CourtListener opinion 11276663

retirement benefits: YNES. DAVID HAYNES, Respondent, A172255 v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals two orders arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of part of her federal employment retirement benefits: the first, a qualified domestic relations order; the second, the trial court's findings and order after hearing. We dismiss the appeal of the first order because it is untimely, and we affirm the second order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument.2 1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local


CourtListener opinion 11276663

QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

domestic relations order: v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals two orders arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of part of her federal employment retirement benefits: the first, a qualified domestic relations order; the second, the trial court's findings and order after hearing. We dismiss the appeal of the first order because it is untimely, and we affirm the second order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument.2 1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 19. 2 Concurrently, we issue


CourtListener opinion 11276733

CourtListener opinion 11276733 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of DAVID and TELETHA HAYNES. DAVID HAYNES. Extracted reporter citation: 225 Cal.App.3d 469. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11276733 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 11276733

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 11276733

QDRO: FORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE In re the Marriage of DAVID and TELETHA HAYNES. DAVID HAYNES, Respondent, A173440 v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals a qualified domestic relations order arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of her federal Thrift Savings Plan retirement benefits. We affirm the order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument. BACKGROUND In May 2023 the Solano Superior Court entered a judgment dissolving David and Teletha Haynes's nearly 28-year marriage.2 (In re Marria


CourtListener opinion 11276733

retirement benefits: ondent, A173440 v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals a qualified domestic relations order arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of her federal Thrift Savings Plan retirement benefits. We affirm the order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument. BACKGROUND In May 2023 the Solano Superior Court entered a judgment dissolving David and Teletha Haynes's nearly 28-year marriage.2 (In re Marriage of 1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 19. 2 We use fi


CourtListener opinion 11276733

domestic relations order: IRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE In re the Marriage of DAVID and TELETHA HAYNES. DAVID HAYNES, Respondent, A173440 v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals a qualified domestic relations order arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of her federal Thrift Savings Plan retirement benefits. We affirm the order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument. BACKGROUND In May 2023 the Solano Superior Court entered a judgment dissolving David and Teletha Haynes's nearly 28-year marriage.2 (In re Marria


CourtListener opinion 11276733

valuation/division: tations or refers to material that is not part of the appellate record. Teletha's abbreviated argument is in substance: "[The judgment says] only retirement contributions, earnings, or accumulations from the date of marriage through the date of separation are community property and subject to division," but the TSP QDRO allocates to David more than his half of the community property part of her Thrift Savings Plan benefits. (Underscoring omitted.) Critically, the judgment is not part of the appellate record, precluding review of whether the TSP QDRO is contradictory. (See Cosenza v. Kramer 3 (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1100, 1102 [c


CourtListener opinion 11277968

CourtListener opinion 11277968 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11277968 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 11277968


CourtListener opinion 11277968

QDRO: appellee. Jay F. Crook Attorney at Law, LLC and Jay F. Crook, for appellant. EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.: Defendant-appellant Sabrina E. Mickel ("Mickel") appeals the trial court's denial of her Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment challenging a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). Upon review, we affirm the trial court's decision. I. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiff-appellee Steven D'Wayne Marrs ("Marrs") filed a complaint for divorce in September 2019. The divorce was finalized in November 2022, when the trial court issued a final-divorce-decree judgment entry ("divorce entry"). Mickel appealed the divorce en


CourtListener opinion 11277968

retirement benefits: nded QDRO was signed by one party's attorney and notated "Seen but not approved" on the signature line for the other party's attorney); Eichholz v. Eichholz, 2009-Ohio-1421 (9th Dist.) (affirming the trial court's adoption of a QDRO applying to a husband's retirement account that was drafted and submitted by his wife); Cuyahoga C.P., Domestic Relations Loc.R. 28(F) (providing that the trial court may assign the responsibility of preparing a QDRO to either party at its discretion and counsel for the alternate payee may prepare a QDRO if the participant is in default). Consequently, Mickel has not established that she is en


CourtListener opinion 11277968

401(k): ourt for her failure to comply with the divorce entry as it pertained to the payment of spousal support to Marrs, Marrs' interest in Mickel's business, and Marrs' attorney fees; the listing and selling of the marital residence; and the division of Mickel's 401(K). After Mickel failed to comply with the contempt entry, Marrs filed motions to impose a jail sentence and show cause. In December 2024, the parties entered into an agreement to remedy Mickel's contempt. The agreement was memorialized in an agreed judgment entry ("agreed entry"), which was executed by Mickel, Marrs, and their attorneys. Relevant to thi


CourtListener opinion 11277968

alternate payee: husband's retirement account that was drafted and submitted by his wife); Cuyahoga C.P., Domestic Relations Loc.R. 28(F) (providing that the trial court may assign the responsibility of preparing a QDRO to either party at its discretion and counsel for the alternate payee may prepare a QDRO if the participant is in default). Consequently, Mickel has not established that she is entitled to Civ.R. 60(B) relief or an evidentiary hearing on her motion; the trial court merely adopted the QDRO based on the express terms of the agreed entry. Mickel's appeal — in effect — bootstraps challenges to the agreed entry, where condit


CourtListener opinion 11281157

CourtListener opinion 11281157 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Landry. Extracted reporter citation: 699 P.2d 214. Docket: 60354-3-II inequitable because the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11281157 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 11281157


CourtListener opinion 11281157

QDRO: in allocating the parties' community property by (1) allowing only half of his purported business expenses, (2) failing to impute income to Prince, and (3) awarding Prince her portion of Parrish's 401(k) as part of the equalization payment rather than in a qualified domestic relations order. Parrish also argues that (4) the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Prince attorney fees without making express findings regarding Prince's need and Parrish's ability to pay. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the parties' community property because (1) it was within the trial court's discretion to h


CourtListener opinion 11281157

401(k): h. Parrish argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allocating the parties' community property by (1) allowing only half of his purported business expenses, (2) failing to impute income to Prince, and (3) awarding Prince her portion of Parrish's 401(k) as part of the equalization payment rather than in a qualified domestic relations order. Parrish also argues that (4) the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Prince attorney fees without making express findings regarding Prince's need and Parrish's ability to pay. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the


CourtListener opinion 11281157

domestic relations order: ing the parties' community property by (1) allowing only half of his purported business expenses, (2) failing to impute income to Prince, and (3) awarding Prince her portion of Parrish's 401(k) as part of the equalization payment rather than in a qualified domestic relations order. Parrish also argues that (4) the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Prince attorney fees without making express findings regarding Prince's need and Parrish's ability to pay. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the parties' community property because (1) it was within the trial court's discretion to h


CourtListener opinion 11281157

valuation/division: appeals the final divorce order and the order denying his motion for reconsideration entered following his divorce from Jessica Prince, formerly known as Jessica Parrish. Parrish argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allocating the parties' community property by (1) allowing only half of his purported business expenses, (2) failing to impute income to Prince, and (3) awarding Prince her portion of Parrish's 401(k) as part of the equalization payment rather than in a qualified domestic relations order. Parrish also argues that (4) the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Prince attorney fees without m


CourtListener opinion 11281854

CourtListener opinion 11281854 Extracted reporter citation: 521 U.S. 591. Docket: 65-2 at 10. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11281854 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 11281854


CourtListener opinion 11281854

QDRO: ertification for purposes of settlement. The settlement class is defined as: [A]ll persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plans, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] who participated in the Plans, at any time during the Class Period [March 18, 2016 through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order]. 5 Doc. no. 65-2 at 10. The court addresses the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(1)(B) requirements below. A. Rule 23(a) Threshold Requirements 1. Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) requires th


CourtListener opinion 11281854

retirement benefits: rustees, the Administrative Investment Oversight Committee of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, and "John Does 1-30" ("defendants") asserting injuries arising from defendants' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties to effectively manage and monitor plaintiffs' retirement plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss this action (doc. no. 22) which this court denied. The parties now report that they have reached a negotiated settlement. Before the court is plaintiffs' unopposed motion (doc. no. 65) seeking preliminary approv


CourtListener opinion 11281854

ERISA: cock Clinic, and "John Does 1-30" ("defendants") asserting injuries arising from defendants' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties to effectively manage and monitor plaintiffs' retirement plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss this action (doc. no. 22) which this court denied. The parties now report that they have reached a negotiated settlement. Before the court is plaintiffs' unopposed motion (doc. no. 65) seeking preliminary approval of the parties' proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement (doc


