CourtListener opinion 625735

retirement benefits: into a Property Settlement Agreement ("PSA"), which, in relevant part, provided: [T]he parties mutually agree to waive, release, and relinquish any and all right, title and interest either may have in and to the other's IRA account(s), or any other such retirement benefit and deferred savings plan of like kind and character, and neither shall make any claim to possession of such property as it is presently titled. The divorce was then finalized in New Jersey state court, with a final divorce decree incorporating the PSA entered on July 10, 2008. Nine months after the divorce, William died intestate without having chan


CourtListener opinion 625735

pension: n Kennedy The leading case in this area is Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009). The facts in Kennedy are virtually identical to those in this case. In Kennedy, an employee participated in an ERISA employee pension benefit plan and designated his wife as the sole beneficiary. The couple subsequently divorced, and as part of the divorce decree the wife agreed to waive her interest in her husband's pension plan. However, the husband died without amending the pension plan documents to replace his ex-wife as the designated beneficiary. The husband's estate claimed a right


CourtListener opinion 625735

ERISA: Esq. Cozen O'Connor 457 Haddonfield Road Liberty View, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-0000 Counsel for Appellees ____________ OPINION OF THE COURT ____________ BARRY, Circuit Judge This is a dispute over the disposition of proceeds from a decedent's ERISA-governed 401(k) plan. The decedent, William Kensinger ("William") was married to Adele Kensinger ("Adele") until their divorce in 2008. As part of their divorce decree, Adele waived her right to the proceeds of William's 401(k) plan. William, however, neglected to replace Adele as the designated beneficiary of his 401(k) plan prior to his death a few months


CourtListener opinion 6316773

CourtListener opinion 6316773 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6316773 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 6316773

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 6316773

QDRO: nd based upon Indiana law. The arbitrator further finds that payment of this amount to the plaintiﬀ shall be accomplished by the defendant either through assignment of his pension and/or re‐ tirement benefits; or by Qualified Domestic Re‐ lations Order (QDRO), to be approved and ef‐ fectuated and ordered by the Court; and/or by payment from Don to Anne in any other man‐ ner acceptable to both parties. Further, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Eliza‐ beth Anne Harshaw and against Donald W. Harshaw [and] finds that this judgment should not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, since it is specifical


CourtListener opinion 6316773

retirement benefits: d account on August 25, 1995." Id. at 33 (emphasis omitted). The court de‐ termined that this was "an order for transfer of property, namely the in‐kind asset allocation of a portion of Wife's IRA account" because it explicitly ordered a distribution from the retirement account to the husband. Id. A federal case shortly after Paxton reached a similar con‐ clusion. In Brown, the court also examined the language of a divorce decree to determine the type of interest it provided. The critical part of the decree said: "The parties' property No. 21‐1423 9 shall be divided between them as set out in Paragraph 28 of this Decree. [The h


CourtListener opinion 6316773

pension: property within a marriage dissolution. See Paxton v. Paxton, 709 N.E.2d 31 (Ind. App. 1999); Brown v. Pitzer, 249 B.R. 303 (S.D. Ind. 2000). The bank‐ ruptcy court read the award as specifying the exact source of the funds, the equal distribution of Donald's pension fund and 401(k) account, and ordering Donald to transfer a portion of the property to Anne through an assignment, Qualified Do‐ mestic Relations Order, or other mechanism agreeable to both parties. These factors had also been present in the divorce cases finding that the plaintiﬀ‐spouses had been awarded property interests rather than dischargeable money ju


CourtListener opinion 6316773

401(k): marriage dissolution. See Paxton v. Paxton, 709 N.E.2d 31 (Ind. App. 1999); Brown v. Pitzer, 249 B.R. 303 (S.D. Ind. 2000). The bank‐ ruptcy court read the award as specifying the exact source of the funds, the equal distribution of Donald's pension fund and 401(k) account, and ordering Donald to transfer a portion of the property to Anne through an assignment, Qualified Do‐ mestic Relations Order, or other mechanism agreeable to both parties. These factors had also been present in the divorce cases finding that the plaintiﬀ‐spouses had been awarded property interests rather than dischargeable money judg‐ ments. D. D


CourtListener opinion 6317067

CourtListener opinion 6317067 Extracted case name: AGUINIGA v. AGUINIGA. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0221 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6317067 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 6317067


CourtListener opinion 6317067

QDRO: torneys' fees. Husband appealed from the decree in 2017 ("2017 Appeal"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a QDRO and asked the superior court to divide a pension that was not included in the decree. In turn, Husband objected and petitioned to enforce other provisions in the decree. In response, Wife also sought to enforce the decree. After a hearing on these petitions, the court ordered the parties to sell vehicles (including a recreational vehicle), sign 2014 tax ret


CourtListener opinion 6317067

pension: e in 2017 ("2017 Appeal"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a QDRO and asked the superior court to divide a pension that was not included in the decree. In turn, Husband objected and petitioned to enforce other provisions in the decree. In response, Wife also sought to enforce the decree. After a hearing on these petitions, the court ordered the parties to sell vehicles (including a recreational vehicle), sign 2014 tax returns, and "encourage[d]" Husband to refinance the


CourtListener opinion 6317067

401(k): ion of Husband's overpayment claim. We affirm all other orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The 2017 decree of dissolution allocated community property and tax obligations, awarded spousal maintenance to Wife, ordered Husband to return $50,000 to his 401(k) account, and granted Wife $5,500 in attorneys' fees. Husband appealed from the decree in 2017 ("2017 Appeal"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While the 2017 Appeal was pending, Wife submitted a QDRO and asked the superior court to divide a pension that wa


CourtListener opinion 6317067

valuation/division: he reasons stated below, we vacate the ruling for temporary spousal maintenance arrearages and remand for reconsideration of Husband's overpayment claim. We affirm all other orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The 2017 decree of dissolution allocated community property and tax obligations, awarded spousal maintenance to Wife, ordered Husband to return $50,000 to his 401(k) account, and granted Wife $5,500 in attorneys' fees. Husband appealed from the decree in 2017 ("2017 Appeal"), and this court affirmed. See Aguiniga v. Aguiniga, 1 CA-CV 17- 0299FC, 2018 WL 3722504 (Ariz. App. July 31, 2018) (mem. decision). ¶3 While t


CourtListener opinion 6317746

CourtListener opinion 6317746 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of ADALBERTO and GEMMA TORRES. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6317746 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 6317746


CourtListener opinion 6317746

retirement benefits: from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Maryann D'Addezio, Judge. Affirmed. Melissa J. Schmitt for Appellant. Shelly K. Pawchuk for Respondent. Gemma Torres appeals a postjudgment order distributing the community property interest in her retirement plan and awarding her ex- husband, Adalberto Torres, attorney fees and costs as sanctions for breach of fiduciary duty. Gemma contends the family court erred by imposing sanctions because Adalberto did not ask for them in his request for order. We reject this contention and affirm the order. BACKGROUND Adalberto and Gemma divorced in 2010. The judgment of dis


CourtListener opinion 6317746

domestic relations order: use Adalberto did not ask for them in his request for order. We reject this contention and affirm the order. BACKGROUND Adalberto and Gemma divorced in 2010. The judgment of dissolution required equal division of the parties' retirement plans by a qualified domestic relations order. When Adalberto submitted such an order to Gemma's employer, the employer informed him it had distributed all the funds to Gemma and she no longer had a retirement account. Adalberto filed a request for order (RFO) and supporting declaration asking the family court to enforce the agreed distribution of retirement funds by awarding him half the amount Gemma


CourtListener opinion 6317746

valuation/division: GEMMA TORRES, Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Maryann D'Addezio, Judge. Affirmed. Melissa J. Schmitt for Appellant. Shelly K. Pawchuk for Respondent. Gemma Torres appeals a postjudgment order distributing the community property interest in her retirement plan and awarding her ex- husband, Adalberto Torres, attorney fees and costs as sanctions for breach of fiduciary duty. Gemma contends the family court erred by imposing sanctions because Adalberto did not ask for them in his request for order. We reject this contention and affirm the order. BACKGROUND Adalberto and Gemma divor


CourtListener opinion 6319404

CourtListener opinion 6319404 Extracted reporter citation: 136 N.E.3d 460. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6319404 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 6319404


CourtListener opinion 6319404

QDRO: 019, minus credit for Defendant's one-half interest in Plaintiff's 401(K), which is marital in nature and valued at approximately $25,311.31 as of August 12, 2019. The decree further provided that Patricia was responsible for the cost of preparing any Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") or Division of Property Order ("DOPO") necessary to effectuate the transfer of the retirement assets. There was no further explanation of what 50 percent meant. {¶4} After retaining the services of an attorney qualified to draft the required DOPO, Patricia learned that she would not be able to receive her portion of Richard's OPERS retirement


