CourtListener opinion 885737

retirement benefits: urt issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The District Court entered judgment for unpaid child support and medical insurance cost plus interest, and authorized a qualified domestic relations order requiring the transfer of any pension or retirement plan held for Mark's benefit to satisfy Mark's arrearages. The court reduced the amount to be paid monthly from $1,222.00 to $504.00 per month effective November 1, 1999. The court further concluded that, due to uncertainties of both parties' income, the support obligation should be reviewed and recalculated on an annual basis at the request of either party. ¶9


CourtListener opinion 885737

pension: District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The District Court entered judgment for unpaid child support and medical insurance cost plus interest, and authorized a qualified domestic relations order requiring the transfer of any pension or retirement plan held for Mark's benefit to satisfy Mark's arrearages. The court reduced the amount to be paid monthly from $1,222.00 to $504.00 per month effective November 1, 1999. The court further concluded that, due to uncertainties of both parties' income, the support obligation should be reviewed and recalculated on an annual basis at the request o


CourtListener opinion 885737

domestic relations order: y support ordered was excessive. On June 23, 2000, the District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The District Court entered judgment for unpaid child support and medical insurance cost plus interest, and authorized a qualified domestic relations order requiring the transfer of any pension or retirement plan held for Mark's benefit to satisfy Mark's arrearages. The court reduced the amount to be paid monthly from $1,222.00 to $504.00 per month effective November 1, 1999. The court further concluded that, due to uncertainties of both parties' income, the support obligation should be reviewed and recalculat


CourtListener opinion 887400

CourtListener opinion 887400 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Czapranski. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 04-050. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 887400 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 887400

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 887400

domestic relations order: peal of that part of the Order of December 30, 2002, which 5 temporarily changed residential custody. However, the appeal was dismissed by order of this Court, holding that the contempt order was not reviewable on appeal as it was not attached to a final domestic relations order because the temporary custody order was not a final order. Order of April 8, 2003, Cause No. 03-070, In re the Parenting of the Child of D.D. ¶21 This litigation then proceeded on Father's motion to change residential custody. Discovery was conducted, motions were filed and ruled on, and preliminary hearings held. Over the course of the parties' parent


CourtListener opinion 888365

CourtListener opinion 888365 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Carter. Extracted reporter citation: 107 P.3d 488. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 888365 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 888365

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 888365

QDRO: les to avoid these tax liabilities by transferring a distribution of a lump sum to the ex-spouse. 26 U.S.C. § 408(d)(6). Internal Revenue Code § 408(d)(6) provides that distributions under a divorce instrument, such as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) (see 26 U.S.C. § 71(b)(2)(A)), are not considered a taxable transfer. If this amount were distributed to Ron from Julie's retirement account by use of a QDRO, she would not suffer adverse tax consequences. ¶46 Even in his proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law filed after the trial, Ron requested a distribution of retirement assets by entry


CourtListener opinion 888365

retirement benefits: a parenting plan for their two minor children. ¶2 Ron appeals the provisions of the decree ordering that Julie shall have primary custody of the parties' two minor children during the school year in North Carolina. He also appeals the distribution of the retirement account portion of the marital estate because it denied him a percentage of the increase in Julie's retirement account that accrued between the time of the parties' separation and the time of the decree. ¶3 Julie cross-appeals, asserting that she should be able to fulfill her monetary obligation by distributing to Ron pre-tax retirement funds instead of cash an


CourtListener opinion 888365

valuation/division: t shall consider those contributions of the other spouse to the marriage, including: (a) the nonmonetary contribution of a homemaker; (b) the extent to which such contributions have facilitated the maintenance of this property; and (c) whether or not the property division serves as an alternative to maintenance arrangements. ¶36 As a general rule, the value of the marital estate should be determined at or near the time of dissolution; however, the unique circumstances of marital relationships can modify this generally accepted date for the valuation of assets. In re Marriage of Hochhalter, 2001 MT 268, ¶ 17, 307 Mont. 2


CourtListener opinion 888417

CourtListener opinion 888417 Extracted reporter citation: 941 P.2d 441. Docket: of requests to the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 888417 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 888417


CourtListener opinion 888417

QDRO: ing someone step through numerous individual case files to find them. Recognizing that orders, decrees, final judgments and other court-created documents can contain confidential information that should be protected, such as financial accounts numbers in qualified domestic relations orders, the Task Force decided that these documents should not be placed on the Internet by any court office until electronic filing and guidelines for digital documents have been established and approved by the Supreme Court. It is hoped that within a year or two there will be sufficient understanding and tools available for privacy protection that these do


CourtListener opinion 888417

domestic relations order: e step through numerous individual case files to find them. Recognizing that orders, decrees, final judgments and other court-created documents can contain confidential information that should be protected, such as financial accounts numbers in qualified domestic relations orders, the Task Force decided that these documents should not be placed on the Internet by any court office until electronic filing and guidelines for digital documents have been established and approved by the Supreme Court. It is hoped that within a year or two there will be sufficient understanding and tools available for privacy protection that these do


CourtListener opinion 888501

CourtListener opinion 888501 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TED GREGORY McNEA. Extracted reporter citation: 95 P.3d 694. Docket: and result in this. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 888501 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 888501


CourtListener opinion 888501

QDRO: or purposes of § 27-2-201(1), MCA, because Miller's motion fell "more under the category of [a] discovery [device], rather than an action on a judgment . . . . Miller is requesting a release of account information. This is quite different than requesting a QDRO or 4 requesting the Court enforce the Final Decree entered into on December 30, 1994." The District Court also concluded that the period of limitation began to run on December 30, 1994, because Miller was entitled to her portion of McNea's retirement accounts immediately upon issuance of the divorce decree. The District Court's conclusion was based o


CourtListener opinion 888501

retirement benefits: d Miller received a decree of dissolution of their marriage from the District Court on December 30, 1994. The decree approved a Property Settlement Agreement which included a provision for the distribution to Miller of 50 percent of McNea's I.R.A. and 401K retirement accounts, then totaling approximately $43,000. Following the dissolution, Miller did not take any action to enforce distribution of the 2 retirement accounts until October 8, 2002, when she filed a Motion for Release of Account Information. Neither McNea nor the District Court responded to that motion, and no further action occurred thereafter until May 16, 2


CourtListener opinion 888501

pension: t to a percentage of McNea's retirement, the ten-year statute of limitations began to run on December 30, 1994—the date the decree of dissolution was issued. Whereas the retirement account at issue in Marriage of Weber was a Civil Service Retirement System pension, and thus was a "defined benefit plan" that could not be collected until the spouse earning those benefits had retired, Marriage of Weber, ¶ 27, here the "defined contribution plans" were available immediately following the dissolution, because the value of such plans was not dependent on McNea's retirement, but rather could be calculated immediately an


CourtListener opinion 888501

401(k): ea and Miller received a decree of dissolution of their marriage from the District Court on December 30, 1994. The decree approved a Property Settlement Agreement which included a provision for the distribution to Miller of 50 percent of McNea's I.R.A. and 401K retirement accounts, then totaling approximately $43,000. Following the dissolution, Miller did not take any action to enforce distribution of the 2 retirement accounts until October 8, 2002, when she filed a Motion for Release of Account Information. Neither McNea nor the District Court responded to that motion, and no further action occurred thereaf


CourtListener opinion 892494

CourtListener opinion 892494 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Adams. Extracted reporter citation: 739 P.2d 974. Docket: of years Husband participated. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 892494 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 892494


CourtListener opinion 892494

QDRO: lves the division of retirement benefits between Benae Francine Gilmore (Wife) and Edwin James Gilmore (Husband) under a State of New Mexico defined benefits plan. A California court granted the parties' divorce through a default judgment in 1994 and issued a qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) in 2006 awarding Wife a portion of the benefits under a formula that was based on the time-rule method of calculating Wife's community share. After the California court set aside its 1994 judgment as to all its 1 provisions except the portion dissolving the marriage and also set aside the QDRO in its entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction,


CourtListener opinion 892494

retirement benefits: F LUNA COUNTY James T. Martin, District Judge Atkinson & Kelsey, P.A. Patrick L. McDaniel Albuquerque, NM 87190 for Appellee Kretek Law Office, LLC Charles C. Kretek Deming, NM for Appellant OPINION SUTIN, Judge. {1} This case involves the division of retirement benefits between Benae Francine Gilmore (Wife) and Edwin James Gilmore (Husband) under a State of New Mexico defined benefits plan. A California court granted the parties' divorce through a default judgment in 1994 and issued a qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) in 2006 awarding Wife a portion of the benefits under a formula that was based on the time-ru


