CourtListener opinion 4089822

401(k): nt of divorce awarded plaintiff: all of the personal property currently in her possession; the 2013 Chevy Impala, along with the associated debt; one-half of the balance in savings, checking, and other depository accounts held jointly by the parties; her IRA, 401(k), and Roth IRA, less 4 In a joint trial statement regarding assets and liabilities, the parties agreed with respect to the valuation of the marital property, except for a $200 difference relative to a 2002 pickup truck and a $200 difference concerning a small aluminum boat. The marital home was valued at $268,000 on the basis of an appraisal, with a mortga


CourtListener opinion 4090163

CourtListener opinion 4090163 Extracted case name: LEANN BARNES v. DAVID ELLETT BARNES. Extracted reporter citation: 975 S.W.2d 303. Docket: M2015-01254-COA-R3-CV –. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4090163 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 4090163

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 4090163

QDRO: original award of alimony and reinstated the original award. On remand, the court entered an order providing that the Wife's interest in Husband's 401K Plan would be increased in the amount of the adjustments ordered by this court, to be made pursuant to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order which was also entered by the court; the court awarded Wife a judgment for the difference in the alimony awarded in the original decree and that paid by Husband pursuant to the amended decree. In this appeal, Wife challenges the trial court's compliance with this court's instructions. We find that the orders entered by the court comply with the instructions


CourtListener opinion 4090163

retirement benefits: al property, reversed those portions of the order, and adjusted the division accordingly; we remanded the case for the court to determine whether, in equalizing the division of the marital estate "it is appropriate to further adjust the parties' shares of the retirement accounts or to make some other award." Barnes, 2014 WL 1413931 at *17. As respects the award of alimony, we vacated the portion of an amended order which had modified and reduced the original award from alimony in futuro of $6,000 per month to rehabilitative alimony of $4,300 per month for a period of four years; we reinstated the original award. We affirmed the tr


CourtListener opinion 4090163

ERISA: o a separate account under such plan on behalf of [Wife]." Significantly, section 10 of the Order provided that "[t]he court reserves jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter to amend this order to establish and maintain its status as a QDRO under ERISA and the Code." In her brief on appeal, Wife does not explain how the QDRO entered June 4, 2015 fails to comply with the mandate; upon our review, we hold that it does comply, and her argument to the contrary is not well taken. In any event, to the extent there may be some deficiency in the implementation of the order, the trial court has retained jurisdic


CourtListener opinion 4090163

401(k): ents we made and the nature of the marital assets; we also vacated the trial court's amended order modifying the original award of alimony and reinstated the original award. On remand, the court entered an order providing that the Wife's interest in Husband's 401K Plan would be increased in the amount of the adjustments ordered by this court, to be made pursuant to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order which was also entered by the court; the court awarded Wife a judgment for the difference in the alimony awarded in the original decree and that paid by Husband pursuant to the amended decree. In this appeal, Wife cha


CourtListener opinion 4091129

CourtListener opinion 4091129 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Wood. Extracted reporter citation: 104 N.E.2d 877. Docket: 2015-0430. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4091129 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 4091129


CourtListener opinion 4091129

QDRO: of divorce, the trial court awarded one-half of one of the respondent's retirement accounts to the petitioner. It ordered the petitioner to "designate a qualifying retirement account in which to transfer her share of the" account and stated that "[s]hould a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] be necessary to effectuate this division, it shall be prepared by [the petitioner] at her expense." The respondent moved for reconsideration asserting, as relevant here, that the transfer of one-half of the retirement account "creates significant detriment to [him] from both a security and tax standpoint for which the Court heard no evidence because neithe


CourtListener opinion 4091129

retirement benefits: for annulment of the marriage; (2) denying his petition; (3) finding certain testimony proffered by the petitioner credible without explanation; (4) equally dividing the marital estate; and (5) ordering him to transfer to the petitioner one-half of a certain retirement account without affording him the opportunity to address possible adverse tax consequences of that transfer. We affirm. I. Background The following facts are drawn from the trial court's order, or are otherwise found in the record. The parties met in 1981 and were married in 1986 in New York. Shortly after marrying, the respondent moved into the petitioner's New


CourtListener opinion 4091129

pension: the court to consider, such as the length of marriage, the age and health of the parties, the contribution of each party during the marriage which contributed to the growth or diminution in value of property owned by either or both parties, the expectation of pension or retirement rights, whether property is separately held, and tax consequences. See RSA 458:16-a, II(a)-(b), (f), (i)-(j). "Under the statute, the court need not consider all factors or give them equal weight." In the Matter of Costa & Costa, 156 N.H. at 327 (quotation omitted). Here, the record demonstrates that the court considered the following statut


CourtListener opinion 4091129

domestic relations order: e, the trial court awarded one-half of one of the respondent's retirement accounts to the petitioner. It ordered the petitioner to "designate a qualifying retirement account in which to transfer her share of the" account and stated that "[s]hould a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] be necessary to effectuate this division, it shall be prepared by [the petitioner] at her expense." The respondent moved for reconsideration asserting, as relevant here, that the transfer of one-half of the retirement account "creates significant detriment to [him] from both a security and tax standpoint for which the Court heard no evidence because neithe


CourtListener opinion 4091636

CourtListener opinion 4091636 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4091636 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 4091636

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 4091636

domestic relations order: d permanent Order of this Court relative to the rights and obligations of the residential and non-residential parent." She emphasizes that she had discussed obtaining a modification with her attorney and "was in the process of seeking a modification of the domestic relations order" when she left the state with the child. Villamor-Goubeaux seems to equate requesting a modification – or simply having discussions with her lawyer about doing so – with actually obtaining a modification from the court. {¶ 33} But a request for a modification does not authorize the movant to take the actions for which permission is sought. Villamor-Go


CourtListener opinion 4092488

CourtListener opinion 4092488 Extracted case name: SESSIONS v. SESSIONS. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 15-0589 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4092488 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 4092488


CourtListener opinion 4092488

retirement benefits: Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 107, ¶ 2 (App. 2005). ¶10 Husband argues that because the formula set forth in the DRO requires use of Husband's three highest years of income before the filing of the petition of dissolution, pension counsel incorrectly calculated the retirement benefit by using the Husband's benefit amount payable at his twenty-year service date. Contrary to Husband's argument, however, the plain language of the DRO requires use of the "amount payable to [Husband] based upon 20 years' total service." In accordance with the DRO, pension counsel used an estimate of the actual benefit that would be payable to Husband based o


CourtListener opinion 4092488

pension: Judge Margaret H. Downie joined. OROZCO, Judge: ¶1 Vitale Nicolo Sessions (Husband) appeals from the superior court's order enforcing a domestic relations order (DRO) and directing use of the formula set forth therein to calculate his former wife's share of pension benefits. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Husband and Robyn Marie Sessions (Wife) married on April 30, 1988. Husband, then a police detective with the City of Mesa, began participating in the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) on October 17, 1993. Wife served Husband with a petition for dissolutio


CourtListener opinion 4092488

domestic relations order: NDUM DECISION Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined. OROZCO, Judge: ¶1 Vitale Nicolo Sessions (Husband) appeals from the superior court's order enforcing a domestic relations order (DRO) and directing use of the formula set forth therein to calculate his former wife's share of pension benefits. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Husband and Robyn Marie Sessions (Wife) married on April 30, 1988. Husband, then a police detective with the City of Mesa, began participating in the Public Safety Pe


