CourtListener opinion 2725337

domestic relations order: Jacobi, Judge Cause No. 10C02-0906-DR-117 March 24, 2014 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION ROBB, Judge Case Summary and Issue Following a dissolution of marriage between Albert Purcell and Theresa Purcell, the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") that distributed funds from a profit sharing account owned by the parties prior to their divorce. Albert, pro se, appeals the QDRO, raising the following issue for our review: whether the QDRO improperly modified the terms of the parties' decree of dissolution. Concluding the QDRO did not countermand the terms of the decree of dissolution, we a


CourtListener opinion 2725337

QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

valuation/division: 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). II. The QDRO Albert argues that the QDRO operated to improperly modify the terms of the parties' decree. More specifically, he contends the QDRO incorrectly adjusted for gains or losses on the Account since the October 31, 2010 valuation date, rather than merely distributing one-half of the money that existed in the Account as of that date. Theresa responds that the court's ruling on the motion to correct error, which was made without specific grounds for the denial, may be affirmed for two reasons: (1) Albert's motion to correct error was untimely, and (2) the QDRO did not improperly modify


CourtListener opinion 2725843

CourtListener opinion 2725843 Extracted reporter citation: 742 N.E.2d 991. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2725843 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 2725843

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 2725843

QDRO: bankruptcy court for limited relief from the automatic stay to seek clarification from the trial court regarding the husband's obligation on the husband's second mortgage, including what to do in the event that the husband's pension plan did not accept the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. The bankruptcy court determined that the trial court's order was not adequately clear regarding the second mortgage and ordered the wife to petition the trial court for clarification. Id. at 478-79. After a hearing, the trial court issued a written order stating, in part, that it had been the intent of the court that the wife have a judgmen


CourtListener opinion 2725843

pension: e. Id. The wife petitioned the bankruptcy court for limited relief from the automatic stay to seek clarification from the trial court regarding the husband's obligation on the husband's second mortgage, including what to do in the event that the husband's pension plan did not accept the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. The bankruptcy court determined that the trial court's order was not adequately clear regarding the second mortgage and ordered the wife to petition the trial court for clarification. Id. at 478-79. After a hearing, the trial court issued a written order stating, in part, that it ha


CourtListener opinion 2725843

domestic relations order: court for limited relief from the automatic stay to seek clarification from the trial court regarding the husband's obligation on the husband's second mortgage, including what to do in the event that the husband's pension plan did not accept the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. The bankruptcy court determined that the trial court's order was not adequately clear regarding the second mortgage and ordered the wife to petition the trial court for clarification. Id. at 478-79. After a hearing, the trial court issued a written order stating, in part, that it had been the intent of the court that the wife have a judgmen


CourtListener opinion 2725843

valuation/division: was not something that Sandra could provide, she should be ordered to provide the monetary value because she had several opportunities to argue that it did not belong in the marital estate. Moreover, James contended that after nearly one year, the original property division could not be reopened. By contrast, Sandra pointed out that James had already made several arguments about the disposition of the motorcycle and that it was James's responsibility to have addressed the matter. Sandra further argued that James had conceded that Sandra could not provide the motorcycle. On rebuttal, James pointed out that although he had


CourtListener opinion 2726000

CourtListener opinion 2726000 Extracted reporter citation: 766 N.E.2d 1240. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2726000 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 2726000


CourtListener opinion 2726000

QDRO: ROBB, Chief Judge Case Summary and Issue The marriage of Katherine Ryan and Larry Janovsky was dissolved in 1991 pursuant to a settlement agreement that included a provision dividing Janovsky's pension. Over twenty years later, Ryan presented a proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") for Janovsky's signature. Janovsky refused to sign, and Ryan filed a Verified Petition for Contempt and Rule to Show Cause, alleging Janovsky was in contempt of the parties' settlement agreement for failing to sign the QDRO. Ryan appeals the trial court's denial of her petition, raising one issue for our review: whether the trial court abused i


CourtListener opinion 2726000

retirement benefits: nt until an action is brought for a determination of the amount of unpaid and delinquent installments. Kuhn v. Kuhn, 273 Ind. 67, 70, 402 N.E.2d 989, 991 (1980). Similarly, the settlement agreement provides that Ryan will begin receiving her portion of the retirement benefits when Janovsky begins receiving his. Presumably, these benefits will be paid in monthly installments. When an obligation is payable in installments, the statute of limitations runs as to each installment as it becomes due. Id. at 71-72, 402 N.E.2d at 991. The applicable statute of limitations2 would therefore not begin to run until the date of the first


CourtListener opinion 2726000

pension: 2-9108-DR-805 December 5, 2013 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION ROBB, Chief Judge Case Summary and Issue The marriage of Katherine Ryan and Larry Janovsky was dissolved in 1991 pursuant to a settlement agreement that included a provision dividing Janovsky's pension. Over twenty years later, Ryan presented a proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") for Janovsky's signature. Janovsky refused to sign, and Ryan filed a Verified Petition for Contempt and Rule to Show Cause, alleging Janovsky was in contempt of the parties' settlement agreement for failing to sign the QDRO. Ryan appeals the trial court's de


CourtListener opinion 2726000

ERISA: s contained in a dissolution of marriage decree may be enforced by contempt, among other remedies. II. Timeliness of QDRO To meet the legislative goal of regulating and protecting pension plan funds, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") provides that benefits may not be assigned or alienated. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d); Hogle v. Hogle, 732 N.E.2d 1278, 1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. Because this caused problems in domestic relations settings where ERISA-governed pensions had to be divided, the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 amended ERISA to create an express statutory exception to


CourtListener opinion 2727378

CourtListener opinion 2727378 Extracted case name: J.I. v. J.H. Extracted reporter citation: 421 N.E.2d 647. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2727378 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 2727378


CourtListener opinion 2727378

QDRO: wrongful death account) to acquire the residence. 8 $32,242.00 from Account **2373. He also pointed out that there had been a $4,000.00 mathematical error in his favor because jewelry awarded to Wife had been over-valued by that amount. Husband sought a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in the amount of $113,083.50 to effect an equal division of assets (including those that had been set off to Wife in which he believed he was entitled to share). Finally, he sought an order that Wife be required to transfer $87,000.00 cash from the Raymond James Account **2373 and $3,923.00 from the Raymond James Account **6156 to effect the actual dist


CourtListener opinion 2727378

retirement benefits: irrevocable trust, and investment funds. It was determined that Husband's interest in a revocable trust and his contingent interest in a residuary trust for the care of his mother were not divisible assets. The dissolution court declined to setoff to Wife retirement accounts initially funded prior to the marriage. The court's stated intent was that a near-equal division of the marital estate, after setoff of inherited property, be effected. Wife was awarded possession of the marital residence and was ordered to pay Husband $105,000.00 for his share of the equity. On December 8, 2011, Husband filed a motion to correct erro


CourtListener opinion 2727378

401(k): esponded by clarifying its intent to setoff inherited assets to Wife, "correct[ing] mathematical errors regarding the jewelry and the Raymond James Freedom Account #2373" and ordering that $57,371.00 be transferred from Raymond James Account **9188 (Wife's 401(k)) to Husband, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. (App. 24.) Husband filed a request for clarification, contending that the dissolution court had failed to address the request for an immediate transfer of the $87,000.00 remaining from the wrongful death settlement (allegedly in Wife's control although awarded to Husband). Wife also filed


CourtListener opinion 2727378

domestic relations order: death account) to acquire the residence. 8 $32,242.00 from Account **2373. He also pointed out that there had been a $4,000.00 mathematical error in his favor because jewelry awarded to Wife had been over-valued by that amount. Husband sought a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in the amount of $113,083.50 to effect an equal division of assets (including those that had been set off to Wife in which he believed he was entitled to share). Finally, he sought an order that Wife be required to transfer $87,000.00 cash from the Raymond James Account **2373 and $3,923.00 from the Raymond James Account **6156 to effect the actual dist


CourtListener opinion 2727384

qualified_domestic_relations_order erisa pension preemption

CourtListener opinion 2727384 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Rife. Extracted reporter citation: 561 N.E.2d 809. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2727384 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 2727384


CourtListener opinion 2727384

QDRO: ble William A. Alexa, Judge The Honorable Katherine R. Forbes, Magistrate Cause No. 64D02-9404-DR-1058 May 29, 2013 OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION MATHIAS, Judge Jill Bastone (f/k/a Jill Finfrock) ("Mother") requested that the Porter Superior Court issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") ordering that funds in the retirement account of her former husband, Mark Finfrock ("Father"), be applied to satisfy Father's substantial child support arrearage. After initially granting the request, the trial court rescinded the QDRO and ordered Mother to pay attorney fees to Father. Mother now appeals and argues: (1) that the federal Fair De


