CourtListener opinion 2808372

domestic relations order: larger component of the defined benefit part of the pension which will pay Husband considerably more than Wife. III) Whether the Court erred by failing to Order that the defined benefits portion of the parties' pensions should be subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order upon retirement of the parties with an equitable division between the parties. IV) Whether the court erred by failing to equitably divide the Husband's contributions to his pension, said contributions constituting an entirely separate asset than the monthly benefits Husband will receive as part of his defined pension plan. V) Whether in affirming


CourtListener opinion 2808603

CourtListener opinion 2808603 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF Appeal from the Circuit Court LINDA ROBERTS. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2808603 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 2808603

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 2808603

retirement benefits: She requested that her TRS pension be awarded solely to her. ¶7 After hearing the evidence and testimony, the trial court announced its oral ruling on the petition for dissolution and motions filed by the parties. The court equally divided the parties' retirement accounts, which had a value of over $300,000. The court also ordered that petitioner's TRS pension be divided equally between the parties by a "Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order" (QILDRO). The court ordered that the parties pay their own debts and their own attorney's fees. The court denied respondent's request for maintenance and found no dissipa


CourtListener opinion 2808603

pension: ¶1 After 37 years of marriage, petitioner, a teacher, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against respondent, a disabled pharmacist. The trial court divided the property of the parties, and awarded each party a one-half interest in petitioner's pension from the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS). Petitioner appeals, arguing that the trial court should have awarded her pension solely to her, or, alternatively, should have granted her maintenance in an amount equal to the payments respondent would receive from her pension. We reverse and remand, finding that the trial court erred in awarding half of p


CourtListener opinion 2808603

domestic relations order: lution and motions filed by the parties. The court equally divided the parties' retirement accounts, which had a value of over $300,000. The court also ordered that petitioner's TRS pension be divided equally between the parties by a "Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order" (QILDRO). The court ordered that the parties pay their own debts and their own attorney's fees. The court denied respondent's request for maintenance and found no dissipation of marital assets by either party. The court equally divided the cash assets between the parties. ¶8 After the court announced its ruling, petitioner asked the court to allow h


CourtListener opinion 2808603

valuation/division: scretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Id. ¶ 14 While most other states permit trial courts to consider a spouse's current or anticipated Social Security benefits in making an equitable distribution of marital assets, Illinois prohibits courts from giving any consideration to Social Security benefits when dividing marital property. In re Marriage of Crook, 211 Ill. 2d 437, 449-50 (2004). According to our supreme court, considering Social Security benefits in dividing marital property would conflict with federal law, which prohibits the transfer


CourtListener opinion 2809390

CourtListener opinion 2809390 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 899 WDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2809390 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 2809390


CourtListener opinion 2809390

QDRO: s were denied. The ensuing equitable distribution order reduced Husband's payment to Wife from $22,500 to $11,033.34, directed that the marital portion of Husband's defined benefit pension be disbursed according to a qualified domestic relations order2 ("QDRO"), and awarded Wife $500 per month alimony for one year. Significantly, the trial court declined to assess against Husband the marital portion of Wife's student loan debt. Essentially, the court concluded that the certified record sustained the master's purported credibility determination that Husband "was unaware that [Wife] had taken ________________


CourtListener opinion 2809390

pension: te. The parties owned several assets including the marital residence, two rental properties, $10,030.66 proceeds from the then-recent sale of a third property, two automobiles, a motorcycle, a bass fishing boat, miscellaneous personal property, Husband's pension benefits, and savings and annuity accounts. The marital debts and liabilities included mortgages on two of the homes, the balance on an open line of credit, vehicle loans for one automobile and the motorcycle, credit card debt, and real estate taxes. ____________________________________________ 1 "Where a spouse places separate property in joint names


CourtListener opinion 2809390

alternate payee: at [Wife] had taken ____________________________________________ 2 In Smith v. Smith, 938 A.2d 246, 248 n.3 (Pa. 2007) (citation and internal quotations omitted), our Supreme Court explained, "A QDRO is an order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under the plan. To be qualified, the order must contain certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits." -5- J-A04006-15 excess student loans to spend at her discretion." Trial Court Opinion and Order, 1/31/14, at 15. Husband filed a timely motion


CourtListener opinion 2809390

domestic relations order: of the remaining exceptions were denied. The ensuing equitable distribution order reduced Husband's payment to Wife from $22,500 to $11,033.34, directed that the marital portion of Husband's defined benefit pension be disbursed according to a qualified domestic relations order2 ("QDRO"), and awarded Wife $500 per month alimony for one year. Significantly, the trial court declined to assess against Husband the marital portion of Wife's student loan debt. Essentially, the court concluded that the certified record sustained the master's purported credibility determination that Husband "was unaware that [Wife] had taken ________


CourtListener opinion 2810655

CourtListener opinion 2810655 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Craig. Extracted reporter citation: 516 A.2d 363. Docket: 968 WDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2810655 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 2810655


CourtListener opinion 2810655

QDRO: (k) had a value of $104,718.73 as of March 31, 2012. [Appellant] had a [403(b)] through her employer which had a value on August 29, 2009 of $23,053.28 and a value of $53,335.15 as of March 31, 2012. . . . [Appellant is awarded] $50,000.00 by virtue of a QDRO from [Mr. Markle's] 401(k) at his place of employment. The QDRO shall be prepared by [Mr. Markle's] attorney as soon as possible after the entry of a decree. If [Appellant] chooses to retain this amount in a manner that will result in any income tax[] consequences[,] she will be solely responsible to pay said income tax or reimburse [Mr. Markle] for t


CourtListener opinion 2810655

retirement benefits: il[ed] to take into consideration the nature and extent of the qualified assets awarded to [Appellant]" – specifically, when he "failed to consider" the fact that Appellant could not liquidate the $50,000.00 that was assigned to Appellant from Mr. Markle's retirement account without Appellant incurring "a great economic disadvantage;" and, 6) awarded her only $4,500.00 in attorneys' fees. Appellant's Exceptions, 12/23/13, at 1-2. The trial court heard argument on Appellant's exceptions and, in an opinion and order dated April 4, 2014,2 the trial court denied Appellant's exceptions and accepted the Master's Report and Reco


CourtListener opinion 2810655

401(k): erty in which [Appellant] is residing. 16. Marital Property There are several items of martial property[:] a. [Appellant's] NHS Human Services 403(b) Plan - $53,035.15 as of March 31, 2012. On August 29, 2008[,] it was $23,053.28. b. [Mr. Markle's] 401(k) with Smail Company[]. On August 1, 2008[, the 401(k) account was valued at $65,464.27 and on March 31, 2012[,] it was $104,718.73. c. 1997 Ford Expedition valued at $760.00. d. Ford Expedition 2008 driven by son with a retail value of $4,700.00 e. 2007 Kia Optima value of $6,575.00, owes approximately $4,500.00. f. Real estate known as 301 East


CourtListener opinion 2810655

valuation/division: his appeal. We deny Mr. Markle's motion to quash1 and affirm the decree of divorce. ____________________________________________ 1 According to Mr. Markle, we must quash the appeal because Appellant filed her notice of appeal from the pre-divorce order of equitable distribution and not from the final decree of divorce. Mr. Markle's Motion to Quash, 7/31/14, at ¶ 7. Mr. Markle's claim is frivolous, given that a decree of divorce was entered in this case and Appellant filed her notice of appeal within 30 days from the entry of the final divorce decree. See Campbell v. Campbell, 516 A.2d 363, 366 (Pa. Super. 1986) (en banc) (holding


CourtListener opinion 2812301

CourtListener opinion 2812301 Extracted reporter citation: 979 A.2d 892. Docket: 1088 MDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2812301 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 2812301


CourtListener opinion 2812301

QDRO: e trial court's ultimate determination that the ring was non- marital property based on the testimony that was presented.10 Lastly, we address Husband's complaint that the Master and trial court erred by imposing the equitable distribution award through a QDRO versus DRO.11 Husband's Brief at 21, 26, 27, 33. We note, however, that Husband ____________________________________________ 10 In doing so, we note our agreement with the trial court that it "did not order any property be turned over to a third party." Trial Court Opinion, 8/29/14, at 9. 11 The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has distinguished these t


CourtListener opinion 2812301

retirement benefits: June 20, 2014, and an amended notice of appeal on July 9, 2014. Husband and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On appeal, Husband presents the following questions for review: [1] Whether the trial court failed to distribute Husband's military retirement plan consistent with Pennsylvania and Federal law when it ordered Husband to indemnify Wife and maintain a set monthly amount if her share was reduced either because he elected to take a disability waiver or for any other reason? [2] Whether the trial court erred in its method of valuing and distributing Husband's military retirement plan? [3] Whether th