CourtListener opinion 11281854

alternate payee: Here, plaintiffs seek preliminary class certification for purposes of settlement. The settlement class is defined as: [A]ll persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plans, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] who participated in the Plans, at any time during the Class Period [March 18, 2016 through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order]. 5 Doc. no. 65-2 at 10. The court addresses the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(1)(B) requirements below. A. Rule 23(a) Threshold Requirements 1. Numer


CourtListener opinion 11284137

CourtListener opinion 11284137 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11284137 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 11284137

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 11284137

QDRO: benefits are paid to the employee spouse, there is no need for the court to assign a value to the benefits.12 The employer is instructed to pay the non-employee spouse's portion directly to him or her, usually pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).13 6 Id. 7 See Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So.2d 118 (La.1991). 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 See Sims, 358 So.2d 919. 11 Id. 12 Blanchard, 731 So.2d 175. 13 Id. 3 The problem in the instant case arises because Teacher's Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL) does not accept QDROs and, instead of cooperating with Mrs. Sullivan in executing an acceptable divis


CourtListener opinion 11284137

retirement benefits: e trial court's judgment, we affirm. ***** Mr. Charles Sullivan and Mrs. Paige Sullivan married in 1964, divorced in 1988, and partitioned their community property in 1990. The partition judgment, inter alia, ordered that each party had an interest in "any retirement plan, and in any annuity or lump sum payment paid to either party" in accordance with the formula established in Sims v. Sims.1 Both parties worked for the Calcasieu Parish School Board (CPSB), Mrs. Sullivan as a teacher and Mr. Sullivan as a principal. In June 1995, Mr. Sullivan retired and entered into DROP. "The DROP program is an optional method of retiring


CourtListener opinion 11284137

pension: ourt "value the assets as of the time of trial on the merits, determine the liabilities, and adjudicate the claims of the parties." (Emphasis added.) However, "[u]se of the ‘fixed percentage' method [such as the Sims formula] does not require valuation of the pension."4 Our supreme court in Sims v. Sims5 discussed the unique situation pension plans which have not matured at the date of dissolution create, stating: [T]he community interest in the retirement plan has no immediate redeemable cash value. Until the employee is separated from the service, dies, or becomes disabled, no value can be fixed upon his right t


CourtListener opinion 11284137

domestic relations order: portion at the same time benefits are paid to the employee spouse, there is no need for the court to assign a value to the benefits.12 The employer is instructed to pay the non-employee spouse's portion directly to him or her, usually pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).13 6 Id. 7 See Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So.2d 118 (La.1991). 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 See Sims, 358 So.2d 919. 11 Id. 12 Blanchard, 731 So.2d 175. 13 Id. 3 The problem in the instant case arises because Teacher's Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL) does not accept QDROs and, instead of cooperating with Mrs. Sullivan in executing an acceptable


CourtListener opinion 11285622

CourtListener opinion 11285622 Extracted reporter citation: 778 So.2d 1105. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11285622 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 11285622


CourtListener opinion 11285622

QDRO: he trial court signed a judgment awarding Mrs. Thomas $11,075.85, representing the trial court's calculation of Mrs. Thomas's share of her former husband's disability benefits from August 1, 2002, through May 1, 2006. The trial court further ordered that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order issue to Boise Cascade, directing that company to pay Mrs. Thomas the sum of $246.13 per month as her share of community disability benefits beginning June 1, 2006. Mr. Thomas appealed that judgment, asserting three assignments of error. OPINION In reversing the trial court judgment, we need only consider the issue raised in Mr. Thomas's second assi


CourtListener opinion 11285622

retirement benefits: EL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Sandra Louise Maxie Thomas PETERS, J. The defendant, L. W. Thomas, appeals the trial court judgment awarding his former wife, Sandra Louise Maxie Thomas, the sum of $11,075.85 as her community share of an employment disability retirement plan and awarding her future benefits at the rate of $246.13 per month. For the following reasons, we reverse and render judgment in favor of Mr. Thomas. DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD L. W. Thomas and Sandra Louise Maxie Thomas were married on November 23, 1971. On December 1, 1971, Mr. Thomas became employed with Boise Cascade and continued his employment wi


CourtListener opinion 11285622

pension: me Court, in Robinson v. Robinson, 99-3097, p. 17 (La. 1/17/01), 778 So.2d 1105, 1121, stated: Louisiana jurisprudence is clear; general divestiture language does not necessarily divest the non-employee spouse of his or her right in the employee spouse's pension. When the agreement does not expressly address the employee spouse's pension, the issue of whether the agreement divests the non-employee spouse of any community property rights in the pension depends upon the intent of the parties. Thus, as pointed out in Jennings v. Turner, 01-631, p. 1 (La. 11/28/01), 803 So.2d 963, 964, "[t]he issue of whether a pe


CourtListener opinion 11285622

domestic relations order: ourt signed a judgment awarding Mrs. Thomas $11,075.85, representing the trial court's calculation of Mrs. Thomas's share of her former husband's disability benefits from August 1, 2002, through May 1, 2006. The trial court further ordered that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order issue to Boise Cascade, directing that company to pay Mrs. Thomas the sum of $246.13 per month as her share of community disability benefits beginning June 1, 2006. Mr. Thomas appealed that judgment, asserting three assignments of error. OPINION In reversing the trial court judgment, we need only consider the issue raised in Mr. Thomas's second assi


CourtListener opinion 11286599

CourtListener opinion 11286599 Extracted reporter citation: 809 So.2d 1017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11286599 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 11286599


CourtListener opinion 11286599

QDRO: r personal salaries, personal checking accounts, other retirement plans or Social Security. Except any additional pension/retirement plan in favor of RAVENNA ISTRE REON, other than the Isle of Capri Retirement Trust and Savings Plan, shall be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The record shows that the oral stipulation set forth that any retirement plan owned by Mrs. Reon other than the Isle of Capri plan was, indeed, to be subject to division by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Therefore, this is correctly reflected in the judgment. However, the first sentence of the paragraph pertaining to cash on hand, bank account


CourtListener opinion 11286599

retirement benefits: cope of the oral stipulation. The first paragraph Mrs. Reon challenges reads: Appearers agree that each party will keep all cash on hand in each other's possession, including, but not limited to, their personal salaries, personal checking accounts, other retirement plans or Social Security. Except any additional pension/retirement plan in favor of RAVENNA ISTRE REON, other than the Isle of Capri Retirement Trust and Savings Plan, shall be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The record shows that the oral stipulation set forth that any retirement plan owned by Mrs. Reon other than the Isle of Capri plan w


CourtListener opinion 11286599

pension: challenges reads: Appearers agree that each party will keep all cash on hand in each other's possession, including, but not limited to, their personal salaries, personal checking accounts, other retirement plans or Social Security. Except any additional pension/retirement plan in favor of RAVENNA ISTRE REON, other than the Isle of Capri Retirement Trust and Savings Plan, shall be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The record shows that the oral stipulation set forth that any retirement plan owned by Mrs. Reon other than the Isle of Capri plan was, indeed, to be subject to division by a Qualifie


CourtListener opinion 11286599

domestic relations order: salaries, personal checking accounts, other retirement plans or Social Security. Except any additional pension/retirement plan in favor of RAVENNA ISTRE REON, other than the Isle of Capri Retirement Trust and Savings Plan, shall be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The record shows that the oral stipulation set forth that any retirement plan owned by Mrs. Reon other than the Isle of Capri plan was, indeed, to be subject to division by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Therefore, this is correctly reflected in the judgment. However, the first sentence of the paragraph pertaining to cash on hand, bank account


CourtListener opinion 11288770

CourtListener opinion 11288770 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Todd. Extracted reporter citation: 500 U.S. 305. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11288770 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 11288770


CourtListener opinion 11288770

QDRO: ourt for Sevier County, Tennessee ("Chancery Court") on April 1, 2024 ("Divorce Decree"), with the incorporated Marital Dissolution Agreement ("MDA") [Doc. 48-1]; (B) the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered by the Chancery Court on January 3, 2025 ("QDRO") [Doc. 48-21]; (C) a letter to Debtor's state-court attorney, Jimmy G. Carter, Jr., from the Administrative Committee of UPS 401(k) Savings Plan dated January 15, 2025, recognizing the QDRO (the "QDRO Approval Letter") [Doc. 48-3]; (D) Debtor's Second Amended Schedule C filed on December 2, 2025, docketed at entry number 47 [Doc. 48-4]; and (E) the Ob