CourtListener opinion 2727384

retirement benefits: te Cause No. 64D02-9404-DR-1058 May 29, 2013 OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION MATHIAS, Judge Jill Bastone (f/k/a Jill Finfrock) ("Mother") requested that the Porter Superior Court issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") ordering that funds in the retirement account of her former husband, Mark Finfrock ("Father"), be applied to satisfy Father's substantial child support arrearage. After initially granting the request, the trial court rescinded the QDRO and ordered Mother to pay attorney fees to Father. Mother now appeals and argues: (1) that the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is inapplicable to the pres


CourtListener opinion 2727384

pension: Mother next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to issue a QDRO attaching Father's retirement account. As this court noted in Hogle v. Hogle, 732 N.E.2d 1278, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), "It is well established that, under certain circumstances, a pension may be attached or garnished as a means of satisfying a support arrearage." Domestic relations orders concerning pension benefits must comply with the requirements for a QDRO, otherwise they are preempted by ERISA. Id. Thus, pension funds may, under some circumstances, be garnished or attached by means of a QDRO in order to satisfy a past-due support o


CourtListener opinion 2727384

ERISA: hed that, under certain circumstances, a pension may be attached or garnished as a means of satisfying a support arrearage." Domestic relations orders concerning pension benefits must comply with the requirements for a QDRO, otherwise they are preempted by ERISA. Id. Thus, pension funds may, under some circumstances, be garnished or attached by means of a QDRO in order to satisfy a past-due support obligation. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Rife, 529 N.W.2d 280, 281 (Iowa 1995)). ERISA was not intended to be "a vehicle for avoidance of family support obligations, and nothing in the ERISA statutes prohibits ‘in


CourtListener opinion 2727742

CourtListener opinion 2727742 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Preston. Extracted reporter citation: 740 N.E.2d 582. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2727742 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 2727742

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 2727742

QDRO: Court with a present value of the pension benefits of [Husband], it appears that [he] will receive substantial pension benefits as compared to those of [Wife]. 28. [D]ue to the difference in the pensions of the parties and in order to avoid utilizing a [qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO")] while still achieving an equal divi[s]ion of personal property, [Wife] should receive $5,000.00 more from the equity in the real estate than [Husband] should receive. Appellant's App. pp. 6-8. Ultimately, the trial court ordered that the marital home be sold and its proceeds divided as follows: B. The mortgage shall be completely paid.


CourtListener opinion 2727742

pension: home repair costs during the pendency of the dissolution. We conclude that the record supports the court's finding on and determination of this issue. Wife further claims that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding her only $5000.00 of Husband's pension benefits. Because neither party presented evidence of the pension's value, we are unable to determine whether this award effectuates an even distribution of the marital estate, and we remand for further findings. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Wife an


CourtListener opinion 2727742

domestic relations order: h a present value of the pension benefits of [Husband], it appears that [he] will receive substantial pension benefits as compared to those of [Wife]. 28. [D]ue to the difference in the pensions of the parties and in order to avoid utilizing a [qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO")] while still achieving an equal divi[s]ion of personal property, [Wife] should receive $5,000.00 more from the equity in the real estate than [Husband] should receive. Appellant's App. pp. 6-8. Ultimately, the trial court ordered that the marital home be sold and its proceeds divided as follows: B. The mortgage shall be completely paid.


CourtListener opinion 2727742

valuation/division: the findings. More specifically, the trial court has broad discretion in determining the value of property in a dissolution action, and we will disturb its valuation only for an abuse of this discretion. We will reverse the trial court's decision as to a valuation date only if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. As the party challenging the trial court's property division, Wife must overcome a strong presumption that the trial court complied with the statutory guidelines. 6 Id. at 583-84 (citations and quotations omitted). "The standard for reviewing the


CourtListener opinion 2727798

CourtListener opinion 2727798 Extracted reporter citation: 777 N.E.2d 41. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2727798 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 2727798


CourtListener opinion 2727798

QDRO: riage and Husband's length of service in the National Guard, the Court finds that Wife is entitled to one-half (1/2) of 29% or 14.5% of Husband's National Guard Retirement. Wife's interest in the Husband's National Guard Retirement shall be preserved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (App. at 16.) On December 16, 2011, Husband filed a petition to clarify the retirement funds due to Wife. The trial court held a hearing on the matter on February 24, 2012, and entered an order on March 12, awarding Wife $1,376.39 of Husband's retirement fund, an amount offset by Husband's overpayment of child support. On April 9, Wife filed a m


CourtListener opinion 2727798

retirement benefits: rry Goff (Husband) as part of their 1997 divorce order. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Husband and Wife were married on November 25, 1989 and divorced on August 28, 1997. As part of the divorce order, the trial court determined: Husband has a retirement plan associated with his twenty-five years with the National Guard. The Court finds that the parties were married for seven and one-half (7 1/2) years. Based upon the length of their marriage and Husband's length of service in the National Guard, the Court finds that Wife is entitled to one-half (1/2) of 29% or 14.5% of Husband's National Guard Retirement.


CourtListener opinion 2727798

domestic relations order: Husband's length of service in the National Guard, the Court finds that Wife is entitled to one-half (1/2) of 29% or 14.5% of Husband's National Guard Retirement. Wife's interest in the Husband's National Guard Retirement shall be preserved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (App. at 16.) On December 16, 2011, Husband filed a petition to clarify the retirement funds due to Wife. The trial court held a hearing on the matter on February 24, 2012, and entered an order on March 12, awarding Wife $1,376.39 of Husband's retirement fund, an amount offset by Husband's overpayment of child support. On April 9, Wife filed a m


CourtListener opinion 2727934

CourtListener opinion 2727934 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Dean. Extracted reporter citation: 956 N.E.2d 1084. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2727934 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 2727934


CourtListener opinion 2727934

QDRO: r personal property located at this residence. *** [] John Hancock Structured Settlement. The Wife is currently the owner of a John Hancock Structured Settlement. The parties agree that the Husband shall receive 25% of the Structured Settlement through a QDRO. Appellant's App. p. 28. On January 10, 2011, Husband filed a petition requesting that the trial court find Wife in contempt for 1) failing to make the monthly payments on the Antioch Road home, which resulted in foreclosure proceedings, 2) failing to pay the debt owed on the 475 W. County Road property, 3) failing to remit 25% of her annuity payments


CourtListener opinion 2727934

401(k): all respects. Affirmed. KIRSCH, J., and CRONE, J., concur. 3 Wife's citation to Scoleri v. Scoleri, 766 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) in support of her argument is unavailing. In that case, the trial court considered Father's early withdrawal from his 401(k) as income for the purpose of calculating child support. Although our court concluded that the funds constituted income "within the meaning of the" Guidelines, we held that under the unique facts of the case, the trial court erred when it utilized "Father's return for the early withdrawal of his 401(k) account in calculating his child support obligation." Id


CourtListener opinion 2728704

CourtListener opinion 2728704 Docket: COA13-986 NORTH CAROLINA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2728704 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 2728704


CourtListener opinion 2728704

QDRO: ll be divided, with wife to receive ½ the value thereof as of the date of the entrance of the Final Decree of Dissolution in this case. Wife shall execute any orders as directed by the Court to effectuate said division, including but not limited to any Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Husband's FERS account shall be divided, with wife to receive ½ of the amount in said account as of the date of the entrance of 1 The original agreement is not in our record but this provision was read out loud at a hearing by defendant's attorney and plaintiff testified that this was what the separation agreement stated. There is no dispute ab


CourtListener opinion 2728704

retirement benefits: n 2008, plaintiff and defendant were divorced in Kentucky by a decree of dissolution of marriage which incorporated a separation agreement. The separation agreement, entered on 8 -2- October 2008, included a provision regarding the division of defendant's retirement benefits as follows: Parties agree that wife is entitled to one half of the husband's retirement account, which specifically is TSP and FERS accounts, as of the date of the entrance of the final decree of dissolution in this case. Wife shall execute any orders as directed by the Court to effectuate said division including but not limited to any QDROs.1 Th


CourtListener opinion 2728704

domestic relations order: ided, with wife to receive ½ the value thereof as of the date of the entrance of the Final Decree of Dissolution in this case. Wife shall execute any orders as directed by the Court to effectuate said division, including but not limited to any Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Husband's FERS account shall be divided, with wife to receive ½ of the amount in said account as of the date of the entrance of 1 The original agreement is not in our record but this provision was read out loud at a hearing by defendant's attorney and plaintiff testified that this was what the separation agreement stated. There is no dispute ab


