CourtListener opinion 9956538

CourtListener opinion 9956538 Extracted case name: In re Matter of Marriage of Denning & Stokes. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: entries. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9956538 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 9956538

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 9956538

retirement benefits: his opinion. BACKGROUND Mark and appellee Cherelle M. Allen married in 1995 and separated in 2021. During the parties' marriage, Mark served in the United States Armed Forces. It is undisputed that Mark's military service entitles him to receive certain retirement benefits. 04-22-00677-CV During their divorce proceedings, Mark and Cherelle entered into a mediated settlement agreement. On April 27, 2022, the trial court signed an Agreed Final Decree of Divorce memorializing the parties' agreement. The final decree contained the following paragraphs dividing Mark's military retirement benefits: • IT IS ORDERED AND DECR


CourtListener opinion 9956538

pension: benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan." Gow v. Sevener, No. 05- 16-01037-CV, 2017 WL 5897448, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). The DRO in this case is intended "to direct a military service, rather than a civil pension plan administrator," to make payments out of Mark's retirement benefits to Cherelle. See Hicks v. Hicks, 348 S.W.3d 281, 285 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). Like a divorce decree, a DRO "is a final, appealable order." In re Matter of Marriage of Denning & Stokes, 651 S.W.3d 60, 63 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.). "The po


CourtListener opinion 9956538

alternate payee: lle contends Mark's first and -3- 04-22-00677-CV second issues lack merit because the trial court rendered the DRO at the same time it rendered the final decree. Standard of Review and Applicable Law The purpose of a DRO "is to create or recognize an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan." Gow v. Sevener, No. 05- 16-01037-CV, 2017 WL 5897448, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). The DRO in this case is intended "to direct a military service, rather than a civil pension plan administrator," to make payments out of M


CourtListener opinion 9956538

domestic relations order: ed coincident with this decree and incorporated verbatim in it by reference. 2 (emphasis added) Both Mark and his then-attorney signed the final decree, and it is undisputed that Mark agreed to its terms. On June 3, 2022, Mark filed a "Motion to Sign the Domestic Relations Order." Mark's motion stated that he "believe[d] the proposed Domestic Relations Order accurately reflects the agreements" memorialized in the final decree, and he asked the trial court to "enter the proposed 1 Mark refers to this provision as paragraph W-6. 2 Mark refers to this provision as paragraph H-10. -2- 04-22-00677-CV Domestic Relations Order, w


CourtListener opinion 9956539

CourtListener opinion 9956539 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9956539 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 9956539


CourtListener opinion 9956539

pension: LE M. ALLEN by this Court. MARK EDWIN ALLEN IS FURTHER ORDERED, after the date of this Order and absent prior authorization by order of this Court, not to do any of the following: (a) merge military member's military retired pay with any other benefit, pension or other entitlement; (b) exercise a waiver of an equivalent amount of retirement pay having the effect of reducing military member's disposable retirement pay; and (c) otherwise take or forego any action if it would have the effect of reducing or limiting CHERELLE M. ALLEN's right to receive former 04-22-00677-CV spouse's full separate property sh


CourtListener opinion 9956539

domestic relations order: nduct additional fact-finding necessary to determine which federal statutory formula or formulas must be used to calculate appellant Mark Edwin Allen's retirement pay for the purposes of determining appellee Cherelle M. Allen's share; and (3) enter an amended domestic relations order that specifies and applies the mathematical formula(s) and other requirements mandated by Chapter 10 of the United States Code, including the requirement that appellant's retirement pay be calculated as of the date of the parties' divorce, to calculate both appellant's military retirement pay and appellee's post-divorce share of that pay. We AFFIRM the re


CourtListener opinion 9957418

CourtListener opinion 9957418 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Docket: 2 is sustained. This case is remanded to the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9957418 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 9957418


CourtListener opinion 9957418

QDRO: ay would be moot. See Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. Pub. Util. Comm., 103 Ohio St.3d 398, 2004-Ohio-5466, 816 N.E.2d 238 (dismissing appeal as moot due to lack of any available remedy). Accordingly, Wife's 17th assignment of error is overruled as moot. 13. Qualified Domestic Relations Order In her 18th and final assignment of error, Wife argues that the "trial court erred and abused its discretion in adopting the qualified domestic relations order." A qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") "implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce * * *." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-O


CourtListener opinion 9957418

retirement benefits: hy [Wife] wasn't paying" the mortgage. "I think she — her position was she didn't live there anymore, so she wasn't responsible." He further testified that he ultimately paid the country club bills in an amount of "maybe 10 to $15,000. * * * I liquidated a retirement plan with a pretty substantial penalty in an effort to pay down the balances of both clubs because it was a lien on the house and another threatened lien, and we couldn't sell the house with the lien. And then I used the remaining funds to make repairs to the house that the Realtor made the recommendation that we do in an effort to get the house sold." Acco


CourtListener opinion 9957418

pension: In her 18th and final assignment of error, Wife argues that the "trial court erred and abused its discretion in adopting the qualified domestic relations order." A qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") "implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce * * *." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. A QDRO "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan." Employee Retireme


CourtListener opinion 9957418

alternate payee: domestic relations order ("QDRO") "implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce * * *." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. A QDRO "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan." Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I) and 26 U.S.C. 414(p)(1)(A)(i). "So long as the QDRO is consistent with the [divorce] decree, * * * the court does not lac


CourtListener opinion 9958276

CourtListener opinion 9958276 Extracted reporter citation: 136 N.E.3d 966. Docket: 2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9958276 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 9958276


CourtListener opinion 9958276

QDRO: ngaged in "secretive and prejudicial financial misconduct." March 3, 2023 Judgment Entry at p. 8. The trial court ordered the parties to pay the GAL expenses 65% Husband/35% Wife. The trial court ordered Husband's pension benefits from ProVia be divided by QDRO, and ordered Wife to pay for an evaluation and preparation of the QDRO. The trial court named Mother the legal custodian and residential parent of the parties' youngest child, and Husband the legal custodian and residential parent of the two older children. The trial court did not award child support, but ordered the parties' split the cost of the child


CourtListener opinion 9958276

retirement benefits: hecking and joint savings accounts with Bank of America. The joint savings account was charged a monthly maintenance fee which, according to Wife, began after Husband withdrew $200.00, and brought the account below the required balance. Wife did not have a retirement account. Husband had a retirement account through his former employer, Pepsi Beverage Company. Wife believed she was entitled to a portion of any current 401(k) Husband might have. Wife wanted Husband to pay the balances on the Bank of America credit card and the Discover Card, as well as the outstanding medical bills. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 00


CourtListener opinion 9958276

pension: ousal support was not appropriate as Wife engaged in "secretive and prejudicial financial misconduct." March 3, 2023 Judgment Entry at p. 8. The trial court ordered the parties to pay the GAL expenses 65% Husband/35% Wife. The trial court ordered Husband's pension benefits from ProVia be divided by QDRO, and ordered Wife to pay for an evaluation and preparation of the QDRO. The trial court named Mother the legal custodian and residential parent of the parties' youngest child, and Husband the legal custodian and residential parent of the two older children. The trial court did not award child support, but ordered


CourtListener opinion 9958276

401(k): d withdrew $200.00, and brought the account below the required balance. Wife did not have a retirement account. Husband had a retirement account through his former employer, Pepsi Beverage Company. Wife believed she was entitled to a portion of any current 401(k) Husband might have. Wife wanted Husband to pay the balances on the Bank of America credit card and the Discover Card, as well as the outstanding medical bills. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0021 7 {¶14} Wife was unable to work full-time due to the needs of the parties' youngest child. Wife expressed her desire to be named the legal custodian


CourtListener opinion 9958396

CourtListener opinion 9958396 Extracted reporter citation: 136 N.E.3d 966. Docket: 2023 AP 03 0021 8 trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9958396 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 9958396

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 9958396


CourtListener opinion 9958638

CourtListener opinion 9958638 Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 823. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9958638 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 9958638


CourtListener opinion 9958638

QDRO: ls, 6th Dist. No. L- No. 23AP-140 30 09-1190, 2010-Ohio-3525, ¶ 14, and Makar v. Makar, 7th Dist. No. 02-CA-37, 2003-Ohio- 1071, ¶ 20. {¶ 96} In Hoyt, the Supreme Court of Ohio approved the division of a vested but unmatured pension benefit by the use of a qualified domestic relations order but rejected the claim that the trial court must always use the present vested value of a plan in reaching its division of property. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d at 183-84. And, indeed, in Daniel, the court held that use of the coverture fraction to divide unmatured pension benefits—whether at the time of divorce or later—is a "reasonable method[] of achieving equit