CourtListener opinion 4092488

valuation/division: ] PSPRS start date was October 17, 1993. Therefore, the numerator should reflect 108.5 months (from October 17, 1993, through November 1, 2002, is 9 years and one-half month, or 108.5 months), and the denominator is 240 months. Therefore, one-half of the community property interest in the PSPRS benefit is 22.6%. (108.5/240 x .5 = 22.6%)[.] The direct payment is calculated by multiplying $3,654.43 by 22.6% (or $822.90). Then the . . . offset amount of $219.14 is subtracted, leaving a direct payment amount to [Wife] of $606.76. ¶7 Husband objected to the calculation and instead offered to pay Wife $275 per month. Wife re


CourtListener opinion 4093316

CourtListener opinion 4093316 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4093316 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 4093316


CourtListener opinion 4093316

QDRO: (Darren H. Fairlie of counsel), for respondent. __________ McCarthy, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Schick, J.), entered January 2, 2015 in Sullivan County, which, upon reargument, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order. In October 2006, the parties entered into a stipulation that was incorporated, but not merged, into their judgment of divorce. The stipulation provided, among other things, that \the


CourtListener opinion 4093316

domestic relations order: Fairlie of counsel), for respondent. __________ McCarthy, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Schick, J.), entered January 2, 2015 in Sullivan County, which, upon reargument, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order. In October 2006, the parties entered into a stipulation that was incorporated, but not merged, into their judgment of divorce. The stipulation provided, among other things, that \the


CourtListener opinion 4095608

CourtListener opinion 4095608 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. U.S. Extracted reporter citation: 378 N.E.2d 162. Docket: 27011 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4095608 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 4095608

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 4095608

QDRO: o obtain a portion of Curtis's retirement benefits by filing multiple unsuccessful actions at both the trial court and appellate levels. {¶ 3} Vondelere's most recent attempt to obtain Curtis's retirement benefits came in the form of an Amended Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("Amended QDRO") that she filed with the domestic relations court on February 10, 2015. The Amended QDRO was file-stamped by the clerk, but it contained several irregularities in its form, including that parts of the document were hand-written and it was not signed by the parties or by counsel. {¶ 4} Curtis had no knowledge of the Amended QDRO at the


CourtListener opinion 4095608

retirement benefits: judgment of the domestic relations court will be affirmed. {¶ 2} The parties, Curtis White ("Curtis") and Vondelere White ("Vondelere"), were divorced in 1979. Pursuant to their divorce decree, Vondelere was not awarded any interest or rights in Curtis's retirement benefits with General Motors. Ever since their divorce, Vondelere has made numerous attempts to obtain a portion of Curtis's retirement benefits by filing multiple unsuccessful actions at both the trial court and appellate levels. {¶ 3} Vondelere's most recent attempt to obtain Curtis's retirement benefits came in the form of an Amended Stipulated Qualified Do


CourtListener opinion 4095608

pension: he magistrate ordered Vondelere to pay Curtis the cost of the action and $350 in attorney fees. The magistrate noted that the $350 in attorney fees was for Curtis having to move to vacate the Amended QDRO and to address issues with the administrator of his pension plan in order to restore retirement funds that were diverted due to the Amended QDRO being filed. {¶ 9} While Curtis presented billing statements showing that he incurred $4,040.50 in attorney fees allegedly as a result of Vondelere's frivolous conduct, the magistrate chose to award $350 because Curtis did not provide any expert testimony regarding the


CourtListener opinion 4095608

domestic relations order: portion of Curtis's retirement benefits by filing multiple unsuccessful actions at both the trial court and appellate levels. {¶ 3} Vondelere's most recent attempt to obtain Curtis's retirement benefits came in the form of an Amended Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("Amended QDRO") that she filed with the domestic relations court on February 10, 2015. The Amended QDRO was file-stamped by the clerk, but it contained several irregularities in its form, including that parts of the document were hand-written and it was not signed by the parties or by counsel. {¶ 4} Curtis had no knowledge of the Amended QDRO at the


CourtListener opinion 4095712

CourtListener opinion 4095712 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1815 EDA 2015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4095712 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 4095712


CourtListener opinion 4095712

QDRO: settlement agreement ("PSA"). Appellant claims that the trial court was precluded from reconsidering a prior order awarding Appellee $29,200 from Appellant's pension under the parties' PSA and requiring the entry of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") based on Appellee's 47.5% share of the pension. We are constrained to quash this appeal. The parties are well-versed in the factual and lengthy procedural history of this appeal. It suffices to note that in March 1994, the parties * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A19040-16 entered into the PSA following their separation


CourtListener opinion 4095712

pension: cember 15, 2014 final order granting Appellee Alan Kepler's second petition to enforce a property settlement agreement ("PSA"). Appellant claims that the trial court was precluded from reconsidering a prior order awarding Appellee $29,200 from Appellant's pension under the parties' PSA and requiring the entry of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") based on Appellee's 47.5% share of the pension. We are constrained to quash this appeal. The parties are well-versed in the factual and lengthy procedural history of this appeal. It suffices to note that in March 1994, the parties * Former Justice speciall


CourtListener opinion 4095712

domestic relations order: ition to enforce a property settlement agreement ("PSA"). Appellant claims that the trial court was precluded from reconsidering a prior order awarding Appellee $29,200 from Appellant's pension under the parties' PSA and requiring the entry of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") based on Appellee's 47.5% share of the pension. We are constrained to quash this appeal. The parties are well-versed in the factual and lengthy procedural history of this appeal. It suffices to note that in March 1994, the parties * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A19040-16 entered into the PSA following their sep


CourtListener opinion 4095930

CourtListener opinion 4095930 Extracted case name: In re Estate of THOMAS P. HARKEMA. PAMELA HARKEMA. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 328250 Shiawassee Probate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4095930 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 4095930


CourtListener opinion 4095930

pension: ppeals as of right the probate court's order denying her request to require the personal representative of her deceased former spouse, Thomas P. Harkema, to enter into an Eligible Domestic Relations Order (EDRO) that would allow Pamela to receive the survivor pension benefits. We affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Pamela and Thomas married in 1986 and divorced in 2009. At their pro confesso divorce hearing on March 16, 2009, Pamela and Thomas indicated that they had reached a settlement agreement, which they had incorporated into a proposed judgment of divorce and EDRO. The parties executed their EDRO on April


CourtListener opinion 4095930

domestic relations order: NE KRAUSE, P.J., and O'CONNELL and GLEICHER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Pamela Harkema appeals as of right the probate court's order denying her request to require the personal representative of her deceased former spouse, Thomas P. Harkema, to enter into an Eligible Domestic Relations Order (EDRO) that would allow Pamela to receive the survivor pension benefits. We affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Pamela and Thomas married in 1986 and divorced in 2009. At their pro confesso divorce hearing on March 16, 2009, Pamela and Thomas indicated that they had reached a settlement agreement, which they had incorporated into a proposed judgment


CourtListener opinion 4095930

survivor benefits: bmission. Pamela claimed survivorship rights in Thomas's pension from his estate, and the personal representative denied the claim. Pamela subsequently petitioned the probate court to order the personal representative to sign a new EDRO that would grant her survivor benefits in Thomas's pension, arguing that she was entitled to a marital share of Thomas's pension under the judgment of divorce. The personal representative objected, arguing that the EDRO that Pamela and Thomas executed expressly provided that Pamela would receive no pension benefits in the event that Thomas predeceased her. The probate court determined that it


