion 9955748

retirement benefits: sold his premarital residence and deposited the proceeds into a savings account. Wife lives in the marital home, which had a stipulated value of $737,500 at the time of dissolution. The parties have no children. The family court ordered that the parties' retirement accounts be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The court evenly divided the parties' various cash accounts. Husband was awarded his one- -4- half share of equity in the marital home. The net result is that Wife owed Husband $222,260.08. The primary issue on appeal is whether the family court erred in its assessment of Wife's Sav


CourtListener opinion 9955748

domestic relations order: s into a savings account. Wife lives in the marital home, which had a stipulated value of $737,500 at the time of dissolution. The parties have no children. The family court ordered that the parties' retirement accounts be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The court evenly divided the parties' various cash accounts. Husband was awarded his one- -4- half share of equity in the marital home. The net result is that Wife owed Husband $222,260.08. The primary issue on appeal is whether the family court erred in its assessment of Wife's Savings Account2 as marital property, and thus, whether it also


CourtListener opinion 9955748

valuation/division: vidence should be appropriately considered. We do not opine as to what type or degree of tracing evidence is necessary here. However, we do observe that the thrust of Allen and Chenault is to reduce overly stringent tracing requirements where appropriate. See Property division – Permissible methods of tracing, 15 KY. PRAC. DOMESTIC RELATIONS L. § 15:13. -8- reconsider his nonmarital interest in Husband's Savings Account.4 To be clear, this account concerns a similar Allen issue. And again, we make no decision as to the existence or amount of potentially nonmarital property in either of these accounts. We will now address an