CourtListener opinion 6319404

retirement benefits: t of the parties as placed on the record and affirmed by each party.1 Approximately two months later, on January 29, 2020, the trial court journalized a decree of divorce. {¶3} As relevant to this appeal, the decree addressed the division of the parties' retirement accounts. It provided that: Plaintiff is entitled to 50% of Defendant's two retirement accounts: Defendant is vested in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS), which is marital in nature and approximate value $261,047.oo as of May 24, 2019, and Defendant is fully vested in a Retirement Savings IRA, which is marital in nature and approximate


CourtListener opinion 6319404

pension: ervices of an attorney qualified to draft the required DOPO, Patricia learned that she would not be able to receive her portion of Richard's OPERS retirement account in an immediate lump-sum payment. Rather, she could only receive 50 percent of his monthly pension payments and only once he retired. And, in the absence of an election of joint-and-survivor benefits, her payments would cease upon Richard's death. Because Patricia had believed otherwise, she filed a motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). The motion requested that the trial court modify the portion of the divorce decree concerning the di


CourtListener opinion 6319404

401(k): ' agreement. 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS value April 30, 2019 of $3099.78. Both of these Plaintiff shall receive 50% for the dates of marriage, May 9, 1997 through May 24, 2019, minus credit for Defendant's one-half interest in Plaintiff's 401(K), which is marital in nature and valued at approximately $25,311.31 as of August 12, 2019. The decree further provided that Patricia was responsible for the cost of preparing any Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") or Division of Property Order ("DOPO") necessary to effectuate the transfer of the retirement assets. There was no further explan


CourtListener opinion 6320684

CourtListener opinion 6320684 Extracted case name: J.K. v. A.K. Extracted reporter citation: 276 S.W.3d 138. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6320684 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 6320684

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 6320684

QDRO: does to any other final judgment, barring subsequent collateral attack even if the divorce decree improperly divided the property." Murray, 276 S.W.3d at 144. 5 The federal ERISA regime gave birth to a "species of post-divorce enforcement order" called qualified domestic relations orders or QDROs.2 In re Marriage of Denning & Stokes, No. 14-19-00646-CV, 2021 WL 3577731, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 10, 2021, no pet.); Beshears, 423 S.W.3d at 500. A QDRO is a statutorily sanctioned domestic relations order that creates or recognizes an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, a portion of


CourtListener opinion 6320684

retirement benefits: *2; Lipsey v. Lipsey, 983 S.W.2d 345, 349 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). A court order acceptable for processing or COAP, though unrelated to ERISA, is similar in kind to a QDRO and will be discussed herein as if synonymous with a QDRO. See Private retirement plans: federal law—State procedures for entering QDROs, 2 Equit. Distrib. of Prop., 4th § 6:20 nn.1, 26; see also Marshall, 99 S.W.3d at 159 (treating a COAP as it would a QDRO). See generally 5 C.F.R. § 838.103. The trial court may render a postdecree QDRO "to ‘correct' or ‘clarify' a prior QDRO ‘to effectuate the division of property ordered by the court


CourtListener opinion 6320684

pension: Trial Court No. 20-6807-462 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION Years after their divorce, Fabian Thomas and Denise Daniel are embroiled in a dispute over their rights to the former's pension benefits. Thomas moved for an order to clarify that Daniel had a limited stake in the benefits, but the trial court denied him relief. We hold that Thomas was entitled to such a clarifying order, and so we reverse and remand. I. BACKGROUND Thomas began working for the federal government in 1989. He and Daniel married in 2000. A divorce decree dissol


CourtListener opinion 6320684

ERISA: judicata applies to the property division in a final divorce decree, just as it does to any other final judgment, barring subsequent collateral attack even if the divorce decree improperly divided the property." Murray, 276 S.W.3d at 144. 5 The federal ERISA regime gave birth to a "species of post-divorce enforcement order" called qualified domestic relations orders or QDROs.2 In re Marriage of Denning & Stokes, No. 14-19-00646-CV, 2021 WL 3577731, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 10, 2021, no pet.); Beshears, 423 S.W.3d at 500. A QDRO is a statutorily sanctioned domestic relations order that crea


CourtListener opinion 6320935

CourtListener opinion 6320935 Extracted case name: LLC v. MEJ. Extracted reporter citation: 27 S.W.3d 913. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6320935 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 6320935


CourtListener opinion 6320935

QDRO: ld filed a petition to be appointed the personal representative of the Estate in the Chancery Court for Crockett County ("trial court"). On March 30, 2018, Husband and Mr. Bonifield (as alternate payee and the alleged administrator of the Estate) executed the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") required to transfer the VOYA funds to the Estate. On April 3, 2018, the trial court entered an order appointing Mr. Bonifield as the personal representative for the Estate. On June 16, 2018, Mr. Bonifield died. -2- On July 12, 2018, Appellant filed a Verified Claim Against Estate ("Claim 1") seeking compensation for his "representation for reco


CourtListener opinion 6320935

retirement benefits: cy. As a result of the raid, on May 4, 2016, the State of Tennessee (the "State") seized several of Decedent and Husband's marital assets, including: (1) a coin collection; (2) silver bars; (3) $13,280.74 in currency; and (4) the full value of Husband's VOYA retirement account. Thereafter, Decedent allegedly asked Appellant to represent her in challenging the State's seizure of these marital assets. On May 6, 2016, Appellant wrote a letter to Decedent concerning his representation of her in the seizure matter. In the letter, Appellant outlined a proposed contingency fee agreement whereby he would be compensated "33-1/3% of any


CourtListener opinion 6320935

alternate payee: of the assets recovered from the seizure. On March 22, 2018, Mr. Bonifield filed a petition to be appointed the personal representative of the Estate in the Chancery Court for Crockett County ("trial court"). On March 30, 2018, Husband and Mr. Bonifield (as alternate payee and the alleged administrator of the Estate) executed the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") required to transfer the VOYA funds to the Estate. On April 3, 2018, the trial court entered an order appointing Mr. Bonifield as the personal representative for the Estate. On June 16, 2018, Mr. Bonifield died. -2- On July 12, 2018, Appellant filed a Ve


CourtListener opinion 6320935

domestic relations order: petition to be appointed the personal representative of the Estate in the Chancery Court for Crockett County ("trial court"). On March 30, 2018, Husband and Mr. Bonifield (as alternate payee and the alleged administrator of the Estate) executed the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") required to transfer the VOYA funds to the Estate. On April 3, 2018, the trial court entered an order appointing Mr. Bonifield as the personal representative for the Estate. On June 16, 2018, Mr. Bonifield died. -2- On July 12, 2018, Appellant filed a Verified Claim Against Estate ("Claim 1") seeking compensation for his "representation for reco


CourtListener opinion 6321520

CourtListener opinion 6321520 Extracted reporter citation: 935 A.2d 547. Docket: 666 WDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6321520 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 6321520


CourtListener opinion 6321520

QDRO: e). After two years of contentious litigation, a hearing master filed a 54-page recommendation and report. Relevant here, the master apportioned 50 percent of Husband's military pension to Wife, with distribution to be accomplished through her preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with Husband's cooperation. In April 2017, the trial court adopted the master's report except for its valuation of Husband's business interest in a limited liability company. The trial court entered a divorce decree the following month on May 19, 2017. The following year, a dispute arose over Husband failing to give Wife his "high-3 amount," w


CourtListener opinion 6321520

pension: . I. A. In October 2013, Husband filed for divorce from Diane Mackie (Wife). After two years of contentious litigation, a hearing master filed a 54-page recommendation and report. Relevant here, the master apportioned 50 percent of Husband's military pension to Wife, with distribution to be accomplished through her preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with Husband's cooperation. In April 2017, the trial court adopted the master's report except for its valuation of Husband's business interest in a limited liability company. The trial court entered a divorce decree the following month on May


CourtListener opinion 6321520

domestic relations order: two years of contentious litigation, a hearing master filed a 54-page recommendation and report. Relevant here, the master apportioned 50 percent of Husband's military pension to Wife, with distribution to be accomplished through her preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with Husband's cooperation. In April 2017, the trial court adopted the master's report except for its valuation of Husband's business interest in a limited liability company. The trial court entered a divorce decree the following month on May 19, 2017. The following year, a dispute arose over Husband failing to give Wife his "high-3 amount," w