CourtListener opinion 4101239

CourtListener opinion 4101239 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Sanders. Extracted reporter citation: 60 F.3d 346. Docket: 1-14-3681. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4101239 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 4101239


CourtListener opinion 4101239

QDRO: Government is all marital property up until August 31, 1994," and that: "[t]he Petitioner is awarded one-half of [William's] pension benefits accrued as of August 31, 1994, said benefits to be divided pursuant to the same formula in assessing or ordering Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO), to wit: 50% of the accrued benefits for the period November 1, 1968 to August 31, 1994. Payment of said benefit shall commence when the pension goes into pay status." ¶4 In 2012, William retired from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after 43 years of employment. William's pension is held by the Civil Service Retirement System and admin


CourtListener opinion 4101239

retirement benefits: ed a request for the marital portion of the annuity payments" with the OPM. This request included a copy of the July 1996 court order. On September 6, 2012, OPM responded in a letter stating that "[b]y court order your marital share of your former spouse's retirement benefit is 50% of 322 months of service during the marriage divided by 532 months of Federal service or 30.26% of your spouse's retirement benefit. The marital share times your former spouse's gross annuity benefit of $8936 provides for a $2,704.03 monthly payment to you." Beginning October 1, 2012, OPM issued Stella monthly distributions of $2,704.03. ¶6 Willi


CourtListener opinion 4101239

pension: of Hunt, 78 Ill. App. 3d 653 (1979) (Hunt formula). We affirm. ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 On August 31, 1994, the circuit court entered a judgment dissolving William and Stella Sanders's 26-year marriage. The judgment reserved the issue of the division of William's pension. On July 11, 1996, after a trial before Judge James G. Donegan, a supplemental judgment for dissolution was entered, finding the "pension of the Respondent through his employment with the United States Government is all marital property up until August 31, 1994," and that: "[t]he Petitioner is awarded one-half of [William's] pension benefits accrued as


CourtListener opinion 4101239

ERISA: are of his pension benefits that she has not received, and (4) an award of attorney fees. ¶9 In response, William argued that his retirement plan is a federal government plan exempt from the previsions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (2006)) and managed by the OPM; according to OPM regulations Stella was required to follow procedures to apply for pension benefits; OPM's September 2012 letter miscalculated Stella's benefits based on 322 months of service during marriage where the marriage lasted only 303 months; therefore, OPM properly recalculated Stella's


CourtListener opinion 4101831

CourtListener opinion 4101831 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4101831 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 4101831

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 4101831

domestic relations order: these actions, the court found that Vorpe was attempting to protect her children – not just explain the missed practices – when she gave the coach (a school official) the false impression that the CPO was still in effect. However, the court noted that the domestic relations order for counseling and for no contact with the children at extracurricular events was still in effect at the time of Vorpe's action. The trial court found that no specific court order had been violated when Vorpe altered the document and that, "while [Vorpe] should not have altered the documents, this does not rise to the level of contempt." {¶ 19} Althou


CourtListener opinion 4102200

CourtListener opinion 4102200 Extracted reporter citation: 530 A.2d 871. Docket: 2190 MDA 2015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4102200 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 4102200

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 4102200

QDRO: asset in the marital estate. The master determined that there were insufficient assets to permit an "in-kind" distribution to offset Wife's claim on the pension, and therefore recommended that the pension be split by a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), providing that Wife would receive 47.4%2 of Husband's monthly payment from the pension. Husband subsequently filed thirty exceptions to the master's report, while Wife filed five. After receiving argument from the parties, the trial court issued an order adopting the master's report in whole, with minor exceptions regarding certain payments made by


CourtListener opinion 4102200

pension: e no relief, and therefore affirm. Husband and Wife had been married for 24 years when Wife filed for divorce in 2013. On July 15, 2014, the first equitable distribution hearing was held before a master. Only one witness testified at the hearing, Wife's pension valuation expert. That master subsequently recused himself from the case. After the appointment of a substitute master, a second hearing was held on November 10, 2014. At this hearing, Wife presented her own testimony, as well as further testimony from her pension expert and the testimony of an expert in home valuation. The next hearing date was set f


CourtListener opinion 4102200

valuation/division: dment, acted as the final divorce J-A22026-16 decree.1 After careful review, we conclude that Husband is due no relief, and therefore affirm. Husband and Wife had been married for 24 years when Wife filed for divorce in 2013. On July 15, 2014, the first equitable distribution hearing was held before a master. Only one witness testified at the hearing, Wife's pension valuation expert. That master subsequently recused himself from the case. After the appointment of a substitute master, a second hearing was held on November 10, 2014. At this hearing, Wife presented her own testimony, as well as further testimony from her pen


CourtListener opinion 4102745

CourtListener opinion 4102745 Extracted reporter citation: 866 N.W.2d 74. Docket: A-15-1234. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4102745 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 4102745


CourtListener opinion 4102745

QDRO: vailable to Shane to satisfy the property equalization payment is his retirement account[.]" Id. at 23. Shane requests that we remand this issue to the district court "with instructions to the trial court to order Shane to pay his obligation through a -4- [qualified domestic relations order.]" Id. We consider first the characterization of Shane's retirement account as a marital asset, followed by Shane's request for an equalization of the marital estate through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). (a) Marital asset After the parties had filed their appellate briefs with this court, our Supreme Court released an opinion specifically a


CourtListener opinion 4102745

retirement benefits: d in August 1994, and almost 21 years later the district court for Red Willow County entered a decree dissolving that marriage. Shane appeals the district court's determinations related to certain child support worksheet deductions, alimony, his firefighter's retirement plan, a marital equalization judgment, and the court's failure to make an adjustment to the marital estate due to Debra's unilateral decision to claim both their children on her 2014 tax return. We affirm, but remand with directions to determine alternatives related to the marital equalization judgment. II. BACKGROUND During their marriage, Shane and Debra had


CourtListener opinion 4102745

pension: cy exemption and for tax credit purposes commencing with his 2015 tax return. Both parties filed a motion for new trial on July 8, 2015. On November 30, the district court entered an order denying Shane's motion (related to the treatment of his firefighter's pension as a marital asset), but granted Debra's motion (related to child support and alimony). The subsequent order amended the decree by (1) making adjustments to Shane's retirement deductions which resulted in Shane's child support obligation increasing from $1,133 to $1,204 per month and (2) striking the previous award of no alimony and replacing it with an ali


CourtListener opinion 4102745

401(k): t had deducted $333.75 for Social Security from Shane's income when calculating child support when Shane did not pay into Social Security, and the court deducted $215.32 for retirement when the evidence showed that Shane made elective deferrals of $4,185 to a 401K plan voluntarily, and that these deferrals were not mandatory. With regard to the alimony issue, the motion mentions the district court's decision to award no alimony when this was a 21-year marriage and that there was a "substantial disparity in the earning capacity of the parties." The district court sustained Debra's request for relief on both matters a


CourtListener opinion 4103995

CourtListener opinion 4103995 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4103995 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 4103995


CourtListener opinion 4103995

QDRO: ion Settlement Agreement (MSA) in which they agreed: the Former Husband would make two lump sum payments 1 of $17,500 each to the Former Wife for retroactive retirement and child support; the IDO would be replaced with a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) pursuant to which the Former Wife would receive 36% of the Former Husband's military retirement and disability payments; and the Former Husband's alimony obligation was "terminated effective immediately." Shortly after the MSA was executed, the Former Husband filed a motion to set it aside. In June 2012, the trial court denied the motion to set aside


