CourtListener opinion 4250295

401(k): pensioner to pay a lump-sum amount representing the present value of a defined-benefit plan, normally makes the second method of division and distribution of pensions much more attractive for 2When the plan at issue is a defined-contribution plan, like a 401(k), the determination of the present value of the benefits and the distribution is less complicated. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d at 256 n.1. "The value of such plans is the amount of accumulated contributions plus interest as of the valuation date. It follows that the value of the [marital] interest in defined contribution plans is the amount of


CourtListener opinion 4250633

CourtListener opinion 4250633 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LISA A. KOSTER AND RYAN W. KOSTER Upon the Petition of LISA A. KOSTER. Extracted reporter citation: 611 N.W.2d 489. Docket: 16-1583. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4250633 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 4250633

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 4250633

QDRO: pecifically requests that she be awarded one-half of the difference in assets that the parties received which, according to her math, amounts to $46,950.00. 15 Excluding the retirement accounts that were ordered on the record to be distributed by way of qualified domestic relations orders, Ryan received assets in the amount $199,437.26 and Lisa in the amount of $105,538.47. One-half of the difference of these figures, $46,949.40, roughly amounts to Lisa's request. What Lisa's calculation ignores, however, is that the district court ordered "Ryan to pay Lisa's entire attorney fees in the amount of $46,805," fashioning such as an equaliz


CourtListener opinion 4250633

retirement benefits: vision of the decree was "exceedingly unfair" and "further evidence of the bias demonstrated by the trial court against" her. First, Lisa appears to complain that Ryan was awarded the premarital value of a life insurance policy, 401k, and Roth individual retirement account, despite the fact that she stipulated to Ryan being awarded the same. Based on Lisa's stipulation, the district court found this equitable, as do we. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(k). Next, Lisa argues the district court's division of the remaining marital property was "unfair and inequitable." She complains Ryan was credited with debts that arose after


CourtListener opinion 4250633

401(k): property-distribution provision of the decree was "exceedingly unfair" and "further evidence of the bias demonstrated by the trial court against" her. First, Lisa appears to complain that Ryan was awarded the premarital value of a life insurance policy, 401k, and Roth individual retirement account, despite the fact that she stipulated to Ryan being awarded the same. Based on Lisa's stipulation, the district court found this equitable, as do we. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(k). Next, Lisa argues the district court's division of the remaining marital property was "unfair and inequitable." She complains Ryan wa


CourtListener opinion 4250633

domestic relations order: y requests that she be awarded one-half of the difference in assets that the parties received which, according to her math, amounts to $46,950.00. 15 Excluding the retirement accounts that were ordered on the record to be distributed by way of qualified domestic relations orders, Ryan received assets in the amount $199,437.26 and Lisa in the amount of $105,538.47. One-half of the difference of these figures, $46,949.40, roughly amounts to Lisa's request. What Lisa's calculation ignores, however, is that the district court ordered "Ryan to pay Lisa's entire attorney fees in the amount of $46,805," fashioning such as an equaliz


CourtListener opinion 4251651

CourtListener opinion 4251651 Extracted case name: JOSEPH DINUNZIO v. CATHERINE DINUNZIO. Extracted reporter citation: 175 A.3d 601. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4251651 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 4251651


CourtListener opinion 4251651

QDRO: e plaintiff keep as his sole property the coins and the metals he kept in his safe. The court further ordered that the plaintiff keep as his sole property the IRA listed on his financial affidavit and that the defendant transfer to the plaintiff, by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), 40 per- cent of her John Hancock 401(k), valued as of the date of judgment. The defendant thereafter filed a motion for reconsid- eration and articulation, arguing, inter alia, that the court improperly treated the plaintiff's pension as an income stream rather than as property. The court denied the defendant's motion and this appeal followed. The


CourtListener opinion 4251651

retirement benefits: eek on a second mortgage, and $95 in property taxes. The plaintiff's assets include a Navy Federal Credit Union account with a current ance of $15; a TD Bank account with a current balance of $19; and savings bonds valued at $1130. He also has an [individual retirement account (IRA)] with a current balance of $600. ‘‘The plaintiff's financial affidavit lists a total of $57,478 in liabilities. He has a USAA Visa with a balance of $14,920; a Navy Federal Credit Union debt in the amount of $25,000; a Lowes credit card with a balance of $1300; a Home Depot credit card with a balance of $400; a . . . debt in the amount of $9200 [that


CourtListener opinion 4251651

pension: IO (AC 39008) Sheldon, Bright and Beach, Js. Syllabus The defendant appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff and making certain financial orders regarding, inter alia, the plaintiff's military pension. Held that the trial court having erred in treating the plaintiff's military pension as a source of income rather than as property subject to equitable distribution, the court's financial orders could not stand: our Supreme Court has held previously that vested pension benefits constitute prop- erty, and are not a source of income, for purposes of equi


CourtListener opinion 4251651

401(k): ,000 to her father. There is also a joint debt in the amount of $250 to the minor child's dentist. ‘‘The defendant's assets include a TD Bank checking account with a balance of $974 and a jointly held TD Bank savings account with a $3 balance. She also has a 401(k) account with John Hancock with an approximate value of $100,000 and a [United States] savings bond with a value of $744. ‘‘The parties first met in Bahrain. The plaintiff was there serving in the Navy and the defendant was a flight attendant stationed there. They married on May 17, 2003, and when the plaintiff retired from the Navy, they came to live in Co


CourtListener opinion 4252900

CourtListener opinion 4252900 Extracted reporter citation: 633 A.2d 589. Docket: 3260 EDA 2016 : Appellant :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4252900 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 4252900


CourtListener opinion 4252900

QDRO: divorce decree on November 9, 2017.2 Appellant raises the following issues for this court's review: 1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in not applying deferred distribution of the retirement benefits through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)[3] -- pursuant to 3501(c)(1) of the Divorce Code -- or alternatively, to calculate the IRS penalty and taxes Husband would have to pay for premature withdrawal of retirement benefits[?] 2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in not giving Husband credit for paying alimony pendente lite [("APL")] for over


CourtListener opinion 4252900

retirement benefits: trial court entered an amended divorce decree on November 9, 2017.2 Appellant raises the following issues for this court's review: 1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in not applying deferred distribution of the retirement benefits through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)[3] -- pursuant to 3501(c)(1) of the Divorce Code -- or alternatively, to calculate the IRS penalty and taxes Husband would have to pay for premature withdrawal of retirement benefits[?] 2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in not giving Husband credit for p


CourtListener opinion 4252900

pension: certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits." Berrington v. Berrington, 534 Pa. 393, 633 A.2d 589, 591 n. 3 (1993) (citation omitted). The actual qualifying of the domestic relations order is done by the employer's pension administrator. Smith v. Smith, 938 A.2d 246, 248 n.3 (Pa. 2007). -4- J. S53034/17 despite the fact that Wife had been gainfully employed full time for almost ten years subsequent to the parties' separation[?] 3. Whether the trial court erred in ordering Husband to pay alimony on a fixed basis, regardless of any potential future changes in inco


CourtListener opinion 4252900

401(k): a truck driver for various solid waste hauling entities. For the first half of 2006, Husband's gross pay was $37,548.13. Wife remained at home, raising the children and running the household. During the marriage, Husband had two retirement accounts: 1) a 401(k); and 2) an IRA annuity. In 2007, Husband received funds from a union settlement, the majority of which the parties agree to be marital property. In addition, the parties had a checking account and a savings account. All financial correspondence was sent to Husband's mother's home and not to the marital residence; Wife was not privy to the ongoing fin


CourtListener opinion 4257541

CourtListener opinion 4257541 Docket: 324853 Dickinson Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4257541 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 4257541


CourtListener opinion 4257541

QDRO: elected to receive CRSC, which resulted in a diminution of his retirement pay and plaintiff's 50 percent award of that pay. See Megee, 290 Mich App at 561 ("Plaintiff elected CRSC, which effectively discontinued his retirement pay that had been subject to the QDRO, halting payments to defendant."). The Megee panel observed the following concerning CRSC and the division of waived retirement pay related to CRSC, i.e., retirement pay that is not being received because of a CRSC election: "The trial court here effectively divided plaintiff's CRSC and, although Mansell did not directly address division of disability pay