CourtListener opinion 2812301

pension: edural history of this case as follows: The parties were married on May 16, 1987 and separated on February 14, 2010. Husband served in the Navy for twenty- three years, eighteen of which were during the parties' marriage. Husband now receives a military pension and an additional $871 per month of Veterans Administration disability pay. Since Husband has been receiving disability he has generally worked ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 We note that a Decree in Divorce was entered on January 14, 2014. J-A08013-15 full time. The Master throu


CourtListener opinion 2812301

alternate payee: Opinion, 8/29/14, at 9. 11 The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has distinguished these terms, as follows: Generally, a qualified domestic relations order, or "QDRO," is defined as: a domestic relations order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under the plan. To be "qualified," the order must contain certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits. (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 22 - J-A08013-15 did not raise this issue in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained of on A


CourtListener opinion 2812687

CourtListener opinion 2812687 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2812687 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 2812687

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 2812687

domestic relations order: ; the other was in 1999, for willful infliction of corporeal injury on his spouse. Tapp was sentenced to a third strike term of 25 years to life in state prison for the assault conviction, with a concurrent sentence of one year in county jail for disobeying a domestic relations order. Tapp appealed, and this court reversed the trial court's true finding that his section 246.3 conviction was for a serious or violent felony, because there was not substantial evidence that Tapp personally used a gun in the commission of his negligent discharge offense. We vacated Tapp's sentence, and remanded for a retrial if the prosecutor elected to ret


CourtListener opinion 2812807

CourtListener opinion 2812807 Extracted case name: DDS v. CAROLE MICHELLE LUNN. Extracted reporter citation: 733 S.W.2d 102. Docket: of days Husband spent with the children. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2812807 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 2812807

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 2812807

QDRO: tively filed motions to alter or amend the judgment. The trial court entered a subsequent order, allowing Husband to satisfy a portion of his obligations owed to Wife by transferring funds from his retirement account via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Husband was directed to reimburse Wife for any tax liability she incurred as a result of such transfer. The court also ordered Husband to pay $5,000 of Wife‟s expert witness fees. The court denied Wife‟s request to base Husband‟s child support obligation on the actual co-parenting time he was currently spending with the children. The trial court referr


CourtListener opinion 2812807

retirement benefits: parties‟ 2011 federal income tax return. Both parties respectively filed motions to alter or amend the judgment. The trial court entered a subsequent order, allowing Husband to satisfy a portion of his obligations owed to Wife by transferring funds from his retirement account via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Husband was directed to reimburse Wife for any tax liability she incurred as a result of such transfer. The court also ordered Husband to pay $5,000 of Wife‟s expert witness fees. The court denied Wife‟s request to base Husband‟s child support obligation on the actual co-parenting time he was currently spen


CourtListener opinion 2812807

pension: te, and in determining the nature, amount, length of term, and manner of payment, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including: (1) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party, including income from pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other sources; (2) The relative education and training of each party, the ability and opportunity of each party to secure such education and training, and the necessity of a party to secure further education and training to improve such party‟s earnings capacity to a reasonable level; (3) The duration of


CourtListener opinion 2812807

401(k): merit. VIII. Wife‟s Federal Tax Liability Husband asserts that the trial court erred in assessing Wife‟s additional federal tax liability of $16,022 to Husband. The court found that the liability resulted from Husband‟s decision to transfer funds from his 401(k) in order to satisfy part of his obligations from the division of the marital estate. Following the trial court‟s distribution of the marital estate, Husband owed Wife certain monetary obligations, including an indebtedness of $92,121 owed to Wife for her share of the equity in the parties‟ 23 commercial real property. Husband sought to transfer this amoun


CourtListener opinion 2813071

CourtListener opinion 2813071 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of FRANKIE and GLORIA MEEK. FRANKIE MEEK. Extracted reporter citation: 234 Cal.App.3d 1413. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2813071 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 2813071


CourtListener opinion 2813071

QDRO: ment agreement. The dissolution judgment included a spousal support order stating that Frankie was required to pay Gloria $1,400 in monthly spousal support. The spousal support order stated: "Of the $1,400.00 payable to [Gloria], [Gloria] shall prepare her Qualified Domestic Relations Order for her half of the community property share of [Frankie's] Air Force Military Retirement." The support order further states that, when Gloria began receiving her monthly retirement amount directly from the air force, Frankie was required "to pay in spousal support to [Gloria], the difference between the amount [Gloria] receives from the military up to


CourtListener opinion 2813071

retirement benefits: rankie filed a marital dissolution petition. The parties executed a marital settlement agreement, which was filed in July 2001. In August 2001, the parties stipulated and the trial court entered an order regarding Frankie's United States Air Force military retirement benefits (Air Force benefits). The Air Force benefits judgment stated Gloria had a 49 percent community property interest in Frankie's Air Force benefits, based on the date of the parties' marriage in 1966 and the date of Frankie's retirement from the military in July 1985. Frankie began employment with the federal government in February 1986, and retired in Ja


CourtListener opinion 2813071

pension: al support concurrent with Gloria's request for support arrears, since Frankie was arguing he was not required to pay arrears or out-of-pocket support because, after Frankie retired, Gloria's support award was satisfied by receipt of her share of increased pension benefits. The parties did not object to continuing the hearing from 17 October 30, 2013, to November 21, 2013, for the purpose of hearing both Gloria's request for arrears and Frankie's oral request for support modification. We conclude there was substantial evidence that the parties received notice of the spousal support modification hearing, and th


CourtListener opinion 2813071

domestic relations order: ment. The dissolution judgment included a spousal support order stating that Frankie was required to pay Gloria $1,400 in monthly spousal support. The spousal support order stated: "Of the $1,400.00 payable to [Gloria], [Gloria] shall prepare her Qualified Domestic Relations Order for her half of the community property share of [Frankie's] Air Force Military Retirement." The support order further states that, when Gloria began receiving her monthly retirement amount directly from the air force, Frankie was required "to pay in spousal support to [Gloria], the difference between the amount [Gloria] receives from the military up to


CourtListener opinion 2813224

CourtListener opinion 2813224 Extracted case name: LLC v. CSX. Extracted reporter citation: 134 S.Ct. 2228. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2813224 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 2813224


CourtListener opinion 2813224

QDRO: takes advantage of synergies among multiple methods of regulation" and is "consistent with the congressional design to enact two different statutes, each with its own mechanisms to enhance" railroad safety. (POM Wonderful, supra, 134 S.Ct. at p. 2239.) 19. Qualified Domestic Relations Order under Employee Retirement Income Security Act required state court to make independent evaluation].)10 BNSF contends the broad, unlimited language of FRSA's preemption provision is properly read to support both preemption of covered state law claims and preclusion of FELA negligence claims. BNSF asserts this conclusion is strengthened by Congress's 2007 de


CourtListener opinion 2813224

domestic relations order: ntage of synergies among multiple methods of regulation" and is "consistent with the congressional design to enact two different statutes, each with its own mechanisms to enhance" railroad safety. (POM Wonderful, supra, 134 S.Ct. at p. 2239.) 19. Qualified Domestic Relations Order under Employee Retirement Income Security Act required state court to make independent evaluation].)10 BNSF contends the broad, unlimited language of FRSA's preemption provision is properly read to support both preemption of covered state law claims and preclusion of FELA negligence claims. BNSF asserts this conclusion is strengthened by Congress's 2007 de


CourtListener opinion 2816437

CourtListener opinion 2816437 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Benson. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Fourth District Docket No. 4-14-0682. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2816437 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 2816437


CourtListener opinion 2816437

retirement benefits: titled to a fractional interest in those benefits. ¶2 David appeals, arguing, inter alia, the trial court erred in ruling Nancy was entitled to a portion of his disability benefits where the original dissolution judgment only awarded Nancy a portion of his retirement benefits. We affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 On May 22, 1971, David and Nancy were married. On August 3, 1972, David began working for the City of Decatur fire department. ¶5 On April 16, 1999, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the parties' marriage. At the time of the judgment, the primary marital asset was David's pension. The judgment provided, in pe


CourtListener opinion 2816437

pension: riage between Nancy and her former spouse, respondent, David W. Benson, which required David to pay a portion of his disability benefits to her. Following an April 2014 hearing, the court found David's disability benefits were in the nature of a disability pension and, as a result, Nancy was entitled to a fractional interest in those benefits. ¶2 David appeals, arguing, inter alia, the trial court erred in ruling Nancy was entitled to a portion of his disability benefits where the original dissolution judgment only awarded Nancy a portion of his retirement benefits. We affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 On May 22, 1971,