CourtListener opinion 4103995

domestic relations order: ies entered into a Mediation Settlement Agreement (MSA) in which they agreed: the Former Husband would make two lump sum payments 1 of $17,500 each to the Former Wife for retroactive retirement and child support; the IDO would be replaced with a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) pursuant to which the Former Wife would receive 36% of the Former Husband's military retirement and disability payments; and the Former Husband's alimony obligation was "terminated effective immediately." Shortly after the MSA was executed, the Former Husband filed a motion to set it aside. In June 2012, the trial court denied the motion to set


CourtListener opinion 4106144

CourtListener opinion 4106144 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of O'Malley. Docket: 1-15-1118. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4106144 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 4106144


CourtListener opinion 4106144

QDRO: ssolution of marriage incorporated an MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent's retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that " ‘[i]t is the intention of this [article] that [petitioner] is to receive fifty percent (50%) of the account balance of each of [respondent's] retirement plans valu


CourtListener opinion 4106144

retirement benefits: al court did here. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 164. ¶ 43 In Hall, the petitioner and respondent's judgment for dissolution of marriage incorporated an MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent's retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that " ‘[i]t is the intention of this [a


CourtListener opinion 4106144

pension: [respondent's] retirement plans valued as of the date of the entry of this [judgment for dissolution of marriage].' " Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 163. After the division of assets, the petitioner noticed that she had not received benefits from two additional pension plans belonging to the respondent and filed a petition to modify or reform the dissolution judgment, alleging that the pension plans had been omitted from the MSA due to a mutual mistake of fact. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 163. The trial court found that it did not have jurisdiction to modify or reform the judgment because the petitioner did not first es


CourtListener opinion 4106144

domestic relations order: of marriage incorporated an MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent's retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that " ‘[i]t is the intention of this [article] that [petitioner] is to receive fifty percent (50%) of the account balance of each of [respondent's] retirement plans valu


CourtListener opinion 4106617

CourtListener opinion 4106617 Extracted reporter citation: 568 N.W.2d 705. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4106617 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 4106617

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 4106617

QDRO: eed that husband's interest in the pension should be increased by the amount he was awarded in wife's 401(k) account, because wife's 401(k) no longer contained funds. Second, the May 2010 order directed husband's former counsel to submit an appropriate 3 qualified domestic relations order. The original dissolution decree required the parties to obtain a qualified domestic relations order before dividing any retirement benefits. The company administering wife's pension account, however, was purchased by another company soon after the dissolution; as a result, the division of the pension account was placed on hold. Neither the parties nor


CourtListener opinion 4106617

retirement benefits: ned funds. Second, the May 2010 order directed husband's former counsel to submit an appropriate 3 qualified domestic relations order. The original dissolution decree required the parties to obtain a qualified domestic relations order before dividing any retirement benefits. The company administering wife's pension account, however, was purchased by another company soon after the dissolution; as a result, the division of the pension account was placed on hold. Neither the parties nor husband's former counsel filed a proposed qualified domestic relations order until 2015, as discussed below. Procedural History In May 2


CourtListener opinion 4106617

pension: ns to increase spousal maintenance, to order delinquent spousal maintenance payments, and to increase respondent-wife's life insurance policy as security for the spousal maintenance. Husband 1 also appeals from the district court's orders dividing wife's pension account. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying husband's motions and dividing the pension, we affirm. FACTS This appeal arises from the parties' ongoing dispute relating to appellant Paul Gardner's (husband) permanent spousal maintenance award against his former wife, respondent Margaret Gardner (wife). The district cour


CourtListener opinion 4106617

401(k): e dissolution decree awarded husband permanent spousal maintenance and ordered wife to secure the spousal maintenance with a life insurance policy, but did not state the required amount of the policy. The decree also awarded husband fifty percent of wife's 401(k) and pension accounts. The decree has been modified by several subsequent orders, some of which are pertinent to the issues raised in this appeal. The facts and subsequent orders relevant to this appeal may be grouped into three categories. Spousal Maintenance A January 2015 order increased wife's monthly maintenance obligation from $3,250 to $3,350.


CourtListener opinion 4107139

CourtListener opinion 4107139 Extracted case name: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. JEROME P. JOHNSON. Extracted reporter citation: 117 A.3d 38. Docket: AG No. 68. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4107139 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 4107139

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 4107139

QDRO: se. In Kovacic, id. at 235, 884 A.2d at 674, a client retained the lawyer to represent her in a divorce action. A trial court entered a judgment of divorce, which required the client to get certain marital property appraised and submit to the trial court a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which would award the client more than $13,000. See id. at 235-36, 884 A.2d at 674-75. The lawyer did not provide the client with the judgment of divorce until over a month after the trial court entered it. See id. at 235, 884 A.2d at 674. On numerous occasions throughout a five-month period after the trial court entered the judgment of divorce, the c


CourtListener opinion 4107139

domestic relations order: acic, id. at 235, 884 A.2d at 674, a client retained the lawyer to represent her in a divorce action. A trial court entered a judgment of divorce, which required the client to get certain marital property appraised and submit to the trial court a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which would award the client more than $13,000. See id. at 235-36, 884 A.2d at 674-75. The lawyer did not provide the client with the judgment of divorce until over a month after the trial court entered it. See id. at 235, 884 A.2d at 674. On numerous occasions throughout a five-month period after the trial court entered the judgment of divorce, the c


CourtListener opinion 4107536

CourtListener opinion 4107536 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4107536 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 4107536


CourtListener opinion 4107536

QDRO: d bankruptcy petitions with multiple deficiencies, and failed to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for missing a hearing. The bankruptcy court fined him $500. In the second case, "The Amer Dissolution," Hoskins failed to complete a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and failed to respond to multiple requests from his client to do so. In the third case, "The Loury Collection Matter," he failed to attend a hearing because of a scheduling conflict and instead had another attorney unfamiliar with the case attend. The court continued the Loury hearing but requested documentation of the scheduling conflict. Hoskins had rece


CourtListener opinion 4107536

domestic relations order: cy petitions with multiple deficiencies, and failed to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for missing a hearing. The bankruptcy court fined him $500. In the second case, "The Amer Dissolution," Hoskins failed to complete a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and failed to respond to multiple requests from his client to do so. In the third case, "The Loury Collection Matter," he failed to attend a hearing because of a scheduling conflict and instead had another attorney unfamiliar with the case attend. The court continued the Loury hearing but requested documentation of the scheduling conflict. Hoskins had rece


CourtListener opinion 4109227

CourtListener opinion 4109227 Docket: 20160159. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4109227 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 4109227


CourtListener opinion 4109227

QDRO: ts and mineral interests; the court erred in failing to award temporary spousal and child support back to February 2015; the court erred in dividing Eric Nesheim's business property and debts; and the court incorrectly named the pension fund for purposes of a qualified domestic relations order. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Carol Ronning Kapsner Dale V. Sandstrom


CourtListener opinion 4109227

pension: n of the parties' property, debts and mineral interests; the court erred in failing to award temporary spousal and child support back to February 2015; the court erred in dividing Eric Nesheim's business property and debts; and the court incorrectly named the pension fund for purposes of a qualified domestic relations order. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Carol Ronning Kapsner Dale V. Sandstrom


CourtListener opinion 4109227

domestic relations order: eral interests; the court erred in failing to award temporary spousal and child support back to February 2015; the court erred in dividing Eric Nesheim's business property and debts; and the court incorrectly named the pension fund for purposes of a qualified domestic relations order. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Carol Ronning Kapsner Dale V. Sandstrom