CourtListener opinion 9958638

retirement benefits: issued a decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law on the various issues contested by the parties. In relevant part, the trial court valued Ms. Bricker's vested but unmatured Revlon pension at $1 (first assignment of error); awarded Ms. Bricker's retirement accounts to her, alone, on account of Mr. Hall's financial misconduct and/or equity (second assignment of error); found Mr. Hall solely responsible for the balance owed on the HELOC debt, including the $22,330.86 paid by Ms. Bricker after Mr. Hall stopped making payments (third assignment No. 23AP-140 3 of error); and awarded Mr. Hall $36,052.50 after calculating


CourtListener opinion 9958638

pension: proposed decrees of divorce. On January 30, 2023, the trial court issued a decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law on the various issues contested by the parties. In relevant part, the trial court valued Ms. Bricker's vested but unmatured Revlon pension at $1 (first assignment of error); awarded Ms. Bricker's retirement accounts to her, alone, on account of Mr. Hall's financial misconduct and/or equity (second assignment of error); found Mr. Hall solely responsible for the balance owed on the HELOC debt, including the $22,330.86 paid by Ms. Bricker after Mr. Hall stopped making payments (third assignment


CourtListener opinion 9958638

401(k): of the parties' marriage. (See, e.g., Tr. Vol. I at 37-42; Tr. Vol. III at 559, Tr. Vol. IV at 617, 630-45, 658-59, 679. See generally Divorce Decree at 6.) On the de facto termination date of the parties' marriage, October 9, 2017, Ms. Bricker owned several defined contribution retirement accounts, which the trial court found had a total cash value of $579,423. (See Divorce Decree at 6.) She also had a vested pension from Revlon with a monthly benefit of $1,877 when it matures on July 1, 2026. (Ex. 35. Compare Divorce Decree at 6.) In contrast, Mr. Hall had no marital retirement accounts subject to division and allocation between


CourtListener opinion 9961630

CourtListener opinion 9961630 Extracted case name: MR JOSEPH DAVID WILLETT APPELLANT APPEAL FROM UNION FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE BRANDI H. ROGERS. Extracted reporter citation: 218 S.W.3d 395. Docket: 2023-CA-0490-MR JOSEPH DAVID WILLETT APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9961630 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 9961630


CourtListener opinion 9961630

QDRO: be divided equally and each party will receive $766.32 per month. Commencing July 1, 2014, the Husband shall pay to the Wife the sum of $766.32 per month representing her portion of his military retirement. He shall continue to do so until such time as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order has been entered and the Wife has begun receiving those benefits directly from the military. On February 24, 2023, Wife filed a pro se motion seeking to recover the value of the annual COLA that Husband had been receiving as part of his military retirement benefits.1 In response, Husband argued that the Agreement 1 Wife further asserted that Husband


CourtListener opinion 9961630

retirement benefits: UDGE: Appellant, Joseph David Willett ("Husband"), appeals from a post-decree order of the Union Family Court directing him to pay Appellee, Shannon Michelle Willett ("Wife"), the value of Cost-of-Living Adjustments ("COLA") from the marital portion of his retirement benefits. Because Husband failed to show that he properly reserved his allegations of error, we review the Family Court's order for manifest injustice. Finding no such manifest injustice, we affirm. The relevant facts of this matter are as follows. Husband and Wife married in 1988 and separated in 2014. Two children were born of the marriage, but only one is


CourtListener opinion 9961630

pension: has attained the age of 70. Upon the occurrence of these events the cost will terminate but the coverage will continue. The Wife wishes to continue this coverage and therefore, prior to the disbursement to the Wife of her portion of the Husband's military pension the cost of said coverage will be deducted from the total -2- monthly benefit. The Husband enlisted in the military approximately two months prior to the marriage and was in the military for a total of 241 months. The Husband is entitled to a non-marital interest in said military retirement benefits to be computed as follows: 2 (the number of mont


CourtListener opinion 9961630

domestic relations order: equally and each party will receive $766.32 per month. Commencing July 1, 2014, the Husband shall pay to the Wife the sum of $766.32 per month representing her portion of his military retirement. He shall continue to do so until such time as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order has been entered and the Wife has begun receiving those benefits directly from the military. On February 24, 2023, Wife filed a pro se motion seeking to recover the value of the annual COLA that Husband had been receiving as part of his military retirement benefits.1 In response, Husband argued that the Agreement 1 Wife further asserted that Husband


CourtListener opinion 9962027

CourtListener opinion 9962027 Extracted reporter citation: 219 F.3d 1332. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9962027 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 9962027


CourtListener opinion 9962027

QDRO: cision, DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and DENY the cross petition for review. BACKGROUND The appellant filed a Board appeal of OPM's reconsideration decision, which found that she had been overpaid FERS survivor annuity benefits because of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which awarded 50% of her late husband's gross monthly annuity to his former spouse. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 5. During the processing of the appeal, the agency rescinded the reconsideration decision, and requested that the appeal be dismissed. IAF, Tab 5 at 4. The administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal on the ground


CourtListener opinion 9962027

domestic relations order: SMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and DENY the cross petition for review. BACKGROUND The appellant filed a Board appeal of OPM's reconsideration decision, which found that she had been overpaid FERS survivor annuity benefits because of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which awarded 50% of her late husband's gross monthly annuity to his former spouse. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 5. During the processing of the appeal, the agency rescinded the reconsideration decision, and requested that the appeal be dismissed. IAF, Tab 5 at 4. The administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal on the ground


CourtListener opinion 9962027

survivor benefits: led a petition for review and the appellant has filed a cross petition for review of the initial decision, which dismissed the appeal of the reconsideration decision issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) finding that the appellant was overpaid in survivor annuity benefits under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). For the reasons discussed 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow


CourtListener opinion 9962149

CourtListener opinion 9962149 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9962149 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 9962149


CourtListener opinion 9962149

QDRO: oner Toni McKinney appeals the Family Court of Raleigh County's August 15, 2023, order granting Respondent Gary McKinney's motion to require asset division, which sought either an order compelling Ms. McKinney to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") or in the alternative an order declaring her interest in Mr. McKinney's pension plan waived. The family court concluded that, because Ms. McKinney failed to appear for a status hearing, her interest in the pension proceeds were waived. Mr. McKinney filed a response in favor of the family court's order.1 Ms. McKinney did not file a reply. This Court has


CourtListener opinion 9962149

pension: , order granting Respondent Gary McKinney's motion to require asset division, which sought either an order compelling Ms. McKinney to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") or in the alternative an order declaring her interest in Mr. McKinney's pension plan waived. The family court concluded that, because Ms. McKinney failed to appear for a status hearing, her interest in the pension proceeds were waived. Mr. McKinney filed a response in favor of the family court's order.1 Ms. McKinney did not file a reply. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51- 11-4 (2022). Af


CourtListener opinion 9962162

CourtListener opinion 9962162 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9962162 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 9962162

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 9962162

QDRO: on August 14, 2023. Relevant to this appeal, the final order held the following: 1. Husband owes Wife $152,919.42 for her share of equitable distribution. Husband will refinance marital home and pay Wife $76,459.70. The remainder will be paid to Wife via QDRO from Husband's 401(k). 2. The most equitable way for Husband to pay Wife's share of equitable distribution is to refinance the marital home and pay Wife $76,459.70 from the refinance balance, which will allow access to immediate cash. 3. The parties will alternate parenting time with a week-on/week-off schedule, with exchanges every Friday at 4:00. 4.