CourtListener opinion 4257541

retirement benefits: both parties acknowledged that the language was awkward, but -2- explained that the intent was simply to address a scenario in which defendant became entitled to and accepted more disability benefits than currently being received, inversely diminishing the retirement benefits that were being divided and awarded to plaintiff. The purpose of the offset provision was to protect plaintiff in such a scenario. The trial court also discussed the offset provision with defendant in the following exchange: Court. "All right, . . . Mr. Foster, you do acknowledge that if you were to defer any of your current military retirement pay or co


CourtListener opinion 4257541

valuation/division: rms of the judgment. *** We hold that a military spouse remains financially responsible to compensate his or her former spouse in an amount equal to the share of retirement pay ordered to be distributed to the former spouse as part of a divorce judgment's property division when the military spouse makes a unilateral and voluntary postjudgment election to waive the retirement pay in favor of disability benefits contrary to the terms of the divorce judgment. Conceptually, and consistently with extensive caselaw from other jurisdictions, we are dividing waived retirement pay in order to honor the terms and intent of the divorce


CourtListener opinion 4258076

CourtListener opinion 4258076 Docket: 324853 Dickinson Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4258076 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 4258076

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 4258076


CourtListener opinion 4259285

CourtListener opinion 4259285 Extracted reporter citation: 245 F.3d 1321. Docket: 1:13-cv-03898-TWT METLIFE LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4259285 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 4259285


CourtListener opinion 4259285

QDRO: disbursement of benefits.'" Id. (quoting Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141, 148 (2001)). The Court emphasized three important ERISA objectives: (1) simple administration of plans; (2) avoiding double liability 7 This provision includes an exception for "qualified domestic relations orders." See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). This exception was not relevant in Kennedy and is likewise not relevant here. 18 Case: 16-15677 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 19 of 24 for plan administrators; and (3) ensuring that beneficiaries receive funds promptly. Id. at 301. Although the Supreme Court held that a plan administrator must distribute benefits in acco


CourtListener opinion 4259285

retirement benefits: Life into the registry of the district court. On appeal, all parties now concede that the funds should be disbursed to the Plan trustee in the first instance. The relevant Plan documents provided that insurance contracts could be purchased to fund death or retirement benefits under the Plan and that "[t]he trustee shall be the sole owner and Beneficiary of each such Contract." Furthermore, the final application for the MetLife policy stated that "Dr. Ignatius E. Akpele DB Plan" was the policy owner and beneficiary. The policy also contained a "Supplement to Application for Life/Health Insurance" which stated: [FROM] THE I


CourtListener opinion 4259285

pension: refused to pay the full amount of death benefits. The Akpeles' counterclaim also concerned the proper beneficiary 12 Case: 16-15677 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 13 of 24 In his initial application for the insurance policy at issue, Dr. Akpele selected a "pension whole life" policy with a death benefit of $5,148,206. Under the policy, Dr. Akpele was required to pay an annual premium of $204,383.78. The policy set forth a death benefit and cash value provided that the required premiums were paid. However, the policy contained a non-forfeiture provision that if the annual premiums were not paid the policy would be


CourtListener opinion 4259285

ERISA: administrator of the estate of Dr. Akpele). Dr. Akpele purchased the policy in issue to fund the AIE Surgical Practice Defined Benefit Plan ("Plan") he had established as its sole member and trustee pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. * Honorable Harvey Bartle III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 16-15677 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 3 of 24 As will be discussed in more detail below, the salient issues before this court concern whether the amount deposited into the registry of the


CourtListener opinion 4259770

CourtListener opinion 4259770 Docket: 336303 Wayne Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4259770 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 4259770


CourtListener opinion 4259770

QDRO: perty in their possession and (4) the provisions of the separate maintenance judgment were incorporated into the judgment of divorce. On November 28, 2016, the court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and entered an order directing preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO),1 so as to provide for defendant's receipt of 50% of plaintiff's pension. Finally it provided that defendant was to pay plaintiff $3,346.2 Plaintiff appealed to this Court. According to a November 1, 2017 letter from plaintiff to this Court, defendant died during the pendency of this appeal. Plaintiff did not seek to open an estate for his deceased


CourtListener opinion 4259770

retirement benefits: 1; 531 NW2d 777 (1995). MCL 552.18(1)7 and MCL 552.101(3)8 define the circuit's court power to distribute pensions. Id. at 561-562. Accordingly, a trial court could treat 7 MCL 552.18(1) provides as follows: Any rights in and to vested pension, annuity, or retirement benefits, or accumulated contributions in any pension, annuity, or retirement system, payable to or on behalf of a party on account of service credit accrued by the party during marriage shall be considered part of the marital estate subject to award by the court under this chapter. 8 MCL 552.101(3) provides as follows: Each judgment of divorce or judgment of


CourtListener opinion 4259770

pension: home at 14851 Hubbell be awarded to defendant "without any right, title, or interest by [plaintiff];" (4) all other property, both real and personal be retained by the party then having possession; and (5) defendant receive 50% of plaintiff's City of Detroit pension. Plaintiff did not appeal this judgment. Nearly four years later, in 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce. The case was assigned to circuit court Judge Charles Hegarty under file number: 16-102110-DO. Both parties filed cross-motions regarding spousal support. Following a hearing on March 18, 2016, Judge Hegarty ruled that plaintiff's obligation


CourtListener opinion 4259770

domestic relations order: heir possession and (4) the provisions of the separate maintenance judgment were incorporated into the judgment of divorce. On November 28, 2016, the court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and entered an order directing preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO),1 so as to provide for defendant's receipt of 50% of plaintiff's pension. Finally it provided that defendant was to pay plaintiff $3,346.2 Plaintiff appealed to this Court. According to a November 1, 2017 letter from plaintiff to this Court, defendant died during the pendency of this appeal. Plaintiff did not seek to open an estate for his deceased


CourtListener opinion 4260091

CourtListener opinion 4260091 Docket: 336303 Wayne Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4260091 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 4260091


CourtListener opinion 4262299

CourtListener opinion 4262299 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4262299 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 4262299


CourtListener opinion 4262299

QDRO: res, pro se, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in finding no authority to reconsider its prior decision dismissing an earlier petition for appeal, in affirming the adoption of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), and in affirming the finding that petitioner was in contempt of court. This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the reco


CourtListener opinion 4262299

retirement benefits: 1 Although different from the percentage identified in the Rule 60(a) Order, petitioner and other documents calculate her share at 18.61673%. The precise calculations are unnecessary for resolution. 2 (b) The Participant's[, respondent's, Vested Accrued Retirement Benefit ("VARB")] is the benefit due the Participant as of the QDRO Determination Date. If, at the time benefit payout commences, the Participant elects a benefit in the form of an annuity, then the VARB shall be the annuitized benefit which would have been available to the Participant as of the QDRO Determination Date, calculated without regard to any minimum


CourtListener opinion 4262299

pension: f the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The parties were divorced by "Final Divorce Decree" entered on November 17, 2008. Prior to the parties' separation, in 2002, respondent retired, and he began receiving his pension. The "Final Divorce Decree" addressed respondent's pension and provided that petitioner was entitled to one-half of his pension accrued from the date of the parties' marriage until their separation. The "Final Divorce Decree" further provided that petitioner shall continue to be designated as the [respondent's] surviving spouse beneficiary of his state p


CourtListener opinion 4262299

alternate payee: e to petitioner for her share of the respondent's net PERS pension benefits as defined herein until the entry of the QDRO, at which time [petitioner] shall bear any tax liability for the amount that she is paid directly from the State Retirement Board as alternate payee upon the entry of the approved QDRO. In compliance with this provision, respondent paid to petitioner $368.80 per month.1 Five years after the entry of the Rule 60(a) Order, petitioner had not yet filed the required QDRO. Accordingly, on December 7, 2015, respondent filed a petition for a rule to show cause, in which he asserted that petitioner should be


CourtListener opinion 4262355

CourtListener opinion 4262355 Extracted reporter citation: 938 A.2d 246. Docket: 1643 MDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4262355 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 4262355

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 4262355

QDRO: ember 25, 2003, provided that Wife would receive sixty percent (60%) of the marital portion of Husband's pension from the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement J-S12015-18 System (SERS). The PSA stated that Wife's counsel "will prepare the appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO]."1 Husband retired from the Pennsylvania State Police on October 25, 2014, and he began receiving SERS pension benefits beginning in November 2014. The parties, however, did not reach an agreement regarding an appropriate QDRO until 27 months later, on December 29, 2016, at which time a stipulated order was entered. That order was subsequently