CourtListener opinion 11288770

retirement benefits: Debtor's Claim of Exemption Under T.C.A. § 26-2-111(1)(D) ("Objection") filed by Ann Mostoller, Chapter 7 Trustee ("Trustee") on October 8, 2025 [Doc. 38], through which the Trustee objects to Debtor's claimed exemption of a portion of her former spouse's retirement benefits in the amount of $11,000.00 ("Retirement Benefit"). The record before the Court consists of six stipulations of fact submitted by the parties on December 4, 2025 [Doc. 48], together with five stipulated exhibits: (A) the Final Decree of Divorce between Debtor and Tyler James Williams entered in the Chancery Court for Sevier County, Tennessee ("Chance


CourtListener opinion 11288770

pension: emarked, "the QDRO provisions of ERISA do not suggest that [the alternate payee] has no interest in the plan [ ] until she obtains a QDRO, they merely prevent her from enforcing that interest until the QDRO is obtained." Trs. of Dirs. Guild of Am.-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 421 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Gendreau, 122 F.3d 815, 819 (9th Cir. 1997)). Id. at *5 (alterations in original). Having found that the debtor was a fully vested owner in the 401(k) award, the Myatt court then found that the funds were not property of the estate under § 541(c)(2) and Patterson: In interpretin


CourtListener opinion 11288770

ERISA: 7. The amounts awarded hereunder shall be paid to the Alternate Payee in a lump sum payment, as soon as practicable following the date this Order is determined by the Plan to be a qualified domestic relations order (within the meaning of Section 206(d) of ERISA). . . . . 9. It is intended that this Order will qualify as a qualified domestic relations order under Section 206(d)(3) of ERISA, and shall be administered and interpreted in conformity with such Act. This Order does not require the Plan to provide any type or form of benefit or any option not otherwise provided to the Participant under the Plan. T


CourtListener opinion 11289295

CourtListener opinion 11289295 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11289295 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 11289295

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 11289295

domestic relations order: e arts. 1759 and 2003. Subsequent to the motion for appeal, Crittenden filed a motion for leave to amend her petition. Her supplemental and amending petition sought enforcement of the contract for separation of property and partition agreement, qualified domestic relations order, legal interest, and attorney's fees. Daigle filed an opposition to that motion and, alternatively, he filed a "Motion to Quash Absolutely Null Order and Declinatory Exception Pleading Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction." Crittenden filed a reply. In February 2011, she filed a motion for entry of order, and in March 2011, she filed a motion for transfe


CourtListener opinion 11289295

valuation/division: ollowing reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Daigle and Crittenden were married in April 1994. In October 2002, they jointly filed a Petition for Approval of Matrimonial Regime of Separation of Property and entered into a Partition of Community Property Agreement. In March 2005, Crittenden filed a petition for divorce from Daigle. On April 15, 2005, Daigle filed a Petition to Annul Partition of Community Property agreement on account of lesion. Crittenden responded by filing peremptory exceptions of res judicata, no cause of action, no right of action, and prescription. Following a June 17, 2005 heari


CourtListener opinion 11290088

CourtListener opinion 11290088 Extracted reporter citation: 85 So.3d 168. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11290088 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 11290088


CourtListener opinion 11290088

QDRO: eking to make the Partition Judgment of October 22, 2002, rendered in the 16th JDC executory. On February 15, 2011, Ms. Daigle filed a Second Supplemental and Amended Petition for Enforcement of Contract or Separation of Property and Partition Agreement, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Legal Interest, and Attorney's Fees in the 15th JDC. After Mr. Daigle answered this petition, Ms. Daigle filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that pursuant to the terms of the Partition Judgment of October 22, 2002, she was entitled to "a money judgment in her favor and against Kenneth Paul Daigle . . . in the amount of one million f


CourtListener opinion 11290088

domestic relations order: ake the Partition Judgment of October 22, 2002, rendered in the 16th JDC executory. On February 15, 2011, Ms. Daigle filed a Second Supplemental and Amended Petition for Enforcement of Contract or Separation of Property and Partition Agreement, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Legal Interest, and Attorney's Fees in the 15th JDC. After Mr. Daigle answered this petition, Ms. Daigle filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that pursuant to the terms of the Partition Judgment of October 22, 2002, she was entitled to "a money judgment in her favor and against Kenneth Paul Daigle . . . in the amount of one million f


CourtListener opinion 11290088

valuation/division: 02, they jointly filed a Petition for Approval of Matrimonial Regime of Separation of Property in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court (16th JDC), Iberia Parish. Concomitant with their petition, on October 22, 2002, the parties entered into a Partition of Community Property Agreement, hereinafter referred to as the "Partition Judgment", and a judgment approving the Contract for Separation of Property Regime was signed by the trial court. The parties later instituted divorce proceedings in Iberia Parish and were granted a divorce on November 30, 2005. On June 1, 2005, Ms. Daigle initiated separate proceedings in the Fiftee


CourtListener opinion 11290222

CourtListener opinion 11290222 Extracted reporter citation: 617 So.2d 880. Docket: in the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11290222 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 11290222


CourtListener opinion 11290222

QDRO: ution was made to him for one half of Dione's IRA. The record reveals that the trial court issued an order in May of 2011 requiring Richard to provide immediate access to Dione of one half of the value of his IRA. On June 24, 2011, the trial judge signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) spelling out the New York Life account numbers involved and the obligations of the payor and payee. Richard asserts that he wrote to New York Life on August 5, 2011, instructing them to transfer $49,850.81, purportedly one half of the value of his IRA at the time, from his account to Dione's account. He attaches exhibits that we cannot consider;


CourtListener opinion 11290222

domestic relations order: made to him for one half of Dione's IRA. The record reveals that the trial court issued an order in May of 2011 requiring Richard to provide immediate access to Dione of one half of the value of his IRA. On June 24, 2011, the trial judge signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) spelling out the New York Life account numbers involved and the obligations of the payor and payee. Richard asserts that he wrote to New York Life on August 5, 2011, instructing them to transfer $49,850.81, purportedly one half of the value of his IRA at the time, from his account to Dione's account. He attaches exhibits that we cannot consider;


CourtListener opinion 11290222

valuation/division: Offices of Tony Morrow 323 East University Avenue Lafayette, LA 70503 Telephone: (337) 233-9515 COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiff/Appellee - Dione W. David THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge. The defendant, Richard G. David, appeals the trial court's judgment of partition of community property. He asserts that his former spouse, the plaintiff, Dione W. David, was allocated more in assets and reimbursements than the amounts authorized by law. For the reasons that follow, we affirm as amended the judgment of the trial court. We do not consider Dione's request for attorney fees based on her assertion of a frivolous appeal as no Answer was filed


CourtListener opinion 11291534

CourtListener opinion 11291534 Extracted reporter citation: 358 So.2d 919. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11291534 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 11291534

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 11291534

QDRO: and we believe that his interest in the retirement would have accrued from December of 2001 till August of 2008. Clearly, he's entitled to fifty percent of the accrued value of that. We're going to contact them and get the value and I'm going to prepare a QDRO that we will take care of all that. And I believe this will fully satisfy the community between these parties. The judgment, however, reads in pertinent part: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Court does recognize that REGINA GILLEY, is entitled to a FORTY-NINE PERCENT (49%) share in DAVID LEE AST, JR.'s Military Retirement Benefits or equ


CourtListener opinion 11291534

retirement benefits: ement under the Sims formula as part of the community of acquets and gains.1 At a hearing on February 5, 2009, a stipulation of the parties was read into the record providing that Ms. Gilley would receive a forty-nine percent interest in Mr. Ast's military retirement benefits. A final judgment was signed on March 24, 2009, after having been approved as to form 1 In Sims v. Sims, 358 So.2d 919 (La.1978), the supreme court established a formula to be used in calculating community interests in retirement plan benefits which had not yet matured at the time of the community partition. and content and signed by counsel for Mr. A


CourtListener opinion 11291534

pension: r any loss she suffers created by such military retirement benefit conversion. We agree with the trial court, but note that the trial judge could not have directly applied La.R.S. 9:2801.1, which states: When federal law or the provisions of a statutory pension or retirement plan, state or federal, preempt or preclude community classification of property that would have been classified as community property under the principles of the Civil Code, the spouse 5 of the person entitled to such property shall be allocated or assigned the ownership of community property equal in value to such property prior to t