CourtListener opinion 2728792

CourtListener opinion 2728792 Docket: COA13-1133 NORTH CAROLINA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2728792 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 2728792

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 2728792

QDRO: enforced through the contempt powers of the court. On 31 August 2009, plaintiff Jeness J. Campbell filed for absolute divorce from defendant Melvin E. Campbell. That same day, plaintiff filed a separate action for a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO").1 On 15 October 2009, defendant answered and filed a pro se answer and counterclaim for equitable distribution, alimony and attorneys' fees. Although defendant captioned his answer and counterclaim in response to plaintiff's complaint for absolute divorce, he listed on his response the file number as being 09 CVD 173334, which does not match the fil


CourtListener opinion 2728792

retirement benefits: counterclaim was meritless because defendant had already agreed to a mediated settlement agreement resolving 1 Plaintiff's QDRO action, 09 CVD 17334, sought an order regarding a $25,000.00 lump sum distribution to defendant from plaintiff's Duke University retirement plan. On 19 February 2010, the trial court issued an order granting plaintiff's QDRO action. -3- all issues. On 3 December 2009, plaintiff filed an affidavit of judicial assignment and notice of hearing requesting an expedited hearing date for her motions to dismiss, to strike, and for Rule 11 sanctions. On 3 February 2010, a memorandum of mediated settlem


CourtListener opinion 2728792

valuation/division: A. Prather, and Sandlin Family Law Group, by Debra A. Griffiths, for plaintiff-appellee. Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Michelle D. Connell, for defendant-appellant. BRYANT, Judge. The District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims for equitable distribution and alimony, and can incorporate those claims into a judgment for absolute divorce by the consent of both parties. A separation agreement, once -2- incorporated by the trial court into a divorce judgment, can be enforced through the contempt powers of the court. On 31 August 2009, plaintiff Jeness J. Campbell filed for absolute divorce from defendant


CourtListener opinion 2728823

CourtListener opinion 2728823 Extracted case name: D.B. v. M.B.V. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2728823 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 2728823


CourtListener opinion 2728823

QDRO: ded as follows: 2 Pension Plans. Wife shall retain possession of her pension plan through George Junior Republic. Husband shall retain possession of his pension plan through Marion Steel. Wife shall receive through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ["QDRO"] fifty-percent (50%) of Husband's PERF-annuity savings accounts of May 1, 2005 ($11,000.00 to [Wife]). Attorney for [Wife] is to prepare and file the QDRO within 60 days of this Order. Id. at 100 (formatting altered) (emphasis added). Modification of the agreement was only permitted upon the parties' joint, written consent, although issues related to


CourtListener opinion 2728823

pension: ol[-]sponsored extracurricular activities, and agree to divide said mutually agreeable expenses equally." Id. at 99. The parties' pensions, including Husband's Public Employees' Retirement Fund ("PERF") annuity account, were to be divided as follows: 2 Pension Plans. Wife shall retain possession of her pension plan through George Junior Republic. Husband shall retain possession of his pension plan through Marion Steel. Wife shall receive through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ["QDRO"] fifty-percent (50%) of Husband's PERF-annuity savings accounts of May 1, 2005 ($11,000.00 to [Wife]). Attorney for [Wif


CourtListener opinion 2728823

domestic relations order: ty account, were to be divided as follows: 2 Pension Plans. Wife shall retain possession of her pension plan through George Junior Republic. Husband shall retain possession of his pension plan through Marion Steel. Wife shall receive through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ["QDRO"] fifty-percent (50%) of Husband's PERF-annuity savings accounts of May 1, 2005 ($11,000.00 to [Wife]). Attorney for [Wife] is to prepare and file the QDRO within 60 days of this Order. Id. at 100 (formatting altered) (emphasis added). Modification of the agreement was only permitted upon the parties' joint, written consent, although issues rela


CourtListener opinion 2728873

CourtListener opinion 2728873 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Carnes. Extracted reporter citation: 911 N.E.2d 660. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2728873 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 2728873


CourtListener opinion 2728873

QDRO: reliance on this court's decision in Beike v. Beike, 805 N.E.2d 1265, for the purposes of establishing that his T.R. 60(B) motion was filed within a reasonable time, is misplaced. In that case, following the dissolution of the parties' marriage in 1996, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered reflecting the trial court's distribution of the husband's vested retirement benefits. Several years later, the husband's 2 Husband seems to suggest that the question of whether a motion was filed within a reasonable time turns on whether exceptional circumstances justifying relief under T.R. 60(B)(8) exist. See Brimhall v. Brewster, 8


CourtListener opinion 2728873

retirement benefits: (B) motion was filed within a reasonable time, is misplaced. In that case, following the dissolution of the parties' marriage in 1996, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered reflecting the trial court's distribution of the husband's vested retirement benefits. Several years later, the husband's 2 Husband seems to suggest that the question of whether a motion was filed within a reasonable time turns on whether exceptional circumstances justifying relief under T.R. 60(B)(8) exist. See Brimhall v. Brewster, 864 N.E.2d 1148 (noting that relief under T.R. 60(B)(8) is available only upon a showing of exceptional ci


CourtListener opinion 2728873

pension: ve, did not discuss the timeliness of motions under T.R. 60(B)(8). The questions of whether a T.R. 60(B)(8) motion was timely filed and whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying relief 7 employer declared bankruptcy and, as a result, husband's pension benefits were significantly reduced. The husband filed a motion for relief from judgment asking the trial court to modify the QDRO to reflect the change in circumstances. The trial court granted the motion, and this court affirmed. In Beike v. Beike, however, the court did not address whether the motion was filed within a reasonable time, presumably b


CourtListener opinion 2728873

domestic relations order: on this court's decision in Beike v. Beike, 805 N.E.2d 1265, for the purposes of establishing that his T.R. 60(B) motion was filed within a reasonable time, is misplaced. In that case, following the dissolution of the parties' marriage in 1996, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered reflecting the trial court's distribution of the husband's vested retirement benefits. Several years later, the husband's 2 Husband seems to suggest that the question of whether a motion was filed within a reasonable time turns on whether exceptional circumstances justifying relief under T.R. 60(B)(8) exist. See Brimhall v. Brewster, 8


CourtListener opinion 2729862

CourtListener opinion 2729862 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Church. Extracted reporter citation: 927 N.E.2d 926. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2729862 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 2729862


CourtListener opinion 2729862

QDRO: ing $45.00 H. Edward Jones $21,488.00 $21,488.00 [401(k)] I. Husband‟s Fort $6,167.00 Financial Accounts J. Wife‟s Edward Jones $4,865.00 Account K. AXA Equitable LIP $1,274.00 (Marital Portion) L. Wife‟s Fort Financial $429.00 Accounts M. Husband‟s DANA QDRO QDRO Corp. Pension (Marital Share) TOTAL ASSETS $181,849.00 $37,627.00 DEBT N. Fort Financial FCU $54,352.00 Mortgage O. Fort Financial FCU $18,770.00 Fusion P. Partner 1st FCU $3,586.00 5 Taurus Q. Cap One Card $1,971.00 R. Sears Card $5,121.00 S. Kohls Card $332.00 TOTAL DEBTS $75,093.00 $9,039.00 T. Net Assets $106,756.00 $28,588.00 U. E


CourtListener opinion 2729862

retirement benefits: ns."). Nevertheless, Wife argues that the error was harmless because it results in an award of $0. We have described the coverture fraction formula as follows: The "coverture fraction" formula is one method a trial court may use to distribute pension or retirement plan benefits to the earning and non-earning spouses. Under this methodology, the value of the retirement plan is multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the period of time during which the marriage existed (while pension rights were accruing) and the denominator is the total period of time during which pension rights accrued. In re Marriage of


CourtListener opinion 2729862

pension: its discretion by not calculating and awarding to Husband the equity that he had in the marital residence before the marriage; (2) whether the trial court committed reversible error by awarding Wife fifty percent of the coverture portion of Husband‟s Dana pension; (3) whether the trial court committed reversible error by removing certain assets from the marital pot; and (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Husband to pay a portion of Wife‟s attorney‟s fees. We conclude that Husband has waived the first issue because he did not present evidence concerning the amount of equity that he ha