CourtListener opinion 9962162

401(k): Relevant to this appeal, the final order held the following: 1. Husband owes Wife $152,919.42 for her share of equitable distribution. Husband will refinance marital home and pay Wife $76,459.70. The remainder will be paid to Wife via QDRO from Husband's 401(k). 2. The most equitable way for Husband to pay Wife's share of equitable distribution is to refinance the marital home and pay Wife $76,459.70 from the refinance balance, which will allow access to immediate cash. 3. The parties will alternate parenting time with a week-on/week-off schedule, with exchanges every Friday at 4:00. 4. The children will spe


CourtListener opinion 9962162

valuation/division: ns of law, but the family court chose to adopt Husband's and incorporated them into the final divorce order, which was entered on August 14, 2023. Relevant to this appeal, the final order held the following: 1. Husband owes Wife $152,919.42 for her share of equitable distribution. Husband will refinance marital home and pay Wife $76,459.70. The remainder will be paid to Wife via QDRO from Husband's 401(k). 2. The most equitable way for Husband to pay Wife's share of equitable distribution is to refinance the marital home and pay Wife $76,459.70 from the refinance balance, which will allow access to immediate cash. 3. The parti


CourtListener opinion 9962341

CourtListener opinion 9962341 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. NCP. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9962341 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 9962341


CourtListener opinion 9962341

QDRO: s a limited exception to Rule 1:1. Code § 20-107.3(K) permits the circuit court to enter orders "necessary to effectuate and enforce any order" entered pursuant to that code section. Under this exception, a court retains jurisdiction to enter or maintain a qualified domestic relations order dividing a party's retirement account after the expiration of the 21 days. Williams v. Williams, 32 Va. App. 72, 75 (2000). That order, however, "must be ‘consistent with the substantive provisions of the original decree.'" Id. (quoting Caudle v. Caudle, 18 Va. App. 795, 798 (1994)). As explained above, the MSA, as incorporated into the divorce decree,


CourtListener opinion 9962341

retirement benefits: ent reached by the parties as to the division of all retirement accounts and in accordance with the requirements of each plan." On May 19, 2022, the parties executed a MSA dividing their assets. Paragraph 17 sets out the parties' agreement relating to the retirement accounts and pensions as follows: By Consent Order Regarding Retirement Assets (Weimer, C.) (hereinafter referred to as "Consent Order") entered on March 8, 2022, in the Divorce Action, the Parties reached an agreement as to the division of the marital portions of their respective retirement accounts referenced on Exhibits "1" and "2" of the Consent Order.[4


CourtListener opinion 9962341

pension: f), for appellant. Jeff Evan Lowinger (Cheryl M. New; Melissa L. Schefkind; New & Lowinger, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Appellant David Renberg ("husband")1 appeals the circuit court's entry of a qualifying court order ("QCO") dividing his military pension. He argues that the circuit court erred entering the QCO because the QCO required him to list Julia Renberg ("wife") as the beneficiary of the survivor benefit plan ("SBP") connected to his military pension in contravention of the terms of the parties' marital settlement agreement ("MSA") and the divorce decree. He also argues that the circuit court


CourtListener opinion 9962341

domestic relations order: d exception to Rule 1:1. Code § 20-107.3(K) permits the circuit court to enter orders "necessary to effectuate and enforce any order" entered pursuant to that code section. Under this exception, a court retains jurisdiction to enter or maintain a qualified domestic relations order dividing a party's retirement account after the expiration of the 21 days. Williams v. Williams, 32 Va. App. 72, 75 (2000). That order, however, "must be ‘consistent with the substantive provisions of the original decree.'" Id. (quoting Caudle v. Caudle, 18 Va. App. 795, 798 (1994)). As explained above, the MSA, as incorporated into the divorce decree,


CourtListener opinion 9962442

CourtListener opinion 9962442 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9962442 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 9962442


CourtListener opinion 9962442

retirement benefits: payment determination was unlawful or improper. 6 See 5 U.S.C. § 8421 (listing the requirements for an entitlement to an annuity supplement); Edney v. Office of Personnel Management, 79 M.S.P.R. 60, ¶ 6 (1998) (explaining that if an applicant is entitled to a retirement benefit, then OPM is obligated to provide the benefit; and, if she is not, OPM is obligated to deny the benefit); see generally Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 416, 434 (1990) (holding that the Government cannot be estopped from denying benefits not otherwise permitted by law, even if the claimant was denied monetary benefits because of hi


CourtListener opinion 9962442

domestic relations order: pouse to receive "a pro-rata share of [his] gross monthly [FERS] annuity." Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 4-7. The appellant received a basic annuity and an annuity supplement. Id. at 8-12. In July 2016, OPM determined that, when a qualifying state court domestic relations order awarded a former spouse a portion of an annuitant's gross monthly annuity, OPM must deduct the apportionment from all monthly annuity payments, including the basic annuity and any annuity supplement, even if the order did not specifically address the annuity supplement. IAF, Tab 6 at 24-25, Tab 11 at 4. OPM applied its policy retroactively and prospectively


CourtListener opinion 9963458

CourtListener opinion 9963458 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Docket: 1 and incorporated by reference. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9963458 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 9963458


CourtListener opinion 9963458

QDRO: 's] remarriage or cohabitation with an unrelated male tantamount to remarriage. The Court retains jurisdiction to modify the spousal support order. *** IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the parties work together to complete the final two QDRO to facilitate the division of [Husband's] Lincoln (nka Valic) account and [Husband's] annuity within sixty days of journalization of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that CJFS-OCSS shall release the stay of disbursement and determine based upon the newly modified spousal support order how the monies currently on hold shall be d


CourtListener opinion 9963458

retirement benefits: ge of 66 and 10 months for a total annual income of $31,000. *** [Husband's] approximate retirement income is anticipated at $63,700 from his prior employment, which seems low (based upon his actual salary at Akron's Children hospital and his additional retirement plans) and $45,600 from social security for a total of $109,000. Based upon all of these factors, the Court determined that [Wife] receives $2,500 x 12 months for a yearly total of $30,000 as spousal support results in a fair spousal obligation. [Husband's] Motion to Modify Support is granted and, effective February 5, 2019, [Husband] is ordered to pay to


CourtListener opinion 9963458

401(k): hearing. The Café is described as the first and only hammock café in the United States. Wife did not know what her salary would be at this start up. The evidence revealed that Wife contributed approximately $635,000 into the Café, including $250,000 from a 401K plan that was transferred to the corporation's business account. According to the testimony, Wife is entitled to receive $513 a month in social security benefits once she turns 67.5. Throughout the marriage, Wife volunteered and was an education advocate for their son. According to Wife, the son was bullied in high school and suffers from anxiety and


CourtListener opinion 9963458

valuation/division: of my retirement there will be a substantial decrease in my income. (Motion, Feb. 5, 2019.) In response, Wife, filed five pro se motions — a motion denying termination, a motion to retroactively increase support payments, a motion to order payment of all property divisions, a motion for accounting, and a motion for discovery sanctions. In June 2019, both parties filed motions to strike and Wife filed a pro se motion to dismiss. The matter proceeded to a hearing before the magistrate on October 3, 2019, and was continued to December 20, 2019. Present at the hearing were Wife, pro se, and Husband, along with his two atto


CourtListener opinion 9965326

CourtListener opinion 9965326 Extracted reporter citation: 379 S.W.3d 267. Docket: equalization efforts. Tex. Gov. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9965326 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 9965326

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 9965326

QDRO: t, § Appeal from v. § 365th District Court of HAL FRANK BOWLES, § of Maverick County, Texas Appellee. § (TC# 18-05-35711-MCVAJA) MEMORANDUM OPINION In six issues, Cynthia Paola Bowles appeals the trial court's order denying her motion to vacate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), challenging the order as void. Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the QDRO, we reverse and render judgment declaring the QDRO void as a matter of law. BACKGROUND After about nine years of marriage to Hal Frank Bowles, Cynthia filed for divorce in the 365th District Court of Maverick County. 1 The trial court entered th


CourtListener opinion 9965326

retirement benefits: the Texas Supreme Court's docket equalization efforts. Tex. Gov't Code Ann.§ 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3. 1 rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 40l(k) plan, existing by reason of the Petitioner's past, present, or future employment: LESS THE SUM OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($10.000.00) from CYNTHIA PAOLA BOWLES Teacher's Retirement System, which will be paid to HAL FRANK BOWLES. The trial court likewise awarded to Hal: The su


CourtListener opinion 9965326

pension: ket equalization efforts. Tex. Gov't Code Ann.§ 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3. 1 rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 40l(k) plan, existing by reason of the Petitioner's past, present, or future employment: LESS THE SUM OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($10.000.00) from CYNTHIA PAOLA BOWLES Teacher's Retirement System, which will be paid to HAL FRANK BOWLES. The trial court likewise awarded to Hal: The sum of TEN THOUSAND DOL


CourtListener opinion 9965326

alternate payee: motions in the trial court. On June 3, 2019, Hal sought a QDRO by filing a proposed order into the parties' divorce case but did not serve it on Cynthia. Nonetheless, the trial court signed and entered the order on June 7. The order designated Hal as the alternate payee of Cynthia's Teacher Retirement System (TRS) plan to receive a portion of her benefits under the divorce decree. It also contained a special instruction, stating that Hal was not to "receive more than a total of $10,000.00 plus interest, calculated from the end date of division to the date of distribution to the Alternate Payee begins . . . ." Cynthia