CourtListener opinion 11291534

valuation/division: David Lee Ast, Jr. David C. Hesser Hesser & Flynn, A Limited Liability Partnership 2820 Jackson Street Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 (318) 542-4102 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Regina Beth Ann Gilley CONERY, Judge. This appeal involves issues based on a community property judgment rendered pursuant to a stipulation between former husband and wife as to allocation of the husband's military benefits. The appellant argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to partition military disability benefits as part of the community. The appellant/husband further contends that the stipulation between the parties


CourtListener opinion 11291622

CourtListener opinion 11291622 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1: The Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11291622 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 11291622


CourtListener opinion 11291622

retirement benefits: L), would be divided according to the formula devised in Sims v. Sims, 358 So.2d 919 (La.1978). The trial court further ordered counsel "to prepare the appropriate order for the court's approval without delay." However, by February 14, 2008, the issue of retirement benefits was not yet entirely resolved, and the trial court once again ordered the division of the retirement interests of both parties according to the Sims formula, except for the 1 James E. Stewart, Sr. is a member of the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal. All members of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal signed an order of recusal on January 20, 201


CourtListener opinion 11291622

pension: est in Mr. Stewart's LASERS account made "payable to Dianne Denley upon retirement/termination of employment of James E. Stewart, Sr." Ms. Denley sought to incorporate language which would "allow her to immediately [begin] drawing her share of his LASER'S pension; or that James Stewart, Sr. pay to mover directly 40% of his current salary and/or the amount of mover's share of the pension." Ms. Denley's basis for seeking the amendment apparently arises from her retirement from teaching in 2014, which triggered the payment to Mr. Stewart of twenty percent of her retirement benefits ordered in the trial court's Apr


CourtListener opinion 11291622

domestic relations order: e April 27, 2010 Judgment allowing her to immediately begin to 8 receive her allotted share of Mr. Stewart's LASERS retirement benefits or a 9 proportionate share of his salary. 10 Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2801(B) states: 11 B. Those provisions of a domestic relations order or other judgment 12 which partitions retirement or other deferred work benefits between 13 former spouses shall be considered interlocutory until the domestic 14 relations order has been granted "qualified" status from the plan 15 administrator and/or until the judgment has been approved by the 16 appropriate federal or state authority as being in complian


CourtListener opinion 11291622

survivor benefits: order of recusal on January 20, 2015. The Louisiana Supreme Court issued an order on January 27, 2015 assigning the case to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. For the purposes of this opinion we will refer to him as Mr. Stewart. entitlement of Ms. Denley to survivor benefits. The issue of LASERS's survivor benefits was then pending before the supreme court in the case of LASERS v. McWilliams, 06-2191, (La. 12/2/08), 996 So.2d 1036. At the time of the trial court's February 14, 2008 ruling, LASERS v. McWilliams was not a final ruling, as a request for rehearing had been filed in that case. The trial court ordered the part


CourtListener opinion 11292372

CourtListener opinion 11292372 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2010-7762 HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11292372 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 11292372

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 11292372

domestic relations order: hich the property is offered at public sale. In the event of a partition by licitation, the court shall expressly state the reasons why the asset 3 cannot be allocated, assigned by the drawing of lots, or sold at private sale. B. Those provisions of a domestic relations order or other judgment which partitions retirement or other deferred work benefits between former spouses shall be considered interlocutory until the domestic relations order has been granted "qualified" status from the plan administrator and/or until the judgment has been approved by the appropriate federal or state authority as being in compliance with a


CourtListener opinion 11292372

valuation/division: 0888 Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant: Kristin Sweezy Harriss Kim Segura Landry Ronnie J. Bertholot Karina Neito Womack 1518 East Highway 30 Gonzales, LA 70737 (225) 644-6100 Attorney for Defendant/Appellee: Micah Bradley Harriss PICKETT, Judge. In this community property partition proceeding, the ex-wife appeals the award and denial of certain reimbursement claims made by the trial court. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part, amend in part, and render judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Kristin Sweezy Harriss and Micah Bradley Harriss were married on July 18, 2009. A petition for divorce was filed on


CourtListener opinion 11293775

CourtListener opinion 11293775 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: C093195 and granted the motion. 2 People also. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11293775 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 11293775


CourtListener opinion 11293775

domestic relations order: nd defendant argued and he physically assaulted and threatened her. The responding officer photographed her injuries. (Ibid.) On August 6, 2020, the People filed complaint No. CR62118, "charging defendant with corporal injury to a cohabitant and disobeying a domestic relations order." (Dearman, supra, C093195.) We refer to this case as the domestic violence case. The 2 We construed defendant's request to augment the record as a motion to incorporate by reference the record in case No. C093195 and granted the motion. 2 People also filed a petition to revoke defendant's probation in the dissuading/battery and firearm cases. (Ibid.)


CourtListener opinion 11294253

CourtListener opinion 11294253 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of DeWolfe. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11294253 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 11294253

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 11294253

pension: Petris for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Maxim Aperian (Maxim) appeals from an order denying his request for order (RFO)1 terminating a provision of an earlier judgment of dissolution that assigned his pension plan and account plan to his former wife Larisa Vanesyan (Larisa). We affirm. II. BACKGROUND A. Dissolution Judgment Maxim and Larisa were married on October 18, 1996, and had two children together. On March 28, 2011, Larisa petitioned for divorce. On August 23, 2013, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution. Among other things, the trial court


CourtListener opinion 11294253

domestic relations order: etirement[ ] accounts, net after taxes and penalties she would release [sic] close to 50[ percent] of the gross value. This would net her approximately $62,571.50 of which is her community interest." The court retained jurisdiction to make necessary qualified domestic relations orders with respect to the Plans. B. Payment from Plans In 2014 and 2015, the Plans' administrators distributed to Larisa the entire balance of the Plans, $86,516.13. C. June 18, 2024, RFO On June 18, 2024, Maxim filed a request for order "permanently terminating the assignment of [the Plans] to Larisa . . . in the Judgment dated 8/23/2013 and return to [hi


CourtListener opinion 11294253

valuation/division: issolution, which expressly awarded Larisa the entirety of the Plans, which included both her half interest in the Plans, namely, $62,571.50, and Maxim's half interest in the Plans "plus or minus any accruals" as a sanction for his absconding with $100,000 in community property. Maxim additionally contends that "once a compensatory objective has been achieved, further enforcement should cease" and that Larisa received a "windfall" when she received $86,516.13 from the Plans. He provides no legal authority for his proposition. Nor does he explain how Larisa received a 4 "windfall." As we explain above, the judgment of dissoluti


CourtListener opinion 11294427

CourtListener opinion 11294427 Extracted reporter citation: 358 So.2d 919. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11294427 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 11294427


CourtListener opinion 11294427

QDRO: 1303 (318) 561-7000 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Glenn Alexander EZELL, Judge. Magalin Blade appeals the decision of the trial court in favor of her ex- husband, Glenn Alexander, partially vacating and dissolving a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dated December 13, 2002. For the following reasons, we hereby reverse the decision of the trial court, but render judgment in favor of Mr. Alexander. Mrs. Blade and Mr. Alexander were married on August 30, 1980. The couple filed for divorce on January 28, 1999. In 2001, the parties agreed to a community property settlement establishing that each woul


CourtListener opinion 11294427

retirement benefits: n favor of Mr. Alexander. Mrs. Blade and Mr. Alexander were married on August 30, 1980. The couple filed for divorce on January 28, 1999. In 2001, the parties agreed to a community property settlement establishing that each would divide their respective retirement plans according to the formula established by Sims v Sims, 358 So.2d 919 (La.1978). In 2002, the parties began a series of attempts at drafting a QDRO that would satisfy each party's retirement system. The first attempt to draft a QDRO clearly set forth that each party sought to provide the other with survivor benefits upon retirement. Mrs. Blade's retireme


CourtListener opinion 11294427

pension: ive from Mr. Alexander's retirement system the very right she irreversibly denied Mr. Alexander. This is facially unjust. Under Mrs. Blade's reasoning, Mr. Alexander should have to perform a unilateral obligation and suffer a lifetime reduction in monthly pension benefits, for her sole benefit, while being unable to potentially receive the reciprocal, agreed-upon survivor benefits from her retirement system. Should he not, he would be faced with the threat of suit to enforce a right that he had no chance of receiving from Mrs. Blade in return. We reject her line of thinking. Her decision has denied Mr. Alexande