CourtListener opinion 892494

pension: marriage, the total number of years of credited service, and the qualifying salary levels under the PERA statute." Accordingly, the court calculated that Wife was entitled to a community share of $1025.90 per month based on one half of Husband's gross monthly pension payments of $4351.66 times the ratio of time of credited service during the marriage (9.66 years) divided by the total time of credited service (20.5 years). The court granted Wife a judgment for "arrearages for twenty-nine months . . . through December[] 2007, with the monthly amount of the arrearages to be determined by [the] PERA in 1 The parties and t


CourtListener opinion 892494

domestic relations order: ivision of retirement benefits between Benae Francine Gilmore (Wife) and Edwin James Gilmore (Husband) under a State of New Mexico defined benefits plan. A California court granted the parties' divorce through a default judgment in 1994 and issued a qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) in 2006 awarding Wife a portion of the benefits under a formula that was based on the time-rule method of calculating Wife's community share. After the California court set aside its 1994 judgment as to all its 1 provisions except the portion dissolving the marriage and also set aside the QDRO in its entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction,


CourtListener opinion 892525

CourtListener opinion 892525 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Lehman. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: of months of marriage and participating. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 892525 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 892525

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 892525

QDRO: grade cost of living and so it's a smaller percentage times a higher monthly benefit amount. Wife's counsel also indicated that the formula used "typically . . . included in most cases . . ., not only the marital settlement agreement, but it's also in the qualified domestic relations order, if there is one" and that the formula "was negotiated, it's in the [MSA]." In addition, Wife's counsel explained: [W]e wrote in, in the formula, that the marital months were 192, according to my math [Husband] spent a total of 824 months earning this retirement. . . . [S]o that with my math, came out to be 23.2 percent is [Wife's] share of the gross mo


CourtListener opinion 892525

retirement benefits: e Atkinson & Kelsey, P.A. Thomas C. Montoya Albuquerque, NM for Appellant OPINION SUTIN, Judge. {1} This case involves enforcement of a 1994 marital settlement agreement and a 1995 domestic relations order relating to a wife's entitlement to a husband's retirement benefits. We are mainly 1 concerned with two issues, namely, (1) when the wife was entitled to begin receiving benefits, and (2) how to calculate the amount of benefits to be paid to the wife. Based on its interpretations of the documents, the district court determined that the wife was entitled to receive benefits starting at the husband's first retirement elig


CourtListener opinion 892525

pension: findings of fact and one conclusion of law requested by Wife. Husband's interpretation of limiting . . . [W]ife's calculation of retirement [benefits] at the time of the divorce would deprive [W]ife of the natural and expected increase in the value of the pension over the years following the divorce. [] The "time rule" theory of division of retirement is applicable and equitable here, and was intended by the parties as reflected by the entire formula for division of the postal service retirement. See In re Marriage of Lehman, 18 Cal[.] 4[th] 169, 955 P.2d 451 (1998), and In re Marriage of Judd, 68 Cal. App[.] 3


CourtListener opinion 892525

domestic relations order: reached thirty years of service with the United States Postal Service and age fifty- five. The thirty years of service were a combination of Husband's service before marriage and after divorce, and community service during marriage. Provisions of the MSA and Domestic Relations Order 2 {5} In Section II(A)(5) of the MSA, as part of the parties' compromised distribution of the community property, Wife was to receive the following as her separate property. One-half of the community interest in Husband's retirement plan with [the] United States Postal Service through the date of August 31, 1994, to be determined in accord with the f


CourtListener opinion 894014

CourtListener opinion 894014 Extracted reporter citation: 216 P.3d 804. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 894014 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 894014


CourtListener opinion 894014

QDRO: e-half of their community interest during the time of 15 marriage in the PNM Retirement Savings Plan-09070 (the 401(k) plan), and one half 16 of their community interest during the time of marriage in the PNM Pension Plan (the 17 pension plan), pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. [RP 66-67] We use 18 the terms "401(k) plan" and "pension plan" as they are defined in the letter from the 19 PNM pension plan administrator. [See RP 105] Wife's attorney refers to the pension 4 1 plan, which is the plan that Wife has no interest in, as the "Savings Plan" in the 2 memorandum in opposition. [See MIO 3, first full paragraph and there


CourtListener opinion 894014

retirement benefits: the district court's decision to award spousal support for the 9 first time in a situation where the parties were married for about twenty-two years, no 10 spousal support was awarded in the final decree, and the husband's intention to 11 convert all the retirement benefit into disability pay in the near future would have 12 effectively eliminated the wife's award of her share of the husband's retirement 13 benefit, which was the only significant asset of the marriage. Rhoades, 2004-NMCA- 14 020, ¶ 15. The circumstances of this case are different. The parties in this case were 15 married only six years; Wife's illness, an


CourtListener opinion 894014

pension: the final decree; 14 and each party receives one-half of their community interest during the time of 15 marriage in the PNM Retirement Savings Plan-09070 (the 401(k) plan), and one half 16 of their community interest during the time of marriage in the PNM Pension Plan (the 17 pension plan), pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. [RP 66-67] We use 18 the terms "401(k) plan" and "pension plan" as they are defined in the letter from the 19 PNM pension plan administrator. [See RP 105] Wife's attorney refers to the pension 4 1 plan, which is the plan that Wife has no interest in, as the "Savings Plan" in


CourtListener opinion 894014

401(k): debts of the parties are 13 divided in accordance with a property and debt worksheet attached to the final decree; 14 and each party receives one-half of their community interest during the time of 15 marriage in the PNM Retirement Savings Plan-09070 (the 401(k) plan), and one half 16 of their community interest during the time of marriage in the PNM Pension Plan (the 17 pension plan), pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. [RP 66-67] We use 18 the terms "401(k) plan" and "pension plan" as they are defined in the letter from the 19 PNM pension plan administrator. [See RP 105] Wife's attorney refers to


CourtListener opinion 894068

CourtListener opinion 894068 Extracted reporter citation: 860 P.2d 182. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 894068 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 894068


CourtListener opinion 894068

QDRO: l age, the work related day care 12 expense will terminate or be substantially reduced, and [Husband] will 13 have the means to pay to [Wife] her then interest in his PERA benefits, 14 whether he has elected to retire or not. 15 19. Once [Husband] retires, a QDRO can be entered to pay directly to 16 [Wife], her then community interest. 17 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The district court then entered the following 18 pertinent conclusions of law: 19 2. The [c]ourt finds that based on the individual circumstances of this 20 divorcing couple, it is not possible or practicable to exercise the 21 preferred metho


CourtListener opinion 894068

retirement benefits: NM 12 for Appellee 13 Hunter Law Firm 14 Colin Hunter 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellant 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 VIGIL, Judge. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 1 Husband appeals from an order of the district court determining Wife's interest 2 in Husband's PERA retirement account. We reverse and remand for further 3 proceedings. 4 II. BACKGROUND 5 The judgment and final decree of dissolution of marriage and custody was filed 6 on October 24, 2008, with the district court reserving jurisdiction to determine Wife's 7 interest in Husband's PERA retirement account at a status hearing in May 2009. 8 Following the status confe


CourtListener opinion 894068

pension: to treat them as all other 12 community assets are treated on dissolution—namely, to value, divide, 13 and distribute them (or other assets of equivalent value) to the divorcing 14 spouses. We realize that in some cases, given the innumerable variations 15 in pension plans and the infinite variety in the circumstances of 16 individual divorcing couples, it will not be possible or practicable to 17 achieve this preferred method of distribution and that other methods, 18 including the reserved jurisdiction [or] pay as it comes in method, will 19 have to be utilized. 20 .... 21 7. Dr. Myers found that the present value o


CourtListener opinion 896843

CourtListener opinion 896843 Extracted reporter citation: 585 N.W.2d 561. Docket: 20000298. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 896843 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 896843


CourtListener opinion 896843

QDRO: bution, the court ordered the marital home to be sold and the proceeds to be split equally between the parties. The court further ordered that Eleanor receive one half of Jerome's retirement account at the time judgment was entered, to be transferred under a qualified domestic relations order. Of the remaining marital property, Eleanor was awarded a net amount valued at $64,840.57, and Jerome was awarded a net amount valued at $71,683. The court also ordered that Jerome pay Eleanor $700 per month in rehabilitative and permanent spousal support for eight years, and then $400 per month in permanent spousal support thereafter until Eleanor remarr