CourtListener opinion 4109718

CourtListener opinion 4109718 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1842 EDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4109718 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 4109718


CourtListener opinion 4109718

domestic relations order: hia Court of Common Pleas-Family Court Division- Juvenile Branch pursuant to section 6351 of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §6351, and evaluated for the purpose of determining or reviewing the permanency plan of the children. In subsequent hearings, the [domestic relations orders] reflect the [c]ourt's review and disposition as a result of evidence presented, addressing, and primarily with, the goal of finalizing the permanency plan. On April 5, 2016 and May 11, 2016, a Termination of Parental Rights hearing for [Mother] was held in this matter. On May 11, 2016, the [c]ourt found by clear and convincing evidence that [Moth


CourtListener opinion 4110439

CourtListener opinion 4110439 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Cella. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 827 MDA 2016 DENNIS J. LYONS :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4110439 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 4110439

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 4110439

QDRO: 5, 2002, Wife filed a Complaint in Divorce, and the divorce decree was filed on November 3, 2004. The parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement on November 1, 2004. Pursuant thereto, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on November 28, 2012, which provided that Wife would receive a marital share of Husband's Pension Fund. Specifically, under the QDRO Appellant would receive a 50% marital portion of the Pension Fund for the years of marriage from June 29, 1996, to June 5, 2002. See QDRO, filed 11/28/12, at ¶ 8. Husband retired on October 24, 2012, and passed away on


CourtListener opinion 4110439

pension: 22, 2016 Appellant Christine M. Lyons, N/K/A Christine M. Brace (hereinafter "Wife") appeals pro se the Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County on April 18, 2016, granting the preliminary objections of the City of Scranton Police Pension Fund (the "Pension Fund"). After a careful review, we affirm, albeit for reasons different from those expressed by the trial court.1 ____________________________________________ 1 It is well-settled that an appellate court may affirm the trial court's decision if there is any basis on the record to support that decision even if the (Footnote Continued


CourtListener opinion 4110439

alternate payee: __________________________________________ 4 In this regard, paragraph eleven of the QDRO states the following: "Death of Participant: In the event that the Participant dies either prior to or after the establishment of a separate account in the name of the Alternate Payee, the Participant's death shall in no way affect Alternate Payee's right to the portion of her benefits set forth in paragraph No. 8." 5 We note that the Commonwealth Court considered a similar claim which arose from an ex-spouse's filing of Motion for Declaratory Judgment against the City of Wilkes-Barre Police Pension Fund wherein she requested a declarat


CourtListener opinion 4110439

domestic relations order: on June 29, 1996. On June 5, 2002, Wife filed a Complaint in Divorce, and the divorce decree was filed on November 3, 2004. The parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement on November 1, 2004. Pursuant thereto, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on November 28, 2012, which provided that Wife would receive a marital share of Husband's Pension Fund. Specifically, under the QDRO Appellant would receive a 50% marital portion of the Pension Fund for the years of marriage from June 29, 1996, to June 5, 2002. See QDRO, filed 11/28/12, at ¶ 8. Husband retired on October 24, 2012, and passed aw


CourtListener opinion 4112301

CourtListener opinion 4112301 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Knoerr. Extracted reporter citation: 806 F.3d 414. Docket: 2-15-0774 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4112301 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 4112301


CourtListener opinion 4112301

QDRO: ng the statement; otherwise the objection would be considered waived. Canulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37,500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35,000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72,000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy h


CourtListener opinion 4112301

retirement benefits: Canulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37,500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35,000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72,000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy his then-unpaid fees of $37,000 and provide an additiona


CourtListener opinion 4112301

domestic relations order: tement; otherwise the objection would be considered waived. Canulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37,500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35,000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72,000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy h


CourtListener opinion 4112469

CourtListener opinion 4112469 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4112469 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 4112469


CourtListener opinion 4112469

QDRO: , Anna Parise, which, he maintained, demonstrated appellant continued, albeit passively, to represent him into the Spring of 2009. {¶10} In particular, on April 13, 2009, Ms. Parise sent appellee an e-mail advising him that, per the final divorce order, a QDRO must be prepared which must be signed by appellant. That same day, appellee e-mailed his assistant directing her to send Ms. Parise's message and other relevant documentation to appellant. Appellee also asked that appellant confirm he received the communication. On April 20, 2009, appellee e-mailed his assistant, stating he had called appellant regardin


CourtListener opinion 4112469

pension: lant stated he needed appellee out of his life, emphasizing "I don't want any correspondence from him, ever." Appellant further requested Attorney Pavlidis' assistance in, what he viewed, would be a foreseeable legal problem relating to distribution of his pension under the trial court's division of property order ("DOPO"). {¶9} In his memorandum in opposition, appellant argued appellee was still his attorney until the date of his withdrawal, June 11, 2009. He also attached various e- mails between appellee and an associate who was also apparently involved with appellant's case, Anna Parise, which, he maintaine


CourtListener opinion 4113395

CourtListener opinion 4113395 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4113395 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 4113395

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 4113395

QDRO: bankruptcy petitions With multiple deficiencies, and failed to appear and show cause Why he should not be held in contempt f`or missing a hearing. The bankruptcy court fined him $500. In the second»case, "The Amer Dissolution," Hoskins failed to complete a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and failed to respond to multiple requests from his client to do so. In the third case, "The Loury Collection Matter," he failed to attend a hearing because of a scheduling conflict and instead had another attorney unfamiliar with the case attend. The court continued the boury hearing but requested documentation of the scheduling conflict. Hoskins had rece


CourtListener opinion 4113395

domestic relations order: y petitions With multiple deficiencies, and failed to appear and show cause Why he should not be held in contempt f`or missing a hearing. The bankruptcy court fined him $500. In the second»case, "The Amer Dissolution," Hoskins failed to complete a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and failed to respond to multiple requests from his client to do so. In the third case, "The Loury Collection Matter," he failed to attend a hearing because of a scheduling conflict and instead had another attorney unfamiliar with the case attend. The court continued the boury hearing but requested documentation of the scheduling conflict. Hoskins had rece


CourtListener opinion 4113557

CourtListener opinion 4113557 Extracted case name: ET AL. v. R ALLEN HUGHES. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4113557 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 4113557


CourtListener opinion 4113557

domestic relations order: raised by the Children are restated as follows: a. Whether the holding in Hillman v. Maretta controls the outcome of this case in which the beneficiary is alleged to have committed constructive fraud in acquiring life insurance proceeds and when a state domestic relations order, "based on specific judicial recognition of particular needs" has directed a different disposition. b. Whether the grant of summary judgment can be upheld when the chancery court failed to consider the Children‟s constructive fraud claim and admissible evidence supporting that claim. c. Whether the federal preemption doctrine shields fraud committ


CourtListener opinion 4113557

valuation/division: at issue in Yiatchos. Federal law and federal regulations bestow upon the service member an absolute right to designate the policy beneficiary. That right is personal to the member alone. It is not a shared asset subject to the interests of another, as is community property." Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46, 59-60 (1981). In a footnote, the Court stated that Yiachtos and Free: "were concerned with a particular type of fraudulent behavior: attempts „to divest the wife of any interest in her own property.‟ . . . . In this case, [serviceman] misdirected property over which he had exclusive control. In doing so, of course, he deprived the [


CourtListener opinion 4114096

CourtListener opinion 4114096 Docket: 16CA0029-M Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4114096 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 4114096