CourtListener opinion 9965580

CourtListener opinion 9965580 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Breslow. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1-24-0143 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9965580 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 9965580


CourtListener opinion 9965580

QDRO: topped paying the premiums on the life-insurance policies he was required to maintain. The other petition pertained to the transfer of Jaqueline's portion of Beau's retirement accounts. It alleged not only that Beau had failed to take any action to have the qualified domestic relations orders prepared but that the accounts had been liquidated without notice to Jacqueline by his former employer, United Automobile Insurance Company (United Auto), which is a company owned in part by Beau along with his brother and his father. Beau filed responses in which he blamed his failure to make support payments on the loss of his job, denied being requi


CourtListener opinion 9965580

retirement benefits: sal support, as required by the parties' premarital agreement, (3) make monthly payments of $100,000 to pay down the mortgage on Jacqueline's home, (4) maintain $10,000,000 in life insurance, and (5) transfer to Jacqueline 50% of the marital portion of two retirement accounts that were in Beau's name. To facilitate the transfer of the retirement accounts, the dissolution judgment named an attorney who would prepare qualified domestic relations orders (see 26 U.S.C. § 414(p) (2018)) and directed Beau to furnish that attorney with any documents she requested. ¶5 Three years later, in April 2023, Jacqueline filed a pair of pet


CourtListener opinion 9965580

domestic relations order: in life insurance, and (5) transfer to Jacqueline 50% of the marital portion of two retirement accounts that were in Beau's name. To facilitate the transfer of the retirement accounts, the dissolution judgment named an attorney who would prepare qualified domestic relations orders (see 26 U.S.C. § 414(p) (2018)) and directed Beau to furnish that attorney with any documents she requested. ¶5 Three years later, in April 2023, Jacqueline filed a pair of petitions seeking rules to show cause why Beau should not be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the dissolution judgment. One petition involved Beau's ongoing financial ob


CourtListener opinion 9967252

CourtListener opinion 9967252 Docket: 30592 Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9967252 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 9967252

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 9967252

QDRO: of child support, or (2) the judgment states that there is no just reason for delay and that the court lacks jurisdiction to determine any issues that remain. Accordingly, a divorce decree is a final, appealable order, regardless of whether it calls for a QDRO that has not yet issued; the QDRO merely implements the divorce decree."). {¶7} Accordingly, Wife's sole assignment of error is overruled. APPEAL-ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT FINDING A DE FACTO TERMINATION DATE OF THE PARTIES' MARRIAGE. {¶8} In his first assignment of error, Husband argues the trial court abuse


CourtListener opinion 9967472

CourtListener opinion 9967472 Docket: 30592 Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9967472 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 9967472


CourtListener opinion 9972526

CourtListener opinion 9972526 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9972526 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 9972526


CourtListener opinion 9972526

QDRO: ney fees. The circuit court ordered husband to pay the pension arrears and attorney fees "not later than 14 days after the closing on the sale of" certain real estate, "or January 10, 2023, whichever first occurs." The circuit court subsequently entered a qualified domestic relations order and a final order of divorce, which incorporated the marital agreement and the "Memorandum Opinion and Order."3 Husband moved to reconsider the ruling regarding his pension, which the circuit court denied based on a lack of jurisdiction.4 Husband timely noted his appeal to this Court. Thereafter, on January 10, 2023, husband paid the pension arrears a


CourtListener opinion 9972526

retirement benefits: the coverture fraction should be applied to the individual parts of the pension. He asserted that each subpart was like a different pension plan and had to be divided separately. Husband emphasized that wife was "only entitled to 50% of the portion of his retirement benefits received between May 24, 1980 to October 6, 2000," and not any portion of Parts C or D. Wife, on the other hand, argued that the coverture fraction should be applied to the total monthly annuity. She contends that the numerator of the coverture fraction should be the number of months between the date of marriage, May 24, 1980, and the date in their agre


CourtListener opinion 9972526

pension: s, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Susan M. Butler (ShounBach, on brief), for appellee. Steven E. Vivirito (husband) appeals a final order of divorce, challenging the circuit court's interpretation of the parties' marital agreement and division of his pension benefits. Husband argues that the circuit court failed "to adhere" to the terms of the marital agreement when it determined the equitable distribution award for his retirement because the circuit court erroneously calculated Anne Marie Vivirito's (wife) share. He further contends that by using an incorrect formula, the circuit court erred by determi


CourtListener opinion 9972526

domestic relations order: The circuit court ordered husband to pay the pension arrears and attorney fees "not later than 14 days after the closing on the sale of" certain real estate, "or January 10, 2023, whichever first occurs." The circuit court subsequently entered a qualified domestic relations order and a final order of divorce, which incorporated the marital agreement and the "Memorandum Opinion and Order."3 Husband moved to reconsider the ruling regarding his pension, which the circuit court denied based on a lack of jurisdiction.4 Husband timely noted his appeal to this Court. Thereafter, on January 10, 2023, husband paid the pension arrears a


CourtListener opinion 9972694

CourtListener opinion 9972694 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Figliulo. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-23-1161 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9972694 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 9972694

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 9972694

QDRO: erly amended the Order to reflect the parties' intent expressed in the unambiguous language of the judgment to award Dawn a percentage of the pension benefit William would actually receive. ¶ 31 In Hall, the court upheld the trial court's modification of a QDRO to reflect the petitioner's interest in all of the respondent's retirement plans and not certain specified plans. In re Marriage of Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 166. The court held that the "petitioner is not seeking to 10 1-23-1161 impose new or different obligations on the parties. Rather, she is attempting to enforce the parties' rights and obligatio


CourtListener opinion 9972694

retirement benefits: QUILDRO regarding William's pension. The QUILDRO states it "is entered to implement a division of the party's [sic] interest in the retirement system." The QUILDRO directed the pension plan to pay the alternate payee (Dawn) 50% of the member's (William's) retirement benefit. ¶9 In 2015, William was arrested and charged with perjury, official misconduct, and obstruction of justice connected to his employment as a police officer. William was convicted in 2016 but remained employed until his resignation and retirement in May 2019. William applied for his retirement benefits and initially, the pension plan awarded William a mo


CourtListener opinion 9972694

pension: e facto motion to modify the judgment because the motion sought to engraft a new responsibility on petitioner; the trial court had jurisdiction to amend the Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Calculation Court Order to reflect the change in petitioner's pension. ¶2 In October 2013, the circuit court of Cook County entered a judgment of dissolution of the marriage of Dawn and William Pruente which incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA). William was a Chicago Police officer. The trial court entered a Qualified Illinois 1-23-1161 Domestic Relations Order (QUILDRO) with regard to William's pension and


CourtListener opinion 9972694

alternate payee: .]" ¶8 On October 25, 2013, the trial court entered the QUILDRO regarding William's pension. The QUILDRO states it "is entered to implement a division of the party's [sic] interest in the retirement system." The QUILDRO directed the pension plan to pay the alternate payee (Dawn) 50% of the member's (William's) retirement benefit. ¶9 In 2015, William was arrested and charged with perjury, official misconduct, and obstruction of justice connected to his employment as a police officer. William was convicted in 2016 but remained employed until his resignation and retirement in May 2019. William applied for his retirement be


CourtListener opinion 9972944

CourtListener opinion 9972944 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LONNIE DALE NYE AND HEATHER MARIE NYE Upon the Petition of LONNIE DALE NYE. Extracted reporter citation: 966 N.W.2d 630. Docket: 23-0350. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9972944 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 9972944


CourtListener opinion 9972944

QDRO: Mr. Peabody and Sherman may have had the luxury of the "wayback machine," but that doesn't mean the courts can revisit decrees due to the supreme court's clarification. The amended 5 decree herein clearly sets forth the parties' intent. Furthermore, a QDRO was provided to the court as instructed. The marital property order, signed by the attorneys for both parties, identifies [Heather] as an alternate payee. The following language is included in the order prepared by [Lonnie]'s attorney: 1. The Alternate Payee is awarded a dollar amount of the monthly pension from the System to which the Member is otherw


CourtListener opinion 9972944

retirement benefits: a chapter 411 ordinary disability benefit are income and not property and thus not subject to equitable division because they replace income that an individual would have earned if not for an injury causing the disability." According to Lonnie, "as [his] retirement account is a benefit [he] earned under [c]hapter 411, it is now classified as income and therefore no longer subject to distribution." Following a hearing, the district court entered an order denying Lonnie's petition for modification. Lonnie appeals. II. Standard of Review "A proceeding to modify . . . a marriage dissolution decree subsequent to its entry