CourtListener opinion 4262355

retirement benefits: itted). The actual qualifying of the domestic relations order is done by the employer's pension administrator. Id. 2 The QDRO provides, in relevant part: 8. . . . The equitable distribution portion of the marital property component of Member's [Husband's] retirement benefit, as set forth in Paragraph Seven (7), shall be payable to Alternate Payee [Wife] and shall commence as soon as administratively feasible and SERS approves a Domestic Relations Order incorporating this Stipulation and Agreement, whichever is later. **** 10. . . . Alternate Payee's share of Member's retirement benefit shall be deducted from member's


CourtListener opinion 4262355

pension: L 09, 2018 James D. Hankey, Jr., (Husband) appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, granting, in part, Ann Kris Hankey's (Wife) petition for special relief and directing Husband to pay Wife $24,975.00, the amount of pension benefits to which the court determined Wife was entitled. After our review, we affirm. The parties were married on December 31, 1992, and they divorced on October 1, 2003. The divorce decree incorporated the parties' property settlement agreement (PSA). The PSA, dated September 25, 2003, provided that Wife would receive sixty percent (60%) of the mari


CourtListener opinion 4262355

alternate payee: mployer's pension administrator. Id. 2 The QDRO provides, in relevant part: 8. . . . The equitable distribution portion of the marital property component of Member's [Husband's] retirement benefit, as set forth in Paragraph Seven (7), shall be payable to Alternate Payee [Wife] and shall commence as soon as administratively feasible and SERS approves a Domestic Relations Order incorporating this Stipulation and Agreement, whichever is later. **** 10. . . . Alternate Payee's share of Member's retirement benefit shall be deducted from member's annuity payments by SERS and paid to the Alternate Payee pursuant to the p


CourtListener opinion 4262671

CourtListener opinion 4262671 Extracted reporter citation: 167 A.3d 127. Docket: 1055 EDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4262671 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 4262671


CourtListener opinion 4262671

QDRO: l without need for assistance from Husband." Id. at 14. Additionally, the trial court indicated: [T]he trial court as part of its equitable distribution order divided an estate worth over $7 million not including certain pension benefits that are to be QDRO'ed, giving [Wife] fifty-five percent (55%). The trial court found that [Wife's] reasonable needs would be met with her current net income and her share of the marital estate, which is in excess of $3.8 million excluding the aforesaid pensions. Furthermore, the trial court finds awarding [Wife] alimony would be inappropriate given the income of the par


CourtListener opinion 4262671

retirement benefits: o retain the collectibles located in the marital home. 9. Each party is to keep the household furnishings currently in their possession. 10. Cash assets are to be divided based on the values as of December 31, 2016[,] or as close thereto as possible. 11. Retirement accounts (other than defined benefit plans) are to be divided based on the values as of December 31, 2016[,] or as close thereto as possible. Id. at 5. The trial court directed each party to pay their own counsel fees and directed no alimony for either party. Id. at 5-6. The trial court set forth the following explanation for its distribution: -3- J-A05032


CourtListener opinion 4262671

pension: id. at 1-5. In furtherance of this division, the trial court directed the following: 1. Wife is to receive the real estate at 1 Pickering Trail, Thornton, PA. 2. Husband is to receive the real estate located in Michigan. 3. All four (4) defined benefit pension plans are to be divided by QUADRO. 4. Wife is to receive 55% and Husband is to receive 45% of the Stock Certificates held in Wells Fargo[.] 5. Husband is to retain the following automobiles: 1. 2007 Volvo 2. 1984 Mercedes 3. 2006 Ford Escape 6. Wife is to retain the 2004 BMW. 7. Each party is to retain the artwork currently in their possession. Wi


CourtListener opinion 4262671

401(k): ailing to give any consideration to Wife's evidence that Husband dissipated $4.4M of marital property? 3. Did the trial court erroneously neglect to divide the artwork acquired during the marriage? 4. Did the trial court err by assigning a value to Wife's 401(k) without the benefit of any expert opinion? ____________________________________________ 2 Specifically, on February 10, 2014, Wife filed a petition for contempt averring that Husband had not complied with the trial court's May 16, 2013, discovery order. -5- J-A05032-18 5. Did the trial court erroneously hold that a severance payment made prior to s


CourtListener opinion 4265072

CourtListener opinion 4265072 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SHANTEL N. DOW AND DANIEL D. DOW Upon the Petition of SHANTEL N. DOW. Extracted reporter citation: 874 N.W.2d 103. Docket: 17-0534. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4265072 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 4265072


CourtListener opinion 4265072

QDRO: ight-year marriage to Shantel Dow. He objects to the court ordering him to pay six months of child support for the couple's fourth child. Daniel contends he is unemployed and cannot afford to pay spousal support. He also objects to the terms of the court's qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Upon our de novo review, we find no reason to disturb the court's rulings as to spousal support, child support, and the distribution of debts. We modify the order as to the terms of the QDRO, eliminating any requirement that Shantel be identified as a contingent annuitant and the parties' children as contingent alternate payees. We award no a


CourtListener opinion 4265072

retirement benefits: ue to reside in the marital home, the court ordered him to be solely responsible for the real estate payments pending the sale. The court found that under the Benson formula, Shantel was entitled to an appropriate percentage of the 168 months of Daniel's retirement benefits—all of which arose during the parties' marriage. The court also ordered Daniel to list Shantel as the death benefit beneficiary and list the parties' four children as contingent alternate payees. Daniel appeals, asserting Shantel should not have been awarded spousal support and the child-support amount was improperly calculated. He also objects to t


CourtListener opinion 4265072

pension: employed as a school principal at or above his prior 2015 annual income." In In re Marriage of Duggan, 659 N.W.2d 556, 562 (Iowa 2003), the supreme court rejected an argument by a father who asserted his child support should be calculated based not on his pension benefits but on his actual earnings of zero dollars due to his retirement. The supreme court held it would be inappropriate to do so because the father "offered no reason for his failure to obtain employment other than his desire to be retired." See Duggan, 659 N.W.2d at 562. The court further found the father did not suffer from any ailments or disabil


CourtListener opinion 4265072

401(k): listed monthly living expenses of $3849. Shantel's four-year average earnings at the time of trial was approximately $26,248 per year. She testified she had "about $500" in an Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) account and about $1400 in a 401k account. She listed monthly living expenses of $3118. Shantel opined Daniel would return to work as an administrator once the dissolution proceedings are complete. Daniel testified his "interest [in doing so] has dropped" and he is "helping [his] eldest son get his feet on the ground in construction." The parties owned 220 acres of land and a house, w


CourtListener opinion 4265566

CourtListener opinion 4265566 Extracted case name: LOVEJOY v. LOVEJOY. Docket: 1 CA-CV 17-0411 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4265566 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 4265566


CourtListener opinion 4265566

QDRO: ehicles. ¶4 After a settlement conference in April 2016, the parties reached a partial settlement. The parties agreed, in relevant part, that the marital residence would be sold after Wife had an opportunity to inspect the premises. They also agreed to use a QDRO specialist to divide community retirement benefits. All remaining unresolved issues were presented to the court at a bench trial held in January 2017. 2 LOVEJOY v. LOVEJOY Decision of the Court ¶5 At trial, the parties stipulated Wife was entitled to a monthly Koelsch payment of $2,557.09.1 The parties stipulated this payment would be treated as part o


CourtListener opinion 4265566

retirement benefits: erence in April 2016, the parties reached a partial settlement. The parties agreed, in relevant part, that the marital residence would be sold after Wife had an opportunity to inspect the premises. They also agreed to use a QDRO specialist to divide community retirement benefits. All remaining unresolved issues were presented to the court at a bench trial held in January 2017. 2 LOVEJOY v. LOVEJOY Decision of the Court ¶5 At trial, the parties stipulated Wife was entitled to a monthly Koelsch payment of $2,557.09.1 The parties stipulated this payment would be treated as part of Wife's income for tax purposes. After taking the


CourtListener opinion 4265566

valuation/division: with Husband's Health Savings Account, from February 18, 2016 forward; as the trial court noted, Wife's counsel was provided with an updated insurance card confirming coverage as of February 18, 2016, as well as an explanation that the HSA account was not community property. Wife could have confirmed coverage and determined the HSA was not community property through other means. • Wife's request for reimbursement of automobile repair expenses in the amount of $1,145.91 when she knew the total cost was only $100.00. • Wife's repeated questioning of a deposit made into Husband's Arizona Federal Credit Union account; Hus