CourtListener opinion 2816437

alternate payee: e provides a QILDRO is "an Illinois court order that creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of a member's accrued benefits in a retirement system." A QILDRO requires a retirement system to divert to an alternate payee all or part of a benefit the system would otherwise have to pay to the member. 40 ILCS 5/1-119(b)(2) (West 2012). A QILDRO may divert the payment of a retirement benefit, a refund, or a death benefit. 40 ILCS 5/1-119(b)(1) (West 2012). However, as stated, it may not divert the payment of a disability benefit. 40 ILCS 5/1-119(b)(4) (West 2012). ¶ 37 Nanc


CourtListener opinion 2816437

domestic relations order: provided, in pertinent part, the following: "[Nancy] is granted a one-half interest in [David's] retirement plan through the Decatur Fire Department and his ICMA retirement account. Transfer of said funds shall be accomplished through qualified [Illinois] domestic relations orders." ¶6 David continued to work as a firefighter until 2008, when he was injured during a call. David was carrying equipment back to the fire truck in the rain when his foot slipped. As he fell, his head and shoulder were driven into the ground, injuring his lower back. ¶7 On February 27, 2008, David began receiving disability benefits. At the time, David w


CourtListener opinion 2816541

CourtListener opinion 2816541 Extracted case name: FROEHLICH v. FROEHLICH. NAHMIAS. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2816541 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 2816541

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 2816541

QDRO: fer of half of a 401 (k) retirement account, where "the divorce decree specified both how Wife's interest in the 401 (k) account would be calculated and the manner in which the transfer was to be accomplished, including requiring her counsel to prepare the QDRO." 286 Ga. at 236. We held that "transmuting this award into a presently due cash obligation" was an impermissible modification. Id. Unlike Killingsworth, the contempt order in this case does not transmute any property or compel Husband to relinquish or sell any asset awarded to him by the divorce decree. The Marriott points at issue are Wife's property


CourtListener opinion 2816541

retirement benefits: v. Gooch, Case No. S15A0202, decided June 1, 2015, slip op. at 4 (holding that where the husband, contrary to the divorce decree, made an irrevocable designation of his new wife instead of his former wife as the recipient of the survivor benefits from his retirement plan, the trial court could enforce the decree with a contempt order requiring him "to secure something of the same monetary value as that which was set forth in the violated order"); Doritis v. Doritis, 294 Ga. 421, 421-422 (754 SE2d 53) (2014) (affirming a contempt order that required the husband to pay the wife the value of jewelry that the parties had a


CourtListener opinion 2816541

401(k): ontemptuous conduct." Smith, 293 Ga. at 565. Husband's reliance on Killingsworth is misplaced. In that case, we held that the trial court impermissibly modified the divorce decree by ordering a cash payment to the wife in lieu of the transfer of half of a 401 (k) retirement account, where "the divorce decree specified both how Wife's interest in the 401 (k) account would be calculated and the manner in which the transfer was to be accomplished, including requiring her counsel to prepare the QDRO." 286 Ga. at 236. We held that "transmuting this award into a presently due cash obligation" was an impermissible mod


CourtListener opinion 2816541

survivor benefits: 6) (2013). See, e.g., Gooch v. Gooch, Case No. S15A0202, decided June 1, 2015, slip op. at 4 (holding that where the husband, contrary to the divorce decree, made an irrevocable designation of his new wife instead of his former wife as the recipient of the survivor benefits from his retirement plan, the trial court could enforce the decree with a contempt order requiring him "to secure something of the same monetary value as that which was set forth in the violated order"); Doritis v. Doritis, 294 Ga. 421, 421-422 (754 SE2d 53) (2014) (affirming a contempt order that required the husband to pay the wife the value of jewe


CourtListener opinion 2816544

CourtListener opinion 2816544 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Fisher. Extracted reporter citation: 26 N.E.3d 1045. Docket: 45A03-1502-DR-46 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2816544 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 2816544


CourtListener opinion 2816544

QDRO: disagreed about the value of personal property, which Husband valued as being worth $30,480.00 more than Wife. However, Husband does not appeal the trial court's determination regarding the personal property. 3 Because Husband's PERF cannot be divided via Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Wife had to receive additional marital assets that would amount to the value of 45% of Husband's PERF. Tr. at 35. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1502-DR-46 |July 13, 2015 Page 4 of 20 checking accounts, and that each party would keep his or her own vehicle. Id. at 58, 64. [9] The parties' proposed division differed in a coup


CourtListener opinion 2816544

retirement benefits: le it is true Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1502-DR-46 |July 13, 2015 Page 15 of 20 that Husband was awarded his pre-tax PERF account, Wife was awarded her pre-tax PERF account, as well as a portion of one of Husband's pre-tax retirement accounts. The accounts awarded to Wife totaled about $250,000.00. [28] In its Decree of Dissolution, the trial court followed the parties' mediated agreement. It was the parties' joint determination that Husband's PERF account, which Wife's expert valued at $466,000.00, would be valued for purposes of the marital estate at about $10,000.00 less, or $455,871.


CourtListener opinion 2816544

pension: of some savings bonds, excluded other savings bonds from the marital estate, and awarded Wife the majority of the liquid, post-tax assets; and II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Husband's request for a post-division credit on his pension value. [2] We affirm. Facts and Procedural History [3] Husband and Wife were married on May 23, 1992, and Wife filed for dissolution of marriage on June 6, 2014. During their twenty-two-year marriage, the couple did not have any children. [4] At the time Wife filed for dissolution, she earned $27,450.00 per year in wages. Husband earned $30,295.00


CourtListener opinion 2816544

domestic relations order: about the value of personal property, which Husband valued as being worth $30,480.00 more than Wife. However, Husband does not appeal the trial court's determination regarding the personal property. 3 Because Husband's PERF cannot be divided via Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Wife had to receive additional marital assets that would amount to the value of 45% of Husband's PERF. Tr. at 35. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1502-DR-46 |July 13, 2015 Page 4 of 20 checking accounts, and that each party would keep his or her own vehicle. Id. at 58, 64. [9] The parties' proposed division differed in a coup


CourtListener opinion 2817594

CourtListener opinion 2817594 Extracted reporter citation: 352 S.W.3d 746. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2817594 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 2817594


CourtListener opinion 2817594

QDRO: ot give its clarification order any impermissible retroactive effect. See id. We overrule Orndoff's fourth issue. ATTORNEY'S FEES Orndoff argues Italian's attorney's fees award of $2,651.90 is not supported by the evidence. He contends her request for a qualified domestic relations order was frivolous, as was the discovery pertaining to that request. Furthermore, Orndoff argues he agreed his monthly obligation under the divorce decree was $254.40 a month and he attempted to settle the matter. An award of attorney's fees must be supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. See City of Laredo v. Montano, 415 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex.


CourtListener opinion 2817594

retirement benefits: doff retired in 1996 as an E-7 with twenty years of service. Orndoff and Italian remarried but divorced again in March 2005 and a new divorce decree was entered. At that time, the trial court "confirmed" Italian's entitlement to 22.5% of Orndoff's military retirement benefits as set forth on page 11 of the 1988 divorce decree and ordered Orndoff to "resume payments starting March 2005." In December 2005, a hearing took place on Italian's motion to enforce payment of her share of Orndoff's military retirement benefits. The trial court ordered Orndoff to pay Italian the monthly amount of $111.71 in addition to $100 until the


CourtListener opinion 2817594

domestic relations order: s clarification order any impermissible retroactive effect. See id. We overrule Orndoff's fourth issue. ATTORNEY'S FEES Orndoff argues Italian's attorney's fees award of $2,651.90 is not supported by the evidence. He contends her request for a qualified domestic relations order was frivolous, as was the discovery pertaining to that request. Furthermore, Orndoff argues he agreed his monthly obligation under the divorce decree was $254.40 a month and he attempted to settle the matter. An award of attorney's fees must be supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. See City of Laredo v. Montano, 415 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex.