CourtListener opinion 2729862

401(k): ,048.00 $9,571.00 Accumulated during marriage C. Fort Financial IRA $401.00 (Marital Portion) D. Nishiwak[a]/Enveritus $3,868.00 E. Modern Woodman $3,797.00 F. Star Joint Checking $35.00 G. Star Joint Checking $45.00 H. Edward Jones $21,488.00 $21,488.00 [401(k)] I. Husband‟s Fort $6,167.00 Financial Accounts J. Wife‟s Edward Jones $4,865.00 Account K. AXA Equitable LIP $1,274.00 (Marital Portion) L. Wife‟s Fort Financial $429.00 Accounts M. Husband‟s DANA QDRO QDRO Corp. Pension (Marital Share) TOTAL ASSETS $181,849.00 $37,627.00 DEBT N. Fort Financial FCU $54,352.00 Mortgage O. Fort Financial FCU $18,77


CourtListener opinion 2729895

CourtListener opinion 2729895 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Nickels. Extracted reporter citation: 834 N.E.2d 1091. Docket: moving is properly a high priority for our trial be. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2729895 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 2729895

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 2729895

QDRO: newly discovered evidence. On December 21, 2011, the trial court denied Husband's request to submit the allegedly newly discovered evidence. The trial court also denied Husband's motion to correct error, in part, acknowledging "an error in providing for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [("QDRO")] with respect to a [Public Employees Retirement Fund ("PERF")] pension." Appellant's App. p. 85. The trial court amended its prior division of the marital estate to ameliorate the unequal property distribution that resulted from the correction of the trial court's error. This appeal follows. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Husband requested finding


CourtListener opinion 2729895

pension: egedly newly discovered evidence. The trial court also denied Husband's motion to correct error, in part, acknowledging "an error in providing for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [("QDRO")] with respect to a [Public Employees Retirement Fund ("PERF")] pension." Appellant's App. p. 85. The trial court amended its prior division of the marital estate to ameliorate the unequal property distribution that resulted from the correction of the trial court's error. This appeal follows. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Husband requested findings of fact and conclusions thereon pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), which p


CourtListener opinion 2729895

domestic relations order: covered evidence. On December 21, 2011, the trial court denied Husband's request to submit the allegedly newly discovered evidence. The trial court also denied Husband's motion to correct error, in part, acknowledging "an error in providing for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [("QDRO")] with respect to a [Public Employees Retirement Fund ("PERF")] pension." Appellant's App. p. 85. The trial court amended its prior division of the marital estate to ameliorate the unequal property distribution that resulted from the correction of the trial court's error. This appeal follows. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Husband requested finding


CourtListener opinion 2729895

valuation/division: 95), trans. denied (1996); see also Goodman v. Goodman, 754 N.E.2d 595, 599 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (reviewing division of property for abuse of discretion, we consider only evidence favorable to judgment). In addition, the party challenging the trial court's property division must overcome a strong presumption that the court considered and complied with the appropriate statutory guidelines. Wells, 679 N.E.2d at 916. Steffen, 772 N.E.2d at 504-05. "Although the facts and reasonable inferences might allow for a different conclusion, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court." In re Marriage of Nickels, 8


CourtListener opinion 2730212

CourtListener opinion 2730212 Extracted case name: R.R.F. v. L.L.F. Extracted reporter citation: 754 N.E.2d 619. Docket: of factors that a trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2730212 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 2730212


CourtListener opinion 2730212

QDRO: not see how the trial court erred in failing to address an issue upon which 33 Alexander presented no evidence. Second, although Alexander proposed to the trial court that Natalia receive a percentage of his pension payments upon his retirement through a QDRO, he also assigned the entire 401(k) account solely to himself. Thus, Alexander sought to preclude Natalia from receiving any of the 401(k) account funds that accumulated during the marriage. The trial court rejected that attempt and instead sought to equitably divide the property by granting the 401(k) to Natalia and the pension to Alexander, which had


CourtListener opinion 2730212

retirement benefits: the St. Petersburg flat before calculating the 60/40 split. Excluding the flat, the trial court found the net value of the marital estate to be $266,889.30, with Natalia to receive $160,133.58 total in assets and Alexander $106,755.72. With respect to the retirement accounts and as part of the total assets, the trial court awarded Alexander the full amount of his Lilly pension that he is due to receive upon retirement and awarded Natalia the value of the 8 401(k) at the time of separation, or $82,920. In order to effect the 60/40 split, the trial court ordered Alexander to make an equalization payment of $56,056,84. It a


CourtListener opinion 2730212

pension: n on July 21, 2010. Alexander represented himself at this hearing. At the outset, the parties stipulated that joint physical and legal custody of V.N. should be continued. The parties also stipulated that as of the date of separation, Alexander had a Lilly pension currently worth $80,373 and that his 401(k) account was worth $82,920.1 During this hearing, Natalia requested that Alexander be required to pay $198 per week in child support and that she be named the custodial parent of V.N. for purposes of controlled expenses and assignment of the parenting time credit. However, Natalia did not submit a child support


CourtListener opinion 2730212

401(k): int where he was earning over $100,000 annually. However, the available income to the Nikolayev family remained constant during this time, because Alexander directed that any additional amount earned through raises be saved and/or diverted to his voluntary 401(k) account through Lilly, and the money was not spent on current family expenses. By 2010, Alexander was contributing over $1,700 per month to his 401(k). The net effect of these 401(k) and savings contributions was that the amount available for current family expenses remained constant at approximately $51,000 per year throughout the marriage. Alexander


CourtListener opinion 2730337

CourtListener opinion 2730337 Extracted reporter citation: 952 N.E.2d 744. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2730337 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 2730337


CourtListener opinion 2730337

QDRO: ioner is granted and awarded as Petitioner's sole property, free and clear of any and all claims which Respondent may have therein or thereto, all of Petitioner's General Motors hourly employees' pension benefits subject to Respondent receiving by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order fifty percent (50%) of Petitioner's General Motors hourly employees' pension benefits which have accrued as of August 28, 2006, in the form of an annuity for Respondent's life time and payable at Petitioner's earliest eligible retirement age. Appellant's App. at ii, Trial Court Order at 1. Paragraph 69 of the Decree states: Respondent is granted and


CourtListener opinion 2730337

pension: 2008. Paragraph 68 of the Dissolution Decree states: Petitioner is granted and awarded as Petitioner's sole property, free and clear of any and all claims which Respondent may have therein or thereto, all of Petitioner's General Motors hourly employees' pension benefits subject to Respondent receiving by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order fifty percent (50%) of Petitioner's General Motors hourly employees' pension benefits which have accrued as of August 28, 2006, in the form of an annuity for Respondent's life time and payable at Petitioner's earliest eligible retirement age. Appellant's App. at ii


CourtListener opinion 2730337

ERISA: 130, 1134 n. 8 (Ind. 1998) (citing I.R.C. § 414(p) (1993)). QDROs are authorized under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984. Id. The Retirement Equity Act of 1984, P.L. 98-397, 98 Stat. 1433 (1984), amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., to authorize state courts to order the distribution of pension benefits in divorce actions pursuant to a QDRO. Id. The facts of this case can be summed up in simple terms. The parties' dissolution decree provided for an equal division of pension benefits. However, an admitted mistake by the trial court in not entering a QD


CourtListener opinion 2730337

alternate payee: lations Orders ("QDROs") should be "shared interest" or "separate interest" QDROs. Id. On March 4, 2009, the trial court determined that the QDROs should be separate interest QDROs and entered a QDRO with respect to Husband's pension benefits, with Wife as alternate payee. For unknown reasons, on that same date, the trial court did not enter a second QDRO with respect to Wife's pension benefits, with Husband as alternate payee. Pursuant to the entered QDRO, Wife began receiving benefits from Husband's pension on October 1, 2009.1 On April 5, 2010, Wife filed a motion to clarify specifically noting that a separate QDRO


CourtListener opinion 2730909

CourtListener opinion 2730909 Extracted case name: L.F.R. v. R.A.R. Extracted reporter citation: 717 N.E.2d 1249. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2730909 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 2730909


CourtListener opinion 2730909

QDRO: value of a 401(k) plan had significantly decreased one month after the decree was entered) and Parham v. Parham, 855 3 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (where wife requested "to try to correct an injustice" after her counsel had been ordered to prepare a qualified domestic relations order under terms not complying with either the law or the husband's pension plan), trans. denied. Accordingly, we treat Father's motion as one filed under Trial Rule 60(B)(8). We review the grant or denial of a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment under an abuse of discretion standard. Parham, 855 N.E.2d at 727. We will not find an abuse of dis


CourtListener opinion 2730909

pension: rham v. Parham, 855 3 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (where wife requested "to try to correct an injustice" after her counsel had been ordered to prepare a qualified domestic relations order under terms not complying with either the law or the husband's pension plan), trans. denied. Accordingly, we treat Father's motion as one filed under Trial Rule 60(B)(8). We review the grant or denial of a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment under an abuse of discretion standard. Parham, 855 N.E.2d at 727. We will not find an abuse of discretion unless the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic a