CourtListener opinion 896843

retirement benefits: n the oldest child reaches the age of majority. Concerning the property distribution, the court ordered the marital home to be sold and the proceeds to be split equally between the parties. The court further ordered that Eleanor receive one half of Jerome's retirement account at the time judgment was entered, to be transferred under a qualified domestic relations order. Of the remaining marital property, Eleanor was awarded a net amount valued at $64,840.57, and Jerome was awarded a net amount valued at $71,683. The court also ordered that Jerome pay Eleanor $700 per month in rehabilitative and permanent spousal support for ei


CourtListener opinion 896843

domestic relations order: e court ordered the marital home to be sold and the proceeds to be split equally between the parties. The court further ordered that Eleanor receive one half of Jerome's retirement account at the time judgment was entered, to be transferred under a qualified domestic relations order. Of the remaining marital property, Eleanor was awarded a net amount valued at $64,840.57, and Jerome was awarded a net amount valued at $71,683. The court also ordered that Jerome pay Eleanor $700 per month in rehabilitative and permanent spousal support for eight years, and then $400 per month in permanent spousal support thereafter until Eleanor remarr


CourtListener opinion 896843

valuation/division: ging the parties' joint checking account. [¶5] In a divorce, the trial court must distribute the marital property equitably between the parties. N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24. All of the parties' assets, regardless of the source, must be considered to ensure an equitable distribution of the marital property. Kautzman v. Kautzman , 1998 ND 192, ¶ 10, 585 N.W.2d 561. A trial court's distribution of marital property need not be equal to be equitable, but the court must explain any substantial disparity. Corbett v. Corbett , 2001 ND 113, ¶ 12, 628 N.W.2d 312. In distributing marital property, the trial court must apply the gui


CourtListener opinion 897014

CourtListener opinion 897014 Extracted reporter citation: 626 N.W.2d 690. Docket: 20010186. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 897014 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 897014

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 897014

QDRO: udgment plus any additions and interest on the money or ∙ 7% interest on the $25,000.00 from January 25, 2000 until the Defendant transfers the money in cash, should he be forced to do so to comply with the order of the Court if he is unable to secure a QDRO from the retirement account Plus, the Defendant shall be ordered to pay an additional $500.00 in attorney fees and costs within 30 days of this order necessitated by his failure to abide by the order of the Court dated January 3, 2000. The court also ordered Marion Harger to turn over completed forms showing proof that he had maintained a $100,000 lif


CourtListener opinion 897014

retirement benefits: arting with a term or death benefit of $100,000.00, . . . naming the minor child as beneficiary," and to provide Kathleen Harger proof of insurance. As part of the property distribution, Kathleen Harger was awarded $25,000 to be "rolled over from defendant's retirement account, subject to tax consequences, if any." After the parties' separation, Marion Harger, who had been employed as an emergency medical technician, left Williston and moved to Ohio. [¶3] On May 19, 2000, Kathleen Harger moved to modify Marion Harger's child support obligation to conform with the current child support guidelines and moved to hold him in cont


CourtListener opinion 897138

CourtListener opinion 897138 Extracted reporter citation: 561 N.W.2d 644. Docket: 20020168. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 897138 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 897138


CourtListener opinion 897138

QDRO: er to accomplish the retirement split. The court entered an order on January 22, 1999, slightly modifying the terms of the retirement division, but retaining the 80/20 percent allocation. The court ordered Eva's attorney to prepare an amended judgment and a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to accomplish the division of the retirement account between the parties. Despite the court's directive, a QDRO was not prepared. [¶3] On March 1, 2002, Eva filed a motion to enforce the retirement split under the divorce judgment, requesting the court to order Robert's attorney to prepare an appropriate QDRO or to provide information necessar


CourtListener opinion 897138

retirement benefits: fendant and appellee. Giese v. Giese No. 20020168 Kapsner, Justice. [¶1] Robert Giese appealed from orders of the district court denying his demand for a change of judge, granting Eva Giese's motion to enforce a prior judgment dividing Robert's retirement account between the parties, denying Robert's request for reconsideration of the issue, and denying Robert's motion for attorney fees. We affirm. I [¶2] Robert and Eva Giese were divorced on March 26, 1998, after a long-term marriage. The divorce decree awarded Eva twenty percent of Robert's employee retirement account and directed Robert's attorney to pre


CourtListener opinion 897138

domestic relations order: mplish the retirement split. The court entered an order on January 22, 1999, slightly modifying the terms of the retirement division, but retaining the 80/20 percent allocation. The court ordered Eva's attorney to prepare an amended judgment and a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to accomplish the division of the retirement account between the parties. Despite the court's directive, a QDRO was not prepared. [¶3] On March 1, 2002, Eva filed a motion to enforce the retirement split under the divorce judgment, requesting the court to order Robert's attorney to prepare an appropriate QDRO or to provide information necessar


CourtListener opinion 897138

valuation/division: a change of judge may be made after the judge sought to be disqualified has ruled upon any matter pertaining to the action or proceeding in which the demanding party was heard or had an opportunity to be heard. Any proceeding to modify an order for alimony, property division, or child support pursuant to section 14-05-24 or an order for child custody pursuant to section 14-05-22 must be considered a proceeding separate from the original action and the fact that the judge sought to be disqualified made any ruling in the original action does not bar a demand for a change of judge. The purpose of this statute is to allow a part


CourtListener opinion 897405

CourtListener opinion 897405 Extracted reporter citation: 653 N.W.2d 663. Docket: 20030278. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 897405 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 897405


CourtListener opinion 897405

QDRO: er on January 22, 1999, slightly modifying the terms of the retirement division, but retaining the eighty/twenty percent allocation of the account employing the value as of March 26, 1998. The court ordered Eva's attorney to prepare an amended judgment and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to accomplish the division of the retirement account between the parties. Despite the court's directive, a QDRO was not prepared. [¶3] Robert Giese retired on November 1, 2001, and began receiving monthly retirement benefits. Eva Giese did not receive her share of the benefits. [¶4] After this Court filed its opinion in Giese v. Giese


CourtListener opinion 897405

retirement benefits: ice. [¶1] Robert D. Giese appealed from orders of the district court holding him in contempt and awarding his former spouse, Eva Giese, damages for Robert's intentional failure to comply with the provisions of the parties' divorce decree dividing Robert's retirement benefits. We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Robert Giese in contempt and did not err in awarding damages, including costs and attorney fees, to Eva Giese. .We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions that the district court amend its orders to permit Robert Giese to make a lump sum payment of the damage award a


CourtListener opinion 897405

alternate payee: rcent portion of the retirement benefit was not made contingent upon effecting an acceptable QDRO. A QDRO is a judgment, decree, or order, relating to child support, spousal support, or marital property rights, which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan. See Chapman v. Wells , 557 N.W.2d 725, 727 n.1 (N.D. 1996). Eva Giese's right to receive a twenty percent share of Robert Giese's retirement benefit was created by and made a part of her property award under the March 26, 1998, divorce judgment


CourtListener opinion 897405

domestic relations order: ary 22, 1999, slightly modifying the terms of the retirement division, but retaining the eighty/twenty percent allocation of the account employing the value as of March 26, 1998. The court ordered Eva's attorney to prepare an amended judgment and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to accomplish the division of the retirement account between the parties. Despite the court's directive, a QDRO was not prepared. [¶3] Robert Giese retired on November 1, 2001, and began receiving monthly retirement benefits. Eva Giese did not receive her share of the benefits. [¶4] After this Court filed its opinion in Giese v. Giese


CourtListener opinion 897409

CourtListener opinion 897409 Extracted reporter citation: 671 N.W.2d 780. Docket: 20030339. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 897409 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 897409

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 897409

opening text: Filed 3/23/04 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2004 ND 59___ Aaron James Johnson, Petitioner and Appellee v. North Dakota Department of Transportation, Respondent and Appellant No. 20030339 Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Mikal Simonson, Judge. REVERSED. Opinion of the Court by Sandstrom, Justice. Justin D. Roness (appeared), Thomas A. Dickson (on brief), and Timothy Q. Purdon (on brief), Dickson & Purdon, 107 West Main Avenue, Suite 150, P.O. Box 1896, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-1896, for petitioner and appellee. Reid A. Brady, Assistant Attorney General (on


CourtListener opinion 897893

CourtListener opinion 897893 Extracted reporter citation: 688 N.W.2d 402. Docket: 20050328. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 897893 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 897893