CourtListener opinion 2818524

CourtListener opinion 2818524 Extracted case name: R.R.F. v. L.L.F. Extracted reporter citation: 920 N.E.2d 688. Docket: 25A05-1407-DR-344 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2818524 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 2818524


CourtListener opinion 2818524

QDRO: dered in the division of the marital estate. Austin is primarily responsible for these loans and is current in the loan obligations. Therefore, the loans have not been considered. The Court is directing that [Husband's] pension would be divided by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and therefore the value is not included in the equalization calculation. (4) MARITAL RESIDENCE: That [Husband] shall have sole and exclusive ownership of the marital residence … and shall be responsible for and shall hold [Wife] harmless for all obligations associated with the marital residence. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decisi


CourtListener opinion 2818524

retirement benefits: in installments, that is just and proper; (3) ordering the sale of the property under such conditions as the court prescribes and dividing the proceeds of the sale; or (4) ordering the distribution of benefits described in IC 31-9-2- 98(b)(2) [pension or retirement benefits] or IC 31-9-2-98(b)(3) [disposable retired or retainer pay] that are payable after the dissolution of marriage, by setting aside to either of the parties a percentage of those payments either by assignment or in kind at the time of receipt. And Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-5 provides, The court shall presume that an equal division of the marital pro


CourtListener opinion 2818524

pension: tin's student loans should be considered in the division of the marital estate. Austin is primarily responsible for these loans and is current in the loan obligations. Therefore, the loans have not been considered. The Court is directing that [Husband's] pension would be divided by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and therefore the value is not included in the equalization calculation. (4) MARITAL RESIDENCE: That [Husband] shall have sole and exclusive ownership of the marital residence … and shall be responsible for and shall hold [Wife] harmless for all obligations associated with the marit


CourtListener opinion 2818524

401(k): ipates that the refinancing will be needed for the equalization payment and the Court anticipates that will all be accomplished within sixty (60) days of today's date. (5) RETIREMENT/BENEFIT: That [Wife] shall be the sole and exclusive owner of [Wife's] 401(k) with the value of $10,902.27. That [Husband] shall be the sole and exclusive owner of [Husband's] General Motor[s] Profit Sharing Plan with the value of $2,629.81. General Motor[s] Hourly Rate Employee's Pension Plan [Wife] shall be awarded 50% of [Husband's] vested General Motor[s] Hourly Rate Employee's Pension Plan ("the Plan") as of September


CourtListener opinion 2820566

CourtListener opinion 2820566 Extracted reporter citation: 464 A.2d 1359. Docket: 1460 WDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2820566 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 2820566

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 2820566

QDRO: n order on August 6, 2014, concluding that Husband and his current spouse were legally married as a result of the divorce decree and subsequent marriage. The trial court enjoined the pension fund from paying any pension benefits to Husband pending a final qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). Wife moved for reconsideration, arguing that her survivor's benefits from Husband's retirement could be affected by his remarriage. After the trial court denied reconsideration, Wife filed a timely notice of appeal of the August 6 order. Wife's stated reason for opposing Husband's motion for reconsideration of the July 10 order was that her r


CourtListener opinion 2820566

retirement benefits: the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with its opinion. See id. Subsequent to the entry of the divorce decree, Husband remarried in Florida on October 31, 2013. In May 2014, Husband's employer terminated his employment and he applied for retirement benefits through his union in June 2014. In his application for retirement benefits, Husband named his current spouse as the beneficiary. Wife then petitioned the trial court for an order enjoining the union's pension fund from recognizing the current spouse, instead identifying Wife as his current spouse, and precluding paying out pension benefits to Husband.


CourtListener opinion 2820566

pension: error. The previous panel of this Court identified eight economic issues briefed and argued by Wife and addressed each issue individually. In its holding, the Superior Court reversed the trial court with regard to Wife's first, second, and fifth issues (pension, continuance, and alimony respectively); vacated as to her third, fourth, and sixth issues (attorney's fees, credit against equitable distribution, and pension respectively); remanded as to issue eight (restricting evidence); and found no merit in her issue seven (loss of value of marital residence). See Graziani, No. 1980 -2- J-A13003-15 WDA 2012 a


CourtListener opinion 2820566

domestic relations order: August 6, 2014, concluding that Husband and his current spouse were legally married as a result of the divorce decree and subsequent marriage. The trial court enjoined the pension fund from paying any pension benefits to Husband pending a final qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). Wife moved for reconsideration, arguing that her survivor's benefits from Husband's retirement could be affected by his remarriage. After the trial court denied reconsideration, Wife filed a timely notice of appeal of the August 6 order. Wife's stated reason for opposing Husband's motion for reconsideration of the July 10 order was that her r


CourtListener opinion 2820755

CourtListener opinion 2820755 Extracted reporter citation: 854 N.E.2d 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2820755 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 2820755


CourtListener opinion 2820755

QDRO: job of twenty-three years. The trial court held a hearing on February 11, 2014 regarding the division of the marital estate. Among other assets, Husband had two pensions which Wife requested be split by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). In its June 26, 2014 decree of dissolution and property division, the trial court ordered the marital assets separated as follows: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 74A05-1412-DR-598 | July 28, 2015 Page 2 of 10 2. The Petitioner/Wife shall receive and own as her property the following property at the following values: Half of Husb


CourtListener opinion 2820755

retirement benefits: e large majority of the total marital estate. The trial court also ordered Husband to make a cash equalization payment to Wife in order that the total assets would be split evenly by the parties. The trial court instructed Husband to liquidate certain retirement accounts, refinance the marital home, or obtain a loan to satisfy the cash payment to Wife. The trial court further instructed that if such options were insufficient, Husband would be required to sell the marital home. On appeal, Husband argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider tax consequences and costs of selling the home when valuating as


CourtListener opinion 2820755

pension: parated as follows: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 74A05-1412-DR-598 | July 28, 2015 Page 2 of 10 2. The Petitioner/Wife shall receive and own as her property the following property at the following values: Half of Husband's Millwright Pension that accrued QDRO during marriage Half of Husband's ALCOA Defined Benefit QDRO (Pension) that accrued during marriage 2002 Pontiac Grand Am $1,200 2006 Chevy Aveo $8,000 Ed Jones joint [account] $23,096 Wife's Freedom [account] $0.32 Wife's American Funds IRA $57,871.41 Wife's SMMC 401(a) $1,024.56 Wife's SMMC 403(a) $2,038.53 Personal Property


CourtListener opinion 2820755

401(k): r husband, Appellant-Respondent Thomas Thompson ("Husband"). In separating the marital assets, the trial court awarded Husband Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 74A05-1412-DR-598 | July 28, 2015 Page 1 of 10 the marital home and Husband's 401(k) which accounted for the large majority of the total marital estate. The trial court also ordered Husband to make a cash equalization payment to Wife in order that the total assets would be split evenly by the parties. The trial court instructed Husband to liquidate certain retirement accounts, refinance the marital home, or obtain a loan to satisfy


CourtListener opinion 2821447

CourtListener opinion 2821447 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hall. Extracted reporter citation: 439 U.S. 572. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2821447 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 2821447


CourtListener opinion 2821447

QDRO: that SHIRLEY's benefits will commence not upon BRUCE's retirement but upon her reaching the eligibility age for retirement, upon which date she will receive her spousal pension benefits in the amount of $621.00 per month without the necessity for any qualified domestic relations order." ¶5 Bruce retired from the Union Pacific Railroad in June 2011. Shirley did not begin receiving pension payments and filed her petition for enforcement of judgment in February 2013. In the petition, Shirley sought entry of an order from the trial court dividing Bruce's pension per the settlement agreement. ¶6 A hearing took place on Shirley's petit


CourtListener opinion 2821447

retirement benefits: s' youngest child, who was 16 when Shirley and Bruce divorced. The marital settlement agreement that both parties signed contained the following language in article VIII. "BRUCE shall have the sole right, title and interest in his pension and individual retirement plans, including but not limited to past, present and future contributions, interest and principal, whether contributed by BRUCE or his employer or both and whether unvested, partially vested, or fully vested, free and clear of any and all claims of SHIRLEY. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order will be entered which will provide SHIRLEY with $621.00


CourtListener opinion 2821447

pension: ____________________________ OPINION ¶1 Respondent Shirley Frank, n/k/a Shirley Pearson, filed a motion to enforce the terms in a 1998 marital settlement agreement she entered into with her former husband, petitioner Bruce Frank. Shirley sought various pension benefits she claims were distributed to her per the parties' marital settlement agreement but which she did not receive when Bruce retired. The trial court denied Shirley's petition for enforcement of judgment and her motion to reconsider. She appealed. We affirm. ¶2 FACTS ¶3 Petitioner Bruce Frank and respondent Shirley Frank were married in April 1


CourtListener opinion 2821447

domestic relations order: LEY's benefits will commence not upon BRUCE's retirement but upon her reaching the eligibility age for retirement, upon which date she will receive her spousal pension benefits in the amount of $621.00 per month without the necessity for any qualified domestic relations order." ¶5 Bruce retired from the Union Pacific Railroad in June 2011. Shirley did not begin receiving pension payments and filed her petition for enforcement of judgment in February 2013. In the petition, Shirley sought entry of an order from the trial court dividing Bruce's pension per the settlement agreement. ¶6 A hearing took place on Shirley's petit