CourtListener opinion 2730909

401(k): (3), and (4). We have addressed the grant of relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) in the context of a dissolution decree in Case v. Case, 794 N.E.2d 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (where a portion of the decree could not be executed as written because the value of a 401(k) plan had significantly decreased one month after the decree was entered) and Parham v. Parham, 855 3 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (where wife requested "to try to correct an injustice" after her counsel had been ordered to prepare a qualified domestic relations order under terms not complying with either the law or the husband's pension plan), tran


CourtListener opinion 2730909

domestic relations order: a 401(k) plan had significantly decreased one month after the decree was entered) and Parham v. Parham, 855 3 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (where wife requested "to try to correct an injustice" after her counsel had been ordered to prepare a qualified domestic relations order under terms not complying with either the law or the husband's pension plan), trans. denied. Accordingly, we treat Father's motion as one filed under Trial Rule 60(B)(8). We review the grant or denial of a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment under an abuse of discretion standard. Parham, 855 N.E.2d at 727. We will not find an abuse of dis


CourtListener opinion 2732037

CourtListener opinion 2732037 Extracted reporter citation: 40 A.3d 917. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2732037 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 2732037

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 2732037

QDRO: l 7-389, District of Columbia Spouse Equity Amendment Act of 1988, at 1 (October 27, 1988) (emphasis in original). Under this law, however, a former spouse is not entitled to a survivor annuity unless a "qualifying court order" (sometimes referred to as a "QDRO") "by its terms awards to a former spouse . . . a survivor annuity." D.C. Code § 1-529.02 (c) (2001). 6 Modeled after a federal statute enacted in 1978, the Spouse Equity Amendment Act of 1988 requires the Mayor to "comply with any qualifying court order that is issued prior to the employee‟s retirement." D.C. Code § 1-529.03 (b) (2001). The Mayor i


CourtListener opinion 2732037

retirement benefits: or summary affirmance on behalf of the federal appellees. Lonie Anne Hassel and Julia E. Zuckerman filed a motion for summary affirmance on behalf of appellees District of Columbia Retirement Board and District of Columbia Police Officers‟ and Firefighters‟ Retirement Plan. Raymond S. Dietrich filed an opposition to the motions for summary affirmance on behalf of appellant.1 1 These motions and the opposition were filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The parties have filed a joint statement advising that these papers and the record in the United States District Court provide t


CourtListener opinion 2732037

pension: either the original federal statute nor the Spouse Equity Amendment Act of 1988 explicitly addressed whether court orders issued after the death of an employee who has not yet retired are enforceable. Noting this lack of clarity, Congress amended federal pension law in 1986. A summary of the amendment identified the statutory "inconsistency" under which "a court order could be changed following the death of an employee who has not yet retired[,]" but could not be "amended after the employee‟s retirement[.]" 131 Cong. Rec. S18098 (daily ed. Dec. 19, 1985) (section-by-section summary of Senate committee amendmen


CourtListener opinion 2732037

survivor benefits: ted in writing by such member[.]" D.C. Code § 5-706 (c) (2008 Supp.). As the law indicates, a designated beneficiary may only receive this lump sum payment of retirement contributions when a plan member dies without leaving survivors eligible to receive a survivor annuity. B. The Spouse Equity Amendment Act Noting that "[c]ourt orders purporting to award a survivor annuity to a former spouse are currently unenforceable[,]" the Council of the District of Columbia adopted the Spouse Equity Amendment Act of 1988 in order "to conform the District‟s remaining retirement systems as much as possible with the changes made i


CourtListener opinion 2732060

CourtListener opinion 2732060 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Preston. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2732060 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 2732060


CourtListener opinion 2732060

QDRO: few months later, Wife moved out of the marital residence. On April 27, 1998, Husband and Wife executed a Property Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement), which stipulated, in part, that the parties would obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to "provide for an equal division of [their respective] pension funds as of the [Filing Date]." (Appellant's App. p. 24). On April 30, 1998, the parties waived the final hearing and submitted the Settlement Agreement to the trial court. The trial court approved the Settlement Agreement and entered a decree of dissolution. On November 30, 1998, Husband


CourtListener opinion 2732060

retirement benefits: and $691,729 to Husband. In order to effectuate an equal division of the 3 marital estate, the trial court—after deducting $5530 for Wife's contribution to their child's college expenses—ordered Husband to pay $246,585 to Wife by executing a QDRO on his retirement account. In calculating and dividing the marital estate, the trial court included the value of Husband's retirement account, as well as the annuity savings portion of Wife's ISTRF 1 and another small retirement fund in her name. At the time of the final hearing, Wife had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment. Wife's prognosis was grim, and sh


CourtListener opinion 2732060

pension: n April 27, 1998, Husband and Wife executed a Property Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement), which stipulated, in part, that the parties would obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to "provide for an equal division of [their respective] pension funds as of the [Filing Date]." (Appellant's App. p. 24). On April 30, 1998, the parties waived the final hearing and submitted the Settlement Agreement to the trial court. The trial court approved the Settlement Agreement and entered a decree of dissolution. On November 30, 1998, Husband filed a motion for relief from judgment. He asserted that the pa


CourtListener opinion 2732060

domestic relations order: issolve their marriage. A few months later, Wife moved out of the marital residence. On April 27, 1998, Husband and Wife executed a Property Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement), which stipulated, in part, that the parties would obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to "provide for an equal division of [their respective] pension funds as of the [Filing Date]." (Appellant's App. p. 24). On April 30, 1998, the parties waived the final hearing and submitted the Settlement Agreement to the trial court. The trial court approved the Settlement Agreement and entered a decree of dissolution. On November 30, 1998, H


CourtListener opinion 2732989

CourtListener opinion 2732989 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Micheli. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Second District Docket No. 2-12-1245. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2732989 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 2732989


CourtListener opinion 2732989

QDRO: shall keep the SRIP as his sole property." ¶ 40 Paragraph 2 was the court's response to Ellen's motion to clarify how the benefit plans should be divided in light of the fact that John's SRIP account was not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Thus, the order addressed the benefit plans, i.e. the pensions and the SRIP account. It appears that, after awarding John his entire SRIP account, the court intended to maintain the 50/50 division of the benefit plans by awarding Ellen a corresponding amount from other assets, which the court can specify on remand. Regardless, the intended 50/50 divis


CourtListener opinion 2732989

retirement benefits: . On cross-appeal, Ellen argues that she is entitled to one-half of the unvested stock options and RSUs. John responds that the court awarded him the unvested stock options and RSUs in exchange for Ellen receiving a larger share of the defined contribution retirement plans. We agree with Ellen that the court abused its discretion in awarding John all of the unvested stock options and RSUs, because this award is unrelated to its distribution of the defined contribution retirement plans and potentially gives John a windfall. ¶3 The trial court initially ordered John to contribute $10,000 to Ellen's attorney fees, but it la


CourtListener opinion 2732989

pension: irement plans (benefit plans). In paragraph 2, the trial court stated, "[t]he value of John's SRIP [supplemental retirement income plan] account as of 6/28/12 shall be divided 50/50 by way of an additional/greater percentage award of either John's Allstate pension or Allstate 401(k) distribution to [Ellen]. John shall keep the SRIP as his sole property." ¶ 40 Paragraph 2 was the court's response to Ellen's motion to clarify how the benefit plans should be divided in light of the fact that John's SRIP account was not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Thus, the order addressed the benefit plans


CourtListener opinion 2732989

401(k): ed stock units (RSUs). On cross-appeal, Ellen argues that she is entitled to one-half of the unvested stock options and RSUs. John responds that the court awarded him the unvested stock options and RSUs in exchange for Ellen receiving a larger share of the defined contribution retirement plans. We agree with Ellen that the court abused its discretion in awarding John all of the unvested stock options and RSUs, because this award is unrelated to its distribution of the defined contribution retirement plans and potentially gives John a windfall. ¶3 The trial court initially ordered John to contribute $10,000 to Ellen's attorney


CourtListener opinion 2733146

CourtListener opinion 2733146 Extracted case name: COURTNEY ROBACZYNSKI v. MARC A. ROBACZYNSKI. Extracted reporter citation: 892 A.2d 964. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2733146 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 2733146