CourtListener opinion 6321520

valuation/division: homas Mackie (Husband) appeals from the contempt order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 We note that this is the sixth appeal involving equitable distribution in this divorce. Mackie v. Mackie, No. 465 WDA 2019, 2019 WL 7341798, at *1 (Pa. Super. Dec. 30, 2019) ("This matter has a long and tortured procedural history." Appeal involved Husband's overdue arrearages which we held became subject to full range of collection remedies, including the attachment and seizure of assets held in financial institutions.); Mack


CourtListener opinion 6323829

CourtListener opinion 6323829 Extracted reporter citation: 799 A.2d 155. Docket: 786 WDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6323829 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 6323829


CourtListener opinion 6323829

QDRO: nstitute an extraordinary circumstance and is not a fatal defect. Id.; see also Lemmo v. Lemmo, (Pa. Super. February 13, 2020) (unpublished memorandum) ("Because we agree with the determination of the trial court it lacked jurisdiction to modify Husband's QDRO, we affirm the order dismissing Husband's petition for special relief."). Here, the parties mistakenly thought that a survivorship interest for Wife would cause no reduction in Husband's monthly pension payments. This error is rooted in an undesired outcome of agreed-upon language in the COAP and the clarification order, but not in the content of the


CourtListener opinion 6323829

retirement benefits: will have the right to designate survivors as to her benefits, which will, however be her children. Separation Agreement, 6/14/2019, at Paragraph 5 (emphasis added). The COAP was entered on August 6, 2019, and it set forth Husband and Wife's respective retirement benefits. Paragraph 7 of the COAP provided that -2- J-S03032-22 Wife "is entitled to 35.772% of [Husband's] annuity[.]" 2 The COAP provided further in Paragraph 7 that Wife would be awarded a "Former Spouse Survivor Annuity" pursuant to federal law: Under Section 8341(h)(1) of Title 5, United States Code, [Wife] is awarded a Former Souse Survivor Annuity u


CourtListener opinion 6323829

pension: IVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: MARCH 16, 2022 Kathleen M. Parsons (Wife)1 appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County (trial court) rescinding an order concerning the distribution of interests in the pension of her now ex-husband, Richard W. Parsons (Husband), a retired postal worker. In sum, Husband and Wife entered a Separation Agreement on June 14, 2019. Then, on August 17, 2019, they each signed a Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP), which implemented that Separation Agreement. On August 25, 2020, the trial court entered an order clarifying t


CourtListener opinion 6323829

survivor benefits: 35.772% of [Husband's] annuity[.]" 2 The COAP provided further in Paragraph 7 that Wife would be awarded a "Former Spouse Survivor Annuity" pursuant to federal law: Under Section 8341(h)(1) of Title 5, United States Code, [Wife] is awarded a Former Souse Survivor Annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System, in the same amount to which [Wife] would have been entitled if the Divorce had not occurred. She is to continue as beneficiary of the Civil Service Retirement System survivor annuity to which she was entitled at the time of Divorce. COAP Enabling Order, 6/19/2019, at Paragraph 7 (emphasis added). Finally,


CourtListener opinion 6328221

CourtListener opinion 6328221 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ALISA DANAE SUNDBY AND TAYLOR RAY SUNDBY Upon the Petition of ALISA DANAE SUNDBY. Extracted reporter citation: 943 N.W.2d 15. Docket: 20-1552. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6328221 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 6328221

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 6328221

QDRO: Ali in the full amount of $22,581, it is to be divided equally, with each party awarded $11,290.50. Thus, both parties are awarded approximately $242,000 in marital assets. The parties shall determine whether the Fidelity account must be divided through a qualified domestic relations order and, if required, Ali's counsel shall prepare the document and submit it to the district court within thirty days of the filing of procedendo. D. Refinance of the marital home. Taylor requested that the court order Ali to refinance the note and mortgage on the marital home so that the obligation would be solely hers and remove him, to set a time lim


CourtListener opinion 6328221

retirement benefits: the obligation to equitably divide "all" of the marital property between the parties in a decree. See Iowa Code § 598.21(1), (5). The district court decree made a very detailed award of the marital home, vehicles, bank accounts, Danaher stock accounts and retirement accounts. Earlier, in its findings, the court determined that Ali's Exhibit 163-2 of proposed distribution of personal property best accomplished an equitable division. However, in the decretal portion, the court awarded to Ali "the household 16 goods in her possession," as well as the dogs14 and her jewelry, specifically her diamond ring. As for Taylor, the c


CourtListener opinion 6328221

401(k): hart and modify the decree accordingly. ASSET VALUE ALISA TAYLOR Family Home - Harvey, IA 235,000 235,000 2008 Toyota Highlander 4,287 4,287 2007 Ford Focus 3,115 3,115 2006 Hyundai Sonata 500 500 Bank Acct. #8252 3,083 3,083 Bank Acct. #1843 151 151 401k Acct. 230,035 69,778 160,257 Danaher Restricted Stock Awards 30,871 split 15,435.50 15,435.50 Danaher Stock Options 126,806 split 63,403 63,403 Danaher Restricted Stock Units 2,573 split 1,286.50 1,286.50 Fidelity Account - Ind TOD 22,581 11,290.5 11,290.5 Family Home 2,500 2,500 Furnishing/Appliances Lawnmower and Tools 500 500 Taylor's Furniture 3


CourtListener opinion 6328221

domestic relations order: full amount of $22,581, it is to be divided equally, with each party awarded $11,290.50. Thus, both parties are awarded approximately $242,000 in marital assets. The parties shall determine whether the Fidelity account must be divided through a qualified domestic relations order and, if required, Ali's counsel shall prepare the document and submit it to the district court within thirty days of the filing of procedendo. D. Refinance of the marital home. Taylor requested that the court order Ali to refinance the note and mortgage on the marital home so that the obligation would be solely hers and remove him, to set a time lim


CourtListener opinion 6328430

CourtListener opinion 6328430 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6328430 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 6328430

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 6328430

domestic relations order: ied he was argumentative with his probation officer. Instead, he blamed their communication problems on his PTSD. The People argued for the upper term. The trial court imposed the upper term. The trial court noted defendant was on probation for disobeying a domestic relations order when he committed the crime and that he denied the original assault and his anger issues. The trial court further noted that defendant absconded from probation supervision for almost a year and had not taken responsibility for his role in the incident. Finally, the trial court noted probation had exhausted all of the options to assist defendant. DISCUSSION


CourtListener opinion 6329729

CourtListener opinion 6329729 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Davis. Extracted reporter citation: 885 N.E.2d 1053. Docket: entry order of May 22. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6329729 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 6329729


CourtListener opinion 6329729

QDRO: n look to see whether a trial court's action constitutes an improper modification of property distribution can be found in In re Marriage of Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d 160, 935 N.E.2d 522 (2010). In Hall, when it was later learned the trial court had entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that inadvertently omitted the husband's pension plans, the wife sought modification based on mutual mistake. The trial court denied the motion, concluding the evidence was insufficient to establish mutual mistake and the wife was required to establish the defect was the result of duress, disability, or fraud. On appeal, the Second District found


CourtListener opinion 6329729

pension: f property distribution can be found in In re Marriage of Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d 160, 935 N.E.2d 522 (2010). In Hall, when it was later learned the trial court had entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that inadvertently omitted the husband's pension plans, the wife sought modification based on mutual mistake. The trial court denied the motion, concluding the evidence was insufficient to establish mutual mistake and the wife was required to establish the defect was the result of duress, disability, or fraud. On appeal, the Second District found it had been the intention of the parties for the wife to


CourtListener opinion 6329729

domestic relations order: see whether a trial court's action constitutes an improper modification of property distribution can be found in In re Marriage of Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d 160, 935 N.E.2d 522 (2010). In Hall, when it was later learned the trial court had entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that inadvertently omitted the husband's pension plans, the wife sought modification based on mutual mistake. The trial court denied the motion, concluding the evidence was insufficient to establish mutual mistake and the wife was required to establish the defect was the result of duress, disability, or fraud. On appeal, the Second District found


CourtListener opinion 6329729

valuation/division: Judge Presiding. JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Knecht and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The trial court's order of June 6, 2019, was an enforcement order and not a modification of the property division of a previously entered judgment of dissolution of marriage, and the court's order of July 22, 2020, was neither a modification of that order nor of the prior judgment. ¶2 After several years of litigation, the parties were divorced in February 2018, and as part of the judgment, the trial court entered an order establishing maintenance and dividing th


CourtListener opinion 6329974

CourtListener opinion 6329974 Extracted reporter citation: 69 N.E.3d 664. Docket: 1: The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6329974 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 6329974


CourtListener opinion 6329974

QDRO: of the husband's military pension based upon a marriage term of six years, representing the period of time the parties had been together during the husband's military service. Id. at ¶ 1-5. The decree further provided that a consulting firm would prepare a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to implement the pension division and that the trial court would retain jurisdiction over the QDRO. Id. at ¶ 4-5. When the consultant attempted to draft the QDRO, it determined that it could not draft a QDRO under which the wife would receive direct pension payments from the military because the divorce decree did not specify the wife's share