CourtListener opinion 2822242

CourtListener opinion 2822242 Extracted case name: ERIC P. SOUSA v. DONNA M. SOUSA. Extracted reporter citation: 50 A.3d 372. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2822242 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 2822242


CourtListener opinion 2822242

QDRO: ties exchanged exten- sive discovery and participated [with] a special mas- ter pretrial. ‘‘A separation agreement was prepared and executed which, among other things, provided that the plaintiff's borough of Naugatuck police pension be divided equally via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).1 The QDRO was prepared by the defendant's counsel, who received information about the pension from the plain- tiff's counsel . . . . A further provision in the agreement called for the plaintiff to pay periodic ali- mony of $130 per week, subject to termination at the end of five years, or earlier upon the [defendant's] cohabitation or the death of


CourtListener opinion 2822242

pension: Sousa, and the defendant, Donna M. Sousa. The defen- dant now appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying two motions to vacate a prior judgment that modified, by stipulation, a portion of the judgment of dissolution that ordered that the plaintiff's pension ben- efits be divided equally between the parties. She claims that the court erred by denying her first motion to vacate because it erroneously concluded that she did not meet her burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff fraudulently failed to disclose the accu- rate value of his employee pension plan in his financial affidavit. I


CourtListener opinion 2822242

domestic relations order: nged exten- sive discovery and participated [with] a special mas- ter pretrial. ‘‘A separation agreement was prepared and executed which, among other things, provided that the plaintiff's borough of Naugatuck police pension be divided equally via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).1 The QDRO was prepared by the defendant's counsel, who received information about the pension from the plain- tiff's counsel . . . . A further provision in the agreement called for the plaintiff to pay periodic ali- mony of $130 per week, subject to termination at the end of five years, or earlier upon the [defendant's] cohabitation or the death of


CourtListener opinion 2824168

CourtListener opinion 2824168 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF STEVEN ROSS HAECKER AND KAREN T. BLOMME Upon the Petition of STEVEN ROSS HAECKER. Extracted reporter citation: 726 N.W.2d 359. Docket: 13-1876. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2824168 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 2824168

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 2824168

QDRO: 0 and $174,800 respectively. The court allocated the remaining assets, including artwork created by Blomme, an annuity, and two vehicles. Each party assumed the debts in their names. The court ordered Blomme's IPERS retirement account divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. At the end of the day, the court ordered Haecker to pay Blomme half of a 2011 tax refund in the amount of $5023.50 and concluded Blomme owed Haecker $11,115.06, representing half the value of the annuity in her name. This left a net payment from Blomme to Haecker of $6091.56. In a post-trial ruling, the court concluded Blomme should be credited for


CourtListener opinion 2824168

retirement benefits: t their 2013 appraised values of $104,590 and $174,800 respectively. The court allocated the remaining assets, including artwork created by Blomme, an annuity, and two vehicles. Each party assumed the debts in their names. The court ordered Blomme's IPERS retirement account divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. At the end of the day, the court ordered Haecker to pay Blomme half of a 2011 tax refund in the amount of $5023.50 and concluded Blomme owed Haecker $11,115.06, representing half the value of the annuity in her name. This left a net payment from Blomme to Haecker of $6091.56. In a post-trial r


CourtListener opinion 2824168

pension: mme's value. Because the court's valuation was within the range of evidence, we conclude the district court's valuation was equitable. See id. The district court elected to offset the entire $7200 value of the Toyota against the appreciation of Haecker's pension "from their marriage in 2000 to his retirement in 2003." In his reply brief, Haecker suggests this disposition was inequitable. On our de novo review, we agree. "All property of the marriage that exists at the time of the divorce . . . is divisible property." Sullins, 715 N.W.2d at 247. The record contains scant if any evidence of the appreciation of


CourtListener opinion 2824168

domestic relations order: ,800 respectively. The court allocated the remaining assets, including artwork created by Blomme, an annuity, and two vehicles. Each party assumed the debts in their names. The court ordered Blomme's IPERS retirement account divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. At the end of the day, the court ordered Haecker to pay Blomme half of a 2011 tax refund in the amount of $5023.50 and concluded Blomme owed Haecker $11,115.06, representing half the value of the annuity in her name. This left a net payment from Blomme to Haecker of $6091.56. In a post-trial ruling, the court concluded Blomme should be credited for


CourtListener opinion 2824935

CourtListener opinion 2824935 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Seachrist. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2824935 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 2824935


CourtListener opinion 2824935

retirement benefits: (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1137 [Jensen]." (Capitalization omitted.) In 2013, wife filed a petition requesting distribution from the domestic relations order under In re Marriage of Gillmore (1981) 29 Cal.3d 418 [Gillmore]. She claimed entitlement to her share of retirement benefits although husband, though eligible for retirement, was still employed by the County of Orange and had indicated he did not intend to retire for some time. In an "order after hearing" dated July 14, 2014, the trial court granted the petition. On May 16, 2014, husband filed a notice of appeal from two minute orders that preceded the "order after hearing." But


CourtListener opinion 2824935

pension: ) 2 Cal.App.4th 1606 holds "that unless a marital settlement agreement . . . contains an express unequivocal waiver, upon the employee spouse's eligibility to retire, the nonemployee spouse retains the right to receive his or her share of a community property pension." (Id. at 1608.) Husband also contends the court lacked jurisdiction to issue its order. His argument arises from the confusion created by California's disparate use of the phrase "lack of jurisdiction." The simple answer is "the trial court retains jurisdiction to oversee and enforce the execution of the judgment . . . ." (Rivero v. Lake County Bd. of Sup


CourtListener opinion 2824935

alternate payee: ment System, part of the benefits he accrued in this system was community property. The parties stipulated to a domestic relations order, approved by the court, dividing their respective interests in the retirement system. The order provides: "Payments to the alternate payee [wife] shall be available, on application of the alternate payee to the plan administrator, on the same basis and at the same times as such benefits are actually paid to participant [husband] in accordance with In re Marriage of Jensen (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1137 [Jensen]." (Capitalization omitted.) In 2013, wife filed a petition requesting distribution fro


CourtListener opinion 2824935

domestic relations order: No appearance for Respondent Lynn L. Bell. The Seachrists divorced in 1995. Because husband was a participant in the Orange County Employees Retirement System, part of the benefits he accrued in this system was community property. The parties stipulated to a domestic relations order, approved by the court, dividing their respective interests in the retirement system. The order provides: "Payments to the alternate payee [wife] shall be available, on application of the alternate payee to the plan administrator, on the same basis and at the same times as such benefits are actually paid to participant [husband] in accordance with In re Mar


CourtListener opinion 2825833

CourtListener opinion 2825833 Extracted reporter citation: 133 S.W.3d 217. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2825833 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 2825833


CourtListener opinion 2825833

QDRO: trial on August 28, 2013, the trial court signed a final divorce decree ending Brenda's marriage to appellee Michael D. Price and ordering a division of the estate of the parties on December 18, 2013. On January 8, 2014, Brenda filed a motion to enter the qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) regarding Brenda's and Michael's employee-benefit plans, which the trial court granted on January 29, 2014. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.103 (West 2006). One of Michael's plans notified Brenda's attorney, Mellannise Henderson-Love, that the QDRO was not qualified because it "contain[ed] language . . . that . . . would require the defined benefit


CourtListener opinion 2825833

retirement benefits: January 29, 2014. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.103 (West 2006). One of Michael's plans notified Brenda's attorney, Mellannise Henderson-Love, that the QDRO was not qualified because it "contain[ed] language . . . that . . . would require the defined benefit Retirement Plan to operate as a defined contribution plan." On June 6, 2014, Brenda filed a motion to enter a modified QDRO, which was set for a July 2, 2014 hearing. See id. § 9.104 (West 2006). On June 14, 2014, Michael filed objections to Brenda's proposed QDRO and a motion for sanctions, arguing that Brenda's motion for a modified QDRO was brought in bad faith b


CourtListener opinion 2825833

domestic relations order: August 28, 2013, the trial court signed a final divorce decree ending Brenda's marriage to appellee Michael D. Price and ordering a division of the estate of the parties on December 18, 2013. On January 8, 2014, Brenda filed a motion to enter the qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) regarding Brenda's and Michael's employee-benefit plans, which the trial court granted on January 29, 2014. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.103 (West 2006). One of Michael's plans notified Brenda's attorney, Mellannise Henderson-Love, that the QDRO was not qualified because it "contain[ed] language . . . that . . . would require the defined benefit