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 2733146

QDRO: he plaintiff's attorney's fees. Additionally, the court required the defendant to pay 50 percent of the costs of the mortgage and taxes on the marital residence until it was sold.2 The defendant was also responsible for 75 percent of the costs of preparing a qualified domestic relations order to effect the equitable division of the parties' bank accounts, deferred compensation accounts, and restricted stock. Neither party appealed from the judgment. On May 7, 2013, the defendant filed a motion for modification of the unallocated family support3 and the other financial orders in the dissolution decree, includ- ing the orders regarding the health


CourtListener opinion 2733146

domestic relations order: ff's attorney's fees. Additionally, the court required the defendant to pay 50 percent of the costs of the mortgage and taxes on the marital residence until it was sold.2 The defendant was also responsible for 75 percent of the costs of preparing a qualified domestic relations order to effect the equitable division of the parties' bank accounts, deferred compensation accounts, and restricted stock. Neither party appealed from the judgment. On May 7, 2013, the defendant filed a motion for modification of the unallocated family support3 and the other financial orders in the dissolution decree, includ- ing the orders regarding the health


CourtListener opinion 2733181

CourtListener opinion 2733181 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Green. Extracted reporter citation: 954 S.W.2d 681. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2733181 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 2733181

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 2733181

QDRO: f Franklin County vs. ) ) Honorable David L. Hoven BETH A. LAENEN, ) ) Respondent. ) FILED: September 16, 2014 Introduction Appellant Jennifer Laenen ("Jennifer") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County ordering the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")1 affecting the pension of Jennifer‟s deceased husband, Frank Laenen ("Frank").2 The QDRO recognized the right of Beth Laenen ("Beth"), Frank‟s former spouse, to receive a portion of Frank‟s pension pursuant to a separation agreement incorporated into Beth and Frank‟s marriage dissolution decree. On appeal, Jennifer contends that the trial court


CourtListener opinion 2733181

pension: LAENEN, ) ) Respondent. ) FILED: September 16, 2014 Introduction Appellant Jennifer Laenen ("Jennifer") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County ordering the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")1 affecting the pension of Jennifer‟s deceased husband, Frank Laenen ("Frank").2 The QDRO recognized the right of Beth Laenen ("Beth"), Frank‟s former spouse, to receive a portion of Frank‟s pension pursuant to a separation agreement incorporated into Beth and Frank‟s marriage dissolution decree. On appeal, Jennifer contends that the trial court lacked authority to enter the QD


CourtListener opinion 2733181

alternate payee: entered the QDRO. Jennifer further asserts that the separation agreement contained no terms evidencing the parties‟ intention that the separation agreement be considered a QDRO, and that 1 A QDRO is an order that "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee‟s right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a participant plan [.]" Seal v. Raw, 954 S.W.2d 681, 683 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I) (Supp.1997)). 2 To avoid confusion, the parties will be referred to by their first names. No disrespect is intended by the Court. the QD


CourtListener opinion 2733181

domestic relations order: County vs. ) ) Honorable David L. Hoven BETH A. LAENEN, ) ) Respondent. ) FILED: September 16, 2014 Introduction Appellant Jennifer Laenen ("Jennifer") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County ordering the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")1 affecting the pension of Jennifer‟s deceased husband, Frank Laenen ("Frank").2 The QDRO recognized the right of Beth Laenen ("Beth"), Frank‟s former spouse, to receive a portion of Frank‟s pension pursuant to a separation agreement incorporated into Beth and Frank‟s marriage dissolution decree. On appeal, Jennifer contends that the trial court


CourtListener opinion 2734273

CourtListener opinion 2734273 Extracted reporter citation: 290 U.S. 111. Docket: 15737-12S. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2734273 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 2734273


CourtListener opinion 2734273

QDRO: hat they [would] end up with equal dollars." (Emphasis added.) The stipulation of settlement provided: The value of Mr. Laremore's IRA's, over Mrs. Laremore's, is $77,730.48. The agreement is that she will get half of that sum for -4- $38,865.24 via a QDRO[2] being placed on Mr. Laremore's traditional IRA so that that amount will be transferred to her and the end result is that the parties will have equally shared these retirement accounts. [Emphasis added.] During a brief discussion held off the record, the parties realized that their respective numbers for the various retirement accounts did not preci


CourtListener opinion 2734273

retirement benefits: their joint bank accounts equally, with Mr. Laremore agreeing to give Mrs. Laremore 50% of the funds in a bank account he held individually. Also in the stipulation of settlement, and pertinent to this case, the couple agreed to "divide[] equally" their retirement accounts, "so that the net result is that they [would] end up with equal dollars." (Emphasis added.) The stipulation of settlement provided: The value of Mr. Laremore's IRA's, over Mrs. Laremore's, is $77,730.48. The agreement is that she will get half of that sum for -4- $38,865.24 via a QDRO[2] being placed on Mr. Laremore's traditional IRA so that that


CourtListener opinion 2734273

domestic relations order: a little tweaking on the number, we will, but the concept of what we're doing is there. [Emphasis added.] Divorce decree The stipulation of settlement was incorporated by reference into the divorce decree, in which it was-- 2 A "QDRO" is a "qualified domestic relations order" as defined in section 414(p), which is issued in the context of a divorce or separation. A QDRO permits a portion of a tax-advantaged retirement plan, such as an individual retirement account ("IRA"), see sec. 408, to be transferred from one divorcing spouse to the other without the transferring spouse's incurring a tax liability on the amount transferred.


CourtListener opinion 2735575

CourtListener opinion 2735575 Docket: 13-DR-0154. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2735575 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 2735575


CourtListener opinion 2735575

QDRO: the survivorship benefits, finding that "the Magistrate erred in finding that [Ray] was entitled to a survivor benefit with regard to [Tracy's] military pension." (Id. at p. 2-3). The entry went on to list a series of orders, including the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") which "should provide a half-interest in the pension to Ray H. Martinez, Jr. based upon the dates above." (Id. at p. 3). However, none of these orders specified that the QDRO should not include survivorship benefits for Ray. -3- Case No. 13-14-07 {¶5} Another entry, captioned "Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce" ("divorce decree"), was als


CourtListener opinion 2735575

retirement benefits: ties for the portion that was acquired during the marriage. {¶3} Tracy filed three objections on December 9, 2013. The first objected to the "Magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law that [Ray] is entitled to a one-half portion of the military retirement benefits of the military pension of -2- Case No. 13-14-07 [Tracy]." (Docket No. 24, p. 1). The second objection stated "Accordingly, Defendant objects to the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to same, as contained in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Magistrate's decision." Id. The third objected to any award of survivorship


CourtListener opinion 2735575

pension: se No. 13-14-07 ROGERS, J. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Tracy Martinez ("Tracy"), appeals the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Seneca County, Domestic Relations Division, overruling her objections to the magistrate's order that divided her military pension equally with Plaintiff-Appellee, Ray Martinez, Jr. ("Ray") as part of a divorce decree. On appeal, Tracy argues that the trial court failed to adequately explain the division. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable order. {¶2} On August 31, 1987, Tracy joined the United States Air Force. She married Ray on Fe


CourtListener opinion 2735575

domestic relations order: orship benefits, finding that "the Magistrate erred in finding that [Ray] was entitled to a survivor benefit with regard to [Tracy's] military pension." (Id. at p. 2-3). The entry went on to list a series of orders, including the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") which "should provide a half-interest in the pension to Ray H. Martinez, Jr. based upon the dates above." (Id. at p. 3). However, none of these orders specified that the QDRO should not include survivorship benefits for Ray. -3- Case No. 13-14-07 {¶5} Another entry, captioned "Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce" ("divorce decree"), was als


CourtListener opinion 2738355

CourtListener opinion 2738355 Extracted reporter citation: 931 F.2d 1544. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2738355 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 2738355


CourtListener opinion 2738355

QDRO: t under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), was divorced from his former spouse in 1997. See Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 9-16 (divorce decree). In conjunction with the divorce decree, the court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) providing that the appellant's former spouse would be entitled to a portion of his retirement benefits and to be treated as a surviving spouse if the appellant predeceased her. Id. at 18-21. Upon his retirement, the appellant began receiving annuity payments on September 4, 2011; however, OPM erroneously omitted the former spouse apportionment. Id. at


CourtListener opinion 2738355

retirement benefits: n 1997. See Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 9-16 (divorce decree). In conjunction with the divorce decree, the court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) providing that the appellant's former spouse would be entitled to a portion of his retirement benefits and to be treated as a surviving spouse if the appellant predeceased her. Id. at 18-21. Upon his retirement, the appellant began receiving annuity payments on September 4, 2011; however, OPM erroneously omitted the former spouse apportionment. Id. at 5, 25, 40. In 2013, OPM corrected the omission and notified the appellant that, pursuant to the QDRO,