CourtListener opinion 11294427

domestic relations order: rement System of Louisiana (TRSL), rejected the survivor benefits language. The parties then submitted a draft letter with proposed language again including the agreed-upon survivor benefits provision, which was again rejected by TRSL. A third attempt at a domestic relations order was submitted, which followed TRSL's model language and did not include survivor benefits. This order was accepted and approved by TRSL on July 1, 2002. However, after the model language QDRO was accepted by TRSL and became final, the parties attempted yet again to revise that order to provide Mr. Alexander with survivor benefits. A December 13, 2002 Q


CourtListener opinion 11295349

CourtListener opinion 11295349 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: One: Susana asserts that the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11295349 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 11295349


CourtListener opinion 11295349

domestic relations order: pon which the property is offered at public sale. In the event of a partition by licitation, the court shall expressly state the reasons why the asset cannot be allocated, assigned by the drawing of lots, or sold at private sale. 8 B. Those provisions of a domestic relations order or other judgment which partitions retirement or other deferred work benefits between former spouses shall be considered interlocutory until the domestic relations order has been granted "qualified" status from the plan administrator and/or until the judgment has been approved by the appropriate federal or state authority as being in compliance with a


CourtListener opinion 11295349

valuation/division: ENDANT/APPELLEE: Ross Moody Susana F. Moody In Proper Person 2922 River Crest Road Corpus Christi, TX 78415 PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT IN PROPER PERSON: Susana F. Moody PERRET, Judge. This appeal is taken following the April 30, 2020 judgment partitioning the community property of Susana Moody ("Susana") and Ross Moody ("Ross"). The judgment also set forth reimbursement claims awarded, and an equalizing payment to be made by Ross to Susana in the amount of $49,829.70. Costs of the proceedings were assessed equally between the parties. Susana filed the appeal, but Ross has also answered the appeal. After review, we affirm in pa


CourtListener opinion 11295372

CourtListener opinion 11295372 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Noel was even questioned by the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11295372 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 11295372


CourtListener opinion 11295372

QDRO: irement plan) in the name of Lisa Yates, account type 31 21 [sic] 457(b). The trial court ordered that the retirement/pension accounts of Noel with Schlumberger and the Vernon Parish Sheriff's Office shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The trial court, in an exchange with Lisa, referred to the MidAmerica plan as a defined contribution plan after discussing the differences between defined benefit and defined contribution plans. He noted regarding Noel's Vernon Parish retirement plan and Lisa's MidAmerica plan, "The moneyappears [sic] from my testimony would be about the same." No


CourtListener opinion 11295372

retirement benefits: ts were community funds that were not properly 9 allocated between the parties under community assets.9 Thus, Lisa is entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the community funds existing at that time which amounts to $2,442.63. Assignment of Error Two/Retirement Accounts Lisa argues the trial court erred because it did not treat her MidAmerica retirement account like a federal Social Security account because it is a Social Security alternative. Lisa's argument on appeal relating to the MidAmerica account is reprinted in its entirety (footnote omitted): It guarantees an interest rate. This feature shows it is a defin


CourtListener opinion 11295372

pension: ther find no support for this claim. In Blanchard v. Blanchard, 96-1031 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/97), 697 So.2d 275, aff'd, 97-2305 (La. 1/20/99), 731 So.2d 175, the appellate court undertook an in-depth analysis of the various means of partitioning retirement/pension plans including T.L. James & Co., v. Montgomery, 332 So.2d 834 (La.1976) (matured defined contribution plandetermined based on the contributions the employee made during the community), Sims v. Sims, 358 So.2d 919 (La.1978) (defined benefit plandivided the amount of time in the plan during the community by the total number of work years to determine


CourtListener opinion 11295372

401(k): 28/97), 697 So.2d 275, aff'd, 97-2305 (La. 1/20/99), 731 So.2d 175, the appellate court undertook an in-depth analysis of the various means of partitioning retirement/pension plans including T.L. James & Co., v. Montgomery, 332 So.2d 834 (La.1976) (matured defined contribution plandetermined based on the contributions the employee made during the community), Sims v. Sims, 358 So.2d 919 (La.1978) (defined benefit plandivided the amount of time in the plan during the community by the total number of work years to determine a percentage earned during the community), and Hare v. Hodges, 586 So.2d 118 (La.1991) (Sims is not exc


CourtListener opinion 11295751

CourtListener opinion 11295751 Extracted reporter citation: 375 So.3d 548. Docket: 1 and 2: It was error for the Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11295751 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 11295751

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 11295751

QDRO: account of NOEL W. YATES with Schlumberger shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the retirement/pension account of NOEL W. YATES with Vernon Parish Sheriff's Office shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Furthermore, we find no error in the total moveables allocated to each party in the Judgment on Remand, and this court previously affirmed the trial court's ruling relating to Lisa's MidAmerica retirement plan. Thus, the list of assigned assets allocated to LISA J. YATES (Items 1-86) in the July 13, 2022 Judgment totaling $83,432.28 is affirmed. The


CourtListener opinion 11295751

retirement benefits: imbursement claims awarded to Noel. After a thorough review, this court affirmed as amended, reversed in part, and remanded the suit for proceedings consistent with the opinion as follows: We affirm the trial court's rulings relating to Lisa's MidAmerica retirement plan; the home appraisal value of $590,000.00; the reimbursement award to Lisa for insurance premium payments in the amount of $9,224.26; the reimbursement award to Lisa for the Montana tractor in the amount of $4,500.00; the award of $77.00 in reimbursement to Noel for transcript costs; the award of $250.00 in reimbursement for the appraisal fee; the reimb


CourtListener opinion 11295751

pension: s, to-wit: 1. Barksdale Federal Credit Union credit card, account ending 0509; and 2. Bayou Federal Credit Union loan for BMW, account ending 860 [valued as a $15,431.00 at trial.] .... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the retirement/pension account of NOEL W. YATES with Schlumberger shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the retirement/pension account of NOEL W. YATES with Vernon Parish Sheriff's Office shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Furthermore, we find no error in the total moveables allocated


CourtListener opinion 11295751

domestic relations order: f NOEL W. YATES with Schlumberger shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the retirement/pension account of NOEL W. YATES with Vernon Parish Sheriff's Office shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Furthermore, we find no error in the total moveables allocated to each party in the Judgment on Remand, and this court previously affirmed the trial court's ruling relating to Lisa's MidAmerica retirement plan. Thus, the list of assigned assets allocated to LISA J. YATES (Items 1-86) in the July 13, 2022 Judgment totaling $83,432.28 is affirmed. The


CourtListener opinion 1350622

CourtListener opinion 1350622 Extracted reporter citation: 757 P.2d 60. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1350622 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 1350622


CourtListener opinion 1350622

QDRO: ty of Fairbanks Fire Department. One of his employment benefits includes enrollment in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). The trial court treated the retirement fund as a marital asset, divided it in half as of the date of divorce and entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to pay one-half of the retirement benefits to Diana when Jim either resigns, is terminated or becomes deceased. Jim appeals the division of his retirement account by the use of a QDRO. Dianne cross-appeals the trial court's valuation of the Rice fox fur farm. We affirm. DISCUSSION We first observe that \accrued benefits\" of the PERS enjoy cons


CourtListener opinion 1350622

retirement benefits: ncludes enrollment in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). The trial court treated the retirement fund as a marital asset, divided it in half as of the date of divorce and entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to pay one-half of the retirement benefits to Diana when Jim either resigns, is terminated or becomes deceased. Jim appeals the division of his retirement account by the use of a QDRO. Dianne cross-appeals the trial court's valuation of the Rice fox fur farm. We affirm. DISCUSSION We first observe that \accrued benefits\" of the PERS enjoy constitutional protection. Article XII


CourtListener opinion 1350622

domestic relations order: banks Fire Department. One of his employment benefits includes enrollment in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). The trial court treated the retirement fund as a marital asset, divided it in half as of the date of divorce and entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to pay one-half of the retirement benefits to Diana when Jim either resigns, is terminated or becomes deceased. Jim appeals the division of his retirement account by the use of a QDRO. Dianne cross-appeals the trial court's valuation of the Rice fox fur farm. We affirm. DISCUSSION We first observe that \accrued benefits\" of the PERS enjoy cons