CourtListener opinion 9972944

pension: and Badding and Langholz, JJ. 2 BOWER, Chief Judge. Twelve years after a property settlement was reached between Lonnie Nye and Heather Gadue, Lonnie filed a petition for modification of the parties' decree, which awarded Heather half of his retirement pension. Lonnie claimed a change of circumstances stemming from his diagnosis with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and initiation of disability payments from his pension. Lonnie challenged Heather's receipt of half of the monthly disability benefit payments and sought to classify these payments as spousal support subject to modification. The district cou


CourtListener opinion 9972944

alternate payee: reme court's clarification. The amended 5 decree herein clearly sets forth the parties' intent. Furthermore, a QDRO was provided to the court as instructed. The marital property order, signed by the attorneys for both parties, identifies [Heather] as an alternate payee. The following language is included in the order prepared by [Lonnie]'s attorney: 1. The Alternate Payee is awarded a dollar amount of the monthly pension from the System to which the Member is otherwise entitled: $501.00. The Alternate Payee shall not be entitled to a proportionate share of any increases in the Member's pension upon entry of this Ord


CourtListener opinion 9974309

CourtListener opinion 9974309 Extracted reporter citation: 783 N.E.2d 623. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9974309 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 9974309


CourtListener opinion 9974309

QDRO: gation to appellee, Tatiana Dilley ("Ms. Dilley"). Critically, Mr. Dilley failed to object to and/or appeal this original decision. Mr. Dilley appeals the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas that denied his "motion for submission of amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order[s] ("QDRO"), nunc pro tun[c]." {¶2} Mr. Dilley raises one assignment of error, contending the trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law by denying his motion for amended QDROs. {¶3} After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find Mr. Dilley's assignment of error to be without merit since it is barred by the doctrin


CourtListener opinion 9974309

retirement benefits: ardon, OH 44024 (Plaintiff- Appellant). Tatiana Dilley, pro se, 8140 Mayfield Road, Apt. B, Chesterland, OH 44026 (Defendant- Appellee). MARY JANE TRAPP, J. {¶1} The instant appeal is another attempt by appellant, William Dilley ("Mr. Dilley"), to recoup retirement benefits/disbursements that the trial court allocated upon the termination of Mr. Dilley's spousal support obligation to appellee, Tatiana Dilley ("Ms. Dilley"). Critically, Mr. Dilley failed to object to and/or appeal this original decision. Mr. Dilley appeals the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas that denied his "motion for submission of ame


CourtListener opinion 9974309

pension: overpaid spousal support but was not entitled to reimbursement. Mr. Dilley failed to object and/or appeal the trial court's judgment entries, and the trial court issued amended QDROs to Citigroup, which administered a Citi Cash Balance Plan and a Shearson Pension, both already in pay status for the parties. {¶6} Mr. Dilley filed several motions, which included a motion requesting reimbursement for spousal support overpayments and amended QDROs because Citigroup requested additional language to effectuate the orders as well as a motion for recoupment. The trial court denied Mr. Dilley's motions and issued amend


CourtListener opinion 9974309

domestic relations order: appellee, Tatiana Dilley ("Ms. Dilley"). Critically, Mr. Dilley failed to object to and/or appeal this original decision. Mr. Dilley appeals the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas that denied his "motion for submission of amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order[s] ("QDRO"), nunc pro tun[c]." {¶2} Mr. Dilley raises one assignment of error, contending the trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law by denying his motion for amended QDROs. {¶3} After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find Mr. Dilley's assignment of error to be without merit since it is barred by the doctrin


CourtListener opinion 9975141

CourtListener opinion 9975141 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9975141 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 9975141


CourtListener opinion 9975141

QDRO: at application listed all four retirement options available to the former husband and the benefits, if any, Appellant would receive upon his death. See § 121.091(6)(a)1.–4., Fla. Stat. Appellant's marriage to the former husband was dissolved in 2003 and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered by the court required that Appellant remain the designated beneficiary for purposes of the former husband's FRS retirement benefit. Under the QDRO, the former husband was prohibited from removing Appellant as the beneficiary of his retirement account during Appellant's lifetime. However, the QDRO did not and could not change benefits accrued


CourtListener opinion 9975141

retirement benefits: s from the former husband's retirement date. At this point, section 121.091(6)(a)2. no longer provided for any survivor benefits upon the death of the former husband. The former husband died in 2017, more than nineteen years after his retirement date, and the retirement benefits payable to him expired upon his death. Thus, no retirement benefits were payable to Appellant under section 121.091(6)(a)2. The Department did not misinterpret section 121.091 or any administrative rule promulgated to carry out the statute. See § 120.68(7)(d)–(e), Fla. Stat. The agency final action is therefore AFFIRMED. 2 B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and


CourtListener opinion 9975141

pension: ry ground to set aside the final order, we must affirm. See § 120.68(8), Fla. Stat. (2023). The facts were undisputed. Appellant's former husband retired on July 1, 1998. Under section 121.091(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1998), governing payout options for FRS pension plan retirees, the former husband chose option 2 and named Appellant as his beneficiary. Option 2 provides that a monthly retirement benefit will be paid to the retiree for life, but if the retiree dies during the first ten years after retirement, then the beneficiary receives "the same monthly amount payable for the balance of such 10-year period." § 121.


CourtListener opinion 9975141

domestic relations order: tion listed all four retirement options available to the former husband and the benefits, if any, Appellant would receive upon his death. See § 121.091(6)(a)1.–4., Fla. Stat. Appellant's marriage to the former husband was dissolved in 2003 and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered by the court required that Appellant remain the designated beneficiary for purposes of the former husband's FRS retirement benefit. Under the QDRO, the former husband was prohibited from removing Appellant as the beneficiary of his retirement account during Appellant's lifetime. However, the QDRO did not and could not change benefits accrued


CourtListener opinion 9975580

CourtListener opinion 9975580 Extracted case name: S.R. v. S.R. Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Docket: shows that Melvin filed 11 motions for continuance. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9975580 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 9975580

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 9975580

QDRO: ara] in obtaining a term life insurance policy on [Melvin's] life with [Barbara] named as the owner and sole beneficiary of the policy, in the amount of $1,000,000. (Or the actual amount needed to secure [Barbara's] full payment/benefit amt., as determined by QDRO consultants, including [Barbara's] share of DROP. [Melvin] shall cooperate in the completion of any necessary paperwork, forms, physicals, etc., necessary to secure such term insurance coverage. An application to secure the XXXX $1 million term policy shall be made, by [Melvin], by 3/12/13. The parties shall maintain such term life insurance policy in full


CourtListener opinion 9975580

pension: lvin filed a motion to modify division of property, arguing that "he has come to learn" that the property division "is in accurate [sic] and needs to be modified." Melvin further stated that "there are numerous error [sic] in the calculation of the monthly pension amount, periodic payments amount and lump sum benefit." The court denied this motion on December 18, 2014, finding that Melvin failed to "point the Court to specific errors in the [division of property] or identify any inconsistency between the [division of property] and the parties' [divorce decree and separation] agreement." Melvin appealed the "the


CourtListener opinion 9975580

domestic relations order: eliminated. Melvin cites no law to support his ask. The one case that he does cite, Karabogias v. Zoltansky, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111062, 2023-Ohio-227, ¶ 4, stands for the proposition that the trial court had the authority to issue an amended qualified domestic relations order to clarify the valuation dates of certain marital assets when the original order "stated that each item of marital property ‘will not be valued as of January 8, 2019,'" which was the date the divorce trial began. We find that Karabogias has no application to the case at hand. Additionally, this court has consistently held that "[i]f evidence, authorit


CourtListener opinion 9975580

valuation/division: consented to [the] court having continued jurisdiction over the division of retirement assets * * *." Neither party appealed these rulings. On June 30, 2014, Melvin filed a motion to modify division of property, arguing that "he has come to learn" that the property division "is in accurate [sic] and needs to be modified." Melvin further stated that "there are numerous error [sic] in the calculation of the monthly pension amount, periodic payments amount and lump sum benefit." The court denied this motion on December 18, 2014, finding that Melvin failed to "point the Court to specific errors in the [division of property] o


CourtListener opinion 9975711

CourtListener opinion 9975711 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of KENNETH JAMES PHIPPS and JEAN AMBER PHIPPS. KENNETH JAMES PHIPPS. Extracted reporter citation: 234 F.3d 415. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9975711 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 9975711