CourtListener opinion 4270618

CourtListener opinion 4270618 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Tebbens. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-17-0777 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4270618 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 4270618

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 4270618

retirement benefits: parties were represented by counsel during dissolution proceedings. ¶5 In brief, the trial court entered a judgment for dissolution of marriage in October 2012, incorporating a MSA into the judgment for dissolution. In part, the MSA divided the parties' retirement accounts and pension plans. Thereafter, the pension administrator requested an order that reflected a specific dollar amount for Julie's distribution, rather than the percentage formula that was set out in the MSA. By this time, Robert was represented by new counsel. Eventually, the trial court modified the MSA over Robert's objection. Robert appealed this mo


CourtListener opinion 4270618

pension: gainst Julie Tebbens. In 1-17-0777 that malpractice action, Robert claimed that his former counsel failed to submit to the trial court a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that accurately reflected the parties' intent regarding the division of Robert's pension plan between himself and Julie. On appeal, Robert contends that the trial court erred in finding his claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶2 I. BACKGROUND ¶3 Robert filed his complaint against defendants in October 2014. By this complaint, Robert asserted claims for legal malpractice and breach of


CourtListener opinion 4270618

domestic relations order: to the entry of an order clarifying the dollar value of Julie's share of the pension as Robert had originally requested. 2 1-17-0777 ¶6 In more detail, specific to the divorce appeal, Robert challenged the trial court's entry of a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) by the circuit court, which apparently divided the pension percentage-wise in such a way that Julie took more than the parties had agreed upon. In April 2015, we reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions. In that cause, we recited the following facts, which are pertinent to the present appeal: "In December 2009, Robert


CourtListener opinion 4270618

valuation/division: tion to clarify both the October 31, 2012 judgment, and the December 21, 2012 order, asking the court to clarify these ‘to conform same to the parties' agreement.' In support, Robert recounted that while Paragraph 7.5 of the MSA awarded Julie 50% of the marital portion of his vested, accrued benefit under the Fireman's Annuity Fund, and awarded Robert all remaining benefits and interest, that paragraph stated a percentage amount rather than a dollar amount for Julie. According to Robert, this percentage amount was insufficient for the Firemen's Annuity Fund and Benefit Fund of Chicago to divide the asset as agreed


CourtListener opinion 4271121

CourtListener opinion 4271121 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Farrell. Docket: 1-17-0611. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4271121 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 4271121


CourtListener opinion 4271121

QDRO: The WIFE shall receive the specific property allocated to her in accordance with exhibit A, *** This distribution includes the execution of a QILDRO awarding 1/2 of the marital portion of HUSBAND's pension from the FIREMAN's ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND, and a QDRO conveying HUSBAND's complete interest to WIFE in his Deferred Compensation Plan as of the date of Judgment. Until the date of final approval of the above QDRO and QILDRO, the WIFE shall remain as the beneficiary of these plans to the extent of the interests granted to here in this paragraph." (Emphasis added.) Section 3.2(d) further provided: "The HUS


CourtListener opinion 4271121

retirement benefits: ed that when he attains the age of 63, the mandatory age for retirement, he would begin receiving his fireman's annuity, which would be divided with Joanne in accordance with the agreement. Until then, Thomas asserted that the disability benefits are not a retirement benefit but an income replacement to which Joanne was not entitled under the marital settlement agreement. ¶6 Thomas further argued that the language of the agreement as a whole demonstrated that the parties did not intend to split his disability benefits. Thomas noted that disability benefits are not allowed to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order


CourtListener opinion 4271121

pension: Howe (Thomas), and the circuit court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage, which incorporated a marital settlement agreement signed by the parties. The marital settlement agreement provided that the parties would split the marital portion of Thomas' pension from the Fireman's Annuity and Benefit Fund (fireman's fund) equally.1 Thereafter, Thomas was injured while on active duty as a City of Chicago firefighter and began collecting disability benefits under the fireman's fund. Joanne then filed a petition to enforce the marital settlement agreement and requested that Thomas be ordered to split his disability


CourtListener opinion 4271121

domestic relations order: al settlement agreement. ¶6 Thomas further argued that the language of the agreement as a whole demonstrated that the parties did not intend to split his disability benefits. Thomas noted that disability benefits are not allowed to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order, yet the marital settlement agreement provided that Joanne's interest in his pension was to be transferred exclusively by a qualified domestic relations order. Thomas also observed that the marital settlement agreement did not contain any reference to "disability benefits" and that exhibit A placed a present value on Thomas's fireman's annuity. In addit


CourtListener opinion 4273233

CourtListener opinion 4273233 Extracted case name: LACY v. LACY. Docket: 1 CA-CV 17-0437 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4273233 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 4273233


CourtListener opinion 4273233

QDRO: ension, and, at Husband's request, she was not apportioned any of the community debt. Husband, on the other hand, assumed all the community debt, including all debts incurred by Wife since the date of the parties' separation, and the obligation to provide the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to divide his 401(k) and pension account. Additionally, Wife was awarded use of the fifth-wheel trailer pursuant to the court's temporary orders and the court found she sold it for her sole financial benefit without the court's permission prior to the dissolution of the marriage. The superior court accordingly did not abuse its discretion by implicitly fin


CourtListener opinion 4273233

pension: ity determination and finding that Wife was not eligible for spousal maintenance. Although Wife stated she did not have enough assets to provide for her reasonable needs, she was apportioned half of Husband's 401(k), valued at $142,000, as well as half of his pension, and, at Husband's request, she was not apportioned any of the community debt. Husband, on the other hand, assumed all the community debt, including all debts incurred by Wife since the date of the parties' separation, and the obligation to provide the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to divide his 401(k) and pension account. Additionally, Wife was award


CourtListener opinion 4273233

401(k): ent evidence supports the superior court's credibility determination and finding that Wife was not eligible for spousal maintenance. Although Wife stated she did not have enough assets to provide for her reasonable needs, she was apportioned half of Husband's 401(k), valued at $142,000, as well as half of his pension, and, at Husband's request, she was not apportioned any of the community debt. Husband, on the other hand, assumed all the community debt, including all debts incurred by Wife since the date of the parties' separation, and the obligation to provide the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to divide his 401(


CourtListener opinion 4273233

domestic relations order: d, at Husband's request, she was not apportioned any of the community debt. Husband, on the other hand, assumed all the community debt, including all debts incurred by Wife since the date of the parties' separation, and the obligation to provide the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to divide his 401(k) and pension account. Additionally, Wife was awarded use of the fifth-wheel trailer pursuant to the court's temporary orders and the court found she sold it for her sole financial benefit without the court's permission prior to the dissolution of the marriage. The superior court accordingly did not abuse its discretion by implicitly fin


CourtListener opinion 4273505

CourtListener opinion 4273505 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 340123 Otsego Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4273505 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 4273505


CourtListener opinion 4273505

pension: living with FH, DH, and XR in the garage of the home where the Novak children lived with their father, who had custody of the Novak children pursuant to a 2013 domestic relations order. Respondent's only confirmed source of income was SSI benefits and a small pension totaling less than $900 a month. Nevertheless, she secured a one-bedroom apartment three weeks before the termination hearing. -2- At the termination hearing, caseworkers testified that respondent had a bond with the children, but the bond was more of an "attachment" and appeared to be more of a "peer" relationship. II. ADJUDICATION A. STANDARD OF RE


CourtListener opinion 4273505

domestic relations order: m the home after the snowmobile accident, respondent was homeless. The record reflects that she was living with FH, DH, and XR in the garage of the home where the Novak children lived with their father, who had custody of the Novak children pursuant to a 2013 domestic relations order. Respondent's only confirmed source of income was SSI benefits and a small pension totaling less than $900 a month. Nevertheless, she secured a one-bedroom apartment three weeks before the termination hearing. -2- At the termination hearing, caseworkers testified that respondent had a bond with the children, but the bond was more of an "attachment" and a


CourtListener opinion 4273897

CourtListener opinion 4273897 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 340123 Otsego Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4273897 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 4273897

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 4273897


CourtListener opinion 4274635

CourtListener opinion 4274635 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Herald & Steadman. Extracted reporter citation: 965 P.2d 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4274635 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 4274635