CourtListener opinion 1351369

CourtListener opinion 1351369 Extracted case name: In re the MARRIAGE OF Vickie A. THOMASON. Extracted reporter citation: 802 P.2d 1189. Docket: 89CA1205. Colorado. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1351369 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 1351369

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 1351369

QDRO: 3, 1990. William J. Walsh, Lakewood, for appellee. Wedgle & Shpall, P.C., Richard J. Wedgle, Murray Wilkening, Denver, for appellant. Opinion by Judge PIERCE. Robert E. Thomason, husband, appeals the order of the trial court amending the language of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). We reverse. A separation agreement reached by the parties was approved by the court and incorporated in a decree of dissolution on April 28, 1989. Later, the district court approved a QDRO submitted by husband. Vickie A. Thomason, wife, filed an objection to that order and argued that certain *1190 additional language should have been included in


CourtListener opinion 1351369

domestic relations order: William J. Walsh, Lakewood, for appellee. Wedgle & Shpall, P.C., Richard J. Wedgle, Murray Wilkening, Denver, for appellant. Opinion by Judge PIERCE. Robert E. Thomason, husband, appeals the order of the trial court amending the language of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). We reverse. A separation agreement reached by the parties was approved by the court and incorporated in a decree of dissolution on April 28, 1989. Later, the district court approved a QDRO submitted by husband. Vickie A. Thomason, wife, filed an objection to that order and argued that certain *1190 additional language should have been included in


CourtListener opinion 1418413

CourtListener opinion 1418413 Docket: COA02-1722. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1418413 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. 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 1418413

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, 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 1418413

valuation/division: for plaintiff-appellee. Lennard D. Tucker, Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellant. McGEE, Judge. Plaintiff filed a complaint for absolute divorce on 12 January 2000. Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim on 16 March 2000, that included a claim for equitable distribution. In a reply to the counterclaim, plaintiff requested a hearing on equitable distribution. The case was heard at the 4 September 2001 session of District Court in Forsyth County. The parties advised the trial court that they had resolved by stipulation all of the issues in the case. The terms of their agreement and stipulations were read into the record by t


CourtListener opinion 145495

CourtListener opinion 145495 Extracted case name: CARMONA v. CARMONA JANIS CARMONA. Citation: 1056 (d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056 (d)(3). Docket: eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 145495 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 145495

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 145495

QDRO: 998), between and : 5. On page 13099 of the slip opinion (544 F.3d at 998), following , add a new footnote 6 (and renumber subsequent footnotes): To be sure, a party can waive an entitlement to an interest without expressing that waiver in the form of a QDRO, as the Supreme Court recently held. Although the Fifth Circuit had held a waiver by a divorcing spouse expressed in a divorce decree inef- fective under ERISA's antialienation provision because it was not expressed in a QDRO, the Court held that such a waiver of rights could be effective nonetheless. Kennedy, 129 S. Ct. at 870-74. That ability to al


CourtListener opinion 145495

retirement benefits: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANIS CARMONA,  Plaintiff, v. JUDY CARMONA; HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, Retirement Plan, Defendants, v. No. 06-15581 NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION D.C. No. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF  CV-04-01310- THEATRICAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES KJD/RJJ LOCAL 720 PENSION TRUST (I.A.T.S.E. Trustees), Cross-claimant-Appellant, v. JUDY CARMONA, Successor representative of Lupe N. Carmona deceased, Cross-defendant-Appellee.  6661 6662 CARMONA v. CARMONA JANI


CourtListener opinion 145495

pension: INTH CIRCUIT JANIS CARMONA,  Plaintiff, v. JUDY CARMONA; HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, Retirement Plan, Defendants, v. No. 06-15581 NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION D.C. No. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF  CV-04-01310- THEATRICAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES KJD/RJJ LOCAL 720 PENSION TRUST (I.A.T.S.E. Trustees), Cross-claimant-Appellant, v. JUDY CARMONA, Successor representative of Lupe N. Carmona deceased, Cross-defendant-Appellee.  6661 6662 CARMONA v. CARMONA JANIS CARMONA, a.k.a. JANIS  No. 06-15938 KESTER, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, CV-04-01210-KJD/ v. RJJ JUDY CARMONA, Successor Representative of Lupe N.  ORDER AM


CourtListener opinion 145495

ERISA: a party can waive an entitlement to an interest without expressing that waiver in the form of a QDRO, as the Supreme Court recently held. Although the Fifth Circuit had held a waiver by a divorcing spouse expressed in a divorce decree inef- fective under ERISA's antialienation provision because it was not expressed in a QDRO, the Court held that such a waiver of rights could be effective nonetheless. Kennedy, 129 S. Ct. at 870-74. That ability to alter the entitlement to benefits outside of a QDRO is limited to a waiver of rights, however. It does not permit an assignment of interest to anyone else or an i


CourtListener opinion 145914

CourtListener opinion 145914 Extracted case name: DECEASED v. PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR DUPONT SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN ET AL. CERTIORARI TO. Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 145914 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 145914


CourtListener opinion 145914

QDRO: sion benefits to another person." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18. Being neither "plainly erroneous [n]or inconsistent with the regulation," the Treasury Department's interpretation is controlling. Auer v. Rob bins, 519 U. S. 452, 461. ERISA's QDRO provisions shed no light on the validity of a waiver by a non-QDRO. Pp. 5–11. (b) DuPont's additional reasons for saying that ERISA barred Liv's waiver are unavailing. Pp. 11–13. 2. Although Liv's waiver was not nullified by §1056's express terms, the plan administrator did its ERISA duty by paying the SIP benefits to Liv in conformity with the plan d


CourtListener opinion 145914

retirement benefits: her interest. 497 F. 3d, at 427. William and Liv divorced in 1994, subject to a decree that Liv "is . . . divested of all right, title, interest, and claim in and to . . . [a]ny and all sums . . . the proceeds [from], and any other rights related to any . . . retirement plan, pension plan, or like benefit program existing by reason of [William's] past or present or future employment." App. to Pet. for Cert. 64–65. William did not, however, execute any documents removing Liv as the SIP beneficiary, 497 F. 3d, at 428, even though he did execute a new beneficiary-designation form naming his daughter, Kari Kennedy, as the benefici


CourtListener opinion 145914

pension: January 26, 2009 The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as relevant here, obligates administrators to manage ERISA plans "in accordance with the documents and instruments governing" them, 29 U. S. C. §1104(a)(1)(D); requires covered pension benefit plans to "provide that benefits . . . may not be assigned or alienated," §1056(d)(1); and exempts from this bar qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs), §1056(d)(3). The decedent, William Kennedy, par ticipated in his employer's savings and investment plan (SIP), with power both to designate a beneficiary to receive the funds upon his deat


CourtListener opinion 145914

ERISA: LAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR DUPONT SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 07–636. Argued October 7, 2008—Decided January 26, 2009 The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as relevant here, obligates administrators to manage ERISA plans "in accordance with the documents and instruments governing" them, 29 U. S. C. §1104(a)(1)(D); requires covered pension benefit plans to "provide that benefits . . . may not be assigned or alienated," §1056(d)(1); and exempts from this bar qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs), §


CourtListener opinion 147862

CourtListener opinion 147862 Extracted reporter citation: 574 F.3d 230. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 147862 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 147862


CourtListener opinion 147862

QDRO: relief must establish (1) a material misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment; (2) reasonable and detrimental reliance upon the misrepresentation or concealment, and (3) extraordinary circumstances). 5 accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). Furthermore, "[e]ach plan shall establish reasonable procedures to determine the qualified status of domestic violations orders and to administer distributions under such qualified orders." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(G)(ii). ERISA explicitly provides that a qualifying order ("QDRO") cannot require a plan to provide a type or fo


CourtListener opinion 147862

pension: er her divorce proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. I. Ludwig is the former spouse of a vested participant in three benefit plans: the Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity (the "Welfare Fund"); the Carpenters Pension and Annuity Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity (the "Pension Fund"); and the Carpenters Savings Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity (the "Savings Fund"). Ludwig and her former husband were divorced in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas on November 6, 2006. Through the divorce decree, Ludwig was awarded $57,505.22 from her former husband's pension and savin