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 897893

QDRO: s 401(k) plan with his employer, North American Coal, and stated the plan has "a gross value of $53,620.91, but against which [Roth] took a loan of $11,233.77 leaving a net value of $42,387.14. The Court awards [Hoffer] 65% of the net value ($27,551.64)." A Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") authorized the administrator of Roth's 401(k) plan to hold $27,551.64 for Hoffer. [¶3] In October 2004, Hoffer moved under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to amend the judgment, claiming there was a clerical mistake because the judgment did not accurately reflect the amount of money she was to receive from Roth's 401(k) plan. Hoffer claimed Roth's employer


CourtListener opinion 897893

401(k): om an order denying his post-judgment motion. We affirm, concluding the district court did not err in granting Hoffer's motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to correct a clerical mistake in the initial judgment regarding the distribution of the proceeds of Roth's 401(k) plan. I [¶2] In Roth v. Hoffer , 2004 ND 72, ¶ 3, 688 N.W.2d 402, cert. denied , 543 U.S. 936 (2004), we summarily affirmed Roth's appeal from a July 2003 divorce judgment. The judgment identified Roth's 401(k) plan with his employer, North American Coal, and stated the plan has "a gross value of $53,620.91, but against which [Roth] took a l


CourtListener opinion 897893

domestic relations order: lan with his employer, North American Coal, and stated the plan has "a gross value of $53,620.91, but against which [Roth] took a loan of $11,233.77 leaving a net value of $42,387.14. The Court awards [Hoffer] 65% of the net value ($27,551.64)." A Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") authorized the administrator of Roth's 401(k) plan to hold $27,551.64 for Hoffer. [¶3] In October 2004, Hoffer moved under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to amend the judgment, claiming there was a clerical mistake because the judgment did not accurately reflect the amount of money she was to receive from Roth's 401(k) plan. Hoffer claimed Roth's employer


CourtListener opinion 898536

CourtListener opinion 898536 Extracted reporter citation: 747 N.W.2d 85. Docket: 20080174. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 898536 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 898536


CourtListener opinion 898536

QDRO: rg. A review of the property division reveals Sherri Lindberg did not receive any income-producing assets. Only if Christopher Lindberg took the option of paying Sherri Lindberg a lump sum of $20,044 to equalize the property division rather than executing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his 401(k) plan in favor of Sherri Lindberg would she receive some interest income from her assets. Sherri Lindberg received a vehicle, some personal property, $2,700 cash, and a Roth IRA. She has no home for herself or her children. The court can also take into consideration the parties' conduct during the marriage and their station in life. Id


CourtListener opinion 898536

401(k): ls Sherri Lindberg did not receive any income-producing assets. Only if Christopher Lindberg took the option of paying Sherri Lindberg a lump sum of $20,044 to equalize the property division rather than executing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his 401(k) plan in favor of Sherri Lindberg would she receive some interest income from her assets. Sherri Lindberg received a vehicle, some personal property, $2,700 cash, and a Roth IRA. She has no home for herself or her children. The court can also take into consideration the parties' conduct during the marriage and their station in life. Id. The distric


CourtListener opinion 898536

domestic relations order: iew of the property division reveals Sherri Lindberg did not receive any income-producing assets. Only if Christopher Lindberg took the option of paying Sherri Lindberg a lump sum of $20,044 to equalize the property division rather than executing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his 401(k) plan in favor of Sherri Lindberg would she receive some interest income from her assets. Sherri Lindberg received a vehicle, some personal property, $2,700 cash, and a Roth IRA. She has no home for herself or her children. The court can also take into consideration the parties' conduct during the marriage and their station in life. Id


CourtListener opinion 898536

valuation/division: sis of Sherri Lindberg's underemployment other than that she is capable of earning $20,000 per year, nor her need for spousal support or Chris Lindberg's ability to pay spousal support. We have said, "We will not set aside the trial court's determinations on property division or spousal support for failure to explicitly state the basis for its findings if that basis is reasonably discernible by deduction or inference." Routledge v. Routledge , 377 N.W.2d 542, 545 n.1 (N.D. 1985); Meyer v. Meyer , 2004 ND 89, ¶ 23, 679 N.W.2d 273 (Maring, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part). We are unable to discern the basi


CourtListener opinion 898957

CourtListener opinion 898957 Extracted reporter citation: 676 N.W.2d 794. Docket: 20100053. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 898957 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 898957


CourtListener opinion 898957

QDRO: nt accounts with Piper, Jaffray, and Aid Association Lutherans . . . ." (Emphasis added.) [¶3] Between the entry of the divorce judgment and 2009, Mary Blomdahl did not execute on the judgment, commence a separate action on the judgment, or obtain a qualified domestic relations order. In January 2009, Mary Blomdahl demanded the 90 percent interest in the retirement accounts, and Russell Blomdahl refused. In April 2009, Mary Blomdahl moved the district court for an order to show cause under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-25.1 to find Russell Blomdahl in contempt and to enforce the distribution of the interest in the retirement account awarded in the


CourtListener opinion 898957

retirement benefits: annot be maintained based on a divorce judgment that expired after ten years without being renewed. I [¶2] Russell Blomdahl and Mary Blomdahl entered a stipulation that was incorporated into a February 1993 divorce judgment, which provided: "9. Retirement Accounts . [Mary Blomdahl] shall have sole and exclusive use, control and possession of the retirement, savings, and checking accounts currently held solely in her name. [Russell Blomdahl] shall have sole and exclusive use, possession and control of the retirement, savings, checking, and insurance accounts solely in his name with the exception that [Mary Blom


CourtListener opinion 898957

pension: stablished control by obtaining a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") or by "taking legal or other action to assert that control, even if that meant some financial penalty for early withdrawal." In addition, the trial court concluded that "[u]nlike a pension plan that had not yet matured, these [two retirement] accounts could have been accessed and exclusively controlled by Mary [Blomdahl] at the time of judgment." Neither the law, the record, nor public policy supports the trial court's conclusion. [¶21] Our Court has held that when a divorce judgment provides for payments of child or spousal support in i


CourtListener opinion 898957

ERISA: entered as soon as possible after entry of the divorce decree). Thus, the trial court erred by shifting the responsibility for obtaining a QDRO from the trial court that entered the 1993 divorce decree to Mary Blomdahl, a party to the decree. Further, under ERISA, there is no statute of limitations for the entry of a QDRO. See Jordan , 147 S.W.3d at 260 (noting the intentional absence of a statute of limitations for the entry of a QDRO under ERISA); see also Marshall v. Priess , 99 S.W.3d 150, 157 (Tex. Ct. App. 2002) (holding the entry of QDRO is not subject to statute of limitations on enforcemen


CourtListener opinion 901472

CourtListener opinion 901472 Extracted reporter citation: 132 F3d 1225. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 901472 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 901472


CourtListener opinion 901472

QDRO: to the original intent of the court or the parties. See Antepenko v. Antepenko, 584 So2d 836 (AlaCivApp 1991) (omission from decree of award of farm equipment to husband was correctible under Rule 60(a)); Ozment v. Ozment, 11 P3d 635, 639 (OKCivApp 2000) (QDRO); Brooks v. Brooks, 864 SW2d 645, 647 (TexCtApp 1993) (trial court properly corrected divorce judgment to effectuate judge's intention to grant husband half of wife's retirement benefits); Spomer v. Spomer, 580 P2d 1146, 1149-50 (Wyo 1978) (clarifying order properly entered as correction under Rule 60(a) to resolve whether husband's obligation under dec


CourtListener opinion 901472

retirement benefits: f making a property division. Moreover, prior to making that property division, Judge Grosshans was informed of the Act, which specifically required a court order or spousal agreement to divest Sally of her future proportionate share of the Foreign Service retirement benefits. He was also informed in Sally Nist's pretrial briefs that she had rights "under federal law, including the survivor's benefit and a certain percentage." Therefore, Judge Grosshans' use of the present cash value and his failure to provide a divestiture clause when he divided the then existing value of the marital estate created uncertainty concerning


CourtListener opinion 901472

pension: RHENRY, Justice. [¶1.] Ted and Sally Nist were divorced by a judgment and decree of divorce entered on January 19, 1996. Nine years later, Ted sought an order amending the judgment to state expressly that Sally is not entitled to a pro rata share of Ted's pension and survivor benefits under the Foreign Service Act. The trial court granted Ted's motion and amended the judgment nunc pro tunc. Sally appeals. We reverse and remand. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND [¶2.] Ted and Sally Nist were married on May 21, 1983. During their marriage, Ted served in the federal Foreign Service. After eleven years of marriage