CourtListener opinion 6329974

retirement benefits: d. at ¶ 9. The trial court granted the wife's motion for Civ.R. 60(B) relief and made two modifications to the divorce decree. The trial court stated that the marriage term was ten years and that the wife was entitled to receive 15 percent of the husband's retirement benefits each month. Id. at ¶ 12. The husband appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. Id. at ¶ 12-13. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that "the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the length of the marriage stated in the divorce decree." Id. at ¶ 16. The court held that by changing the length of the marriage,


CourtListener opinion 6329974

pension: ed at $18,000. Karen was awarded a checking account valued at $125, personal jewelry valued at $2,000, an IRA valued at $80,962.73 and an investment account valued at $2,200. Karen also retained a monthly social security benefit of $1,569.10 and a monthly pension benefit of $419.96. The trial court found that the division of property, "though not equal," was "equitable" because the marriage was "a second marriage for both" parties and "a significant portion" of Daniel's IRA was "premarital." The trial court's August 24, 2018 journal entry, at the conclusion of the section addressing spousal support, states tha


CourtListener opinion 6329974

domestic relations order: band's military pension based upon a marriage term of six years, representing the period of time the parties had been together during the husband's military service. Id. at ¶ 1-5. The decree further provided that a consulting firm would prepare a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to implement the pension division and that the trial court would retain jurisdiction over the QDRO. Id. at ¶ 4-5. When the consultant attempted to draft the QDRO, it determined that it could not draft a QDRO under which the wife would receive direct pension payments from the military because the divorce decree did not specify the wife's share


CourtListener opinion 6330478

CourtListener opinion 6330478 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Santopadre. Extracted reporter citation: 840 S.W.2d 952. Docket: of Units. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6330478 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 6330478

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 6330478

QDRO: rip airfare to Colombia not to exceed $1,000 total. And, under the heading "D. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT," the MSA included this provision: Wife shall comply with provisions A.l(b), A.l(c) as conditions precedent to the entry of the final decree of divorce and QDRO. If she fails to comply with such provisions, this MSA shall be null and void in its entirety. –3– It is undisputed that Wife never appeared in Columbia to sign the required paperwork.1 Nevertheless, she filed a motion to enforce the MSA; Husband opposed the motion. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to enforce and found that "th


CourtListener opinion 6330478

retirement benefits: y is resolved in favor of the community estate. Sink, 364 S.W.3d at 345. Wife complains of three specific rulings by the trial court in its division of the community estate: (1) finding the Finca is Husband's separate property; (2) finding Husband's VOYA retirement account should be divided 80% separately to Husband and 20% to the community; and (3) refusing to consider Wife's claim for reimbursement. (A) The Finca In her second issue, Wife argues the trial court erroneously characterized the Finca as Husband's separate property. The Finca was acquired during the marriage and thus is presumptively community property.


CourtListener opinion 6330478

pension: Bras's pro rata analysis. First, by attributing all of the growth in Husband's original units to him, Bras ignores the earnings those units generated between the date of the marriage and the date the plan was frozen. Any benefits in a defined contribution pension plan that accrue during the marriage are community property subject to division on divorce. Dewey v. Dewey, 745 S.W.2d 514, 519 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1988, writ denied); see –17– also McClary v. Thompson, 65 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied) (contributions and interest earned in retirement account during marriage are commun


CourtListener opinion 6330478

401(k): third issue, Wife contends that the trial court erred in characterizing the VOYA IRA as 80% Husband's separate property and 20% community property. We agree. Certain facts about the origins of the VOYA IRA are not disputed. American Airlines sponsored a defined contribution retirement plan for its pilots that was –11– known as the "B Plan."4 The company contributed 11% of a pilot's salary each year; employees made no contributions. The B Plan was an investment trust, in which members held "units" that represented a fractional ownership in all of the trust's holdings. The plan paid annuities to retired pilots, and to that


CourtListener opinion 6330814

CourtListener opinion 6330814 Extracted reporter citation: 555 U.S. 285. Docket: 21-0216. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6330814 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 6330814


CourtListener opinion 6330814

QDRO: tirement accounts for schools and other exempt organizations). 8 A divorce decree, or a decree of legal separation, revokes the prior Participant's designation, if any, of his/her spouse or former spouse as his/her Beneficiary unless: (a) the decree or a QDRO provides otherwise; or (b) the Employer provides otherwise in an Addendum. This Section 7.05(A)(1) applies solely to a Participant whose divorce or legal separation becomes effective on or after the date the Employer executes this Plan unless the Plan is a Restated Plan and the prior Plan contained a provision to the same effect. The record contains n


CourtListener opinion 6330814

retirement benefits: by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ. 2 BOWER, Chief Judge. Arising from an interpleader action filed by the University of Dubuque (UD), Sharon Fairchild (Sharon) appeals the district court decision concerning the distribution of employee retirement plan benefits of her former spouse, the late Richard E. Cowart Jr. (Richard).1 Robilyn Cowart (Robilyn) cross-appeals the district court's ruling denying her request for attorney fees. We affirm the district court on both issues. I. Background Facts & Proceedings The following facts are not in dispute. Beginning in January 1998, Richard was employed as a


CourtListener opinion 6330814

pension: n Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009). In Kennedy, the Supreme Court "granted certiorari to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals and State Supreme Courts over a divorced spouse's ability to waive pension plan benefits through a divorce decree not amounting to a [qualified domestic relation order]." 555 U.S. at 291. The Court considered whether a waiver embodied in a divorce decree should be honored by a plan administrator when determining the appropriate recipient of benefits of a former spouse. 555 U.S. at 288. In the relevant decree, the spouse was "


CourtListener opinion 6330814

ERISA: lan administrator, takes no position on the appropriate beneficiary and will distribute the benefits as directed by the court, waiving the filing of a brief on appeal. The plan is subject to and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). 2 The beneficiary designation form included specification of Sharon's relationship to Richard: "Wife." 3 Following Richard's death, UD determined Robilyn, as Richard's surviving spouse, was entitled to one-half of the plan benefits pursuant to ERISA provisions requiring a mandatory preretirement death benefit to the surviving spouse of a participan


CourtListener opinion 6334245

CourtListener opinion 6334245 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of CANDY and TERENCE BONNER. Extracted reporter citation: 137 S.Ct. 577. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6334245 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 6334245


CourtListener opinion 6334245

QDRO: for her share of his pension until the pension administrator started making payments to Candy in 2017. Candy worked for the County of San Diego during the marriage, and she retired in 2019. In 2019, Terence stipulated to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that divided Candy's pension. During the marriage, the parties purchased a house in El Cajon and a house in Campo. After the date of separation until July 2013, the parties lived together in the Campo house. After that date, Candy moved into the El 3 In August 2014, Terence appealed the order dividing his pension, which this court addressed in a December


CourtListener opinion 6334245

retirement benefits: uest for spousal support and both of the parties' requests for an award of attorney fees as a sanction under section 271. Among the community property items at issue were: (1) the parties' two real properties; (2) the parties' respective pensions; (3) Candy's retirement account; and (4) the parties' debt. The parties also sought reimbursement for certain payments they made from separate property funds during separation. During the trial, Candy was represented by counsel, and Terence represented himself. In a 46-page statement of decision (the Statement of Decision), the trial court made a series of orders concerning the division


CourtListener opinion 6334245

pension: trial court entered a judgment of dissolution as to the parties' marital status only. Terence is retired from employment with an agency of the federal government, where he worked from May 1978 until May 2010. Since retirement, Terence has received a federal pension, but he did not share the pension with Candy for the first two years after separation. In July 2014, in response to a request filed by Candy, the trial court ordered Terence to pay Candy half of his pension on a going forward basis.3 A domestic relations order (DRO) was created to implement the division. Terence made direct payments to Candy for her share


CourtListener opinion 6334245

survivor benefits: on to set aside the judgment, as Terence did not establish that the judgment concerning the QDRO for Candy's pension was contrary either to the law or to the facts presented at trial. L. Terence's Challenge to the Order Regarding the Payments to Preserve the Survivor Annuity Benefit in Terence's Pension Terence's pension includes a survivor annuity benefit that will be paid to Candy upon Terence's death. As a premium for that benefit, the pension administrator deducts a monthly amount from Terence's pension disbursement. (5 U.S.C. § 8339(j)(1), (4).) The trial court ordered that as of the date it issued the judgment, Candy wo