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 4114096

QDRO: URNAL ENTRY Dated: January 9, 2017 HENSAL, Judge. {¶1} Appellant, Ronald Nelson, appeals from a judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, ordering him to assign certain pension benefits to his ex-wife by way of a qualified domestic relations order. This Court affirms. I. {¶2} After over 25 years of marriage, Ronald Nelson ("Husband") and Patricia Nelson ("Wife") divorced in 2003. Throughout the duration of their marriage, Husband worked as a pilot for U.S. Airways and participated in the U.S. Airways, Inc. Pilot Pension Defined Benefit Plan ("Pension Plan"). Prior to Husband and Wife's divorce


CourtListener opinion 4114096

pension: pellant CASE No. 01 DR 0714 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: January 9, 2017 HENSAL, Judge. {¶1} Appellant, Ronald Nelson, appeals from a judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, ordering him to assign certain pension benefits to his ex-wife by way of a qualified domestic relations order. This Court affirms. I. {¶2} After over 25 years of marriage, Ronald Nelson ("Husband") and Patricia Nelson ("Wife") divorced in 2003. Throughout the duration of their marriage, Husband worked as a pilot for U.S. Airways and participated in the U.S. Airways, Inc. Pilot Pension Def


CourtListener opinion 4114096

ERISA: r than U.S. Airways), the Pension Plan had been "restored" as contemplated under the settlement agreement. {¶5} Husband, on the other hand, argued that PBGC's takeover of the Pension Plan did not result in it being "restored" as specifically defined under ERISA, which would require the Pension Plan to return to its original status with U.S. Airways, as opposed to being an insurance benefit administered by PBGC. In support of his position, Husband presented testimony from an ERISA expert who testified regarding the process of a pension plan being "restored" as technically defined under ERISA. 3 {¶6} After a


CourtListener opinion 4114096

alternate payee: lexandria Division, In the Matter of US Airways Group, Inc. Case No. 02-83984-91(SSM) (Jointly Administered) or by the Congress of the United States, the Husband as a participant in said fund, hereinafter referred to as "Plan," shall assign to Wife, as an alternate payee, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, 50% of his interest in the Plan as of September 1, 2002. (Emphasis added.) {¶3} Following U.S. Airways' bankruptcy, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC"), a federal corporation that insured Husband's benefits under the Pension Plan, took over the Pension Plan. As a result of the Pension Pla


CourtListener opinion 4114523

CourtListener opinion 4114523 Docket: 33593-3-III Veneziano v. Chvatal the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4114523 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 4114523


CourtListener opinion 4114523

QDRO: Chvatal represented Cynthia Veneziano in the dissolution action and negotiated the terms of the parties' property division on Ms. Veneziano's behalf. Among assets divided was a pension earned through Mr. Veneziano's employment with Fluor Daniel Hanford. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) divided the pension between the parties on the following terms (\Alternate Payee\" refers to Ms. Veneziano):


CourtListener opinion 4114523

pension: ice action against Patricia Chvatal, arising out of Ms. Chvatal's negotiation of the division of marital assets in Ms. Veneziano's divorce. Ms. Veneziano's legal experts testified that Ms. Chvatal's approach to the negotiated division of Mr. Veneziano's pension-a major marital asset-undervalued Ms. Veneziano's interest and fell below the standard of care. While the trial court agreed with Ms. Veneziano that her evidence presented genuine issues of fact on most elements of her malpractice claim, it found her evidence lacking on the required element of proximately- caused harm. Ms. Veneziano assigns error


CourtListener opinion 4114523

alternate payee: roperty division on Ms. Veneziano's behalf. Among assets divided was a pension earned through Mr. Veneziano's employment with Fluor Daniel Hanford. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) divided the pension between the parties on the following terms (\Alternate Payee\" refers to Ms. Veneziano):


CourtListener opinion 4114523

domestic relations order: epresented Cynthia Veneziano in the dissolution action and negotiated the terms of the parties' property division on Ms. Veneziano's behalf. Among assets divided was a pension earned through Mr. Veneziano's employment with Fluor Daniel Hanford. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) divided the pension between the parties on the following terms (\Alternate Payee\" refers to Ms. Veneziano):


CourtListener opinion 4115105

CourtListener opinion 4115105 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4115105 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 4115105


CourtListener opinion 4115105

QDRO: ler Group, et al. Page 3 December 14, 1994. On January 18, 1995, a Plan representative called Williams and informed him that the Judgment of Divorce lacked the clerical information required by 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C)4 to enable the Plan to qualify it as a "qualified domestic relations order" under 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), and, therefore, the Judgment of Divorce could not override ERISA's anti-alienation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1).5 Consequently, the Plan denied Plaintiff's request for benefits. At that time, the Plan also sent a letter conveying the same information, and attached a sample qualified domestic-relations order spelling


CourtListener opinion 4115105

retirement benefits: e to Henry. It further stated that Henry was forbidden from choosing a pension payment option that would deprive Plaintiff of these benefits.2 Henry worked for the Chrysler Corporation for 334 months, from June 3, 1965 to January 29, 1992, and began receiving retirement benefits under the Chrysler – UAW Pension Plan (the Plan)3 on April 1, 1994, in the form of a "Lifetime Annuity Without Surviving Spouse" option. Thus, Henry violated the Judgment of Divorce by selecting an option that did not provide Plaintiff with the benefits awarded to her. Attempting to override Henry's choice of benefits under the Plan, Plaintiff's first at


CourtListener opinion 4115105

pension: xth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 17a0007p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ ARDELLA PATTERSON, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ │ > No. 16-1365 v. │ │ │ CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC, nka FCA US LLC; │ CHRYSLER LLC UAW PENSION PLAN, nka FCA US │ LLC-UAW Pension Plan, │ Defendants-Appellants. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:15-cv-10563—Arthur J. Tarnow, District Judge. Argued: October 18, 2016 Decided and Filed: January 11, 2017 Before: BOGGS, SUHRHEINRICH, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. _________


CourtListener opinion 4115105

ERISA: rms, Michigan, for Appellants. Jack M. Schultz, JACK M. SCHULTZ, P.C., Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Appellee. 1 No. 16-1365 Patterson v. Chrysler Group, et al. Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. In this ERISA action brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132,1 Defendants-Appellants, Chrysler Group, LLC, et al. (Defendants), appeal the judgment of the district court ordering them to pay Plaintiff-Appellee, Ardella Patterson (Plaintiff), pension and surviving spousal benefits. We reverse, finding Plaintiff's claim barred by the statute of limitations. I. BACKGROUND


CourtListener opinion 4115614

CourtListener opinion 4115614 Extracted reporter citation: 40 N.E.3d 971. Docket: 32A04-1604-CT-806 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4115614 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 4115614


CourtListener opinion 4115614

QDRO: be deducted from Husband's gross disposable retirement pay prior to calculation and payment of Wife's retirement distribution. 18. Wife's entitlement to a distribution of Husband's military retired pay shall be documented by a duly executed and ordered Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband and Wife shall each execute any necessary documents to effectuate this provision. (App. Vol. II (hereinafter "App.") at 30-1) (emphasis in original). [3] Husband retired from the military in May 2005. Upon his retirement, he paid Wife $325.00 per month out of his retirement pay. In July 2014, Wife sent the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opi