CourtListener opinion 2825833

valuation/division: thority to award sanctions. 5 Scott & White Mem'l Hosp. v. Schexnider, 940 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. 1996) (op. on reh'g). In divorce actions, however, a trial court has continuing, yet limited, postjudgment jurisdiction to enforce and clarify the decree's property division and to render an enforceable QDRO after its plenary power expires. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.006 (West Supp. 2014), §§ 9.008, 9.101 (West 2006); Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 106, 108 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (op. on reh'g). The trial court signed its first QDRO order on January 29, 2014; thus, its jurisdiction over that


CourtListener opinion 2826474

CourtListener opinion 2826474 Extracted reporter citation: 340 P.3d 1242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2826474 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 2826474


CourtListener opinion 2826474

QDRO: The court awarded Dodson-Carr $500/month in maintenance and $724/month in child support. Additionally, the court stated that "It is . . . reasonable and equitable that [Carr's] retirement be divided 50% to [Dodson-Carr] and 50% 2 to [Carr] by means of a [qualified domestic relations order] QDRO." Carr promptly sought to have the judgment amended but his motion was deemed denied when the District Court did not rule on it within 60 days. Carr filed a notice of appeal on January 3, 2012, but we dismissed the appeal as untimely. ¶5 In April 2012, Dodson-Carr moved for entry of a QDRO asserting that Carr had not yet transferred 50% of his mo


CourtListener opinion 2826474

retirement benefits: rict Court did not rule on it within 60 days. Carr filed a notice of appeal on January 3, 2012, but we dismissed the appeal as untimely. ¶5 In April 2012, Dodson-Carr moved for entry of a QDRO asserting that Carr had not yet transferred 50% of his monthly retirement benefit to her. On May 9, 2012, the Court issued the QDRO in which it ordered: [Carr] ("Member") and [Dodson-Carr] ("Nonmember Spouse") have acquired a community interest in the Member's monthly retirement benefits attributable to periods of service in the System from the Date of Marriage up to the . . . Date of Retirement . . . . The [c]ourt allocates and aw


CourtListener opinion 2826474

pension: ad a daughter in 2000. Dodson-Carr, currently 56 years old, is a disabled retired detention officer. Carr, currently 63, is a retired California police officer who served 27 years on the force before retiring in May 2004. During his employment, he earned a pension administered through California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) and subject to California Public Employees Retirement Law (PERL). The couple relocated to Montana in 2004 and separated on December 24, 2008. Carr sought dissolution of the marriage in July 2010. ¶4 The District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree o


CourtListener opinion 2826474

domestic relations order: awarded Dodson-Carr $500/month in maintenance and $724/month in child support. Additionally, the court stated that "It is . . . reasonable and equitable that [Carr's] retirement be divided 50% to [Dodson-Carr] and 50% 2 to [Carr] by means of a [qualified domestic relations order] QDRO." Carr promptly sought to have the judgment amended but his motion was deemed denied when the District Court did not rule on it within 60 days. Carr filed a notice of appeal on January 3, 2012, but we dismissed the appeal as untimely. ¶5 In April 2012, Dodson-Carr moved for entry of a QDRO asserting that Carr had not yet transferred 50% of his mo


CourtListener opinion 2827077

CourtListener opinion 2827077 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2012-29 Joint Stipulation. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2827077 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 2827077

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 2827077

retirement benefits: l oppression, one of the crimes to which Mr. Cioppa pleaded guilty, is a "crime related to public office or public employment" under PEPFA. Section 2 of PEPFA, 43 P.S. § 1312. Article V, Section 16(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits payment of any retirement benefits to any judge, including a magisterial district judge, who under Article V, Section 18 "is suspended, removed or barred from holding judicial office for conviction of a felony or misconduct in office or conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice or brings the judicial office 4 The hearing officer had ruled that Mr. Cioppa was entitled


CourtListener opinion 2827077

pension: rial District Judge, and Maureen Cioppa (Mrs. Cioppa), his wife, appealing an order of the State Employees' Retirement Board (Board) denying their appeals of two decisions of the State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) forfeiting Mr. Cioppa's entire accrued pension benefits and Mrs. Cioppa's rights under his pension. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Mr. Cioppa was a member of SERS from April 13, 1973 until July 31, 1979 as an employee of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Revenue. Board Opinion at 8; Hearing Officer Findings of Fact (F.F.) ¶¶1-3; Docket No. 2012-29 Joint Stipulation ¶¶1


CourtListener opinion 2827077

alternate payee: ghts under her husband's pension. A spouse has a marital property interest in a pension that is recognized in equitable distribution in the event of a divorce, and the State Employees' Retirement Code (Retirement Code), 71 Pa. C.S. §§ 5101- 5956, provides for alternate payees pursuant to domestic relations orders. Glancey v. State Employes' Ret. Bd., 610 A.2d 15, 25 (Pa. 1992); Titler v. State Employees' Ret. Bd., 768 A.2d 899, 901 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); 71 Pa. C.S. § 5953(a)(3); 71 Pa. C.S. § 5953.1. That, however, does not give a spouse of a SERS member any enforceable interest in the member's pension or right to receive benefit


CourtListener opinion 2827077

domestic relations order: ion. A spouse has a marital property interest in a pension that is recognized in equitable distribution in the event of a divorce, and the State Employees' Retirement Code (Retirement Code), 71 Pa. C.S. §§ 5101- 5956, provides for alternate payees pursuant to domestic relations orders. Glancey v. State Employes' Ret. Bd., 610 A.2d 15, 25 (Pa. 1992); Titler v. State Employees' Ret. Bd., 768 A.2d 899, 901 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); 71 Pa. C.S. § 5953(a)(3); 71 Pa. C.S. § 5953.1. That, however, does not give a spouse of a SERS member any enforceable interest in the member's pension or right to receive benefits prior to a divorce. Titler, 768 A.2d


CourtListener opinion 2828339

CourtListener opinion 2828339 Extracted case name: MEDINA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHIRER. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2828339 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 2828339


CourtListener opinion 2828339

QDRO: ith professional misconduct in one client matter. Relator alleged that Shirer was retained by a client to obtain the dissolution of her marriage. Relator claimed that SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Shirer failed to file an agreed qualified domestic-relations order ("QDRO") with the domestic-relations court and with the entity that administered the pension of his client's ex-husband. Many years later, Shirer's client had to retain a new attorney to file the QDRO and to represent her when her former husband disputed that some of the retirement benefits existed at the time of the divorce. {¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commiss


CourtListener opinion 2828339

retirement benefits: h the domestic-relations court and with the entity that administered the pension of his client's ex-husband. Many years later, Shirer's client had to retain a new attorney to file the QDRO and to represent her when her former husband disputed that some of the retirement benefits existed at the time of the divorce. {¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 considered the cause on the parties' consent-to-discipline agreement. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11.2 {¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Shirer stipulates to the facts alleged in relator's complaint and agrees that his conduct violated DR 6- 1


CourtListener opinion 2828339

pension: etained by a client to obtain the dissolution of her marriage. Relator claimed that SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Shirer failed to file an agreed qualified domestic-relations order ("QDRO") with the domestic-relations court and with the entity that administered the pension of his client's ex-husband. Many years later, Shirer's client had to retain a new attorney to file the QDRO and to represent her when her former husband disputed that some of the retirement benefits existed at the time of the divorce. {¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 considered the cause on the parties' consent-to-d


CourtListener opinion 2828509

CourtListener opinion 2828509 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DONNA L. SULLINS AND RAYMOND W. SULLINS Upon the Petition of DONNA L. SULLINS. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 14-1153. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2828509 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 2828509


CourtListener opinion 2828509

QDRO: Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge. A former husband appeals the district court's remand decision concerning the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. Ray Sullins, West Des Moines, appellant pro se. David J. Hellstern of Sullivan & Ward, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellee. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. 2 TABOR, P.J. Nine years ago, our supreme court remanded this case to the district court for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDR


CourtListener opinion 2828509

retirement benefits: document. In November 2013, Donna's attorney asked the district court to set the remand matter for hearing. 4 The district court held a hearing on February 11 and March 9, 2014. At the hearing, Donna offered an exhibit showing the IPERS estimate of her retirement benefits using six different options. Options four and six required designation of a contingent annuitant. Donna lobbied for option three which, according to the IPERS estimate, provided a lifetime monthly benefit of approximately $4193.05. That option did not provide a payment after Donna's death. Ray asked the court to specify in the QDRO that Donna choose op


CourtListener opinion 2828509

pension: pellee. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. 2 TABOR, P.J. Nine years ago, our supreme court remanded this case to the district court for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to provide Ray Sullins with a share of the pension assets in Donna Sullins's account with the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS). In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 255–56 (Iowa 2006). The QDRO was to direct IPERS to pay benefits to Ray under the Benson1 formula, specifically 50% of the gross monthly or lump-sum benefit payable at the date of distribution to Donna, multiplied by t