CourtListener opinion 147862

ERISA: s. 2 After sending letters to the Funds, demanding immediate payment and COBRA coverage, Ludwig filed this complaint in the District Court. In her complaint, she claimed that the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1984 (" ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq, 42 U.S.C. § § 1983, 1985, and 1986, and negligently inflicted emotional, psychological, physical, and financial harm to her when they denied her COBRA coverage and immediate payment.1 The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the District Court granted summary judgment on all claims. Ludwig timely filed this appeal. II


CourtListener opinion 147862

domestic relations order: st establish (1) a material misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment; (2) reasonable and detrimental reliance upon the misrepresentation or concealment, and (3) extraordinary circumstances). 5 accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). Furthermore, "[e]ach plan shall establish reasonable procedures to determine the qualified status of domestic violations orders and to administer distributions under such qualified orders." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(G)(ii). ERISA explicitly provides that a qualifying order ("QDRO") cannot require a plan to provide a type or fo


CourtListener opinion 1494072

CourtListener opinion 1494072 Extracted reporter citation: 888 S.W.2d 130. Docket: 13-93-423-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1494072 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 1494072


CourtListener opinion 1494072

QDRO: BERTO HINOJOSA, Justice. Appellant appeals from a divorce decree signed and entered by the trial court subsequent to an oral pronouncement from the bench. By one point of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in entering the divorce decree and qualified domestic relations order since the two instruments did not comport with the oral rendition of judgment. We affirm. In December 1991, Rebecca Cook filed for divorce from her husband, William Cook. On July 30, 1992, the trial court executed a temporary order which superseded two prior temporary orders until further order of the court. During the divorce trial, the parties stipulate


CourtListener opinion 1494072

retirement benefits: divorce from her husband, William Cook. On July 30, 1992, the trial court executed a temporary order which superseded two prior temporary orders until further order of the court. During the divorce trial, the parties stipulated that 42% of Mr. Cook's federal retirement benefits constituted his separate property and the remaining 58% constituted community property. At the close of the trial, the trial court announced that it would render a decision on January 29, 1992. After a postponement, the court orally announced its ruling on February 11, 1993. The trial court granted the divorce and divided the property and debts owned by


CourtListener opinion 1494072

domestic relations order: JOSA, Justice. Appellant appeals from a divorce decree signed and entered by the trial court subsequent to an oral pronouncement from the bench. By one point of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in entering the divorce decree and qualified domestic relations order since the two instruments did not comport with the oral rendition of judgment. We affirm. In December 1991, Rebecca Cook filed for divorce from her husband, William Cook. On July 30, 1992, the trial court executed a temporary order which superseded two prior temporary orders until further order of the court. During the divorce trial, the parties stipulate


CourtListener opinion 1494072

valuation/division: mporary order which superseded two prior temporary orders until further order of the court. During the divorce trial, the parties stipulated that 42% of Mr. Cook's federal retirement benefits constituted his separate property and the remaining 58% constituted community property. At the close of the trial, the trial court announced that it would render a decision on January 29, 1992. After a postponement, the court orally announced its ruling on February 11, 1993. The trial court granted the divorce and divided the property and debts owned by the parties. Among her other awards, Mrs. Cook received 60% of the community interest in


CourtListener opinion 1509935

CourtListener opinion 1509935 Extracted reporter citation: 760 A.2d 1241. Docket: 98-272-Appeal. Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1509935 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 1509935

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 1509935

QDRO: ppeal are as follows. John F. Gormly, Jr. (plaintiff) and Linda R. Gormly (defendant) were divorced on June 2, 1995. Pursuant to the final judgment of divorce, the trial justice divided plaintiff's retirement benefits from Hasbro, Inc., by the issuance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which was entered as an order of the court on *1242 September 19


CourtListener opinion 1509935

retirement benefits: cided at this time. The facts insofar as pertinent to this appeal are as follows. John F. Gormly, Jr. (plaintiff) and Linda R. Gormly (defendant) were divorced on June 2, 1995. Pursuant to the final judgment of divorce, the trial justice divided plaintiff's retirement benefits from Hasbro, Inc., by the issuance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which was entered as an order of the court on *1242 September 19


CourtListener opinion 1509935

domestic relations order: as follows. John F. Gormly, Jr. (plaintiff) and Linda R. Gormly (defendant) were divorced on June 2, 1995. Pursuant to the final judgment of divorce, the trial justice divided plaintiff's retirement benefits from Hasbro, Inc., by the issuance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which was entered as an order of the court on *1242 September 19


CourtListener opinion 151142

CourtListener opinion 151142 Extracted reporter citation: 546 F.3d 639. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 151142 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 151142


CourtListener opinion 151142

QDRO: he documents and instruments governing the plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A)(I), (a)(1)(D); see also id. § 1002(8) (defining a "beneficiary" as "a person designated by a participant, or by the terms of an employee benefit plan"). An exception exists where a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) specifies a beneficiary different from what is in the plan documents. See id. § 1056(d)(3)(A); Hamilton v. Wash. State Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. Pension Plan, 433 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, ERISA preempts "any and all State laws insofar as they . . . relate to any employee benefit plan" governed by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a)


CourtListener opinion 151142

retirement benefits: . Through his former employer, Mr. Cline participated in two benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a Group Universal Life Insurance Plan administered by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and a 401(k) retirement plan. The life insurance plan initially provided for $432,000 in benefits in the event of Mr. Cline's death, $218,000 in spousal life insurance, and $10,000 of coverage for his children. The plan documents designated Ms. Valentine as "[e]ntitled to 100% of benefits or $432,000.00." Ms. Valentine and Mr. Cline divorced in 2002. The divorce decree provided


CourtListener opinion 151142

pension: terms of an employee benefit plan"). An exception exists where a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) specifies a beneficiary different from what is in the plan documents. See id. § 1056(d)(3)(A); Hamilton v. Wash. State Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. Pension Plan, 433 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, ERISA preempts "any and all State laws insofar as they . . . relate to any employee benefit plan" governed by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). Here, the district court correctly concluded that Ms. Valentine was entitled to 100 percent of the life insurance proceeds. Courts interpret ERISA plan document


CourtListener opinion 151142

ERISA: usband, Raymond Cline, died. Mr. Cline previously had been married to Teresa Valentine, with whom Mr. Cline had four children. Through his former employer, Mr. Cline participated in two benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a Group Universal Life Insurance Plan administered by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and a 401(k) retirement plan. The life insurance plan initially provided for $432,000 in benefits in the event of Mr. Cline's death, $218,000 in spousal life insurance, and $10,000 of coverage for his children. The plan documents designated Ms. Val


CourtListener opinion 151319

CourtListener opinion 151319 Extracted case name: MACK v. KUCKENMEISTER JOAN R. MACK. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 151319 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 151319


CourtListener opinion 151319

QDRO: ialized in an order dated nunc pro tunc to a time before her death. The Nevada district court entered a domestic relations order ("order" or "DRO") over Darren Mack's objection. Among other things, the DRO decreed that a Quali- fied Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") should issue. Dar- ren Mack appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment. These appeals require us to determine whether state courts have subject matter jurisdiction to decide that a state court MACK v. KUCKENMEISTER 10571 issued domestic relations order is a QDRO as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("


CourtListener opinion 151319

retirement benefits: um of five hundred thousand dollars with any appreciation that is distributed to that five hundred thousand dollars." Dar- ren Mack appealed the order to the Nevada Supreme Court, where he argued, inter alia, that the order contravened federal law relating to retirement accounts. While his state appeal was pending, Darren Mack threat- ened suit against the trustee of the 401(k) plan—his mother, Joan Mack—should she pay the benefit to Charla Mack's Estate. Joan Mack filed a complaint in federal court seeking to interplead the $500,000 in retirement money.3 Darren Mack answered the complaint and filed a cross- claim against the


CourtListener opinion 151319

pension: ct to dismissal no matter what it is called. MACK v. KUCKENMEISTER 10573 Kuckenmeister filed a motion to dismiss Joan Mack's com- plaint, and a second motion to dismiss Darren Mack's cross- claim. In both, he argued that the issue of who has the right to the pension funds mentioned in the state court order had already been resolved by the state court and that relitigation was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Joan Mack and Darren Mack argued that Joan Mack's complaint was not estopped because she had not participated in the Nevada court proceedings and was not in privity with Darren Mack. They also argued