CourtListener opinion 4115614

retirement benefits: ct payment from the Defense Finance and Accounting Services by virtue of 10 U.S.C. section 1408(d)(2) inasmuch as the parties [sic] marriage has continued for more than ten (10) years during which Husband has accrued active military service creditable for retirement benefits. Further, as the wife of an active duty military serviceman married for at least ten (10) years, Wife shall be entitled to all statutory benefits afforded her. 15. During the period from the date of marriage to the date of separation (March 31, 1985 to March 27, 1998) Husband accumulated 156 months of active Federal service for retirement; 1 One


CourtListener opinion 4115614

pension: ere married on March 31, 1985, and divorced on August 7, 1998. 1 For all but approximately two months of the parties' marriage, Husband served in the United States Army. The dissolution court (hereinafter, "Dissolution Court") divided Husband's military pension benefits in the Dissolution Decree and ordered: 13. This Court has jurisdiction over the distribution and division of Husband's military pension benefits pursuant to I.C [sic] 31-9- 2-42. 14. The Wife is entitled to direct payment from the Defense Finance and Accounting Services by virtue of 10 U.S.C. section 1408(d)(2) inasmuch as the parties [si


CourtListener opinion 4115614

domestic relations order: ed from Husband's gross disposable retirement pay prior to calculation and payment of Wife's retirement distribution. 18. Wife's entitlement to a distribution of Husband's military retired pay shall be documented by a duly executed and ordered Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband and Wife shall each execute any necessary documents to effectuate this provision. (App. Vol. II (hereinafter "App.") at 30-1) (emphasis in original). [3] Husband retired from the military in May 2005. Upon his retirement, he paid Wife $325.00 per month out of his retirement pay. In July 2014, Wife sent the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opi


CourtListener opinion 4115913

CourtListener opinion 4115913 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Dalton. Extracted reporter citation: 348 S.W.3d 290. Docket: 12-15-00203-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4115913 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 4115913

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 4115913

QDRO: AW CAROL DALTON, APPELLEE § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Bart Dalton appeals from post-divorce enforcement orders rendered in favor of his ex- wife Carol Dalton. In six issues, Bart asserts the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render the qualified domestic relations order, the trial court impermissibly altered the terms of the divorce decree, his retirement assets are exempt from seizure, the amount awarded is unsupported by the record, the trial court erred in refusing to vacate an earlier wage withholding order, and the trial court violated Bart's due process rights. Because the evidence does not support the amount awarded


CourtListener opinion 4115913

retirement benefits: ers. On April 15, 2015, the court granted Carol's petition for a QDRO and denied Bart's motion to terminate the wage withholding order. On July 10, 2015, a hearing was held on Bart's renewed motion to vacate the withholding order and his motion to release his retirement account funds. That day, the court found Bart in contempt for failure to comply with the terms of the divorce decree and rendered a QDRO assigning to Carol a portion of Bart's retirement benefits for the alimony arrearages and for attorney's fees. Additionally, the trial court dismissed Bart's motion to vacate the withholding order. Bart timely filed a notice of ap


CourtListener opinion 4115913

pension: a person may contract to support his spouse and children, and that obligation, to the extent it exceeds his legal duty, is a debt. Ex parte Hall, 854 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1993). Texas Property Code Section 42.0021 provides that a person's right to assets in pension plans and retirement accounts are, to an extent, exempt from seizure for the satisfaction of debts. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 42.0021 (West 2014). The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is a comprehensive federal system regulating employee benefit plans to protect contractually defined benefits. Firestone 6 Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S.


CourtListener opinion 4115913

ERISA: e Section 42.0021 provides that a person's right to assets in pension plans and retirement accounts are, to an extent, exempt from seizure for the satisfaction of debts. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 42.0021 (West 2014). The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is a comprehensive federal system regulating employee benefit plans to protect contractually defined benefits. Firestone 6 Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 113, 109 S. Ct. 948, 956, 103 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1989). ERISA includes expansive preemption provisions, which are intended to ensure that the regulation of employee benefit plans be exclusively a


CourtListener opinion 4116779

CourtListener opinion 4116779 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2 was not submitted to the bankruptcy. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4116779 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 4116779

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 4116779

domestic relations order: ellant's Brief relies solely upon alleged procedural errors. There is no discussion of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, and no contention that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to rule that the offset was a violation of the stay even though it arose out of domestic relations orders.59 Because Carlton has not identified the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine as an issue on appeal and has not briefed the question, this Court will not consider whether the bankruptcy court erred in applying the doctrine.60 In contrast to the rule that an appellate court may affirm on any basis shown by the record, there is no rule of appellate procedure that


CourtListener opinion 4118369

CourtListener opinion 4118369 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BRIAN K. SMITH AND BONNIE J. SMITH Upon the Petition of BRIAN K. SMITH. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 16-0597. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4118369 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 4118369


CourtListener opinion 4118369

QDRO: es' property. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 647-48 (Iowa 2009) (discussing finality of decrees, property division, and qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs)). Second, to implement the court's division of retirement benefits, a QDRO is entered that directs the plan administrator to make specified payments to the non-employee ex-spouse. Id. Thus, "a QDRO is characterized properly as a procedural device required by federal law and entered to effectuate the property division made in the dissolution decree." Id. Rockwell Collins Retirement Savings Plan—401(k). Brian's 401(k) was wort


CourtListener opinion 4118369

retirement benefits: 9 balances into a new 529 plan for the benefit of this grandchild. 5 Brian filed a dissolution petition on December 11, 2013, and trial commenced on August 20, 2015. The parties presented financial information to the court, including the value of various retirement accounts and the marital home. Brian proposed Bonnie "should receive zero of the equity in the marital residence" because he had made all the mortgage payments and because the parties "have always had separate accounts." He also asked to be awarded his health savings account, his defined-benefit plan, and his 401(k)—valued at over $1 million. Brian agreed Bonn


CourtListener opinion 4118369

pension: s "existing legal principles." See Iowa R. App. P. 6.1101(3). 7 Brian's 401(k) has a marital value of $922,255, and Bonnie will keep her $73,211 in marital retirement assets, which makes the difference in the parties' marital retirement 10 Defined-Benefit Pension. In Iowa, pension benefits are marital property subject to an equitable distribution. In re Marriage of Branstetter, 508 N.W.2d 638, 641-42 (Iowa 1993). Our courts have recognized two methods of dividing pension benefits: the present value payable immediately or a percentage payable when the benefits become matured. See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W


CourtListener opinion 4118369

401(k): should receive zero of the equity in the marital residence" because he had made all the mortgage payments and because the parties "have always had separate accounts." He also asked to be awarded his health savings account, his defined-benefit plan, and his 401(k)—valued at over $1 million. Brian agreed Bonnie should retain her $73,000 in retirement accounts, and he urged the court to hold each party responsible for their own debts—Brian ($32,238) and Bonnie ($79,426). In contrast, Bonnie asked the court to award her a marital portion of both Brian's 401(k) and his defined-benefit plan by the entry of qualified


CourtListener opinion 4124406

CourtListener opinion 4124406 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JAMIE TEKIPPE n. Extracted reporter citation: 810 N.W.2d 880. Docket: 16-1297. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4124406 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 4124406


CourtListener opinion 4124406

QDRO: OSEPH TEKIPPE, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, John J. Bauercamper, Judge. Joseph TeKippe appeals from an order approving the language of a qualified domestic relations order. AFFIRMED. Judith O'Donohoe of Elwood, O'Donohoe, Braun, White, LLP, Charles City, for appellant. Erik W. Fern of Putnam, Fern & Thompson Law Office, P.L.L.C., Decorah, for appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ. 2 DOYLE, Judge. "This case should serve as a vivid reminder to attorneys practicing matrimonial law to sp