CourtListener opinion 6335438

CourtListener opinion 6335438 Extracted reporter citation: 184 A.3d 168. Docket: 316 MDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6335438 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 6335438


CourtListener opinion 6335438

QDRO: (1) divide the FedEx pension and FedEx -3- J-A22013-21 sponsored 401(k) accounts on the same 55%-45% basis in favor of Wife; and since the estate was insufficient for an immediate offset, (2) cooperate in the preparation, and equally divide the cost, of qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO") for the distribution of both assets. See Special Master's Report and Recommendation, 9/8/20, at 22-23. As to this deferred distribution, the special master noted that "The value of the account[s] for purposes of this distribution shall be determined as of the date of distribution." Id. Husband and Wife both timely filed exceptions to the spe


CourtListener opinion 6335438

retirement benefits: wn employment. Prior to separation, Husband's paychecks went into a joint account maintained by the parties at Jonestown Bank and Trust. Since separation, he has been depositing his checks into his own account at Fulton Bank. Husband has a Vanguard 401K retirement plan and a FedEx pension plan through his employment. The account summary of his Vanguard 401K for the period January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019 showed a beginning balance of [$]102,950.31 and an ending balance of $116,914.28 for that period. The FedEx pension plan was valued at $28,668.00 as of March 1, 2019 and $28,244 as of August 1, 2019. The mar


CourtListener opinion 6335438

pension: ration, Husband's paychecks went into a joint account maintained by the parties at Jonestown Bank and Trust. Since separation, he has been depositing his checks into his own account at Fulton Bank. Husband has a Vanguard 401K retirement plan and a FedEx pension plan through his employment. The account summary of his Vanguard 401K for the period January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019 showed a beginning balance of [$]102,950.31 and an ending balance of $116,914.28 for that period. The FedEx pension plan was valued at $28,668.00 as of March 1, 2019 and $28,244 as of August 1, 2019. The marital home has an appr


CourtListener opinion 6335438

401(k): her own employment. Prior to separation, Husband's paychecks went into a joint account maintained by the parties at Jonestown Bank and Trust. Since separation, he has been depositing his checks into his own account at Fulton Bank. Husband has a Vanguard 401K retirement plan and a FedEx pension plan through his employment. The account summary of his Vanguard 401K for the period January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019 showed a beginning balance of [$]102,950.31 and an ending balance of $116,914.28 for that period. The FedEx pension plan was valued at $28,668.00 as of March 1, 2019 and $28,244 as of August 1,


CourtListener opinion 6337686

CourtListener opinion 6337686 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6337686 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 6337686

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 6337686

QDRO: ff's Office as a corrections officer. In the dissolution judgment, Former Wife was awarded permanent alimony in the amount of $1,700 per month, as well as a portion of Former Husband's retirement funds to be distributed when he "actually retired by means of a QDRO." At the time the dissolution judgment was entered, Former Wife's share of Former Husband's retirement fund was worth $236,500. When Former Husband retired several years later, the value of Former Wife's share of the retirement funds had increased to $352,283.08. In 2016, Former Husband filed a petition to modify or terminate alimony ("Modification Petiti


CourtListener opinion 6337686

retirement benefits: evidence, reflected $7,634 in total monthly expenses and included expenses relating to the new wife and her children. Former Husband testified that in order to meet his monthly expenses, he had to withdraw a minimum of approximately $3,500 per month from his retirement account. Former Wife, in turn, testified she received $352,283 as her share of Former Husband's retirement assets in December 2015. Former Wife used a portion of the money to purchase a new car and an annuity and to pay certain bills, and put the remainder of the money in an IRA investment account. As of the time of trial, Former Wife's annuity and IRA investment


CourtListener opinion 6337686

pension: 4th DCA 2009). In Kitchens, we held that the trial court erred by treating the former husband's discretionary IRA withdrawals as income for purposes of calculating alimony, reasoning: Our decision is premised upon the differences between a defined-benefit pension plan and an IRA. The typical defined- benefit pension plan provides a fixed monthly payment and prohibits the beneficiary from invading the principal or varying the amount of the monthly payment. By contrast, an IRA's principal is available for immediate withdrawal and the amounts taken may vary. Moreover, treating discretionary IRA withdrawals as inc


CourtListener opinion 6337686

valuation/division: ts taken may vary. Moreover, treating discretionary IRA withdrawals as income for purposes of calculating alimony forces the owner to deplete the account at a faster rate and deprives the owner of the full use of an asset which, presumably, was subject to equitable distribution at the time of the divorce. Cf. Byers v. Byers, 910 So. 2d 336, 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that a spouse should not be required to liquidate her assets to pay for her support). Id. In comparing discretionary withdrawals to mandatory withdrawals, we held that "mandatory or minimum IRA withdrawals are properly treated as income for purposes of calcu


CourtListener opinion 6338450

CourtListener opinion 6338450 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1308 MDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6338450 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 6338450

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 6338450

domestic relations order: oncealing his income to the detriment of the parties' minor child. As she did in her Rule 1925(b) statement, she asks this Court to consider the fees reimbursable pursuant to statutory authority and interpreting jurisprudence acknowledging the fluidity of domestic relations orders such as those awarding child support. In child support matters involving an award of attorneys' fees, our standard of appellate review is for an abuse of discretion. Bowser v. Blom, 807 A.2d 830, 834 (Pa. 2002); Krebs v. Krebs, 975 A.2d 1178, 1180 (Pa. Super. 2009). An abuse of discretion occurs when there is a misapplication of the law or an unreaso


CourtListener opinion 6341398

CourtListener opinion 6341398 Extracted case name: CHRISTOFF v. CHRISTOFF. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0559 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6341398 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 6341398


CourtListener opinion 6341398

QDRO: was no longer accounted for in the PSA. Both parties finalized and signed the final PSA, it was incorporated into the decree, and a third-party attorney began preparing a qualified domestic 2 CHRISTOFF v. CHRISTOFF Decision of the Court relations order ("QDRO") to divide the value of the retirement accounts. The third-party attorney realized the MPPP was not expressly listed in the PSA and emailed both Husband and Wife to inquire whether it should be included in the QDRO. Wife claimed the MPPP was to be included and equally divided between the parties. Husband, however, claimed the MPPP was not expressly listed


CourtListener opinion 6341398

retirement benefits: nn Christoff ("Wife") were married for thirty-three years before Husband filed for divorce. The parties engaged in mediation and negotiated the terms of a Property Settlement Agreement ("PSA") to be incorporated into their decree. ¶3 The parties have several retirement accounts, which were listed in the PSA under sections 4(C) Defined Contribution Retirement Accounts and 4(D) Defined Benefit Plans (pensions). Section 4(D) noted that Husband had two pensions, including one through his current employer, UPS. ¶4 Following mediation, Husband's counsel sent a draft of the PSA to be approved by Wife's counsel. Wife provided several re


CourtListener opinion 6341398

pension: elivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 David Michael Christoff ("Husband") appeals the superior court's ruling ordering the equal division of Husband's UPS/IPA Money Purchase Pension Plan account ("MPPP"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Sherry Lynn Christoff ("Wife") were married for thirty-three years before Husband filed for divorce. The parties engaged in mediation and negotiated the terms of a Property Settlement Agreement ("PSA") to be incorporated into their decree. ¶3 The p


CourtListener opinion 6341398

401(k): nd filed for divorce. The parties engaged in mediation and negotiated the terms of a Property Settlement Agreement ("PSA") to be incorporated into their decree. ¶3 The parties have several retirement accounts, which were listed in the PSA under sections 4(C) Defined Contribution Retirement Accounts and 4(D) Defined Benefit Plans (pensions). Section 4(D) noted that Husband had two pensions, including one through his current employer, UPS. ¶4 Following mediation, Husband's counsel sent a draft of the PSA to be approved by Wife's counsel. Wife provided several redlined edits, including one pertaining to section 4(C). In the draft, Hu


CourtListener opinion 6343228

CourtListener opinion 6343228 Extracted reporter citation: 573 S.W.2d 181. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6343228 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 6343228


CourtListener opinion 6343228

QDRO: expired, trial court may not modify, alter, or change property division); Dalton v. Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126, 140 (Tex. 2018) (divorce decree awarded husband and wife half interests in husband's retirement accounts, which was effectuated through unchallenged qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), but wife later obtained additional QDRO assigning wife additional interests in retirement accounts; supreme court invalidated new QDRO because it "created a new division to enforce Bart's spousal-support obligation" and thus violated family code); Everett v. Everett, 421 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.) (although trial court bel