CourtListener opinion 4274635

QDRO: e property equitably.' "4 "We review the first and second steps, which involve factual findings ‘as to the parties' intent, actions, and contributions 3 Gloria filed a subsequent appeal challenging the denial of her request for a stay of enforcement of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order governing her PERS benefits; the two appeals were consolidated. Gloria does not expand on this argument in her briefs, however, and we do not consider it. See Brady v. State, 965 P.2d 1, 20 (Alaska 1998) ("Despite our solicitude for pro se litigants, we must conclude that he has waived the claim by failing to brief it adequately."). 4 Wagner v. Wagner, 38


CourtListener opinion 4274635

retirement benefits: infree, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. MAASSEN, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A husband and wife divorced after 40 years of marriage. The wife appeals the superior court's decision to equally divide their marital property, which consisted primarily of retirement benefits and debt. The superior court declined to consider how the couple's Social Security benefits affected a fair distribution, believing that our case law precluded it from doing so. But we hold that although federal law prohibited any allocation of the parties' Social Security benefits, the court could consider them as evidence of the parties' financial condi


CourtListener opinion 4274635

pension: thority,"2 and 13 years in the federal civil service. He retired in 2012. He received Veterans Administration (VA) disability benefits of $133 per month, Social Security disability benefits of $2,081 per month, and a Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pension benefit of approximately $360 per month. Gloria had worked for the State of Alaska for approximately 35 years before retiring in 2009. She received a monthly benefit from the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) in the gross amount of $5,762. She testified that she would 1 Between 2000 and 2007 the parties lived in different parts of the house as "


CourtListener opinion 4274635

domestic relations order: equitably.' "4 "We review the first and second steps, which involve factual findings ‘as to the parties' intent, actions, and contributions 3 Gloria filed a subsequent appeal challenging the denial of her request for a stay of enforcement of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order governing her PERS benefits; the two appeals were consolidated. Gloria does not expand on this argument in her briefs, however, and we do not consider it. See Brady v. State, 965 P.2d 1, 20 (Alaska 1998) ("Despite our solicitude for pro se litigants, we must conclude that he has waived the claim by failing to brief it adequately."). 4 Wagner v. Wagner, 38


CourtListener opinion 4274845

CourtListener opinion 4274845 Extracted case name: TRACY M. THOMASI v. EDWARD J. THOMASI. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: CV-16-6059830-S. Appellate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4274845 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 4274845


CourtListener opinion 4274845

QDRO: ly taking into con- sideration his receipt of a pension; and (4) by determining that the dissolution agreement requires him to make pension payments to the plaintiff as of the date of the marital dissolution even though the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) contemplated by their agreement was not then in place. We agree with the trial court that a fair reading of the agreement requires the defendant to begin making payments from his pen- sion to the plaintiff as of the date of the dissolution. We do not believe, however, that the record supports the court's finding that the defendant's loss of employ- ment wa


CourtListener opinion 4274845

retirement benefits: the benefit earned as of the date of marriage and subtract[ing] it from the benefit earned as of the date of divorce. . . . [T]he difference would be what they call the marital portion.'' See generally E. Brandt, ‘‘Valuation, Alloca- tion, and Distribution of Retirement Plans at Divorce: Where Are We?'' 35 Fam. L.Q. 469, 476–81 (2001); M. Snyder, ‘‘Challenges in Valuing Pension Plans,'' 35 Fam. L.Q. 235, 249 (2001). In her postjudgment motions, the plaintiff, using the subtraction method for determining the marital portion of the defendant's pension and the data provided by the State Retirement Services Division, determined th


CourtListener opinion 4274845

pension: eller, Prescott and Bishop, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from certain postjudgment orders of the trial court regarding the division of the defendant's defined benefit pension plan. She claimed that the trial court erred in determining that the term ‘‘marital portion,'' as used in the parties' marital dissolution agreement regarding a division of the defendant's defined benefit pen- sion plan, clearly and unambiguously provided for the coverture method to be utilized in calculating the marital portion. The defendant filed a


CourtListener opinion 4274845

ERISA: n relevant part: ‘‘Please be advised that [the state employees retirement system] is a governmental retirement plan and, as such, is exempt under United States Code, Title 29, Section 1003 from the federal requirements of the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA) as they pertain to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. However, [the state employees retirement system] will divide a member's benefit in recognition of child or spousal support obligations when so ordered by a Connecticut court . . . .'' See footnote 3 of this opinion. 6 Paragraph 9C of the parties' marital dissolution agreement concerns the division


CourtListener opinion 4274887

CourtListener opinion 4274887 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Armstrong. Extracted reporter citation: 538 S.W.3d 476. Docket: W2017-00152-COA-R3-CV A wife. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4274887 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 4274887


CourtListener opinion 4274887

QDRO: e trial court did not err in finding that Wife failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the final decree was void.7 F. Request for Alternate Relief In her Rule 60.02 motion, Wife sought alternate relief requesting that the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") distributing Husband's retirement account. Because a PSA is a contract, it "must be interpreted and enforced according to [its] plain terms." Anderson v. Harrison, No. 02A01-9805-GS-00132, 1999 WL 5057, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 1999). The PSA contains no specific provision regarding the distribution of retirement accounts. It does, however, co


CourtListener opinion 4274887

retirement benefits: ry block. Wife's signature, however, does not appear on page six or on any of the preceding pages. In her motion, Wife sought alternate relief, namely that the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order awarding her an equitable share of Husband's retirement account because no provision was made for it in the PSA or elsewhere in the final divorce decree. Husband filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment as well as a statement of undisputed facts on July 27, 2016, arguing that Wife did, in fact, sign the PSA. In support of his motion, he relied on a certified copy of the divorce file that


CourtListener opinion 4274887

domestic relations order: urt did not err in finding that Wife failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the final decree was void.7 F. Request for Alternate Relief In her Rule 60.02 motion, Wife sought alternate relief requesting that the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") distributing Husband's retirement account. Because a PSA is a contract, it "must be interpreted and enforced according to [its] plain terms." Anderson v. Harrison, No. 02A01-9805-GS-00132, 1999 WL 5057, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 1999). The PSA contains no specific provision regarding the distribution of retirement accounts. It does, however, co


CourtListener opinion 4275575

CourtListener opinion 4275575 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4275575 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 4275575


CourtListener opinion 4275575

QDRO: The parties agree that they will each retain any and all IRA/401K plans held in their individual names. Except that the husband has a FRS plan with BSO his employer. The wife is entitled to 50% of the marital portion of this plan through the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This QDRO will be entered and the funds transferred within the next (30) days. The marital portion is defined as the amount from the date of the marriage through the date of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. (Emphasis added) (the "Agreement provision"). The parties married in 1987 when the former husband was employed by the Tam


CourtListener opinion 4275575

pension: ision. In 2013, the trial court entered a final judgment for dissolution of marriage, which incorporated the parties' mediated settlement agreement (the "Agreement"). The Agreement contained a provision for the equitable distribution of the Former Husband's pension, which provides in pertinent part: The parties agree that they will each retain any and all IRA/401K plans held in their individual names. Except that the husband has a FRS plan with BSO his employer. The wife is entitled to 50% of the marital portion of this plan through the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This QDRO will be entered an


CourtListener opinion 4275575

401(k): the parties' mediated settlement agreement (the "Agreement"). The Agreement contained a provision for the equitable distribution of the Former Husband's pension, which provides in pertinent part: The parties agree that they will each retain any and all IRA/401K plans held in their individual names. Except that the husband has a FRS plan with BSO his employer. The wife is entitled to 50% of the marital portion of this plan through the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This QDRO will be entered and the funds transferred within the next (30) days. The marital portion is defined as the amount from t


CourtListener opinion 4275575

domestic relations order: ties agree that they will each retain any and all IRA/401K plans held in their individual names. Except that the husband has a FRS plan with BSO his employer. The wife is entitled to 50% of the marital portion of this plan through the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This QDRO will be entered and the funds transferred within the next (30) days. The marital portion is defined as the amount from the date of the marriage through the date of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. (Emphasis added) (the "Agreement provision"). The parties married in 1987 when the former husband was employed by the Tam


CourtListener opinion 4276658

CourtListener opinion 4276658 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 206 WDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4276658 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 4276658

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 4276658

QDRO: easure of correction was undertaken. Notwithstanding, even if no such order existed, there is no way to know exactly what [Ms. Brown] would or would not have foregone, or received in further negotiations with her ex-husband prior to the January 24, 2012, QDRO, so that any claim to the contrary would be wholly speculative. It is for the same reasons enumerated above that [Ms. Brown] cannot prove that her claim in the underlying divorce action was a viable one with respect to the Slippery Rock Borough Pension Plan. Stated differently, [Ms. Brown] has no ability to prove her "case within a case," if only bec