CourtListener opinion 2738355

survivor benefits: omitted the former spouse apportionment. Id. at 5, 25, 40. In 2013, OPM corrected the omission and notified the appellant that, pursuant to the QDRO, his former spouse was entitled to a retroactive apportionment, monthly annuity payment, and former spouse survivor annuity benefits if he predeceased her. Id. at 25. The appellant requested reconsideration of OPM's findings related to the court-ordered apportionment and former spouse survivor annuity benefit. See id. at 5. OPM affirmed its initial decision, id. at 5-8, and the appellant filed an appeal of the reconsideration decision to the Board, IAF, Tab 1. 3 ¶3 On app


CourtListener opinion 2738512

CourtListener opinion 2738512 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of SHARRON STEED and JAMES STEED. CANDICE STEED. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2738512 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 2738512

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 2738512

retirement benefits: d & Brown, John R. Szewczyk and Marc E. Denison for Respondent. -ooOoo- Candice Steed, as administrator of the estate of Sharron Steed, sought an order determining that she and her siblings were entitled to their deceased mother's interest in their father's retirement benefits, an interest that was established in the judgment of dissolution of the marriage of James and Sharron Steed. Rejecting James's argument that Sharron's interest terminated upon her death, the family law court granted Candice's petition and ordered that Sharron's interest be paid to her beneficiaries. James appeals from the order granting Candice's petition


CourtListener opinion 2738512

pension: t aside the DRO because it did not meet the requirements of CalPERS. Candice subsequently became administrator of Sharron's estate. In probate court, she filed a petition seeking an order determining that Sharron held a community property interest in James's pension plan and that she was able to bequeath that interest to her children. The parties stipulated to the relevant facts and exhibits, and the probate court heard the matter. Candice argued that James was collaterally estopped by the September 2, 2009, order from relitigating the determination that Sharron could designate beneficiaries to receive her interest in


CourtListener opinion 2738512

domestic relations order: . Rejecting James's argument that Sharron's interest terminated upon her death, the family law court granted Candice's petition and ordered that Sharron's interest be paid to her beneficiaries. James appeals from the order granting Candice's petition and the domestic relations order implementing that decision.1 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 26, 1998, the family law court entered a judgment of dissolution ending the marriage of James and Sharron Steed. The judgment included a provision that "James Steed's retirement/deferred compensation benefits from employment during marriage shall be divided between the parties by the tim


CourtListener opinion 2738512

survivor benefits: or and death benefits, including, but not limited to, any of the following: "(1) Order the disposition of any retirement benefits payable upon or after the death of either party in a manner consistent with Section 2550. 8. "(2) Order a party to elect a survivor benefit annuity or other similar election for the benefit of the other party, as specified by the court, in any case in which a retirement plan provides for such an election, provided that no court shall order a retirement plan to provide increased benefits determined on the basis of actuarial value. "(3) Upon the agreement of the nonemployee spouse, order th


CourtListener opinion 2738841

CourtListener opinion 2738841 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DAVID PAUL WALKER AND JEANETTE RENEE WALKER Upon the Petition of DAVID PAUL. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 13-1310. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2738841 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 2738841


CourtListener opinion 2738841

QDRO: y has been awarded to David, the court finds that he should be responsible for those debts listed in [Jeanette's] financial affidavit [$10,321.96]." The court found the Vanguard account to be a marital asset and assigned it to David. 6 The court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order with respect to David's Tier II benefits. David was also ordered to pay $2150 of Jeanette's attorney's fees. Finally, David was ordered to pay Jeanette an equalization payment of $20,000. The court awarded the HHR vehicle to Jeanette and valued it at $2500. She was also awarded one-half of parties' 2012 income tax refund. The court considered the pert


CourtListener opinion 2738841

retirement benefits: unreasonable, and the court will not make any adjustment to the parties' property division as a result." The court also rejected the claim that Jeanette's pawning of jewelry resulted in a dissipation of assets, 4 David testified he had Tier I and Tier II retirement benefits through the railroad. Tier I benefits are in lieu of social security payments and are not divisible. Tier II benefits begin at David's retirement and are subject to division by the formula enunciated in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996). 5 The district court found David's testimony that the vehicle had declined in value to $5000 de


CourtListener opinion 2738841

pension: urance coverage for Jeanette. In addition, temporary support was raised to $1150. 6 believe Jeanette was entitled to any amount of the Vanguard account because he had contributed to it prior to the marriage. Nor did he think she should get any part of his pension.4 He asked that he be awarded the marital residence, which he valued at $36,000, and his coin collection (unknown value). He was willing to sell the Nova and split the proceeds, claiming the vehicle was then worth between $3500 and $5000. David testified he could not continue to afford to pay $1150 per month in support, and if ordered to do so, it shoul


CourtListener opinion 2738841

401(k): ril 2009, the house had an assessed value of $52,800. The realtor who sold the house to David offered a letter valuation on July 30, 2012, estimating the house would sell for $36,000 to $42,000. 3 At the time the parties got married, David had a Vanguard 401k account. One hundred dollars from each of his twice-monthly paychecks from Union Pacific Railroad were placed in the Vanguard account. There was no evidence as to when David began making these contributions, or the amount of the account at the time David and Jeanette were married. David continued contributing to the account for two months ($400) after


CourtListener opinion 2739477

CourtListener opinion 2739477 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2739477 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 2739477


CourtListener opinion 2739477

pension: STIN E. HENSON, No. 62654 Appellant, vs. HOWARD HALE HENSON, AL Respondent. OCT 02 2614 CL BY It .0i ti RA C it uE Appeal from a district court order modifying a qualified domestic relations order and denying appellant's motion for a judgment on pension payment arrearages. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Bridget Robb Peck, Judge. Affirmed. Todd L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY, J.: In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether a


CourtListener opinion 2739477

domestic relations order: Nevi, Advance Opinion 71 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA KRISTIN E. HENSON, No. 62654 Appellant, vs. HOWARD HALE HENSON, AL Respondent. OCT 02 2614 CL BY It .0i ti RA C it uE Appeal from a district court order modifying a qualified domestic relations order and denying appellant's motion for a judgment on pension payment arrearages. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Bridget Robb Peck, Judge. Affirmed. Todd L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY


CourtListener opinion 2739477

survivor benefits: L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY, J.: In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether a nonemployee spouse is entitled to survivor benefits if, in a divorce decree, 'The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Justice, voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ce 14 /3214 he or she is allocated a community property interest in the employee spouse's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension plan. We are also asked to


CourtListener opinion 2739477

valuation/division: is entitled to survivor benefits if, in a divorce decree, 'The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Justice, voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ce 14 /3214 he or she is allocated a community property interest in the employee spouse's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension plan. We are also asked to consider whether the nonemployee spouse must file a motion in the district court to immediately begin receiving his or her community property interest in the PERS pension plan when the employee spouse has reached retirement eligibility but has


CourtListener opinion 2739667

CourtListener opinion 2739667 Extracted reporter citation: 153 P.3d 945. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2739667 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 2739667


CourtListener opinion 2739667

QDRO: ed, as her sole and separate property, the following: .... ii. ½ of [Husband]'s investment accounts, pension plans, retirement accounts, 401K accounts, IRA accounts and/or stock options, as of the date of the entry of the within decree, to be divided by QDRO, as necessary. The Stock Options when they vest shall be equally divided between the parties in the same manner as the parties divided the vesting stock options in November, 2010, based on the value of the vesting stock options at the time of the entry of the Decree, less 28% of the value to cover [Husband]'s tax liability thereon. [¶22] In her secon


CourtListener opinion 2739667

retirement benefits: new employer were not covered by the decree. [¶21] The relevant provision of the decree stated: [Wife] shall be, and she hereby is, awarded, as her sole and separate property, the following: .... ii. ½ of [Husband]'s investment accounts, pension plans, retirement accounts, 401K accounts, IRA accounts and/or stock options, as of the date of the entry of the within decree, to be divided by QDRO, as necessary. The Stock Options when they vest shall be equally divided between the parties in the same manner as the parties divided the vesting stock options in November, 2010, based on the value of the vesting stock options a


CourtListener opinion 2739667

pension: s issued by his new employer were not covered by the decree. [¶21] The relevant provision of the decree stated: [Wife] shall be, and she hereby is, awarded, as her sole and separate property, the following: .... ii. ½ of [Husband]'s investment accounts, pension plans, retirement accounts, 401K accounts, IRA accounts and/or stock options, as of the date of the entry of the within decree, to be divided by QDRO, as necessary. The Stock Options when they vest shall be equally divided between the parties in the same manner as the parties divided the vesting stock options in November, 2010, based on the value of t