CourtListener opinion 901472

survivor benefits: ice. [¶1.] Ted and Sally Nist were divorced by a judgment and decree of divorce entered on January 19, 1996. Nine years later, Ted sought an order amending the judgment to state expressly that Sally is not entitled to a pro rata share of Ted's pension and survivor benefits under the Foreign Service Act. The trial court granted Ted's motion and amended the judgment nunc pro tunc. Sally appeals. We reverse and remand. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND [¶2.] Ted and Sally Nist were married on May 21, 1983. During their marriage, Ted served in the federal Foreign Service. After eleven years of marriage, Ted filed for divo


CourtListener opinion 9247543

CourtListener opinion 9247543 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of HOLLY HERBERS and TODD ERIK FERRARI. HOLLY HERBERS FERRARI. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: and obtain a. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9247543 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 9247543

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 9247543

QDRO: s for clarity and intend no disrespect. 2 including the family home, personal property, vehicles, bank accounts, business interests, and retirement benefits. Holly's pension plan from Pfizer was to be divided by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), with each party receiving a community interest pursuant to the " ‘[t]ime rule.' " Todd's "Naval Military Service Retirement Plan" was also addressed: "The community interest shall be equitably divided pursuant to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2017, § 641, and revised § 624, of the NDAA of 2018: The amount of retired pay to which Husband


CourtListener opinion 9247543

retirement benefits: dent. This family law appeal presents a question of contract interpretation. Ending their twenty year marriage, Holly and Todd Ferrari stipulated how to divide their community assets in a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA).1 Among those assets were military retirement benefits accrued during Todd's many years of military service. With Todd expecting to retire from the U.S. Navy in two years, the MSA referenced some relevant statutory criteria, expressed an intention to divide the pension "equitably," and fixed a dollar amount of $2,551 that Holly would receive each month. Later claiming the inputs used to derive that number were


CourtListener opinion 9247543

pension: Among those assets were military retirement benefits accrued during Todd's many years of military service. With Todd expecting to retire from the U.S. Navy in two years, the MSA referenced some relevant statutory criteria, expressed an intention to divide the pension "equitably," and fixed a dollar amount of $2,551 that Holly would receive each month. Later claiming the inputs used to derive that number were off, Todd successfully moved to reduce Holly's share. Reasoning that the parties sought an equitable division of the military pension pursuant to a statutory formula that factored in a servicemember's retired base p


CourtListener opinion 9247543

domestic relations order: arties by their first names for clarity and intend no disrespect. 2 including the family home, personal property, vehicles, bank accounts, business interests, and retirement benefits. Holly's pension plan from Pfizer was to be divided by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), with each party receiving a community interest pursuant to the " ‘[t]ime rule.' " Todd's "Naval Military Service Retirement Plan" was also addressed: "The community interest shall be equitably divided pursuant to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2017, § 641, and revised § 624, of the NDAA of 2018: The amount of retired pay to which H


CourtListener opinion 9297204

CourtListener opinion 9297204 Extracted case name: ANGELA MARIE HEISIG v. ANDREW CARL HEISIG. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9297204 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 9297204


CourtListener opinion 9297204

QDRO: orce ("the Decree").1 It incorporated a marital dissolution agreement ("MDA"). Section 5.5 in the MDA awarded Wife $130,000 from Husband's 401(k), directed the "remaining balance" to Husband, and required Wife to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"): 5.5 Husband's Retirement Plan: Wife shall receive One Hundred Thirty Thousand ($130,000.00) from Husband's 401k through his employer UNUM. Same shall be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Wife's attorney shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. For purposes of preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Orde


CourtListener opinion 9297204

retirement benefits: incorporated a marital dissolution agreement ("MDA"). Section 5.5 in the MDA awarded Wife $130,000 from Husband's 401(k), directed the "remaining balance" to Husband, and required Wife to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"): 5.5 Husband's Retirement Plan: Wife shall receive One Hundred Thirty Thousand ($130,000.00) from Husband's 401k through his employer UNUM. Same shall be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Wife's attorney shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. For purposes of preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Husband shall provide documentat


CourtListener opinion 9297204

pension: itional attorney fees of $500.00, for the preparation of each Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and Husband will reimburse Wife for same within 60 days of the entry of the Final Decree of Divorce. Husband is awarded all right, title and interest to his pension, and the same is an equitable division, based upon the totality of this agreement. By execution of this agreement, Wife waives and relinquishes any right, title and interest to said account. § 5.5. Draft QDROs were submitted in January and February 2019, specifically providing that Wife would not be entitled to earnings on the $130,000. In August 2019,


CourtListener opinion 9297204

401(k): V ___________________________________ This appeal requires interpretation of a clause in the parties' marital dissolution agreement. The final decree, entered in January 2018, incorporated the parties' agreement awarding the wife $130,000 from the husband's 401(k). After several rounds of qualified domestic relation orders and other court orders, the trial court ultimately held that the wife was entitled to $130,000 plus approximately four months of statutory interest. The wife appealed, seeking earnings on the $130,000 in addition to interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as


CourtListener opinion 931420

CourtListener opinion 931420 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 931420 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 931420


CourtListener opinion 931420

QDRO: ourt affirmed the family court's order. The Husband then appealed to this Court. In Chenault v. Chenault, 224 W.Va. 141, 680 S.E.2d 386 (2009) ("Chenault I"), we reversed the circuit court and remanded the case with instructions to the family court to enter a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") that distributed one-half of the marital share of the Husband's retirement benefits to the Wife. Id. at 147, 680 S.E.2d at 392. On September 27, 2010, the family court entered yet another order regarding the division of the Husband's pensions, in which it said, [the Husband] through counsel opines that [the Wife] is only entitled to a monetary


CourtListener opinion 931420

retirement benefits: d. 1 The hearing was memorialized by an order entered March 29, 2007. The order stated, in relevant part, that [t]he parties' final divorce Order did provide, however, for the [Wife] to receive one-half of the accrued value of the [Husband's] aforesaid retirement plans from November 1972 through October 1994, which shall be the ORDER of this Court. (Emphasis added.) Thereafter, the Husband appealed a June 28, 2007 order of the family court regarding the division of his federal civil service pension that awarded the Wife "an amount equal to one-half of the total value of the plan." The circuit court affirmed the famil


CourtListener opinion 931420

pension: Petitioner Thomas D. Chenault, by counsel J. Roger Smith II, appeals the July 18, 2012 order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County that affirmed the October 7, 2011 order of the Family Court of Cabell County regarding the division of Mr. Chenault's military pension in a divorce action. Respondent Sharon K. Chenault, by counsel Arik C. Paraschos, filed a response to which petitioner replied. This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of t


CourtListener opinion 931420

domestic relations order: ted order on March 25, 1996. Respondent, the "Wife," was a teacher. Petitioner, the "Husband" was a federal employee who served in the Army Reserve. The parties' January 8, 1998, final divorce order required that the parties' pensions "be subject to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders of Fifty Percent (50%) each" and that the Wife was to be "awarded one-half of [the Husband's] Civil Service pension and one-half of his Army Reserve pension." The subject of this appeal is the division of the Husband's Army Reserve ("military") pension. At a March, 1, 2007, family court hearing regarding the division of the Husband's pensions, the follow


CourtListener opinion 931421

CourtListener opinion 931421 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 931421 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 931421


CourtListener opinion 931421

QDRO: ted order on March 25, 1996. Respondent, the "Wife," was a teacher. Petitioner, the "Husband," was a federal employee who had also served in the Army Reserve. The parties' January 8, 1998, final divorce order required that the parties' pensions "be subject to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders of Fifty Percent (50%) each" and that the Wife was to be "awarded one-half of [the Husband's] Civil Service pension and one-half of his Army Reserve pension." The subject of this appeal is the division of the Husband's federal civil service pension. The Husband retired in May of 2004 and took his civil service pension as an annuity. In June of 2006, th


CourtListener opinion 931421

retirement benefits: type of annuity or survivor benefit from either the [Husband's] Army retirement or his [Civil] Service retirement. The parties' final divorce Order did provide, however, for the [Wife] to receive one- half of the accrued value of the [Husband's] aforesaid retirement plans from November 1972 through October 1994, which shall be the ORDER of this Court. The family court entered the Wife's second amended QDRO on June 28, 2007, that awarded the Wife "an amount equal to one-half the total value of the plan." The Husband's appeal of the second amended QDRO was denied by the circuit court. The Husband thereafter appealed to thi