CourtListener opinion 4276658

pension: amages issue, the trial court explains: In this case, the damages sought by [Ms. Brown] are speculative at best. The amount [Ms. Brown] claims in damages in her Second Amended Complaint is that which she would J-A21005-17 receive under her ex-husband's Pension, in the event said Pension was available to her. However, as previously stated, [Ms. Brown's] ex-husband's Pension would not have been available to her with or without Attorney Boyer's advice. That is, no action or inaction of [Ms. Brown's] counsel would have resulted in [Ms. Brown's] ability to receive her ex-husband's Pension in any form. Therefore,


CourtListener opinion 4276658

domestic relations order: ently, no change in negotiation tactic would have provided her with a separate annuity. In fact, [Ms. Brown] did have the opportunity to continue negotiations well after the acknowledgement of the mistake on January 24, 2012, and thus a new May 7, 2015, "Domestic Relations Order" was entered. See Butler County Family Court Docket No. 2010-90027-D. While this may not reflect everything [Ms. Brown] desired to receive in the divorce proceedings, it does represent to this [c]ourt that some measure of correction was undertaken. Notwithstanding, even if no such order existed, there is no way to know exactly what [Ms. Brown] would o


CourtListener opinion 4276659

CourtListener opinion 4276659 Extracted reporter citation: 146 A.3d 795. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4276659 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 4276659


CourtListener opinion 4276659

QDRO: er ex- husband's [p]ension [p]lan did not provide her with a separate annuity . . . there is no way to know exactly what [Appellant] would or would not have foregone, or received in further negotiations with her ex-husband prior to the January 24, 2012 [] QDRO". Id. However, Appellant's second amended complaint asserts . . . if [Appellant] had known that the Slippery Rock Borough Police Pension Plan was not a qualified plan, and that she would not be entitled to a separate annuity payable on her ex-husband's earliest retirement date, which would survive his death, then she would have been in a position to


CourtListener opinion 4276659

pension: ulted in [Appellant's] ability to receive her ex-husband's [p]ension in any form" and "no change in negotiation tactic[s] would have provided [Appellant] with a separate annuity". Trial Court Opinion, 1/12/17, at 5. It is true that Appellant's ex-husband's pension plan was not a qualified ERISA1 plan; therefore, Appellant was not able to receive the agreed-upon annuity. However, had Appellant known that she was unable to receive a separate annuity, she may have been able to negotiate other terms that would have provided her with the financial security that she sought. The trial court concluded that, "even if arm


CourtListener opinion 4276659

domestic relations order: abile joins this concurring statement. ____________________________________________ 2 The trial court noted that, after counsel's mistake was uncovered, Appellant did have the opportunity to continue negotiations with her former husband and enter into a new domestic relations order. Trial Court Opinion, 1/12/17, at 5. The trial court goes on to conclude "[w]hile [the new order] may not reflect everything that [Appellant] desired to receive in the divorce proceedings, it does represent to [the trial court] that some measure of correction was undertaken." Id. I do not believe that the fact that a new order was negotiated after the pensi


CourtListener opinion 4277379

CourtListener opinion 4277379 Extracted reporter citation: 119 A.3d 382. Docket: 597 MDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4277379 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 4277379


CourtListener opinion 4277379

QDRO: in his income to calculate child support, (3) ordering him to make direct payments to Wife, (4) failing to consider the tax consequences of the lump sum and monthly payments, (5) failing to require Wife's payment from his retirement to be distributed by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), (6) failing to give him credit toward the lump sum because he had paid child support, alimony pendente lite, and mortgage contributions based on his retirement income, and (7) utilizing June 9, 2014, as the retroactive date under the order. Based upon the following, we affirm. By way of background, the parties were married on May 16, 1987, and


CourtListener opinion 4277379

pension: sed on his retirement income, and (7) utilizing June 9, 2014, as the retroactive date under the order. Based upon the following, we affirm. By way of background, the parties were married on May 16, 1987, and separated on February 14, 2010. Husband's Navy pension is in pay status. A final decree in divorce was entered on January 14, 2014. The facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal have been summarized by the trial court in its opinions filed March 7, 2017, and May 31, 2017. For purposes of our discussion, we reiterate the court's summaries, as abbreviated, below: By way of background, a Master'


CourtListener opinion 4277379

domestic relations order: ome to calculate child support, (3) ordering him to make direct payments to Wife, (4) failing to consider the tax consequences of the lump sum and monthly payments, (5) failing to require Wife's payment from his retirement to be distributed by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), (6) failing to give him credit toward the lump sum because he had paid child support, alimony pendente lite, and mortgage contributions based on his retirement income, and (7) utilizing June 9, 2014, as the retroactive date under the order. Based upon the following, we affirm. By way of background, the parties were married on May 16, 1987, and


CourtListener opinion 4277379

valuation/division: below: By way of background, a Master's Hearing in regard to Equitable Distribution was held on August 31, 2012; October 12, 2012; December 9, 2012; supplemented by an Order of Court dated March 5, 2013. A Master's Report and Recommendation in regard to Equitable Distribution was filed on June 25, 2013. … Subsequently, Husband filed Exceptions on July 10, 2013, and Amended Exceptions on July 15, 2013. … An Amended Master's Report on Equitable Distribution was issued on November 19, 2013. … -2- J-S70042-17 On November 20, 2013, Husband filed Exceptions to the Amended Master's Report. On December 30, 2013, the [trial co


CourtListener opinion 4278718

CourtListener opinion 4278718 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Seders. Extracted reporter citation: 740 N.E.2d 265. Docket: 2017-CA-31 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4278718 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 4278718


CourtListener opinion 4278718

QDRO: the parties appeared in court and entered an agreement regarding the divorce into the record. After the hearing, the trial court filed an order directing Nancy's attorney to prepare and submit the divorce decree; Jay's attorney was directed to prepare any qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs") and other orders to transfer accounts. On October 8, 2013, Nancy's counsel filed a notice of presentation of final judgment and decree of divorce, and noted that she had been asked by Jay's attorney to make changes in the decree that were inaccurate based on the agreement that had been read into the record. The court then ordered Jay to submi


CourtListener opinion 4278718

retirement benefits: eene No. 2013-CA-77, 2014-Ohio-5798. {¶ 8} On January 28, 2015, Nancy filed a motion for contempt and a request for attorney fees with the trial court. The contempt motion was based on several matters: (1) Jay's alleged improper transfer of funds into her retirement account without her consent or knowledge; (2) Jay's alleged violation of the divorce decree when he attempted to include assets that had been awarded to her within his property settlement payments; (3) Jay's refusal to sign a promissory note that had been presented to him and his substitution of his own modified note; and (4) Jay's failure to comply with provis


CourtListener opinion 4278718

pension: he case. See In re Mooney, 812 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.2016). See also In re Gardner, No. 12-12485 HRT, 2013 WL 3804594, *4 (Bankr. D.Colo., July 19, 2013) (rejecting debtor's claim for exemption of HSA funds, stating that it "cannot stretch the definition of ‘pension or retirement plan or deferred compensation plan' to embrace the funds held in an HSA"). {¶ 57} The trial court, thus, correctly concluded that Jay's HSA was not a retirement account. Although 26 U.S.C. 223(f)(4)(C) removes the 20% penalty for persons who are eligible for Medicare, that does not change the conclusion that the funds in the HSA were not


CourtListener opinion 4278718

ERISA: y $11,000 for an expert Nancy hired to work with the IRS for a refund of a penalty payment of excise tax and to testify; $10,000 for an attorney Nancy hired to advise her on the promissory note and to testify; and $1,250 for an attorney who testified about ERISA matters. The court also ordered Jay to pay Nancy's counsel $40,000 of more than $99,000 in attorney fees incurred for filing contempt motions and in defending against Jay's contempt motions. Finally, the court ordered Jay to pay Nancy $15,000 for fees incurred in connection with Jay's appeal. {¶ 16} Jay timely appealed from the trial court's decision.