CourtListener opinion 6343228

retirement benefits: n or subject to her sole control; a 2009 Toyota Prius; the funds contained in three bank accounts; all sums related to financial plans "existing by reason of [Valerie's] past, present or future employment," including her veterinary clinic; all of Douglas's retirement benefits arising from his publishing company; retirement accounts and life insurance benefits in Valerie's name; one of Douglas's individual retirement accounts (IRA); and all of two investment accounts and half of a third. Douglas was awarded eleven parcels of real estate; household items, collectibles, appliances, equipment, clothing, and other possessions in


CourtListener opinion 6343228

domestic relations order: rial court may not modify, alter, or change property division); Dalton v. Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126, 140 (Tex. 2018) (divorce decree awarded husband and wife half interests in husband's retirement accounts, which was effectuated through unchallenged qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), but wife later obtained additional QDRO assigning wife additional interests in retirement accounts; supreme court invalidated new QDRO because it "created a new division to enforce Bart's spousal-support obligation" and thus violated family code); Everett v. Everett, 421 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.) (although trial court bel


CourtListener opinion 6343228

valuation/division: reated to hold his inheritance proceeds; • that the third investment account awarded to Valerie should be split evenly between the parties; • that Valerie be required to account for and split with Douglas the airline miles accumulated by the spending of community property and that existed when the parties split or were divorced, whichever was greater; and • that he should not be ordered to name Valerie as a life-insurance beneficiary because the policy had been bought for him by his parents. Douglas sought further modification under the decree's undisclosed-assets provision—which states that such assets are "subject to


CourtListener opinion 6343790

CourtListener opinion 6343790 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KURT E. STEPANIAK AND JACQUELINE S. STEPANIAK Upon the Petition of KURT E. Extracted reporter citation: 966 N.W.2d 630. Docket: 21-0726. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6343790 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 6343790

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 6343790

QDRO: 252, 254–55 (Iowa 1996) (en banc)). 3 Jacqueline planned to return to graduate school to earn a master's degree in public administration, which she anticipated completing by her fifty-eighth birthday in October 2014. 4 In January 2009, Kurt moved to enter qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) on the divided pension plans. The court ordered the plan administrators to split the funds and award Jacqueline her share as an alternate payee. Her share was to be awarded as her sole and separate property. The court entered QDROs for the KONE pension plans in February 2009. Meanwhile, Kurt appealed the decree, and Jacqueline cross appealed.


CourtListener opinion 6343790

retirement benefits: de further alimony, even if he is financially capable." Id. Kurt retired in 2019. In April 2020, KONE notified Jacqueline that Kurt's pensions would be paid out to her in lump sums. Her share of the pension relevant here (KONE, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (Defined Benefit SERP)) was $85,113.23 (minus $2000.16 in FICA taxes). KONE estimated that the actuarial equivalent monthly single life annuity benefit would have been $411.84. Jacqueline received the lump sum by wire transfer in August 2020. That same month, Kurt stopped paying support—reasoning his obligation was 5 suspended until May 2023 because


CourtListener opinion 6343790

pension: the decree. The court ruled in Kurt's favor, giving him "credit" for the lump- sum payment against his spousal support obligation. Because we strive to give effect to the decree, we agree with the district court's sentiment that given the payout under the pension's terms, we can't "put the genie back in the bottle." By our reading, the decree and our decision intended for proceeds from the pension to offset Kurt's support obligation. And the district court's ruling honors that intent. I. Facts and Prior Proceedings Kurt and Jacqueline divorced in 2008 after twenty-six years of marriage. During their marriage


CourtListener opinion 6343790

401(k): el why her share was paid in a lump sum, they said the plan underwent changes after entry of the QDRO. According to KONE, the QDRO applied to the then-existing plan, The KONE, Inc. Defined Benefit SERP. That plan was split into two plans: (1) the KONE Inc. 401(k) Defined Contribution Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (DC SERP) and (2) DB SERP. The DC SERP plan was payable as a lump sum, to which Jacqueline raises no objection. The DB SERP is not a tax-qualified retirement plan but one that is "exempt from most portions of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and instead subject to special


CourtListener opinion 6345584

CourtListener opinion 6345584 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Goldberg. Extracted reporter citation: 210 Cal.App.4th 1423. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6345584 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 6345584


CourtListener opinion 6345584

QDRO: lue of Farmers acct XX8131 valued at $26,859 (Jun. 3, 2020, B295880), from which portions of the facts and procedural history are taken. 3 4. 1/2 of Pet's Deferred Comp Plan with current value of $7,858 5. Pet's S.P. and C.P. portion of his 401K Plan per QDRO[4] to be prepared by Nancy Bunn, Atty, using DOS of 9/29/2015 6. Marriott timeshare XX5190 at value of $2,750 7. Mercedes SLK 320 at value of $3,324 8. Household items attached hereto at 0 value. Respondent shall receive the following items: 1. 6333 E. Colorado Street, Long Beach, CA with est FMV net $854,530. 2. 1/2 of items # 2-4 inclusive set fort


CourtListener opinion 6345584

retirement benefits: were subject to confirmation; Patricia reserved the right to review and verify the documents and amounts of all accounts; the exact amounts of an equalization payment had not been calculated; a Propertizer had not been prepared; and the tax impact division of retirement benefits under the QDRO had not yet been calculated by attorney Nancy Bunn, as the MSA provided. The MSA's terms were not uncertain simply because verifications and calculations had yet to be performed. The MSA set forth the percentages that each of the parties would receive from each of the accounts and/or items of property identified. Those percentages were fixe


CourtListener opinion 6345584

401(k): 1/2 of DoS value of Farmers acct XX8131 valued at $26,859 (Jun. 3, 2020, B295880), from which portions of the facts and procedural history are taken. 3 4. 1/2 of Pet's Deferred Comp Plan with current value of $7,858 5. Pet's S.P. and C.P. portion of his 401K Plan per QDRO[4] to be prepared by Nancy Bunn, Atty, using DOS of 9/29/2015 6. Marriott timeshare XX5190 at value of $2,750 7. Mercedes SLK 320 at value of $3,324 8. Household items attached hereto at 0 value. Respondent shall receive the following items: 1. 6333 E. Colorado Street, Long Beach, CA with est FMV net $854,530. 2. 1/2 of items # 2-4 incl


CourtListener opinion 6345584

survivor benefits: fe Patricia Ann Welch (Patricia) entered into after separation and in anticipation of dissolution of their marriage is a "complete property settlement" within the meaning of section 145, which operates as a statutory waiver of certain of Freeman's rights as a surviving spouse enumerated in section 141, including the right to inherit from Patricia and to be appointed as the personal representative of her estate.2 We reverse the probate court's orders and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 The Family Court Action In September 2015, after 36 years of marri


CourtListener opinion 6346091

CourtListener opinion 6346091 Extracted case name: MILHAM v. MILHAM. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0581 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6346091 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 6346091


CourtListener opinion 6346091

retirement benefits: elivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Mark Milham ("Husband") appeals a judgment for Sandra Lynn Woll ("Wife"), formerly Milham, dividing Husband's military retirement benefits. For the reasons stated below, we exercise special action jurisdiction but deny relief. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 The parties' 1998 dissolution decree awarded Wife 32.43% of Husband's military retirement benefits if and when he "retires from active duty in the United States Air Force." The decree did not order Husband to directly pay Wife her


CourtListener opinion 6346091

pension: , by ordering Husband to return her separate property, Rule 85 does not apply to the judgment. ¶12 Husband's analogy to Quijada v. Quijada also misses the mark. 246 Ariz. 217 (App. 2019). In Quijada, the decree provided that the wife's share of the community pension benefits would be paid at the same time and in the same manner as the husband's. Id. at 219, ¶ 3. The wife petitioned to modify the decree and force the husband pay her directly because he chose to continue working past his eligible retirement date. Id. at ¶ 4. In Quijada, we held that because the wife agreed to the payment provision in the decree, the cour


CourtListener opinion 6346091

domestic relations order: 43% of Husband's military retirement benefits if and when he "retires from active duty in the United States Air Force." The decree did not order Husband to directly pay Wife her share of his retirement benefits, and the parties did not stipulate to entry of a domestic relations order. In 2016, as Husband's retirement date approached, Wife contacted the Defense Finance and Accounting Service ("DFAS"), the entity responsible for administering military retirement benefits, about receiving direct payments. In April 2020, DFAS approved her application for direct payments. DFAS reversed its decision two months later and denied Wife's claim, b


CourtListener opinion 6346091

valuation/division: ion of an existing decree de novo. Cohen v. Frey, 215 Ariz. 62, 66, ¶ 10 (App. 2007). ¶9 Wife possessed an immediate and vested interest in her share of the retirement benefits upon entry of the decree. See Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 181 (1986) (when community property is divided at dissolution, each spouse receives "an immediate, present, and vested separate property interest in the property awarded to him or her by the trial court"). The decree entitles Wife to her share of the retirement benefits "if and when" Husband retires. Contrary to Husband's contention, the failure to enter a domestic relations order at the time