CourtListener opinion 931421

pension: . Chenault, by counsel J. Roger Smith II, appeals the September 9, 2011, order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County that affirmed the September 27, 2010 order of the Family Court of Cabell County regarding the division of Mr. Chenault's federal civil service pension in a divorce action. Respondent Sharon K. Chenault, by counsel Arik C. Paraschos, filed a response to which petitioner replied. Thereafter, upon the Court's request, the Husband filed a supplemental brief that was to address the mathematical basis for the division of his civil service pension. The Wife filed a response to the Husband's supplemental brief to


CourtListener opinion 931421

domestic relations order: on March 25, 1996. Respondent, the "Wife," was a teacher. Petitioner, the "Husband," was a federal employee who had also served in the Army Reserve. The parties' January 8, 1998, final divorce order required that the parties' pensions "be subject to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders of Fifty Percent (50%) each" and that the Wife was to be "awarded one-half of [the Husband's] Civil Service pension and one-half of his Army Reserve pension." The subject of this appeal is the division of the Husband's federal civil service pension. The Husband retired in May of 2004 and took his civil service pension as an annuity. In June of 2006, th


CourtListener opinion 931622

CourtListener opinion 931622 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 27665-10S. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 931622 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 931622

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 931622

QDRO: mmissioner, 97 T.C. 51, 57 (1991); Seidel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005- 67. However, under section 402(e)(1)(A), a former spouse is treated as the distributee with respect to distributions made to that spouse under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), and such distributions constitute taxable income 8 Sec. 402(a) provides, in relevant part, that "any amount actually distributed to any distributee by any employees' trust described in section 401(a) which is exempt from tax under section 501(a) shall be taxable to the distributee * * * under section 72 (relating to annuities)." -8- to that spouse. S


CourtListener opinion 931622

retirement benefits: of $6,062 and an accuracy-related penalty of $1,212 pursuant to section 6662.2 After a concession by petitioner,3 the issues remaining for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner must include in gross income a distribution he received from his former spouse's retirement account; and (2) whether he is liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662. We hold that petitioner must include the distribution in his gross income but is not liable for the accuracy-related penalty. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule r


CourtListener opinion 931622

pension: ithin the clear scope of the exclusion." Zimmerman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-36, 2008 WL 449786, at *1. According to petitioner, after he was awarded a 50% interest in his former spouse's TSP account, he allegedly sold that interest back to the TSP pension administrator in exchange for $25,248 in "sales proceeds". In petitioner's view, the alleged "sale" of his 50% interest to the plan administrator in exchange for $25,248 was a transfer of property to a third party on behalf of his former spouse required by the divorce decree and, therefore, was a nontaxable event under section 1.1041-1T(c), Q&A-9, Temp


CourtListener opinion 931622

alternate payee: a) shall be taxable to the distributee * * * under section 72 (relating to annuities)." -8- to that spouse. See Mitchell v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 215, 219 (2008). The former spouse that receives the distribution under the QDRO is also referred to as the "alternate payee". Id. The record establishes, and the parties do not dispute, that the distribution at issue here is treated as made pursuant to a QDRO.9 In 2006, and pursuant to the divorce decree and family court order, petitioner was awarded a 50% interest in the marital portion of his former spouse's TSP account. In early 2007 petitioner "cashed in" his share


CourtListener opinion 9323116

CourtListener opinion 9323116 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9323116 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 9323116


CourtListener opinion 9323116

retirement benefits: on July 26, 1958. On December 15, 1997, the Loudoun County Circuit Court entered a final decree of divorce between the parties. Paragraph thirteen of the divorce decree stated that Shelton would receive fifty percent of the marital share of husband's VRS retirement plan. That paragraph further provided that "[husband] is directed to elect a Survivor's Option naming [Shelton] as the contingent annuitant. Division shall be effectuated by the entry of a VSR [sic] Approved Domestic Relations Order." On the same day that the divorce decree was entered, the Loudoun County Circuit Court entered an approved domestic relation


CourtListener opinion 9323116

pension: o designate a spouse or former spouse as irrevocable beneficiary during the lifetime of the beneficiary of all or a portion of any survivor benefit or annuity plan of whatsoever nature." (Emphasis added). In contrast, Code § 20-107.3(G)(1), which concerns pension, profit-sharing, or deferred compensation plans, provides that a "court may direct payment of a percentage of the marital share of any pension, profit-sharing or deferred compensation plan, or retirement benefits . . . that constitutes marital property." Further, "[t]he court may order direct payment of such percentage of the marital share by direct ass


CourtListener opinion 9323116

domestic relations order: s Option naming [Shelton] as the contingent annuitant. Division shall be effectuated by the entry of a VSR [sic] Approved Domestic Relations Order." On the same day that the divorce decree was entered, the Loudoun County Circuit Court entered an approved domestic relations order ("ADRO") in relation to the VRS retirement provisions in the divorce decree. In paragraph six, titled "Member to name spouse as contingent Annuitant," the order states that husband "shall name [Shelton] as the only contingent Annutant [sic] (i.e., Survivor Option) which shall provide a monthly payment to the former spouse for her lifetime." The ADRO f


CourtListener opinion 9323116

survivor benefits: orney General, on briefs), for appellant. Richard L. Locke (Shannon S. Otto; Locke & Otto, on brief), for appellee. The Virginia Retirement System ("VRS") appeals an order of the City of Richmond Circuit Court ("circuit court") directing that VRS pay a survivor benefit to Joan B. Shelton ("Shelton") and ordering that VRS pay her $25,000 in attorney fees. On appeal, VRS argues that the circuit court erred in ordering VRS to pay a monthly survivor benefit to Shelton. VRS further contends that the circuit court erred by awarding Shelton attorney fees and costs. For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of th


CourtListener opinion 9323915

CourtListener opinion 9323915 Extracted case name: SCOTT v. SCOTT. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0155 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9323915 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 9323915


CourtListener opinion 9323915

QDRO: DECISION Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined. G A S S, Vice Chief Judge: ¶1 In 2021, husband challenged a 2013 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) arising out of a 2010 dissolution decree. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied his petition. Husband appeals the denial. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In December 2010, the superior court entered a decree dividing the parties' property, including their three retirement accounts. Husband retained his two retirement accou


CourtListener opinion 9323915

retirement benefits: cree. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied his petition. Husband appeals the denial. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In December 2010, the superior court entered a decree dividing the parties' property, including their three retirement accounts. Husband retained his two retirement accounts, and wife retained her one retirement account. ¶3 In June 2013, after a failed reconciliation attempt, the parties prepared the QDRO. The QDRO reallocated some of husband's retirement accounts to give wife fifty percent of husband's deferred retirement option plan benefits and $1,000 of husband's monthly retir


CourtListener opinion 9325097

CourtListener opinion 9325097 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Shulga. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-21-1018 where the circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9325097 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 9325097


CourtListener opinion 9325097

retirement benefits: ¶ 10 On August 30, 2016, Ronald married Mary. ¶ 11 On October 20, 2016, a QILDRO was entered to implement a division of the parties' interest in the Evanston Firefighters Pension Fund (Fund). Section III required the Fund to pay 50% per month of Ronald's retirement benefits to Jodi, and the monthly payments would terminate upon the death of Ronald or Jodi, whichever first occurs. Section VII directed the Fund to pay Jodi 50% "of any death benefits that become payable to [Ronald's] death benefit beneficiaries or estate." Finally, as relevant to the issues in this appeal, section XII stated the following: "The Court retain


CourtListener opinion 9325097

pension: tems from a postdissolution of marriage proceeding, in which petitioner- appellee Jodi Shulga (Jodi) brought a claim for unjust enrichment against third party respondent- appellant Mary Klebba (Mary) and sought a constructive trust over the surviving spouse pension benefits Mary received as the wife of respondent Ronald Shulga (Ronald) at the time of his death. The circuit court determined that Mary was unjustly enriched, and Jodi was entitled to receive 50% of the benefits and imposed a constructive trust. This court affirmed the circuit court's decision on appeal. In the Marriage of Shulga, 2019 IL App (1st) 182


CourtListener opinion 9325097

domestic relations order: ettlement agreement (MSA). Article V of the MSA, entitled "Marital Property," provided that Ronald was a participant in the City of Evanston Pension Plan and that Jodi was awarded 50% of the marital portion of these benefits pursuant to a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO). ¶9 On July 26, 2016, Ronald applied for line-of-duty disability pension with the Evanston Firefighters Pension Fund pursuant to section 4-110 of the Illinois Pension Code (Pension Code). ¶ 10 On August 30, 2016, Ronald married Mary. ¶ 11 On October 20, 2016, a QILDRO was entered to implement a division of the parties' interest in the Evansto