CourtListener opinion 9975711

QDRO: PS and JEAN AMBER PHIPPS. KENNETH JAMES PHIPPS, Plaintiff and Appellant, A163407 v. (Contra Costa County JEAN AMBER PHIPPS, Super. Ct. No. D89-07997) Defendant and Respondent. Kenneth James Phipps appeals after the trial court ordered him to sign a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) enforcing the interest of his former spouse, Jean Amber Phipps (aka Greer), in his defined benefit pension plan. He also challenges the court's order requiring him to pay "any reasonable costs associated with his bad faith refusal to cooperate with preparation of the QDRO." Phipps contends the trial court erred by failing to consider equitable defens


CourtListener opinion 9975711

retirement benefits: opportunity to be heard on the issue of sanctions. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court's decision. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Phipps and Greer were married in September 1978. During the marriage, Phipps was a participant in an employment retirement plan called the "Western State Insulators and Allied Workers' Pension Plan" (hereafter the pension plan). A. Marital Dissolution Proceedings In November 1989, Phipps petitioned for dissolution of marriage. On October 29, 1991, the trial court issued an order memorializing the parties' "Stipulation Resolving Some Community Property Issues" (hereafter the 1991


CourtListener opinion 9975711

pension: . No. D89-07997) Defendant and Respondent. Kenneth James Phipps appeals after the trial court ordered him to sign a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) enforcing the interest of his former spouse, Jean Amber Phipps (aka Greer), in his defined benefit pension plan. He also challenges the court's order requiring him to pay "any reasonable costs associated with his bad faith refusal to cooperate with preparation of the QDRO." Phipps contends the trial court erred by failing to consider equitable defenses of laches and unclean hands, inadequately addressing documentary evidence presented at trial, excluding materia


CourtListener opinion 9975711

ERISA: d during the marriage between September 9, 1978, and the date of separation, November 10, 1989, being $351.51 per month." The 1991 order expressly called for a QDRO1 to be 1 Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; ERISA), as amended by the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (Pub.L.No. 98-397 (Aug. 23, 1984) 98 Stat. 1426), "QDROs are a subset of ‘domestic relations orders' (‘DROs'); DROs are any orders relating ‘to the provision of child support, alimony, or marital property rights to a spouse, 2 "initially prepared by counsel for [Phipps] and approved by counsel for [Greer]


CourtListener opinion 9978147

CourtListener opinion 9978147 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9978147 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 9978147


CourtListener opinion 9978147

QDRO: . an equalizing payment of $258,275.00.3 Of the amount owed, $100,000.00 was to be paid in cash within 90 days of the entry of the final divorce decree. The remaining amount was to be paid to Vonda M. from Luke M.'s employer sponsored retirement account via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO").4 Luke M. was a physician working at Webster County Memorial Hospital and participated in a retirement plan sponsored by the hospital. Following the entry of the agreed final order in the divorce action on June 29, 2018, Luke M. delivered two checks made out jointly to Vonda M. and his divorce attorney, in the amount of $100,000 for the initial e


CourtListener opinion 9978147

retirement benefits: Esq. 1 and pay Vonda M. an equalizing payment of $258,275.00.3 Of the amount owed, $100,000.00 was to be paid in cash within 90 days of the entry of the final divorce decree. The remaining amount was to be paid to Vonda M. from Luke M.'s employer sponsored retirement account via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO").4 Luke M. was a physician working at Webster County Memorial Hospital and participated in a retirement plan sponsored by the hospital. Following the entry of the agreed final order in the divorce action on June 29, 2018, Luke M. delivered two checks made out jointly to Vonda M. and his divorce attorney, in


CourtListener opinion 9978147

pension: final order of divorce." Jones v. West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System, 235 W. Va. 602, 613, 775 S.E.2d 483, 494 (2015). Our Supreme Court has also held that "a QDRO is merely the vehicle by which a former spouse seeks to enforce an interest in a pension plan that has already been determined to exist." Id. at 617, 775 S.E.2d at 498. We note that the circuit court found that Vonda M. waived her rights under the property settlement agreement when she failed to submit a QDRO within the specific timeframe ordered by the circuit court. In Kinsinger v. Pethel, 234 W. Va. 463, 467, 766 S.E.2d 410, 414 (2014), a


CourtListener opinion 9978147

ERISA: s. 4 A qualified domestic relations order "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan." See ERISA § 206(d)(3)(B)(i). 5 Luke M. allegedly changed the death beneficiary of his retirement account to Pamela M., his fiancé, on August 23, 2018. Luke M. died less than a month later. 2 On February 27, 2020, Vonda M. filed an amended answer, a counterclaim against the Estate of Luke M., and a third-party complaint against Pamela M. Vonda M. argued in the co


CourtListener opinion 9978599

CourtListener opinion 9978599 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9978599 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 9978599


CourtListener opinion 9978599

QDRO: 2017 the Plan responded to [Barbara's] counsel that the Plan is covered under ERISA and that the Plan would not and cannot undertake any action without a Domestic Relations Order [(‘DRO')] from a state court which the Plan Administrator determines to be a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO')]." (Id. § 4.) In September 2018, Richard made an election to receive full payment of the present value of his benefits as part of the Plan's 2018 limited time offer to elect a lump sum. (Id. 45.) As part of the requirements for electing a lump sum under the limited time offer, Richard "submitted a signed and notarized" spousal waiver and certif


CourtListener opinion 9978599

retirement benefits: e existence of a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a result of ERISA preemption and diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. According to the Notice of Removal, on November 3, 2017, Barbara served the Marsh & McLennan Companies Retirement Plan (the "Plan'"') with a "Joinder" "seeking to have the purported marital estate's community property interest in the Plan come within the jurisdiction of the Family Court." (Notice of Removal § 3.) "On November 20, 2017 the Plan responded to [Barbara's] counsel that the Plan is covered under ERISA and that the Plan would not and cannot undertake any actio


CourtListener opinion 9978599

pension: trict courts have repeatedly held that because a nonparty such as Marsh & McLennan is not a "defendant" under the removal statute, that nonparty has no right to remove the action. Specifically, in Gross v. Deberadinis, 722 F. Supp. 2d 532 (D. Del. 2010), a pension plan attempted to remove an underlying divorce proceeding after the husband filed a motion in which he sought to vacate the QDRO after his ex- wife died and sought an order requiring the pension plan to ret1mburse him for the payments the plan sent to his ex-wife after her death. See id. at 533. The district court remanded the action sua sponte: "Even a


CourtListener opinion 9978599

ERISA: Magrath ("Richard'') pending in the Family Court of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Marsh & McLennan asserts that this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction based on both the existence of a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a result of ERISA preemption and diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. According to the Notice of Removal, on November 3, 2017, Barbara served the Marsh & McLennan Companies Retirement Plan (the "Plan'"') with a "Joinder" "seeking to have the purported marital estate's community property interest in the Plan come within the jurisdiction of the Family Cou


CourtListener opinion 9980489

CourtListener opinion 9980489 Extracted reporter citation: 376 U.S. 575. Docket: L-23-1091 Appellee Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9980489 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 9980489

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 9980489

QDRO: any and all retirement assets in her name; that appellee was awarded his 401(k) (with a balance of $27,347.87) and SEP- IRA (with a balance of $69,046.20); and that appellant would receive 40% of appellee's rollover IRA (with a balance of $618, 482.91) by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Debt {¶ 44} The court ruled that appellee would assume responsibility for the three outstanding credit card balances, which totaled $59,019.80. The court further ruled that appellant would be held responsible for any and all debt currently in her name. Personal Property {¶ 45} In dividing up the personal property, the court awarded appellee certa


CourtListener opinion 9980489

retirement benefits: ellee also testified to the ownership of certain motor vehicles, including a 2018 BMW that he drove, which had a mortgage loan; a 2009 Jeep driven by the parties' son; and a leased 2020 Jeep driven by appellant. 10. {¶ 34} Appellee testified regarding his retirement accounts, including a 401(k), with a balance of $27,347.87; a rollover IRA, with a balance of $618,482.91; and a SEP- IRA, with a balance of $69,046.20. He testified that he was unsure of appellant's retirement accounts or benefits (as she would not produce information), but he believed she had between $10,000 - $15,000. He further testified to the parties' joi


CourtListener opinion 9980489

pension: tal and separate property) in structuring the property division in this matter. {¶ 56} The court restated, with some additional detail, its spousal support/real property award, its division of personal property, its division of debts, and its division of pension plans and retirement accounts. {¶ 57} The court also set forth the process for implementation of the agreement, detailing when and how the parties were to take possession of all items of property to which each was entitled under the terms of the agreement. {¶ 58} It is from this judgment entry that appellant appeals. 16. Assignments of Error {¶ 59}