CourtListener opinion 4278753

CourtListener opinion 4278753 Extracted reporter citation: 154 S.W.3d 93. Docket: of years used. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4278753 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 4278753

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 4278753

QDRO: ld that Pelloat timely perfected an appeal only as to the August 16 and 17, 2011 judgments. Id. Pelloat presented no challenges unique to the judgments nunc pro tunc. Id. We affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at *2. In 2015, the trial court signed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See Pelloat v. McKay, No. 13-15-00456-CV, 2017 WL 2375762, at *1 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi June 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (Pelloat II). Pelloat participated in the hearing. Id. at *2. Pelloat's appeal from the QDRO was transferred pursuant to a docket equalization order. Id. at *1 n.1. The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held: (1) the trial


CourtListener opinion 4278753

retirement benefits: ng despite Pelloat's request to conduct discovery; (2) Pelloat waived his complaint regarding insufficient notice of the subject of the telephone hearing; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by applying the appropriate formula to 2 Pelloat's retirement account; (4) Pelloat could not collaterally attack the property division in the QDRO appeal; (5) Pelloat failed to preserve his complaints concerning actions taken by his ex-wife's attorney with respect to the QDRO. Id. at *2-4. On October 16, 2015, the case that is the subject of this appeal commenced with the filing by Pelloat of a petition for a bill of re


CourtListener opinion 4278753

pension: e decree must be set aside because of extrinsic fraud; (3) the divorce decree must be set aside due to official mistake in failing to provide notice of judgment and the QDRO must be set aside due to official mistake in applying the formula for dividing his pension; (4) the divorce decree and the judgments nunc pro tunc are void because Pelloat was not present and he was not notified that they had been signed; and (5) Pelloat was deprived of due process through official antagonism and bias against Pelloat throughout the divorce proceedings. 5 Abuse of Discretion As the petitioner, Pelloat bore the burden to p


CourtListener opinion 4278753

domestic relations order: lloat timely perfected an appeal only as to the August 16 and 17, 2011 judgments. Id. Pelloat presented no challenges unique to the judgments nunc pro tunc. Id. We affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at *2. In 2015, the trial court signed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See Pelloat v. McKay, No. 13-15-00456-CV, 2017 WL 2375762, at *1 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi June 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (Pelloat II). Pelloat participated in the hearing. Id. at *2. Pelloat's appeal from the QDRO was transferred pursuant to a docket equalization order. Id. at *1 n.1. The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held: (1) the trial


CourtListener opinion 4279163

CourtListener opinion 4279163 Extracted case name: COA MELISSA CHRISTINE BLACK WEAVER APPELLANT v. RICHARD FRANKLIN WEAVER APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4279163 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 4279163


CourtListener opinion 4279163

QDRO: y payments of $1,250. Richard asserts that 5 although Melissa contends that the division of the retirement account would cause her an insurmountable tax penalty, that should not be an issue because she can avoid those tax penalties through the entry of a qualified domestic relations order. See Jones v. Jones, 904 So. 2d 1143, 1148 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). ¶11. We find that the chancellor's decision was supported by substantial, credible evidence. The chancellor performed a thorough analysis of the Ferguson factors and specifically addressed the tax consequences associated with the distribution. He correctly noted that the issue of t


CourtListener opinion 4279163

retirement benefits: concern, with respect to the distribution, was the real property, and Melissa's main concern was money. The court also awarded Melissa periodic monthly alimony payments of $1,250. Richard asserts that 5 although Melissa contends that the division of the retirement account would cause her an insurmountable tax penalty, that should not be an issue because she can avoid those tax penalties through the entry of a qualified domestic relations order. See Jones v. Jones, 904 So. 2d 1143, 1148 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). ¶11. We find that the chancellor's decision was supported by substantial, credible evidence. The chancellor


CourtListener opinion 4279163

pension: le argument on appeal is that the trial court incorrectly found that there were no tax consequences attributable to the distribution of the marital property. She asserts that most of the marital estate that was distributed to her consisted of retirement and pension funds, which were subject to taxes in order to liquidate those assets. She notes that Richard received the real property. She cites Louk v. Louk, 761 So. 2d 878, 883 (¶¶12-13) (Miss. 2000), arguing that the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision in that case since it did not do an analysis of the Ferguson factors and did not consi


CourtListener opinion 4279163

domestic relations order: of $1,250. Richard asserts that 5 although Melissa contends that the division of the retirement account would cause her an insurmountable tax penalty, that should not be an issue because she can avoid those tax penalties through the entry of a qualified domestic relations order. See Jones v. Jones, 904 So. 2d 1143, 1148 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). ¶11. We find that the chancellor's decision was supported by substantial, credible evidence. The chancellor performed a thorough analysis of the Ferguson factors and specifically addressed the tax consequences associated with the distribution. He correctly noted that the issue of t


CourtListener opinion 4281185

CourtListener opinion 4281185 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: COA17-787. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4281185 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 4281185

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 4281185

domestic relations order: ould technically not otherwise be "final" under Rule 54(b) because another related claim (or "issue") is still pending in the larger action. See id. In Comstock v. Comstock, this Court dismissed attempted interlocutory appeals from an injunction order and domestic relations order on the grounds that these types of orders "are not included on the list of immediately appealable interlocutory orders." 240 N.C. App. 304, 322, 771 S.E.2d 602, 615 (2015) (citing N.C.G.S. § 50–19.1). Based on this reasoning and interpretation of section 50-19.1, it appears this Court was guided by the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius,


CourtListener opinion 4281185

valuation/division: . In April, the parties entered into a Consent Order to Sell Former Marital Residence, in which they agreed the funds from the sale of the marital home would be held in the parties' attorneys' trust accounts until resolution of the pending cross-claims for equitable distribution. Plaintiff and defendant again reached an impasse at private mediation. On 31 May, the parties proceeded to a hearing before the Honorable Lisa V. L. Menefee, Chief Judge presiding in Forsyth County District Court on the pending cross-claims for child support and defendant's claim for post-separation support. Judge Menefee rendered an oral ruling for


CourtListener opinion 4283326

CourtListener opinion 4283326 Extracted reporter citation: 996 A.2d 696. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4283326 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 4283326


CourtListener opinion 4283326

QDRO: oceeding. 6 Specifically, the trial justice ordered the parties to divide equally the proceeds from the sale of the "marital domicile" on Hobson Avenue; the personal household property in that home; "any and all retirement account(s)"; the cost of drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order; the value of Kevin's life insurance policy, which listed Angela as the primary beneficiary; and any property in their safe-deposit box. The trial justice also adjudged that each party would be awarded all rights, title, and interest in their respective vehicles and any individually-held checking or savings accounts, and held each solely responsible for the


CourtListener opinion 4283326

retirement benefits: ecessary, the second part would be a divorce proceeding. 6 Specifically, the trial justice ordered the parties to divide equally the proceeds from the sale of the "marital domicile" on Hobson Avenue; the personal household property in that home; "any and all retirement account(s)"; the cost of drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order; the value of Kevin's life insurance policy, which listed Angela as the primary beneficiary; and any property in their safe-deposit box. The trial justice also adjudged that each party would be awarded all rights, title, and interest in their respective vehicles and any individually-held checkin


CourtListener opinion 4283326

pension: ncing evidence where "[t]here were many documents introduced in evidence, such as tax returns, a mortgage application, and insurance - 13 - applications in which she listed herself as single[,]" "[the] defendant was not designated as a beneficiary on her pension or 401(k)[,]" and "their condominium was owned as tenants in common, not as tenants by the entirety, or even joint tenants[,]" nor did the parties jointly hold bank accounts). In the past, we have said that similar "declarations strongly weighed against any serious intent to be husband and wife." Smith, 966 A.2d at 115; see also Lovegrove v. McCutcheon,


CourtListener opinion 4283326

401(k): Moreover, in 2001, Kevin named her as the sole beneficiary and heir in his will and, in 2003, the sole beneficiary on his life insurance plan. However, Kevin's will did not name her as his wife. Kevin also designated Angela as the primary beneficiary of his 401(k) plan in December 2000 and again in February 2001, listing her as his "fiancée" each time. Angela explained that, from 1990 until 2013, with the exception of 2008 and 2009, Kevin helped her prepare and file her tax returns. She stated that she always filed her taxes as "single" or "head of household," and that she and Kevin never filed joint tax returns


CourtListener opinion 4285541

CourtListener opinion 4285541 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Bowe & Perry. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4285541 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 4285541