CourtListener opinion 6346131

CourtListener opinion 6346131 Extracted reporter citation: 209 A.3d 367. Docket: 1102 WDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6346131 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 6346131


CourtListener opinion 6346131

QDRO: as well as their opportunities for future acquisitions of assets and income. See id. at 1-4. The master recommended a 50-50 division of the marital estate with Mr. Yeager to pay $110,878 to Ms. Yeager by the entry of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO").1 See id. at 4-6. The master found that the value of the Adamsville home increased by $51,000 during the marriage. See id. at 2, 4. Additionally, the master determined that Mr. Yeager had a loan or line of credit with Greenville Savings ("the Greenville Savings debt") with a balance of $6,894 when the parties separated. See id. at 5. Ms. Yeager ti


CourtListener opinion 6346131

retirement benefits: er with limited liquid assets and limited time - 10 - J-S07020-22 to purchase a new home,8 while Mr. Yeager enjoyed possession of real property that he brought into the marriage, including the Adamsville home and a family campground, as well as a larger retirement account. See id. at 30-31. The trial court denied Ms. Yeager's exception challenging the lack of liquid assets. The court determined that there were few liquid assets for distribution and that the master's report properly analyzed the section 3502(a) factors. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/15/21, at 4. The court cited the master's findings that the parties were


CourtListener opinion 6346131

pension: distribution scheme.3 See Exceptions, 11/23/20, at ____________________________________________ 1 "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 [a pension] plan." Conway v. Conway, 209 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal citations, italics, and quotation marks omitted). 2 The trial court, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, requests a remand for a recalculation of the increase in the value of the Adamsville home. 3 Ms. Yeager was not clear in her reference to liquid assets in her exceptions. However, she


CourtListener opinion 6346131

valuation/division: ons to the master's report which erred in failing to equitably divide marital assets in a manner to achieve economic justice. Ms. Yeager's Brief at 7-8 (renumbered and unnecessary capitalization omitted).4 Ms. Yeager's issues challenge the trial court's equitable distribution of the marital estate. Our standard of review in assessing the propriety of the trial court's equitable distribution award is whether the court abused its discretion by misapplying the law or failing to follow proper legal procedure. ____________________________________________ she asserted that a 60-40 equitable distribution was more appropriate and so


CourtListener opinion 6347916

CourtListener opinion 6347916 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6347916 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 6347916

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 6347916

QDRO: irm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The former husband and wife were married in 1985. The parties divorced by final judgment of dissolution of marriage on July 3, 2003. The final judgment incorporated the Marital Settlement Agreement ("MSA") and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which memorialized the parties agreement as to an equitable distribution of their real and personal property. On June 28, 2004, the former husband filed a motion to vacate the final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1) and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(b) alleging mistake. He alleged mistake as to cer


CourtListener opinion 6347916

domestic relations order: TUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The former husband and wife were married in 1985. The parties divorced by final judgment of dissolution of marriage on July 3, 2003. The final judgment incorporated the Marital Settlement Agreement ("MSA") and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which memorialized the parties agreement as to an equitable distribution of their real and personal property. On June 28, 2004, the former husband filed a motion to vacate the final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1) and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(b) alleging mistake. He alleged mistake as to cer


CourtListener opinion 6347916

valuation/division: parties divorced by final judgment of dissolution of marriage on July 3, 2003. The final judgment incorporated the Marital Settlement Agreement ("MSA") and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which memorialized the parties agreement as to an equitable distribution of their real and personal property. On June 28, 2004, the former husband filed a motion to vacate the final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1) and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(b) alleging mistake. He alleged mistake as to certain provisions in the MSA and QDRO regarding survivorship benefits upon his death.


CourtListener opinion 6348138

CourtListener opinion 6348138 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Salviola. Docket: 2-21-0466 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6348138 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 6348138

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 6348138

QDRO: at the trial court did not err when it awarded Elena only a portion of the attorney fees she requested. Therefore, we affirm. ¶2 Petitioner, Elena Shtern Pindiak, and respondent, Joseph M. Pindiak, engaged in post- decree litigation regarding the entry of Qualified Domestic Relation Orders and attorney fees relating to the entry of those orders. Elena appeals the trial court's ruling awarding her part of the attorney fees she requested under section 508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/508(b) (West 2020)). She alternatively argues that the trial court 2022 IL App (2d) 210466-U erred in granti


CourtListener opinion 6348138

retirement benefits: provided that Joseph was to pay maintenance to Elena of $1552.58 per month until March 4, 2022, based on his "base income" of $81,000 and her "base income" of $23,000. He was also to pay child support of $515 per month. The MSA further listed Joseph's four retirement accounts, which included his Allstate 401k. As pertinent here, the MSA provided: "The parties agree that following the entry of this Order, ELENA shall be awarded fifty percent (50%) of the marital portion of the all [sic] of JOSEPH'S retirement accounts free and clear of any right, title or interest of JOSEPH. JOSEPH's non marital portion shall be defined


CourtListener opinion 6348138

401(k): ena of $1552.58 per month until March 4, 2022, based on his "base income" of $81,000 and her "base income" of $23,000. He was also to pay child support of $515 per month. The MSA further listed Joseph's four retirement accounts, which included his Allstate 401k. As pertinent here, the MSA provided: "The parties agree that following the entry of this Order, ELENA shall be awarded fifty percent (50%) of the marital portion of the all [sic] of JOSEPH'S retirement accounts free and clear of any right, title or interest of JOSEPH. JOSEPH's non marital portion shall be defined as the balance of the accounts as


CourtListener opinion 6348138

domestic relations order: ment accounts free and clear of any right, title or interest of JOSEPH. JOSEPH's non marital portion shall be defined as the balance of the accounts as of the date of marriage. *** The parties shall cooperate in executing and entering a proper Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) *** [and] shall begin the process to execute the QDRO within sixty (60) days from the entry of this Agreement and shall share equally (50/50) any and all costs, including legal fees, associated in drafting, executing and filing of said QDRO by WFA Econometrics." (Emphasis added.) ¶5 On March 3, 2020, Joseph filed a motion for the entry of QD


CourtListener opinion 6350709

CourtListener opinion 6350709 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1. Col. Leveille completed 20 years of service. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6350709 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 6350709


CourtListener opinion 6350709

retirement benefits: eath." Pl.'s Resp. MTD at 8. Plaintiff avers if "money presently due" is required to establish jurisdiction, plaintiff has a "present right in the continued annuity." Id. Thus, plaintiff alleges she is "not asking for a determination of her status in a future retirement benefit that she [is] not currently collecting," rather she is "presently asking the court for money now as the security interest in the SBP beneficiary [that] requires perfection now." Id. at 5, 8. Plaintiff alleges she has a "right to current compensation under the Amended Final Decree of Divorce pursuant to the money mandating statute Uniformed Services Former S


CourtListener opinion 6350709

pension: y, which requires an express election by the annuitant to provide a former spouse with benefits." (citing 10 U.S.C. §§ 1448(b), (d)(3)). In Woll, this court found although the plaintiff's divorce decree recited a right of survivorship in the military member's pension, and that right could refer only to SBP benefits, the designation did not expressly entitle her to SBP benefits or require the military member to make the election for her. Id. at 374–76. The plaintiff in Woll brought her claim after the military member had passed away. Id. at 373. -3- ECF No. 14. On 16 February 2022, the Court granted plaintiff's motion


CourtListener opinion 6350709

domestic relations order: entered into a Marriage Settlement Agreement ("MSA"). Id. The MSA stated plaintiff would receive "1/2 of the community portion of [Col. Leveille's] USAF retirement with right of survivorship." Id. In 2008, the final divorce decree incorporated the MSA into a Domestic Relations Order ("DRO"), which the court later amended to state plaintiff "has the option of exercising her right of survivorship." Id.; Gov't MTD App. at 10–11 (4 May 2021 DOHA Reconsideration Decision). In December 2008, plaintiff mailed DFAS copies of the amended DRO, final decree of divorce, and later, copies of the MSA. Gov't MTD App. at 2 (10 Feb. 2021 DOHA Appeal De


CourtListener opinion 6350709

survivor benefits: ey General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, all of Washington, D.C., for the defendant. ORDER HOLTE, Judge. Pro se plaintiff Marrita Murphy filed a complaint appealing the denial of her election for former spouse survivor benefits under the Survivor Benefit Plan ("SBP") by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service ("DFAS") and the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals ("DOHA"). The government moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. For the following reasons, the


CourtListener opinion 6350808

CourtListener opinion 6350808 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6350808 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 6350808