CourtListener opinion 9980489

401(k): ship of certain motor vehicles, including a 2018 BMW that he drove, which had a mortgage loan; a 2009 Jeep driven by the parties' son; and a leased 2020 Jeep driven by appellant. 10. {¶ 34} Appellee testified regarding his retirement accounts, including a 401(k), with a balance of $27,347.87; a rollover IRA, with a balance of $618,482.91; and a SEP- IRA, with a balance of $69,046.20. He testified that he was unsure of appellant's retirement accounts or benefits (as she would not produce information), but he believed she had between $10,000 - $15,000. He further testified to the parties' joint tax filings betwe


CourtListener opinion 9983388

CourtListener opinion 9983388 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 317. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9983388 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 9983388


CourtListener opinion 9983388

QDRO: d by a federal agency, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. Id. Plaintiff Natty, who is acting pro se, alleges that TSP negligently disbursed the entirety of the savings in his TSP account to Natty's ex-wife, Mia Lollis, pursuant to an erroneous qualified domestic relations order. See generally dkt. 1. His complaint purports to bring claims for negligence under (1) California Civil Code § 1714 and (2) the Federal Tort Claims Act, Pub. L. 79-601. Id. § 5. Plaintiff Natty requests damages in the amount of $160,249.00. Id. 16. He does not seek any other relief. Id. On March 16, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant t


CourtListener opinion 9983388

retirement benefits: e Court finds and concludes as follows. Il. BACKGROUND Unless otherwise noted, the Court references only facts that are uncontroverted and to which evidentiary objections, if any, have been overruled. Plaintiff, who 1s a retired federal employee, has a retirement account with TSP. Defendant's Statement of Uncontroverted Facts ("SUF"), dkt. 11-1 91. In 1991, plaintiff married Mia Lollis, and they separated in 2010. Id. On September 30, 2013, a final judgment of dissolution of their marriage was filed in the Superior Court of California. Id. 3. This judgment stated that Lollis would receive fifty percent of the value of


CourtListener opinion 9983388

domestic relations order: eral agency, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. Id. Plaintiff Natty, who is acting pro se, alleges that TSP negligently disbursed the entirety of the savings in his TSP account to Natty's ex-wife, Mia Lollis, pursuant to an erroneous qualified domestic relations order. See generally dkt. 1. His complaint purports to bring claims for negligence under (1) California Civil Code § 1714 and (2) the Federal Tort Claims Act, Pub. L. 79-601. Id. § 5. Plaintiff Natty requests damages in the amount of $160,249.00. Id. 16. He does not seek any other relief. Id. On March 16, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant t


CourtListener opinion 9983388

valuation/division: as overpaid by TSP, which amount to $40,249.75. Id. 4 38. In its Findings and Order, the Superior Court additionally found that plaintiff owed Lollis half of plaintiff's Federal Employee Retirement System ("FERS"') plan, which plaintiff had omitted on his community property declaration. Id. 39. Because Lollis owed plaintiff the amount she was overpaid by TSP, the Superior Court found that the amount of the FERS plan that plaintiff owes Lollis is offset by the TSP overpayment plus Lollis' share of another debt. Id. 40. The Findings and Order instructed Lollis to re- submit a QDRO for any remaining amount owed to her for the


CourtListener opinion 9988343

CourtListener opinion 9988343 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9988343 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 9988343


CourtListener opinion 9988343

retirement benefits: e and commerce against restraints and monopolies. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a). He argues that Finnerty v. Cowen, 508 F.2d 979 (2nd Cir. 1974), supports his contention that a district court has subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving the receipt of retirement benefits. The circumstances of Finnerty, however, are distinguishable. In Finnerty, a widow receiving retirement benefits sought to enjoin, as unconstitutional, the operation of certain sections of the Railroad Retirement Act ("the Act") requiring the reduction of annuities to offset earnings of recipients. Id. In this case, Powell does not challenge the const


CourtListener opinion 9988343

domestic relations order: the operation of certain sections of the Railroad Retirement Act ("the Act") requiring the reduction of annuities to offset earnings of recipients. Id. In this case, Powell does not challenge the constitutionality of the Act. Instead, Powell challenges a domestic relations order of the Circuit Court of Cook County regarding the distribution of his Railroad Retirement Act benefits to his ex-wife and/or seeks review of a decision by the Railroad Retirement Board to comply with the domestic relations order. Consequently, this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, u


CourtListener opinion 9993775

CourtListener opinion 9993775 Extracted reporter citation: 141 S.Ct. 474. Docket: 33 is the ConocoPhillips Defendants. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9993775 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 9993775


CourtListener opinion 9993775

QDRO: sibilities pursuant to ERISA § 105(a), its responsibility for processing pension applications, and its responsibility for deciding first-level benefits appeals.19 Alight was also responsible for performing and auditing pension calculations, complying with qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs") of state courts for the division of pension benefits, and providing retirement counseling to Plan participants.20 Alight laid out the steps for performing pension calculations for the Plan in a "requirements document."21 Alight used a proprietary recordkeeping system called Total Benefits Administration ("TBA") to automatically calculate mo


CourtListener opinion 9993775

retirement benefits: HILLIPS COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00039-SLG et al., Defendants. ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff Monte Mabry commenced this action against ConocoPhillips Company and the Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhillips Retirement Plan (together, the "ConocoPhillips Defendants"), and Alight Solutions, LLC in state court. On February 19, 2020, the ConocoPhillips Defendants filed a notice of removal.1 On June 5, 2020, Mr. Mabry filed an amended complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against all Defendants and state tort claims agai


CourtListener opinion 9993775

pension: Oral argument was not requested and was not necessary to the Court's determination.3 BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS In his Amended Complaint, Mr. Mabry states that he began working for Atlantic Richfield Company ("ARCO") in 1980 and began accruing pension benefits under the Atlantic Richfield Retirement Plan ("ARRP").4 In 1985, Mr. Mabry transferred to ARCO Alaska and continued accruing ARRP pension benefits.5 By 2001, Phillips Petroleum Company ("Phillips") acquired ARCO Alaska.6 Mr. Mabry began working for Phillips at that time and became a participant in the Phillips Retirement Income Plan.7 In 2003


CourtListener opinion 9993775

ERISA: ), and Alight Solutions, LLC in state court. On February 19, 2020, the ConocoPhillips Defendants filed a notice of removal.1 On June 5, 2020, Mr. Mabry filed an amended complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against all Defendants and state tort claims against Alight.2 Before the Court at Docket 33 is the ConocoPhillips Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Plaintiff responded in opposition at Docket 39, to which the ConocoPhillips Defendants replied at Docket 43. Also before the 1 Docket 1. 2 Docket 16; 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.


CourtListener opinion 9993904

CourtListener opinion 9993904 Extracted reporter citation: 226 F.3d 1042. Docket: 57 is Plaintiff Monte Mabry. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9993904 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 9993904

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 9993904

QDRO: igent misrepresentation because Mr. Mabry "cannot allege justifiable reliance as a matter of law."66 Alight asserts that Mr. Mabry's reliance was not justifiable because he knew that a large portion of his pension would go to the alternate payee under the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), and because the pension benefit estimates contained express disclaimers.67 Mr. Mabry maintains that he has plausibly pleaded that his reliance on Alight's alleged misrepresentations was reasonable for two reasons: first, because ConocoPhillips sent him two letters telling him that "the alternate payee's share would be segregated as a separa


CourtListener opinion 9993904

retirement benefits: Reconsideration of the Court's order at Docket 49. Defendant Alight Solutions LLC ("Alight") responded at Docket 60, to which Plaintiff replied at Docket 63. Defendants ConocoPhillips Co. ("ConocoPhillips") and the Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhillips Retirement Plan ("Benefits Committee") (collectively, "ConocoPhillips Defendants") responded at Docket 62, to which Plaintiff replied at Docket 64. BACKGROUND The factual allegations in this case are set forth in detail in the Court's January 19, 2021 order at Docket 49, and the Court assumes familiarity here. In brief, Mr. Mabry's allegations arise from a dispute


CourtListener opinion 9993904

pension: lied at Docket 64. BACKGROUND The factual allegations in this case are set forth in detail in the Court's January 19, 2021 order at Docket 49, and the Court assumes familiarity here. In brief, Mr. Mabry's allegations arise from a dispute regarding his pension benefits. Specifically, Mr. Mabry alleges that Alight provided him with vastly overstated pension benefit estimates through its website while serving as a third-party administrator for the Benefits Committee, which Mr. Mabry relied on to his detriment. Mr. Mabry commenced this action against the ConocoPhillips Defendants and Alight, alleging violation