CourtListener opinion 9325097

survivor benefits: . ¶2 This case stems from a postdissolution of marriage proceeding, in which petitioner- appellee Jodi Shulga (Jodi) brought a claim for unjust enrichment against third party respondent- appellant Mary Klebba (Mary) and sought a constructive trust over the surviving spouse pension benefits Mary received as the wife of respondent Ronald Shulga (Ronald) at the time of his death. The circuit court determined that Mary was unjustly enriched, and Jodi was entitled to receive 50% of the benefits and imposed a constructive trust. This court affirmed the circuit court's decision on appeal. In the Marriage of Shulga, 2019 IL App (


CourtListener opinion 9348563

CourtListener opinion 9348563 Docket: COA22-198. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9348563 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 9348563

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 9348563

QDRO: ett & Associates, by S. Thomas Currin II, for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. ¶1 Defendant Michael Welborn Murdock appeals from the trial court's order granting Plaintiff Alice Bracey's motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant's motion for entry of qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs"), and dismissing as moot his other pending motions. After careful review, we affirm. I. Background ¶2 The trial court granted Plaintiff an absolute divorce from Defendant on 31 BRACEY V. MURDOCK 2022-NCCOA-705 Opinion of the Court October 2003, while retaining jurisdiction over, inter alia, both parties' claims for equitable distribu


CourtListener opinion 9348563

retirement benefits: A, each for a sum certain "equal to one-half of the date of separation balance" of each account. Yet Defendant's motion, although titled "Motion For Entry of [QDROs]," in fact seeks relief beyond the entry of QDROs to effectuate the 2005 Consent Order's retirement account provisions. In this motion, Defendant asserts that he "is entitled to, not only the amounts listed in the [2005 Consent] Order, but also all passive gains and losses on his portion of the retirement accounts through the entry of the QDROs[,]" and that he "is in need of, and entitled to, discovery" to enable him to determine the amounts of the passiv


CourtListener opinion 9348563

401(k): aims for equitable distribution. On 28 February 2005, the trial court entered the parties' consent order and judgment for equitable distribution (the "2005 Consent Order"). The 2005 Consent Order provides, in pertinent part: Plaintiff shall retain her 401(k) account and IRA account as her separate property. Plaintiff shall transfer to Defendant $31,618.00, equal to one-half of the date of separation balance in her IRA and $75,203.74, equal to one-half of the date of separation balance of her 401(k) account. The judgment of divorce in the above-entitled action shall be amended to create the tax free transf


CourtListener opinion 9348563

domestic relations order: ciates, by S. Thomas Currin II, for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. ¶1 Defendant Michael Welborn Murdock appeals from the trial court's order granting Plaintiff Alice Bracey's motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant's motion for entry of qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs"), and dismissing as moot his other pending motions. After careful review, we affirm. I. Background ¶2 The trial court granted Plaintiff an absolute divorce from Defendant on 31 BRACEY V. MURDOCK 2022-NCCOA-705 Opinion of the Court October 2003, while retaining jurisdiction over, inter alia, both parties' claims for equitable distribu


CourtListener opinion 9349948

CourtListener opinion 9349948 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Lobaina. Docket: 358184 Macomb Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9349948 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 9349948


CourtListener opinion 9349948

QDRO: spousal support. Defendant testified that he waived his right to trial and that the settlement would serve as the judgment. The trial court later entered a consent judgment of divorce that mirrored the settlement placed on the record. A specialist prepared qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) for entry by the court as required under the judgment which gave rise to disputes between the parties. Later, plaintiff moved to enforce the judgment, for reimbursement for cost of the QDRO, and for transfer of title to a Jeep to plaintiff. She argued that the judgment entitled her to disbursement from defendant's 401(k) of $80,000 tax free on the


CourtListener opinion 9349948

retirement benefits: d her attorney fees. Defendant opposed plaintiff's motion on the ground that the judgment stated that the tax-free funds were merely "presumed" to be $80,000, and blamed plaintiff for not confirming the actual amount of pretax dollars that were in defendant's retirement account. He asserted that $80,000 of tax-free funds were unavailable and plaintiff should not be permitted a windfall on the basis of a presumption that proved inaccurate. Further, defendant denied ever agreeing to pay plaintiff $80,000 in tax- free funds because he did not believe that amount existed. The trial court submitted the matter to a Friend of Court ref


CourtListener opinion 9349948

401(k): his objections to the Friend of the Court referee's recommendations, adopting those recommendations, and granting plaintiff's motion to enforce the parties' consent judgment of divorce respecting payment of the balance of funds owed plaintiff from defendant's 401(k) and award to plaintiff attorney fees. We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff and defendant married in 1992. In 2018, plaintiff filed for divorce alleging that a breakdown and destruction of the marital relationship occurred with no reasonable likelihood that it could be preserved. Defendant filed a counterclaim for divorce and answered the complaint


CourtListener opinion 9349948

domestic relations order: upport. Defendant testified that he waived his right to trial and that the settlement would serve as the judgment. The trial court later entered a consent judgment of divorce that mirrored the settlement placed on the record. A specialist prepared qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) for entry by the court as required under the judgment which gave rise to disputes between the parties. Later, plaintiff moved to enforce the judgment, for reimbursement for cost of the QDRO, and for transfer of title to a Jeep to plaintiff. She argued that the judgment entitled her to disbursement from defendant's 401(k) of $80,000 tax free on the


CourtListener opinion 9350649

CourtListener opinion 9350649 Extracted case name: C.S. v. M.S. Extracted reporter citation: 969 N.E.2d 312. Docket: 2021 CA 00155 7 AS THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9350649 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 9350649


CourtListener opinion 9350649

QDRO: ts The parties shall equally divide only the marital portion of the Wife's MedAdmin Service LLC 401K and only the marital portion of the Husband's Jackson Emergency Physicians LLC 401K by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, asset to be determined by QDRO Consultants, Inc. based upon the following formula: * * * *** Section 2.7 – Cash to Wife Husband will pay to Wife as division of property the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) within thirty (30) days of a subsequent decree of divorce being filed. This sum in non modifiable [sic] and is considered total payment to Wife in lieu of a divisi


CourtListener opinion 9350649

retirement benefits: Jackson Emergency Physicians Ltd., First Merit Health Savings account, Husband's Individual Fidelity account and custodial accounts, Fidelity college accounts, and 529 accounts for [children]. Stark County, Case No. 2021 CA 00155 10 *** Section 2.6 Retirement Benefits The parties shall equally divide only the marital portion of the Wife's MedAdmin Service LLC 401K and only the marital portion of the Husband's Jackson Emergency Physicians LLC 401K by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, asset to be determined by QDRO Consultants, Inc. based upon the following formula: * * * *** Section 2.7 – Cash to Wife


CourtListener opinion 9350649

401(k): custodial accounts, Fidelity college accounts, and 529 accounts for [children]. Stark County, Case No. 2021 CA 00155 10 *** Section 2.6 Retirement Benefits The parties shall equally divide only the marital portion of the Wife's MedAdmin Service LLC 401K and only the marital portion of the Husband's Jackson Emergency Physicians LLC 401K by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, asset to be determined by QDRO Consultants, Inc. based upon the following formula: * * * *** Section 2.7 – Cash to Wife Husband will pay to Wife as division of property the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) within


CourtListener opinion 9350649

valuation/division: account, Husband's Individual Fidelity account and custodial accounts, Fidelity college accounts, and 529 accounts for [children]. Stark County, Case No. 2021 CA 00155 10 *** Section 2.6 Retirement Benefits The parties shall equally divide only the marital portion of the Wife's MedAdmin Service LLC 401K and only the marital portion of the Husband's Jackson Emergency Physicians LLC 401K by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, asset to be determined by QDRO Consultants, Inc. based upon the following formula: * * * *** Section 2.7 – Cash to Wife Husband will pay to Wife as division of property the sum of


CourtListener opinion 9351016

CourtListener opinion 9351016 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9351016 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 9351016


CourtListener opinion 9351016

retirement benefits: ND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Puentes and Cisneros married on May 18, 1991. Their marriage ended by Final Decree of Divorce dated October 6, 2005 (the 2005 Decree), following an August 1, 2005, hearing. The 2005 Decree includes a division of Puentes's military retirement benefits. The trial court also entered a military retirement Domestic Relations Order on October 7 (the DRO), which differs from the 2005 Decree in its definition of Puentes's disposable retired pay by rank and the share awarded to Cisneros.1 On November 8, 2005, after the trial court's plenary power expired, Cisneros filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc


CourtListener opinion 9351016

domestic relations order: Their marriage ended by Final Decree of Divorce dated October 6, 2005 (the 2005 Decree), following an August 1, 2005, hearing. The 2005 Decree includes a division of Puentes's military retirement benefits. The trial court also entered a military retirement Domestic Relations Order on October 7 (the DRO), which differs from the 2005 Decree in its definition of Puentes's disposable retired pay by rank and the share awarded to Cisneros.1 On November 8, 2005, after the trial court's plenary power expired, Cisneros filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, alleging the omission of a $1,500 judgment in her favor. There is no record


CourtListener opinion 9351016

valuation/division: nge and readjudicate or rewrite and change the terms of the judgment as rendered[.]" Id. (citing Mathes v. Kelton, 569 S.W.2d 876, 878 (Tex. 1978)). A trial court may also after expiration of its plenary jurisdiction clarify or enforce a divorce decree's property division. See DeGroot v. DeGroot, 260 S.W.3d 658, 662 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 9.002, 9.008). A party may request the court to clarify an order that is not specific enough to be enforceable by contempt. O'Donnell v. Vargo, No. 05-16-01058-CV, 2017 WL 4216248, at * 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 22, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.).