CourtListener opinion 6350808

QDRO: ff's Office as a corrections officer. In the dissolution judgment, Former Wife was awarded permanent alimony in the amount of $1,700 per month, as well as a portion of Former Husband's retirement funds to be distributed when he "actually retired by means of a QDRO." At the time the dissolution judgment was entered, Former Wife's share of Former Husband's retirement fund was worth $236,500. When Former Husband retired several years later, the value of Former Wife's share of the retirement funds had increased to $352,283.08. In 2016, Former Husband filed a petition to modify or terminate alimony ("Modification Petiti


CourtListener opinion 6350808

retirement benefits: evidence, reflected $7,634 in total monthly expenses and included expenses relating to the new wife and her children. Former Husband testified that in order to meet his monthly expenses, he had to withdraw a minimum of approximately $3,500 per month from his retirement account. Former Wife, in turn, testified she received $352,283 as her share of Former Husband's retirement assets in December 2015. Former Wife used a portion of the money to purchase a new car and an annuity and to pay certain bills, and put the remainder of the money in an IRA investment account. As of the time of trial, Former Wife's annuity and IRA investment


CourtListener opinion 6350808

pension: 4th DCA 2009). In Kitchens, we held that the trial court erred by treating the former husband's discretionary IRA withdrawals as income for purposes of calculating alimony, reasoning: Our decision is premised upon the differences between a defined-benefit pension plan and an IRA. The typical defined- benefit pension plan provides a fixed monthly payment and prohibits the beneficiary from invading the principal or varying the amount of the monthly payment. By contrast, an IRA's principal is available for immediate withdrawal and the amounts taken may vary. Moreover, treating discretionary IRA withdrawals as inc


CourtListener opinion 6350808

valuation/division: ts taken may vary. Moreover, treating discretionary IRA withdrawals as income for purposes of calculating alimony forces the owner to deplete the account at a faster rate and deprives the owner of the full use of an asset which, presumably, was subject to equitable distribution at the time of the divorce. Cf. Byers v. Byers, 910 So. 2d 336, 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that a spouse should not be required to liquidate her assets to pay for her support). Id. In comparing discretionary withdrawals to mandatory withdrawals, we held that "mandatory or minimum IRA withdrawals are properly treated as income for purposes of calcu


CourtListener opinion 6351031

CourtListener opinion 6351031 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Moore. Extracted reporter citation: 133 S.W.3d 217. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6351031 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 6351031


CourtListener opinion 6351031

QDRO: se to make certain filing deadlines in the Labor Code jurisdictional with unequivocal language.") (citations omitted). The absence of any such language anywhere in Subchapter C is particularly conspicuous. After all, its immediate neighbor— Subchapter B, for qualified domestic relations orders—is unambiguous: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the court that rendered a final decree of divorce or annulment or another final order 19 The Government Code supplies one reason that the legislature so readily uses the language of exclusivity in the Family Code. In § 24.601, the Government Code authorizes "family district court[s],"


CourtListener opinion 6351031

retirement benefits: roperty division when divorce decree had mischaracterized separate property as community property); Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 449 (Tex. 2003) (res judicata prevents relitigating property division even though the divorce decree had improperly divided retirement benefits). 17 Notably, the agreement incident to divorce incorporated into the divorce decree is not even in the record before us. We need not—indeed should not—speculate or prejudge any merits issue that is properly left in the first instance to the district court on remand. Such issues include the final characterization of S.C.'s and M.B.'s respective interests


CourtListener opinion 6351031

domestic relations order: certain filing deadlines in the Labor Code jurisdictional with unequivocal language.") (citations omitted). The absence of any such language anywhere in Subchapter C is particularly conspicuous. After all, its immediate neighbor— Subchapter B, for qualified domestic relations orders—is unambiguous: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the court that rendered a final decree of divorce or annulment or another final order 19 The Government Code supplies one reason that the legislature so readily uses the language of exclusivity in the Family Code. In § 24.601, the Government Code authorizes "family district court[s],"


CourtListener opinion 6351031

valuation/division: stice Hecht, Justice Lehrmann, Justice Devine, Justice Blacklock, and Justice Huddle joined. JUSTICE BLAND filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Boyd and Justice Busby joined. One principal function of a final divorce decree is to divide a couple's community property. Sometimes, however, the decree may not divide all the community property. When that happens, it stops being community property because the marriage has ended. But both spouses continue to own it as tenants in common, just as they could jointly own property with anyone else. Any tenant in common who wishes to divide property may seek a partition under Prop


CourtListener opinion 6351763

CourtListener opinion 6351763 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of MELINDA and JOHN F. SHEGA. Extracted reporter citation: 37 Cal.3d 762. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6351763 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 6351763

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 6351763

QDRO: , the parties went to a hearing on Wife's RFO on July 1, 2020. Judge Howatt granted Wife's RFO and ordered payment of arrears be made from the 401(k) account. Wife received a check for the arrears, totaling $60,000, in October 2020. Judge Howatt also issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to allow Husband to pay further spousal support from the 401(k) account. But, according to Husband, Wife's attorney erred in drafting the QDRO and caused a delay in payments for July and August. In September 2020, Wife filed an Order to Show Cause and Affidavit of Contempt, alleging Husband was in contempt of court for failure to pay five months of


CourtListener opinion 6351763

pension: and approximately $15 million of assets in real and personal property. She claimed monthly expenses of $11,631. She further reported that, as of February 27, 2021, she had paid over $107,000 in attorney fees, of which $50,000 was paid from "[w]ithdrawals from pension allowed by [the] court." Wife owed an additional $8,948 in attorney fees. Husband reported on his IED approximately $33,667 in monthly income, consisting of salary or wages, pension payments, social security retirement, investment income, and pass-through income as the owner and sole proprietor of an S corporation. The investment income included approximat


CourtListener opinion 6351763

401(k): properties. In October 2019, Judge Howatt ordered Husband to pay spousal support to Wife in the monthly amount of $12,500. In January 2020, Husband advised Wife, through their respective attorneys, that he would be paying the monthly spousal support from his 401(k) account, with the issue of allocation reserved for trial. According to Husband, both his and Wife's 401(k) accounts were managed by BNY Melon at that time. Husband then transferred his portion of the 401(k) accounts to Fidelity Investments (the 1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Family Code. 2 401(k) account). He notified Wife's a


CourtListener opinion 6351763

domestic relations order: ies went to a hearing on Wife's RFO on July 1, 2020. Judge Howatt granted Wife's RFO and ordered payment of arrears be made from the 401(k) account. Wife received a check for the arrears, totaling $60,000, in October 2020. Judge Howatt also issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to allow Husband to pay further spousal support from the 401(k) account. But, according to Husband, Wife's attorney erred in drafting the QDRO and caused a delay in payments for July and August. In September 2020, Wife filed an Order to Show Cause and Affidavit of Contempt, alleging Husband was in contempt of court for failure to pay five months of


CourtListener opinion 6353405

CourtListener opinion 6353405 Extracted reporter citation: 711 S.W.2d 230. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6353405 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 6353405

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 6353405

QDRO: which included Exhibit 1, a Final Decree that contains the exact language from the December 2019 Final Decree regarding spousal maintenance; however, Robert did not sign Exhibit 1. The same day Robert approved the January 2020 Nunc Order, Robert signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which he approved and 3 consented as to both form and substance. The record shows that on January 24, 2020, the trial court sent Robert notice that it had signed and filed the January 2020 Nunc Order. In February 2020, the trial court entered an Amended Income Withholding for Support. In August 2020, Robert filed a Motion for Further Orders or Moti


CourtListener opinion 6353405

domestic relations order: cluded Exhibit 1, a Final Decree that contains the exact language from the December 2019 Final Decree regarding spousal maintenance; however, Robert did not sign Exhibit 1. The same day Robert approved the January 2020 Nunc Order, Robert signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which he approved and 3 consented as to both form and substance. The record shows that on January 24, 2020, the trial court sent Robert notice that it had signed and filed the January 2020 Nunc Order. In February 2020, the trial court entered an Amended Income Withholding for Support. In August 2020, Robert filed a Motion for Further Orders or Moti


CourtListener opinion 6353405

valuation/division: tions to Amy's motion, arguing that he did not sign the decree or agree to its terms. Robert also filed a Second Amended Motion for Further Orders or Motion to Modify Prior Orders, in which he argued that Amy's Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc changed the property division in the December 2019 Final Decree and the modified proposed decree was never signed by the trial court or the parties. According to Robert, there is no written agreement or contractual agreement between him and Amy that requires him to pay spousal maintenance, and the modified proposed decree should not be entered because it ordered him to pay spousal