CourtListener opinion 2828509

domestic relations order: t-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge. A former husband appeals the district court's remand decision concerning the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. Ray Sullins, West Des Moines, appellant pro se. David J. Hellstern of Sullivan & Ward, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellee. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. 2 TABOR, P.J. Nine years ago, our supreme court remanded this case to the district court for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDR


CourtListener opinion 2828641

CourtListener opinion 2828641 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Shen. Docket: 1-13-0733. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2828641 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 2828641


CourtListener opinion 2828641

QDRO: nd $19,750 to Feng's attorney. The remaining funds were to be placed in escrow with Feng's attorney to pay taxes on the early withdrawal from the 401(k). ¶ 22 Pursuant to the court's October 12, 2011 order, Janet and Feng entered into a separate stipulated qualified domestic relations order in accordance with the terms of the court's October 12, 2011 order. This order was entered on November 10, 2011 and stipulated only to the release of the funds in the Trader Joe's 401(k). Both Janet and Feng, as well as both of their attorneys, signed this stipulated qualified domestic relations order. ¶ 23 On January 12, 2012, after an extensive hearing


CourtListener opinion 2828641

retirement benefits: 10(c) (West 2012)), and including the court's provision for review of the maintenance award if the wife attains an income of at least $45,000. ¶3 Second, the circuit court erred when it entered an order on October 12, 2011 that ordered the husband's 401(k) retirement account liquidated to, in part, satisfy interim attorney fees in contravention of In re Marriage of Radzik, 2011 IL App (2d) 100374, where the court held that retirement accounts are exempt under section 12-1006 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/12-1006 (West 2010)). We therefore must reverse this order, entered on October 12, 2011. As the wife sought


CourtListener opinion 2828641

401(k): LCS 5/510(c) (West 2012)), and including the court's provision for review of the maintenance award if the wife attains an income of at least $45,000. ¶3 Second, the circuit court erred when it entered an order on October 12, 2011 that ordered the husband's 401(k) retirement account liquidated to, in part, satisfy interim attorney fees in contravention of In re Marriage of Radzik, 2011 IL App (2d) 100374, where the court held that retirement accounts are exempt under section 12-1006 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/12-1006 (West 2010)). We therefore must reverse this order, entered on October 12, 2011.


CourtListener opinion 2828641

domestic relations order: to Feng's attorney. The remaining funds were to be placed in escrow with Feng's attorney to pay taxes on the early withdrawal from the 401(k). ¶ 22 Pursuant to the court's October 12, 2011 order, Janet and Feng entered into a separate stipulated qualified domestic relations order in accordance with the terms of the court's October 12, 2011 order. This order was entered on November 10, 2011 and stipulated only to the release of the funds in the Trader Joe's 401(k). Both Janet and Feng, as well as both of their attorneys, signed this stipulated qualified domestic relations order. ¶ 23 On January 12, 2012, after an extensive hearing


CourtListener opinion 2828906

CourtListener opinion 2828906 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of Wood Throughout most of the marriage. Extracted reporter citation: 928 P.2d 1108. Docket: Zale Wood next contends that the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2828906 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 2828906

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 2828906

QDRO: house between the parties, awarded Diane $5,630 for back maintenance, and granted Diane $4,094 in future monthly maintenance. The proposed decree directed that future maintenance be reduced proportionate to the amount of payment Diane monthly receives from qualified domestic relations orders on Zale's pensions. On September 3,2013, Zale Wood's attorney withdrew. On September 18,2013, the day of the second hearing for entry of the final decree, Zale moved to continue the hearing because he had yet to replace his lawyer. The trial court denied the motion to continue. Zale argued, without counsel, the merits of the entry of the findings and


CourtListener opinion 2828906

pension: il their separation. The couple begat and nurtured two now adult children. No. 32022-7-111 In re the Marriage of Wood Throughout most of the marriage, Zale worked in construction as a member of the Teamsters Union. He retired and began drawing a Teamsters pension in 2002, but still continued to work on occasion. The Teamsters pension was a principal retirement asset. Diane worked as a homemaker throughout the marriage. In 2009, Diane and Zale Wood separated. PROCEDURE On April 7, 2009, Diane Wood filed a petition for legal separation. Diane later converted the separation petition to a divorce petition. In he


CourtListener opinion 2828906

domestic relations order: een the parties, awarded Diane $5,630 for back maintenance, and granted Diane $4,094 in future monthly maintenance. The proposed decree directed that future maintenance be reduced proportionate to the amount of payment Diane monthly receives from qualified domestic relations orders on Zale's pensions. On September 3,2013, Zale Wood's attorney withdrew. On September 18,2013, the day of the second hearing for entry of the final decree, Zale moved to continue the hearing because he had yet to replace his lawyer. The trial court denied the motion to continue. Zale argued, without counsel, the merits of the entry of the findings and


CourtListener opinion 2828906

valuation/division: d maintenance between February 1,2013 and July 31, 2013. She sought future maintenance in the sum of $4,50 1 monthly and an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs. The findings and conclusions listed Zale's worker compensation payments as the couple's community property. On August 8, 2013, the day before the hearing, Zale Wood filed an objection to the amount of maintenance in the proposed findings, Diane Wood's request for attorney fees, and to Diane's inclusion of her separate credit cards as community liabilities. On August 9, 2013, the court conducted a hearing to enter findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a


CourtListener opinion 2829941

CourtListener opinion 2829941 Extracted reporter citation: 829 N.E.2d 476. Docket: 49A05-1409-DR-434 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2829941 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 2829941


CourtListener opinion 2829941

QDRO: awarded Benny his vehicles, subject to any debts thereon, and his 401(k). The trial court ordered the parties to "divide [Benny's] Rail Road Retirement Account (Tier 1 and 2) equally. To the extent the plan will not allow any portion to be divided via QDRO, the benefits shall be paid by Husband to Wife when the account reaches pay status." Id. at 52. Benny now appeals. Analysis [7] The parties disagree regarding the standard of review. Although characterized as a finding rather than a conclusion, the trial court concluded that a 50/50 division of the marital estate was appropriate. See Fraley v. Minge


CourtListener opinion 2829941

retirement benefits: y in the dissolution of his marriage to Tonya Harris. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Issues [2] Benny raises two issues, which we restate as: I. whether the trial court properly ordered Benny to pay Tonya half of his Tier I railroad retirement benefits when the account reaches pay status; and II. whether the trial court's distribution of marital property effectuated a 50/50 division of the marital estate. Tonya raises one issue, which we restate as whether she is entitled to appellate attorney fees. Facts [3] Benny and Tonya were married on August 16, 2008. The couple had no children, and bo


CourtListener opinion 2829941

pension: purchase price of the house because that money was - - is coming - - is following her since he is not making a claim on the house." Id. at 90. Benny proposed that his Tier II railroad retirement benefits be divided 50/50 and that "all maritally acquired pension and 401(k) of [Tonya] be divided 50/50." Id. at 87. [6] On June 9, 2014, the trial court issued a final order and concluded, "A Fifty/Fifty (50%/50%) division of the marital estate is appropriate given the circumstances of the parties." App. p. 51. The trial court awarded Tonya the marital residence, her car, her bank accounts, and her 401(k) account


CourtListener opinion 2829941

401(k): ce of the house because that money was - - is coming - - is following her since he is not making a claim on the house." Id. at 90. Benny proposed that his Tier II railroad retirement benefits be divided 50/50 and that "all maritally acquired pension and 401(k) of [Tonya] be divided 50/50." Id. at 87. [6] On June 9, 2014, the trial court issued a final order and concluded, "A Fifty/Fifty (50%/50%) division of the marital estate is appropriate given the circumstances of the parties." App. p. 51. The trial court awarded Tonya the marital residence, her car, her bank accounts, and her 401(k) account. In addi


CourtListener opinion 2831053

CourtListener opinion 2831053 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2831053 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 2831053


CourtListener opinion 2831053

QDRO: rce. Wife shall pay all taxes, penalties and interest assessed as a result of receiving said pension. It is the understanding of the parties that an order to allocate these benefits may not be honored unless it is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as defined under Section 414 (p) of the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986", 100 Stat. 2085, 26 USC1, as amended. Wife or her attorney shall be responsible for drafting and filing of an appropriate QDRO or other instrument. Both parties will fully cooperate in the drafting and signing of an appropriate QDRO or other instrument compatible with the d