CourtListener opinion 9993904

ERISA: ird-party administrator for the Benefits Committee, which Mr. Mabry relied on to his detriment. Mr. Mabry commenced this action against the ConocoPhillips Defendants and Alight, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against all defendants as well as state law tort claims against Alight.1 In its January 19, 2021 order, the Court dismissed Mr. Mabry's breach of fiduciary duty claims against Alight after determining that "the Amended Complaint does not plausibly allege that Alight was acting as a fiduciary when it provided Mr. Mabry with pension estimates and sta


CourtListener opinion 9994017

CourtListener opinion 9994017 Extracted reporter citation: 994 F.3d 1020. Docket: 79 is Defendant Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhi. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9994017 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 9994017

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


CourtListener opinion 9994017

QDRO: retion or control to constitute a fiduciary function."20 Accordingly, by the terms of his own SAC, Mr. Mabry's fiduciary duty claim against the Benefits Committee is foreclosed by Bafford. Second, Mr. Mabry attempts to recast his fiduciary duty claim as a QDRO noncompliance claim, asserting that "the problem was not with the system's application of the . . . formula, but with a failure to segregate the alternate payee's benefit as required by the QDRO and promised in the December 2008 letters."21 But, as the Court previously discussed, "Mr. Mabry is not asserting a claim for QDRO noncompliance. Instead, Mr.


CourtListener opinion 9994017

retirement benefits: CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00039-SLG et al., Defendants. ORDER RE DEFENDANT BENEFIT COMMITTEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Before the Court at Docket 79 is Defendant Benefits Committee of the ConocoPhillips Retirement Plan's (the "Benefits Committee") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). Plaintiff Monte Mabry responded in opposition at Docket 81. The Benefits Committee replied at Docket 83. Oral argument was not requested and was not necessary to the Court's determination. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The factual allegations and


CourtListener opinion 9994017

pension: e provided grossly exaggerated benefit estimates through a third-party administrator's website based on a calculation error.12 The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs' fiduciary claims against the third- party administrator failed because "calculation of pension benefits is a ministerial function that does not have a fiduciary duty attached to it."13 Therefore, the plan 10 For example, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) permits amendment with the opposing party's written consent. Under Mr. Mabry's interpretation of Local Civil Rule 7.1(h), any time an opposing party consents to an amended pleading, it e


CourtListener opinion 9994017

ERISA: omplaint, which Mr. Mabry filed on August 13, 2021 at Docket 74. Mr. Mabry's SAC is substantially the same as his first amended complaint, with the addition of allegations related to Mr. Mabry's claim against the Benefits Committee for alleged violation of ERISA § 105 and removal of the second claim for relief against Defendant Alight Solutions LLC ("Alight"), which was previously dismissed by the Court.1 The Benefits Committee now moves to dismiss the claims alleged in the SAC. The legal standard for evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion was set forth in this Court's order on the first motion to dismiss and is


Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi

Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi Date: 1995-04-18. Machine-draft public headnote: Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi 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.


Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi


Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi

QDRO: er all of his right, title and interest in the 1986 and 1992 Toyota to the wife. 13. The gross balance in the husband's 401K plan shall be divided 33-1 /3 percent to the wife and 66-2/3 percent to the husband. This division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In the event the transfer can be accomplished with a rollover to the wife's retirement benefits, it shall be done in that manner provided there are no tax consequences to the husband. 14. The husband shall, within ninety (90) days, pay the arrearage of one thousand five hundred ($1,500) dollars to the wife. 15. The husband shall be solely responsible f


Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi

retirement benefits: husband's 401K plan shall be divided 33-1 /3 percent to the wife and 66-2/3 percent to the husband. This division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In the event the transfer can be accomplished with a rollover to the wife's retirement benefits, it shall be done in that manner provided there are no tax consequences to the husband. 14. The husband shall, within ninety (90) days, pay the arrearage of one thousand five hundred ($1,500) dollars to the wife. 15. The husband shall be solely responsible for the payment of the Energy Research Corporation loan, and the wife shall be responsible for th


Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi

401(k): hall be the sole and exclusive property of the wife. 11. The joint bank account shall be divided equally. 12. The husband shall transfer all of his right, title and interest in the 1986 and 1992 Toyota to the wife. 13. The gross balance in the husband's 401K plan shall be divided 33-1 /3 percent to the wife and 66-2/3 percent to the husband. This division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In the event the transfer can be accomplished with a rollover to the wife's retirement benefits, it shall be done in that manner provided there are no tax consequences to the husband. 14.


Crystal Nami Chi v. Chang Vum Chi

domestic relations order: his right, title and interest in the 1986 and 1992 Toyota to the wife. 13. The gross balance in the husband's 401K plan shall be divided 33-1 /3 percent to the wife and 66-2/3 percent to the husband. This division shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In the event the transfer can be accomplished with a rollover to the wife's retirement benefits, it shall be done in that manner provided there are no tax consequences to the husband. 14. The husband shall, within ninety (90) days, pay the arrearage of one thousand five hundred ($1,500) dollars to the wife. 15. The husband shall be solely responsible f


Daniel Breton v. Lyn M. Breton.

Daniel Breton v. Lyn M. Breton. Date: 2002-09-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Daniel Breton v. Lyn M. Breton. 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.


Daniel Breton v. Lyn M. Breton.

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.


Daniel Breton v. Lyn M. Breton.

QDRO: he shall be responsible for all expenses related to said property including the mortgage payments. In the event of her failure to pay same, said expenses, etc., shall be deducted from her portion of the net proceeds. 4. The defendant shall receive by way of QDRO one half of plaintiff's Electric Boat pension. The plaintiff's attorney shall prepare the necessary documents. 5. The plaintiff shall keep the 1977 Ford and 1999 Mercury subject to any loans thereon. He shall remove the defendant's name from any loans thereon and keep the defendant harmless therefrom. The defendant shall execute any documents necessary to


Daniel Breton v. Lyn M. Breton.

pension: laintiff has been able to fulfill his employment at Beit Brothers where he is produce manager and has a net weekly income of $413.40. Prior to his employment with Beit Brothers, the plaintiff was employed at the Electric Boat for about 19 years and earned a pension, which plaintiff will start receiving at age 65. No testimony was offered as to the value of said pension. The defendant, who was born November 20, 1958, is in good health. She was employed about 20% of her married life. Presently she is employed at Foxwood Casino as a guest room attendant and has a net weekly income of $323.39 and earns tips of about $50


Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini

Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini Date: 1998-02-09. Machine-draft public headnote: Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini 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.


Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini


Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini

QDRO: the defendant named as irrevocable beneficiary thereon, for so long as the plaintiff has an obligation for alimony. This provision shall be modifiable. Pension 1. The defendant shall be entitled to 25% of the plaintiff's pension at Sikorsky by means of a QDRO. This represents the benefits which have accrued to the pension during the course of the marriage. COPPETO, J.


Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini

pension: ice. The jointly owned marital home is valued between $120,000 to $125,000 and has a mortgage of approximately $78,000. The plaintiff has savings of approximately $22,408; a 401(k) of $31,000 ($11,000 of which was accumulated prior to the marriage) 11 and a pension. The defendant withdrew $9,000 from the joint savings account in the fall of 1996 and used this money to live on. The defendant desires to remain in the marital home and feels she will be able to be gainfully employed after a period of time. CT Page 2397 Unfortunately the parties were unable to resolve their marital difficulties. The court declines to ass


Daniel Pasqualini v. Regina Pasqualini

401(k): $20,000 and the plaintiff contributed approximately $23,000 towards the purchase price. The jointly owned marital home is valued between $120,000 to $125,000 and has a mortgage of approximately $78,000. The plaintiff has savings of approximately $22,408; a 401(k) of $31,000 ($11,000 of which was accumulated prior to the marriage) 11 and a pension. The defendant withdrew $9,000 from the joint savings account in the fall of 1996 and used this money to live on. The defendant desires to remain in the marital home and feels she will be able to be gainfully employed after a period of time. CT Page 2397 Unfortunately the


Daria Duglenski v. Peter Duglenski

Daria Duglenski v. Peter Duglenski Date: 1999-06-10. Machine-draft public headnote: Daria Duglenski v. Peter Duglenski 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.


Daria Duglenski v. Peter Duglenski