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 4285541

QDRO: nd to that portion of the United States disposable retired or retainer pay to be paid as a result of [Craig's] service in the United States Air Force and reserves subject to [Audrey's] award as more fully set out in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] to be entered herein. The [QDRO] will deal with the benefits from the date of marriage to the date of divorce. All other benefits are awarded to [Craig]. [Emphasis added.] 2 The decree was originally signed on December 19, 1996. On December 30, the trial court granted Craig's agreed motion to correct the December 19 decree, which Craig incorrectly st


CourtListener opinion 4285541

retirement benefits: Air Force Reserve. During his reserve duty, Craig worked as a pilot for a commercial airline. In 1996, Craig filed for divorce. The trial court signed a final divorce decree on December 30, 1996,2 and as relevant to this appeal, addressed Craig's military-retirement benefits: [Craig] is awarded the following as [his] sole and separate property, and [Audrey] is divested of . . . .... . . . [a]ll right, title, and interest in and to that portion of the United States disposable retired or retainer pay to be paid as a result of [Craig's] service in the United States Air Force and reserves subject to [Audrey's] award as m


CourtListener opinion 4285541

domestic relations order: , title, and interest in and to that portion of the United States disposable retired or retainer pay to be paid as a result of [Craig's] service in the United States Air Force and reserves subject to [Audrey's] award as more fully set out in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] to be entered herein. The [QDRO] will deal with the benefits from the date of marriage to the date of divorce. All other benefits are awarded to [Craig]. [Emphasis added.] 2 The decree was originally signed on December 19, 1996. On December 30, the trial court granted Craig's agreed motion to correct the December 19 decree, which Craig incorrec


CourtListener opinion 4285541

valuation/division: - FROM THE 324TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 324-578647-15 ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------- Appellant Audrey Diane Gourley appeals from the trial court's judgment declaring a 1998 divorce decree void and declaring the property division as stated in the prior 1996 divorce decree enforceable. Because we agree with the trial court that the 1998 divorce decree was void, we affirm the trial court's declaratory judgment. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. I. BACKGROUND A. THE 1996 DECREE On June 11, 1978, Audrey and Appellee Craig Neil Gourley were married. During the marriage, Craig serve


CourtListener opinion 4285710

CourtListener opinion 4285710 Extracted reporter citation: 864 N.W.2d 689. Docket: A-17-422. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4285710 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 4285710


CourtListener opinion 4285710

QDRO: into a property settlement agreement. Pursuant to the property settlement agreement, Kelly will receive -1- $99,432.61 from the sale of the parties' home. She will also get $122,617 from Ron's Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Employee Savings Plan through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), $81,022 from Ron's Nebraska Public Power District retirement account, and she will also receive approximately $394.13 per month from Ron's Goodyear pension upon retirement. Trial was held on the issue of alimony in November 2016. In February 2017, the district court ordered Ron to pay alimony to Kelly in the amount of $900 per month for 60 months,


CourtListener opinion 4285710

retirement benefits: ill receive -1- $99,432.61 from the sale of the parties' home. She will also get $122,617 from Ron's Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Employee Savings Plan through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), $81,022 from Ron's Nebraska Public Power District retirement account, and she will also receive approximately $394.13 per month from Ron's Goodyear pension upon retirement. Trial was held on the issue of alimony in November 2016. In February 2017, the district court ordered Ron to pay alimony to Kelly in the amount of $900 per month for 60 months, or until the remarriage of Kelly, the death of either party, or until further


CourtListener opinion 4285710

pension: Ron's Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Employee Savings Plan through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), $81,022 from Ron's Nebraska Public Power District retirement account, and she will also receive approximately $394.13 per month from Ron's Goodyear pension upon retirement. Trial was held on the issue of alimony in November 2016. In February 2017, the district court ordered Ron to pay alimony to Kelly in the amount of $900 per month for 60 months, or until the remarriage of Kelly, the death of either party, or until further order of the court. The court approved the parties' property settlement agreement and


CourtListener opinion 4285710

domestic relations order: operty settlement agreement. Pursuant to the property settlement agreement, Kelly will receive -1- $99,432.61 from the sale of the parties' home. She will also get $122,617 from Ron's Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Employee Savings Plan through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), $81,022 from Ron's Nebraska Public Power District retirement account, and she will also receive approximately $394.13 per month from Ron's Goodyear pension upon retirement. Trial was held on the issue of alimony in November 2016. In February 2017, the district court ordered Ron to pay alimony to Kelly in the amount of $900 per month for 60 months,


CourtListener opinion 4285754

CourtListener opinion 4285754 Extracted case name: MORROW v. MORROW. Docket: 1 CA-CV 17-0658 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4285754 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 4285754


CourtListener opinion 4285754

QDRO: Husband's employment with various companies provided enough income to meet his monthly expenses. A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(9). Husband will also receive additional funds upon the sale of the marital residence and after the division of Wife's retirement accounts by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. A.R.S. § 25- 319(B)(9). The court determined that Husband did not reduce his income for the benefit of Wife, A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(7), and that Wife paid for their children's education without contribution from Husband, A.R.S. § 25- 319(B)(8). The court also determined that Husband has maintained appropriate employment to meet his needs. A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(10


CourtListener opinion 4285754

retirement benefits: 319(B)(3). Additionally, Husband's employment with various companies provided enough income to meet his monthly expenses. A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(9). Husband will also receive additional funds upon the sale of the marital residence and after the division of Wife's retirement accounts by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. A.R.S. § 25- 319(B)(9). The court determined that Husband did not reduce his income for the benefit of Wife, A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(7), and that Wife paid for their children's education without contribution from Husband, A.R.S. § 25- 319(B)(8). The court also determined that Husband has maintained appropriate employment


CourtListener opinion 4285754

domestic relations order: employment with various companies provided enough income to meet his monthly expenses. A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(9). Husband will also receive additional funds upon the sale of the marital residence and after the division of Wife's retirement accounts by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. A.R.S. § 25- 319(B)(9). The court determined that Husband did not reduce his income for the benefit of Wife, A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(7), and that Wife paid for their children's education without contribution from Husband, A.R.S. § 25- 319(B)(8). The court also determined that Husband has maintained appropriate employment to meet his needs. A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(10


CourtListener opinion 4286025

CourtListener opinion 4286025 Extracted reporter citation: 99 S.W.3d 150. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4286025 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 4286025


CourtListener opinion 4286025

QDRO: ee Retirement System (FERS). In late 2008, the trial court rendered Thomas and Lisa divorced pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement (MSA). The MSA provides in pertinent part as follows: "FERS retirement— Community interest divided 50-50 with approved QDRO[.]" The trial court later signed a Final Decree of Divorce, followed by a Nunc Pro Tunc Decree of Divorce, and finally a Revised Nunc Pro Tunc Decree of Divorce (Revised Decree) dated February 24, 2010. The Revised Decree expressly references the MSA and states "A record of the parties['] agreement is evidenced by their Mediation Agreement, signed by a


CourtListener opinion 4286025

retirement benefits: Thomas Ritter Helm and Lisa Lorraine Hauser were married in 1986. In 1991, Thomas became employed in the federal civil service and continued in that position for the duration of the 04-17-00232-CV parties' marriage. During his employment, Thomas accrued retirement benefits in the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). In late 2008, the trial court rendered Thomas and Lisa divorced pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement (MSA). The MSA provides in pertinent part as follows: "FERS retirement— Community interest divided 50-50 with approved QDRO[.]" The trial court later signed a Final Decree of Divorce, followed b


CourtListener opinion 4286025

401(k): W-3. Fifty (50%) percent of the community property interest whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all pro-rata increases thereof, proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit- sharing plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan and thrift savings plan or other benefit existing by reason of [Thomas's] past and present employment as of December 29, 2008 as specifically set out in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered simultaneously herewith. 1 In 2010, Thomas retired from the civil service and applie


CourtListener opinion 4286025

domestic relations order: sharing plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan and thrift savings plan or other benefit existing by reason of [Thomas's] past and present employment as of December 29, 2008 as specifically set out in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered simultaneously herewith. 1 In 2010, Thomas retired from the civil service and applied to receive FERS benefits. Between 2011 and 2017, Thomas received $241,985.63 in FERS benefits. Although she applied to the office managing FERS benefits to receive her share of the benefits directly, Lisa never received any benefits. On October 1, 2015, Lis


CourtListener opinion 4286372

CourtListener opinion 4286372 Extracted reporter citation: 29 F. App'x 907. Docket: 15-cv-02635. Her later filings and the District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4286372 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 4286372

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.