CourtListener opinion 9351522

CourtListener opinion 9351522 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9351522 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 9351522

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 9351522

domestic relations order: (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)), felony using personal identifying information (id., § 530.5, subd. (a)), felony false personation (id., § 529, subd. 1 (a)(3), two counts of misdemeanor contempt of court (id., § 166, subd. (c)(1)), misdemeanor violating a domestic relations order (id., § 273.6, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)). A month later, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of felony stalking in exchange for a 16-month lid and that the remaining counts would be dismissed. At the sentencing hearing, the court asked defendant if he was "in good health." De


CourtListener opinion 9351665

CourtListener opinion 9351665 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Santopadre. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9351665 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 9351665

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 9351665

QDRO: ive fifty percent (50%) of such retirement or 12 pension benefit to which Edwin F. Reiss is entitled to receive from Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Id. Non-Goodyear employee Gloria sought and obtained a post-judgment Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that she was entitled to half the total benefits Edwin earned under the pension plan, including sums accrued after the divorce. Id. at 440-41. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the only property the divorce decree purported to divide was community property. Id. at 441 (citing Reiss v. Reiss, 40 S.W.3d 605, 608 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.


CourtListener opinion 9351665

retirement benefits: inancing and Accounting Service (DFAS) informed Santomero by letter that Sandra had applied for payment of a portion of his retired/retainer pay. The retiree account statement showed that DFAS concluded that Sandra was due fifty percent of Santomero's full retirement benefit, which included compensation for years of service during which they were not married to each other. Santomero disagreed with DFAS's apportionment of his benefits and filed a petition for declaratory judgment regarding the proper amount of pay under the 1996 Decree in the same cause number as the 1996 Decree. He requested a declaration that all military


CourtListener opinion 9351665

pension: concerning the Final Decree of Divorce (1996 Decree). Sandra 1 contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the request for a declaratory judgment "reinterpreting" the 1996 Decree's terms regarding payment of appellee Santomero V. Riley's military pension, including determining whether the 1996 Decree contains a mistake and "whether years 1 through 13 are worth less than years 14 through 38." We will vacate the 2021 Order in part, reverse it in part, and render judgment that Santomero take nothing by his petition and that Sandra is awarded the amounts in a trust account that was created to hold the dispu


CourtListener opinion 9351665

domestic relations order: y this Court on August 22, 1996, that purports to award 50% of SANTOMERO V. RILEY's Military Retirement to SANDRA F. RILEY only awards 50% of the retirement earned prior to the divorce." (Emphases in original). He also requested that the trial court sign a domestic relations order reflecting the proper division and directing DFAS to distribute his retirement benefits according to its declaratory judgment. In his First Amended Petition, he requested injunctive relief barring DFAS from paying Sandra half of his full retirement pay. The trial court signed an Agreed Temporary Injunction on June 22, 2016, in which Sandra agreed she w


CourtListener opinion 9351914

CourtListener opinion 9351914 Extracted reporter citation: 118 S.W.3d 82. Docket: 05-22-00056-CV V. Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9351914 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 9351914


CourtListener opinion 9351914

QDRO: agreed to the division of the Bank of America and Time Warner pension funds based on his belief he was getting a straight 50/50 split. He did not realize Wife's counsel "was using the term ‘shared interest of the benefit' as words of art contained within a QDRO." He asked the court to clarify the agreement because it put him at a disadvantage in receiving funds from the accounts. He also asserted he "[did] not believe that was the court's position to convey those funds on less than an even 50/50 basis." Wife filed a response and argued "the parties announced their agreement on the record and the record is cl


CourtListener opinion 9351914

retirement benefits: e court render judgment dividing the two pension plans 50/50 between the parties. After a hearing, the trial court issued a memorandum on Husband's motion to modify, correct, or reform in which it "set[] aside the agreement of the parties regarding the two retirement accounts in question." Wife filed a motion for reconsideration. After a hearing on November 15, 2019, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration from the bench. The trial judge indicated she did not believe the parties had a "meeting of the minds on this situation at all, and so it messes up the whole deal." The trial court ordered a new trial. A


CourtListener opinion 9351914

pension: isa M. Rodriguez (Wife) appeals from the final divorce decree entered on December 10, 2021. In four issues, she challenges whether a valid Rule 11 agreement was formed between her and appellee Esequiel Rodriguez, Jr. (Husband) regarding the division of two pension plans and whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside the stipulation without good cause. In a separate issue, she contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying her name change request. We affirm the trial court's judgment. 1 The Hon. Barbara Rosenberg, Justice, Assigned Background Husband and Wife married on Septembe


CourtListener opinion 9351914

valuation/division: n 50/50 basis." Wife filed a response and argued "the parties announced their agreement on the record and the record is clear." She asserted Husband's attorney's failure to understand the consequences of the agreement was not a valid reason to change the property division and was not subject to a clarification order because Husband was seeking a correction, not a clarification. She emphasized Husband failed to object to the agreement on May 8, 2019, and instead indicated his understanding of it in open court. The trial court held a hearing on Husband's motion to clarify on July 1, 2019. Husband's counsel again stated,


CourtListener opinion 9352066

CourtListener opinion 9352066 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of DARRELL P. Extracted reporter citation: 68 Cal.App.3d 515. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9352066 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 9352066


CourtListener opinion 9352066

QDRO: t. Law Offices of Gregory G. Yacoubian and Gregory G. Yacoubian for Respondent. ______________________________ In this marital dissolution case, appellant Angela M. Belthius (Angela) appeals from a postjudgment order denying her request for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and instead adopting the QDRO proposed by respondent Darrell P. Belthius (Darrell).1 We reverse and remand with directions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Marriage Angela and Darrell were married on September 14, 1985, and separated on September 1, 1995. Darrell's Employment On April 27, 1987, Darrell began working for the Los Angeles Polic


CourtListener opinion 9352066

retirement benefits: .)4 II. Community Interest in Darrell's Pension A. Applicable law In general, all property acquired by spouses during marriage but before separation is considered community property. (Lehman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 177.) This includes the property right to retirement benefits attributable to employment during marriage. (Ibid.)5 "The right to retirement 4 Darrell contends that we should apply the abuse of discretion standard of review. (See In re Marriage of Adams (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 181, 187 [method selected to distribute the community interest in retirement rights reviewed for abuse of discretion].) Because we conclude that


CourtListener opinion 9352066

pension: UND The Marriage Angela and Darrell were married on September 14, 1985, and separated on September 1, 1995. Darrell's Employment On April 27, 1987, Darrell began working for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). He joined the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension Plan on October 11, 1987. During the parties' marriage, Darrell held the rank and paygrade of Police Officer I, Police Officer II, and Police Officer III. Stipulated Judgment of Dissolution A stipulated judgment of marital dissolution was entered on May 12, 1997 (stipulated judgment). As relevant here, the stipulated judgment awarded Angela and Darrell eac


CourtListener opinion 9352066

domestic relations order: fices of Gregory G. Yacoubian and Gregory G. Yacoubian for Respondent. ______________________________ In this marital dissolution case, appellant Angela M. Belthius (Angela) appeals from a postjudgment order denying her request for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and instead adopting the QDRO proposed by respondent Darrell P. Belthius (Darrell).1 We reverse and remand with directions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Marriage Angela and Darrell were married on September 14, 1985, and separated on September 1, 1995. Darrell's Employment On April 27, 1987, Darrell began working for the Los Angeles Polic