CourtListener opinion 151319

ERISA: These appeals require us to determine whether state courts have subject matter jurisdiction to decide that a state court MACK v. KUCKENMEISTER 10571 issued domestic relations order is a QDRO as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 88 Stat. 832, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. We conclude that they do and thus that the Nevada Supreme Court's QDRO determination in Mack v. Estate of Mack, 206 P.3d 98 (Nev. 2009), is entitled to full faith and credit. We reverse and remand with instructions for the dis- trict court to direct Joan Mack to deposit the contested funds with the court


CourtListener opinion 156858

CourtListener opinion 156858 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: numbers. These consolidated appeals followed. -2- r. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 156858 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 156858

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 156858

domestic relations order: ly found that Mr. Jones lacked notice of the criminality of his conduct, and was "unaware that it was an offense at the time it was committed." The record indicates Mr. Jones was the first person in the district prosecuted as a prohibited person under the domestic relations order provision. The Government argues persuasively that "[t]here is no requirement that defendant be aware of the law or even act ‘willfully' in order to be lawfully convicted under Section 922(g)." But Mr. Jones' conviction is not at issue here; -21- the issue is whether the Guidelines provide us with guidance on the use of a defendant's lack of notice


CourtListener opinion 163413

CourtListener opinion 163413 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 163413 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 163413

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 163413

QDRO: Judge. Eleven months after the death of Barbara Patton's former husband William Todd Phipers, Ms. Patton sought a declaration in federal court that a state domestic relations order granting her survivor benefits in her former husband's pension plan was a "qualified domestic relations order" (QDRO) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). The state court had entered the domestic relations order after Mr. Phiper's death, but nunc pro tunc to the date of their divorce eleven years prior to his death, because it concerned benefits from a plan not known about at the time of the divorce settlement. The


CourtListener opinion 163413

retirement benefits: one half of the plan's value attributable to the thirteen years of the parties' marriage. Mr. Phipers died in 1999 at the age of 58. He died before retirement age and while still employed at the Denver Post. Under these circumstances, ERISA provides that retirement plan benefits can only be paid to a surviving spouse. 29 U.S.C. § 1055(a)(2). Mr. Phipers had not remarried, so at the time of his death only Ms. Patton qualified as his surviving spouse under ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(a)(3)(F)(i). Ms. Patton filed with the plan administrator her QDRO covering the disclosed plan and received a lump sum payout, which appeared t


CourtListener opinion 163413

pension: nth Circuit APR 23 2003 PUBLISH PATRICK FISHER UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk TENTH CIRCUIT BARBARA A. PATTON, formerly known as Barbara A. Phipers, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 02-1040 THE DENVER POST CORPORATION; DENVER POST-DENVER GUILD PENSION PLAN, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 00-K-1860) Michael J. Hofmann (Mary Hurley Stuart with him on the briefs) of Holme Roberts & Owen LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellants. Daniel S. Hoffman of Hoffman Reilly Pozner & Williamson, LLP, Denver, Colorado (Mary J. K


CourtListener opinion 163413

ERISA: Ms. Patton sought a declaration in federal court that a state domestic relations order granting her survivor benefits in her former husband's pension plan was a "qualified domestic relations order" (QDRO) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). The state court had entered the domestic relations order after Mr. Phiper's death, but nunc pro tunc to the date of their divorce eleven years prior to his death, because it concerned benefits from a plan not known about at the time of the divorce settlement. The district court granted Ms. Patton's motion for summary judgment


CourtListener opinion 1652731

CourtListener opinion 1652731 Extracted reporter citation: 968 S.W.2d 947. Docket: 06-97-00055-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1652731 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 1652731


CourtListener opinion 1652731

QDRO: Ireland, Carroll, Kelley, Tyler, for appellant. Paul Hoover, Paul D. Hoover & Associates, Texarkana, for appellee. Before CORNELIUS, C.J., and GRANT and ROSS, JJ. OPINION ROSS, Justice. Maurice McLaurin appeals from an order interpreting an agreed Qualified Domestic Relations Order dividing military retirement benefits with his former wife, Shirley. The relevant facts in this case are as follows. ♦ Maurice joined the Air Force in 1954. ♦ Maurice married Shirley in 1957. ♦ Maurice and Shirley divorced in 1982. He agreed to pay her $450.00 per month in contractual alimony until she remarried. At that time, the United States Suprem


CourtListener opinion 1652731

retirement benefits: l Hoover, Paul D. Hoover & Associates, Texarkana, for appellee. Before CORNELIUS, C.J., and GRANT and ROSS, JJ. OPINION ROSS, Justice. Maurice McLaurin appeals from an order interpreting an agreed Qualified Domestic Relations Order dividing military retirement benefits with his former wife, Shirley. The relevant facts in this case are as follows. ♦ Maurice joined the Air Force in 1954. ♦ Maurice married Shirley in 1957. ♦ Maurice and Shirley divorced in 1982. He agreed to pay her $450.00 per month in contractual alimony until she remarried. At that time, the United States Supreme Court had held that a spouse had no


CourtListener opinion 1652731

domestic relations order: arroll, Kelley, Tyler, for appellant. Paul Hoover, Paul D. Hoover & Associates, Texarkana, for appellee. Before CORNELIUS, C.J., and GRANT and ROSS, JJ. OPINION ROSS, Justice. Maurice McLaurin appeals from an order interpreting an agreed Qualified Domestic Relations Order dividing military retirement benefits with his former wife, Shirley. The relevant facts in this case are as follows. ♦ Maurice joined the Air Force in 1954. ♦ Maurice married Shirley in 1957. ♦ Maurice and Shirley divorced in 1982. He agreed to pay her $450.00 per month in contractual alimony until she remarried. At that time, the United States Suprem


CourtListener opinion 165866

qualified_domestic_relations_order erisa pension preemption

CourtListener opinion 165866 Extracted reporter citation: 381 F.3d 1015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 165866 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 165866


CourtListener opinion 165866

QDRO: The complaint asserts Texaco "breached its employment contract with the plaintiff and committed fraud" by specifying a benefit start-date of May 1, 2003, rather than March 1, 2003; refusing to explain why the monthly benefit, after -2- reduction for a "QDRO" (qualified domestic relations order), would be $495.97 rather than the $552.75 Mr. Karls thought it should be; and failing to commence monthly benefit payments by the time suit was filed. R. vol. I, doc. 1, ex. A, Complaint at 10. Texaco removed the case to federal court on the ground that it was preempted by ERISA, which provided federal question juri


CourtListener opinion 165866

retirement benefits: on involves an employee benefit plan." Settles v. Golden Rule Ins. Co. , 927 F.2d 505, 509 (10th Cir. 1991); see, e.g. , Milton v. Scrivner, Inc. , 53 F.3d 1118, 1121 n.3 (10 th Cir. 1995) (holding claims "alleging fraud with intent to deprive plaintiff of retirement benefits . . . preempted by ERISA"); Pacificare -6- of Okla., Inc. v. Burrage , 59 F.3d 151, 155 (10 th Cir. 1995) (holding claim "alleging negligent or fraudulent administration of [benefit] plan is preempted by ERISA"). Second, Mr. Karls argues that the exhaustion ruling was predicated on unproven facts, because the only evidence of Texaco's pension plan


CourtListener opinion 165866

pension: ability Benefit Plan , 111 F.3d 67, 68 (8 th Cir. 1997), and affirm for the reasons explained below. The complaint alleged that Mr. Karls worked for defendant Texaco, Inc. from May 1974 to December 1987 and, as part of his remuneration, he was promised a pension. In January 2003, Mr. Karls telephoned the agent administering Texaco's pension obligations to request payment of his monthly pension benefit beginning March 1, 2003. By the time Mr. Karls obtained the requisite application forms, he had been told the earliest start date he could expect was May 1. A disagreement arose subsequently over the proper amount


CourtListener opinion 165866

ERISA: cata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Mr. Karls also objects to the district court's threshold ruling that ERISA preempted the tort claims he asserted, which the district court accordingly refused to remand to state court where he originally filed them. We review these matters de novo , Allison v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 381 F.3d 1015, 1025 (10 th Cir. 2004); Kinkead v. S.W. Bell Cor


CourtListener opinion 1673135

CourtListener opinion 1673135 Extracted reporter citation: 202 S.W.3d 869. Docket: 05-04-01374-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1673135 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 1673135