CourtListener opinion 2739667

401(k): covered by the decree. [¶21] The relevant provision of the decree stated: [Wife] shall be, and she hereby is, awarded, as her sole and separate property, the following: .... ii. ½ of [Husband]'s investment accounts, pension plans, retirement accounts, 401K accounts, IRA accounts and/or stock options, as of the date of the entry of the within decree, to be divided by QDRO, as necessary. The Stock Options when they vest shall be equally divided between the parties in the same manner as the parties divided the vesting stock options in November, 2010, based on the value of the vesting stock options at the t


CourtListener opinion 2739872

CourtListener opinion 2739872 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2739872 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 2739872

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 2739872

QDRO: im in an uncontested divorce action. The client paid Hartin a flat fee of $1,500 and a filing fee of $207 for the preparation of the divorce papers, a Quitclaim Deed ("QCD") for the client's wife to relinquish any interest in the client's residence, and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Hartin prepared the divorce papers and QCD; the client signed the papers on April 15, 2011 and the wife signed them on April 28, 2011. Around July 14, 2011 Hartin received a call from his client stating that the court clerk told him no case had been filed. Hartin found the paperwork in his office and filed it on July 27, 2011. On August 11, 2


CourtListener opinion 2739872

retirement benefits: hat the QCD had not been recorded in the county records. Hartin found the QCD in his office, contacted the client's lender and closing attorney and sent all the information to 2 the attorney by Federal Express. Hartin drafted the QDRO and sent it to the retirement plan administrator and so advised his client in February 2012. In April and again in July 2012 Hartin told his client that he planned to take the QDRO to the judge to sign. But he did not present the QDRO to the judge until November 19, 2012, after the client filed a grievance against Hartin. The client then told Hartin he hired another attorney and asked Ha


CourtListener opinion 2739872

domestic relations order: uncontested divorce action. The client paid Hartin a flat fee of $1,500 and a filing fee of $207 for the preparation of the divorce papers, a Quitclaim Deed ("QCD") for the client's wife to relinquish any interest in the client's residence, and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Hartin prepared the divorce papers and QCD; the client signed the papers on April 15, 2011 and the wife signed them on April 28, 2011. Around July 14, 2011 Hartin received a call from his client stating that the court clerk told him no case had been filed. Hartin found the paperwork in his office and filed it on July 27, 2011. On August 11, 2


CourtListener opinion 2741337

CourtListener opinion 2741337 Extracted case name: OLADE v. OLADE. Extracted reporter citation: 9 P.3d 329. Docket: 1 CA-CV 13-0296. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2741337 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 2741337


CourtListener opinion 2741337

QDRO: urt, in which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined. S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 This family court case concerns a postdecree reapportionment of community property. We discern no error in the reapportionment itself, but conclude that the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") used to effect the reapportionment impermissibly reaches property beyond the court's jurisdiction. We therefore affirm the reapportionment, but vacate the QDRO and remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife married in 1971. In 1996, Wife served Husband with a petition for dissolution of the marriage. The fol


CourtListener opinion 2741337

retirement benefits: d in Wife's favor was a money judgment and that the QDRO was unlawfully used as a judgment-execution device to reach exempt property. He further contends that the QDRO improperly set forth payment terms that bore no relation to the community's interest in the retirement account. We hold that the judgment and the use of a QDRO were proper, but conclude that the QDRO's payment terms impermissibly reach property beyond the superior court's jurisdiction. 3 OLADE v. OLADE Decision of the Court I. THE COURT PROPERLY AWARDED WIFE ONE-HALF OF THE VALUE OF THE NIGERIA PROPERTY. ¶9 The decree of dissolution incorporated the parties'


CourtListener opinion 2741337

domestic relations order: ich Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined. S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 This family court case concerns a postdecree reapportionment of community property. We discern no error in the reapportionment itself, but conclude that the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") used to effect the reapportionment impermissibly reaches property beyond the court's jurisdiction. We therefore affirm the reapportionment, but vacate the QDRO and remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife married in 1971. In 1996, Wife served Husband with a petition for dissolution of the marriage. The fol


CourtListener opinion 2741337

valuation/division: ion of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined. S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 This family court case concerns a postdecree reapportionment of community property. We discern no error in the reapportionment itself, but conclude that the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") used to effect the reapportionment impermissibly reaches property beyond the court's jurisdiction. We therefore affirm the reapportionment, but vacate the QDRO and remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband an


CourtListener opinion 2741959

CourtListener opinion 2741959 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Green. Extracted reporter citation: 341 S.W.3d 169. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2741959 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 2741959


CourtListener opinion 2741959

QDRO: t of ) St. Louis County vs. ) ) SIGRID GREEN, ) Honorable John R. Essner ) Appellant. ) Filed: October 14, 2014 Introduction Sigrid Green (Wife) appeals pro se the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying Wife‟s motion for an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and reinstating the trial court‟s original QDRO. Wife‟s brief fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure so substantially that we cannot review this appeal, and we therefore dismiss it. Factual and Procedural Background Wife and Richard Green (Husband) married on July 7, 2001. The trial court entered a judgment of dissolution on Se


CourtListener opinion 2741959

pension: peal, and we therefore dismiss it. Factual and Procedural Background Wife and Richard Green (Husband) married on July 7, 2001. The trial court entered a judgment of dissolution on September 15, 2005. In its judgment, the trial court found that "the SBC Pension Plan account in Husband‟s name[,] though established prior to the marriage[,] increased in value during the marriage."1 The trial court ordered: "To achieve an equitable 1 The name of Husband‟s pension account subsequently changed to AT&T Pension Benefit Plan. For clarity, we will continue to refer to it as the SBC pension account. division of the marit


CourtListener opinion 2741959

alternate payee: ,448.99 represents the value of [Wife]‟s portion of the marital portion as of the date of the judgment, which is the proper date of valuation as it is the date upon which the division of property was to become effective." Accordingly, QDRO IV provided: "The alternate payee is hereby assigned and the plan administrator shall pay the alternate payee $55,488.99 as of June 26, 2007 of the benefits payable to the participant from the Plan." On January 22, 2010, the plan administrator rejected QDRO IV on the ground that it was not a "qualified" order because it based the valuation date of the SBC pension account on the date o


CourtListener opinion 2741959

domestic relations order: . Louis County vs. ) ) SIGRID GREEN, ) Honorable John R. Essner ) Appellant. ) Filed: October 14, 2014 Introduction Sigrid Green (Wife) appeals pro se the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying Wife‟s motion for an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and reinstating the trial court‟s original QDRO. Wife‟s brief fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure so substantially that we cannot review this appeal, and we therefore dismiss it. Factual and Procedural Background Wife and Richard Green (Husband) married on July 7, 2001. The trial court entered a judgment of dissolution on Se


CourtListener opinion 2742400

CourtListener opinion 2742400 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JAIME MCMANUS AND THOMAS RONALD MCMANUS Upon the Petition of JAIME MCMANUS. Extracted reporter citation: 489 N.W.2d 394. Docket: 13-1878. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2742400 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 2742400


CourtListener opinion 2742400

QDRO: m. Other factors the court may determine to be relevant in an individual case. 11 The district court awarded Thomas the marital home along with the debt on it and divided the remaining assets, awarding Jaime a portion of Thomas's IPERS account through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Thomas filed a motion to amend and enlarge, contending the parties stipulated that each would retain its own IPERS account. The district court declined to alter its property division stating: In reviewing the Stipulation of Assets and Liabilities, it is indicated that the parties' IPERS accounts shall be received by the parties. However, there is no


CourtListener opinion 2742400

retirement benefits: , P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ. 2 MULLINS, J. Thomas McManus appeals from a decree dissolving his marriage to Jaime McManus. Thomas argues the district court erred by awarding Jaime physical care of the minor children, awarding Jaime part of Thomas's retirement account, failing to award Thomas an extraordinary visitation credit in calculating his child support obligation, and failing to order Jaime to pay uninsured medical expenses. We find the district court failed to apply Iowa Court rule 9.9 (2013) correctly to give Thomas an extraordinary visitation credit, and failed to apply rule 9.12(5) correctly to require Ja


CourtListener opinion 2742400

pension: re of the children. h. The amount and duration of an order granting support payments to either party pursuant to section 598.21A and whether the property division should be in lieu of such payments. i. Other economic circumstances of each party, including pension benefits, vested or unvested. j. The tax consequences to each party. k. Any written agreement made the parties concerning property distribution. l. The provisions of an antenuptial agreement. m. Other factors the court may determine to be relevant in an individual case. 11 The district court awarded Thomas the marital home along with the debt on