CourtListener opinion 2831053

retirement benefits: at a bank earning $12.15 an hour and she received approximately $600.00 a month in pension benefits. Appellee testified that she worked 37 hours a week. According to appellee, her monthly living expenses were $2,058.00 and she had to dip into some of the retirement benefits that she received in the divorce to make ends meet. {¶9} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court asked the parties to file post-hearing closing arguments. Pursuant to a Decision and Order filed on January 15, 2015, the trial court found that there had been a substantial change in circumstances and ordered that appellant pay spousal support t


CourtListener opinion 2831053

pension: 013. He testified that before his prison sentence, he earned approximately $60,000.00 a year in 2008 working for Stone Container and had made over $50,000.00 at the time of his criminal trial in 2009. Appellant testified that he was in contact with Central Pension about his Stone Container pension and testified that he would receive approximately $1,500.00 a month Coshocton County, Case No. 2015CA0002 5 from that pension. Appellant testified that he received $1,912.00 a month in Social Security benefits and $1,525.55 in benefits from the Veteran's Administration ("VA"). When asked, appellant stated that he did n


CourtListener opinion 2831053

domestic relations order: f the complaint for divorce. Wife shall pay all taxes, penalties and interest assessed as a result of receiving said pension. It is the understanding of the parties that an order to allocate these benefits may not be honored unless it is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as defined under Section 414 (p) of the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986", 100 Stat. 2085, 26 USC1, as amended. Wife or her attorney shall be responsible for drafting and filing of an appropriate QDRO or other instrument. Both parties will fully cooperate in the drafting and signing of an appropriate QDRO or other instrument compatible with


CourtListener opinion 2847196

CourtListener opinion 2847196 Extracted reporter citation: 112 F. Supp. 2d 833. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2847196 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 2847196


CourtListener opinion 2847196

QDRO: aw from turnover as the proceeds of exempt property. We affirm. I. Factual and Procedural Background In 1995, Sharon Jones divorced Leslie Jones, who had a pension plan with Appellees. As part of the divorce proceedings, the divorce court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), under which Appellees were to pay a portion of Mr. Jones's pension funds to Appellant with interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.101-9.105 (Vernon 1998) (governing post-decree QDROs). Mr. Jones filed a lawsuit against Appellees in the United States District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of


CourtListener opinion 2847196

retirement benefits: JONES V. AMERICAN AIRLINES COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-02-179-CV SHARON E. JONES APPELLANT V. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. AND APPELLEES AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. PILOT RETIREMENT BENEFIT PROGRAM ------------ FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ OPINION ------------ Appellant Sharon E. Jones appeals from a turnover order directing her to pay $410,540.32, plus any post-judgment interest, into the registry of the court for the benefit of Appellees American Airlines, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. Pi


CourtListener opinion 2847196

pension: ican Airlines, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. Pilot Retirement Benefit Program. Jones challenges the turnover order in two issues, arguing that the trial court erred in its implied findings (1) that her Individual Retirement Account ("IRA"), into which the pension fund payments were rolled over, did not qualify under the Internal Revenue Code and (2) that the funds ordered turned over by the trial court were not exempt under Texas law from turnover as the proceeds of exempt property. We affirm. I. Factual and Procedural Background In 1995, Sharon Jones divorced Leslie Jones, who had a pension plan with Appe


CourtListener opinion 2847196

ERISA: st. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.101-9.105 (Vernon 1998) (governing post-decree QDROs). Mr. Jones filed a lawsuit against Appellees in the United States District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001 et seq. (1999 & Supp. 2003). Under ERISA, in the event of a divorce, benefits due under the terms of an ERISA plan may be transferred to a participant's former spouse according to the terms of a valid QDRO. Id . § 1056(d)(3)(A); Day v. Wall , 112 F. Supp. 2d 833, 836 (E.D. Wis. 2000). Mr. Jones asserted that Appel


CourtListener opinion 2847197

CourtListener opinion 2847197 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2847197 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 2847197

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 2847197

QDRO: roperty. We affirm. I. F actual and P rocedural B ackground In 1995, Sharon Jones divorced Leslie Jones, who had a pension plan with Appellees. As part of the divorce proceedings, the divorce court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), under which Appellees were to pay a portion of Mr. Jones's pension funds to Appellant with interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.101-9.105 (Vernon 1998) (governing post-decree QDROs). Mr. Jones filed a lawsuit against Appellees in the United States District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).


CourtListener opinion 2847197

retirement benefits: FORT WORTH NO. 2-02-179-CV SHARON E. JONES APPELLANT V. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. AND APPELLEES AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. PILOT RETIREMENT BENEFIT PROGRAM ------------ FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ OPINION ------------ Appellant Sharon E. Jones appeals from a turnover order directing her to pay $410,540.32, plus any post-judgment interest, into the registry of the court for the benefit of Appellees American Airlines, Inc. and Ameri


CourtListener opinion 2847197

pension: an Airlines, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. Pilot Retirement Benefit Program. Jones challenges the turnover order in two issues, arguing that the trial court erred in its implied findings (1) that her Individual Retirement Account ("IRA"), into which the pension fund payments were rolled over, did not qualify under the Internal Revenue Code and (2) that the funds ordered turned over by the trial court were not exempt under Texas law from turnover as the proceeds of exempt property. We affirm. I. F actual and P rocedural B ackground In 1995, Sharon Jones divorced Leslie Jones, who had a pension plan


CourtListener opinion 2847197

ERISA: h interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.101-9.105 (Vernon 1998) (governing post-decree QDROs). Mr. Jones filed a lawsuit against Appellees in the United States District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001 et seq. (1999 & Supp. 2003). Under ERISA, in the event of a divorce, benefits due under the terms of an ERISA plan may be transferred to a participant's former spouse according to the terms of a valid QDRO. Id . § 1056(d)(3)(A); Day v. Wall , 112 F. Supp. 2d 833, 836 (E.D. Wis. 2000). Mr. Jones asserted that Appellees wrongful


CourtListener opinion 2855618

CourtListener opinion 2855618 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Joyner. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2855618 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 2855618


CourtListener opinion 2855618

retirement benefits: ee, complaining that the decree contained several errors and omissions and failed to comport with the mediated settlement agreement. The trial court submitted one issue—whether the parties had agreed that Murphy would receive survivor benefits in both of two retirement plans—to the mediator for binding arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that Murphy was entitled to survivor benefits in both plans. The trial court rendered an amended decree on March 24, 2008. Murphy filed a notice of appeal on April 4, 2008. Discussion Amended Final Decree In her first issue, Murphy argues that the trial court erred by signing a


CourtListener opinion 2855618

pension: irement plans for Murphy, but the trial court failed to include such language in the decree. The settlement agreement provides that Murphy is to receive [a]ny and all sums . . . and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of Respondent's [Murphy's] past, present or future employment . . . and ½ of Respondent's interest in FERS and [h]er ½ of the community portion of his USAF retirement with right of survivorship. The trial court's first decree was s


CourtListener opinion 2855618

domestic relations order: the first decree, does not mention Murphy's survivorship rights. But the "Amended Retirement Benefits Court Order for Division of Federal Employees' Retirement System Benefits" states that "Murphy is awarded a former spouse survivor annuity," and the Amended Domestic Relations Order provides that, with regard to Leveille's Air Force benefits, "the disposable retirement pay awarded in this order to Marrita Murphy shall continue until the death of Daniel Jude Leveille or Marrita Murphy. Marrita Murphy has the option of exercising her right of survivorship." Murphy argues that the trial court erred by failing to expressly award her


CourtListener opinion 2855618

survivor benefits: filed motions to modify the decree, complaining that the decree contained several errors and omissions and failed to comport with the mediated settlement agreement. The trial court submitted one issue—whether the parties had agreed that Murphy would receive survivor benefits in both of two retirement plans—to the mediator for binding arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that Murphy was entitled to survivor benefits in both plans. The trial court rendered an amended decree on March 24, 2008. Murphy filed a notice of appeal on April 4, 2008. Discussion Amended Final Decree In her first issue, Murphy argues that th


CourtListener opinion 2855619

CourtListener opinion 2855619 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Joyner. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2855619 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 2855619


CourtListener opinion 2855619

retirement benefits: Forms Manual Form 19-31, applicable comment 8 for dividing the community military retirement"; and that the trial court erred by inserting the words "disability plan or benefits" into the paragraph of the decree awarding to Leveille his Air Force and FERS retirement benefits accruing before the parties were married and after they divorced. To preserve a complaint of error in a judgment, a party must inform the trial court of its objection by a motion to amend or correct the judgment, a motion for new trial, or some other similar method. Dal-Chrome Co. v. Brenntag Sw., Inc., 183 S.W.3d 133, 144 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no