CourtListener opinion 4124406

retirement benefits: re Marriage of Morris, 810 N.W.2d 880, 881 (Iowa 2012). Unfortunately, in reaching the property settlement they stipulated to be part of the decree dissolving their marriage, the parties here failed to specifically address whether the alternate payee of a retirement plan could designate a successor alternate payee. This appeal is the result. Joseph and Jamie TeKippe1 were married in 1994, and Jamie petitioned to dissolve the marriage in 2015. The parties reached a settlement agreement and filed a stipulation outlining the division of their property and debts, the award of spousal support, and their responsibilities re


CourtListener opinion 4124406

alternate payee: me court warned in In re Marriage of Morris, 810 N.W.2d 880, 881 (Iowa 2012). Unfortunately, in reaching the property settlement they stipulated to be part of the decree dissolving their marriage, the parties here failed to specifically address whether the alternate payee of a retirement plan could designate a successor alternate payee. This appeal is the result. Joseph and Jamie TeKippe1 were married in 1994, and Jamie petitioned to dissolve the marriage in 2015. The parties reached a settlement agreement and filed a stipulation outlining the division of their property and debts, the award of spousal support, and thei


CourtListener opinion 4124406

domestic relations order: PPE, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, John J. Bauercamper, Judge. Joseph TeKippe appeals from an order approving the language of a qualified domestic relations order. AFFIRMED. Judith O'Donohoe of Elwood, O'Donohoe, Braun, White, LLP, Charles City, for appellant. Erik W. Fern of Putnam, Fern & Thompson Law Office, P.L.L.C., Decorah, for appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ. 2 DOYLE, Judge. "This case should serve as a vivid reminder to attorneys practicing matrimonial law to sp


CourtListener opinion 4126102

CourtListener opinion 4126102 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 329377 Macomb Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4126102 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 4126102

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 4126102

QDRO: gment of Divorce. The pension provision of the Consent Judgment of Divorce granted plaintiff 50% of the current value of William's pension for the period of time of the marriage and directed plaintiff's attorney to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for entry with the court. The Consent Judgment of Divorce did not contain any language specifically granting plaintiff survivor benefits in the pension. In August 1995, approximately one year after the entry of the Consent Judgment of Divorce, the court entered a QDRO, requiring Ford Motor Company to pay a portion of William's pension benefits to plainti


CourtListener opinion 4126102

retirement benefits: sterbeck relied on Erway v Erway, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 27, 2007 (Docket No. 265194), wherein this Court amended the parties' judgment of divorce to reflect the QDRO, which awarded 50% of the defendant's early retirement benefits to the plaintiff although the original judgment awarded only general retirement benefits and did not specifically award early retirement benefits. The trial court in Erway clarified that it had intended to award the plaintiff an interest in both general and early retirement benefits, and thus amendment of the judgment was appropriate under MCR 2.612(A)(1)


CourtListener opinion 4126102

pension: nion and order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant. We affirm. I. UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS This case arises from an underlying dispute between plaintiff and Vickey Presley regarding entitlement to survivor benefits in William Kirk's pension. Plaintiff and William were divorced in August 1994 pursuant to a Consent Judgment of Divorce. The pension provision of the Consent Judgment of Divorce granted plaintiff 50% of the current value of William's pension for the period of time of the marriage and directed plaintiff's attorney to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for entry with t


CourtListener opinion 4126102

domestic relations order: pursuant to a Consent Judgment of Divorce. The pension provision of the Consent Judgment of Divorce granted plaintiff 50% of the current value of William's pension for the period of time of the marriage and directed plaintiff's attorney to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for entry with the court. The Consent Judgment of Divorce did not contain any language specifically granting plaintiff survivor benefits in the pension. In August 1995, approximately one year after the entry of the Consent Judgment of Divorce, the court entered a QDRO, requiring Ford Motor Company to pay a portion of William's pension benefits to p


CourtListener opinion 4126576

CourtListener opinion 4126576 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 329377 Macomb Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4126576 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 4126576


CourtListener opinion 4151610

CourtListener opinion 4151610 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 15AP-1071 for this. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4151610 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 4151610


CourtListener opinion 4151610

retirement benefits: ant. The decree identified the parties' separate property and provided for division of the marital property. Among the provisions governing the division of property, the decree ordered appellant to transfer one-half of the balance of his Chase Roth individual retirement account and $374,404 from his Chase retirement savings plan to appellee. The decree provided that a qualified domestic relations order was to be prepared to facilitate the transfer of the retirement savings account funds. The decree also ordered appellant to pay appellee $15,000 toward her attorney fees. {¶ 4} Appellant filed a motion for new trial on June 15, 201


CourtListener opinion 4151610

domestic relations order: ovisions governing the division of property, the decree ordered appellant to transfer one-half of the balance of his Chase Roth individual retirement account and $374,404 from his Chase retirement savings plan to appellee. The decree provided that a qualified domestic relations order was to be prepared to facilitate the transfer of the retirement savings account funds. The decree also ordered appellant to pay appellee $15,000 toward her attorney fees. {¶ 4} Appellant filed a motion for new trial on June 15, 2015, arguing that the judgment issuing the divorce decree was against the weight of the evidence and contrary to law. Appellee fi


CourtListener opinion 4151729

CourtListener opinion 4151729 Extracted case name: P.A. v. T.A. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4151729 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 4151729


CourtListener opinion 4151729

QDRO: cording to the family court order, petitioner did not challenge the apportionment or value of the 401(k). In addition, the exhibit attached to the order states that the marital balance in respondent's 401(k) account would be used as the balancing account and "QDRO ["qualified domestic relations order"] amount to balance." The Internal Revenue Code defines a qualified domestic relations order as an order "which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to the participant under a plan


CourtListener opinion 4151729

pension: n, . . ." 26 U.S.C. § 414(p)(1)(A)(i). As this Court has recognized, the requirements of a QDRO are defined by federal law, and the plan administrator follows the directions of the QDRO, taking the actions necessary to secure the other party's interest in the pension or retirement. Chenault v. Chenault, 224 W. Va. 141, 145-46, 680 S.E.2d 386, 390-91 (2009). In the instant case, the family court order clearly contemplates the entry of a subsequent order so that further accounting will be done contemporaneous with the entry of the QDRO, including the updated financial figures. In addition, the family court order specifica


CourtListener opinion 4151729

401(k): Court also recognized that a post-separation increase in the value of an investment account 2 classified as marital property was also marital property. Id. According to the family court order, petitioner did not challenge the apportionment or value of the 401(k). In addition, the exhibit attached to the order states that the marital balance in respondent's 401(k) account would be used as the balancing account and "QDRO ["qualified domestic relations order"] amount to balance." The Internal Revenue Code defines a qualified domestic relations order as an order "which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternat


CourtListener opinion 4151729

alternate payee: nt's 401(k) account would be used as the balancing account and "QDRO ["qualified domestic relations order"] amount to balance." The Internal Revenue Code defines a qualified domestic relations order as an order "which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to the participant under a plan, . . ." 26 U.S.C. § 414(p)(1)(A)(i). As this Court has recognized, the requirements of a QDRO are defined by federal law, and the plan administrator follows the directions of the QDRO, taking the actions ne


CourtListener opinion 4153347

CourtListener opinion 4153347 Extracted reporter citation: 22 A.3d 727. Docket: of months Matthews was a participant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4153347 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 4153347


CourtListener opinion 4153347

QDRO: working there from 1973 to 2013. Second, Matthews married his ex-wife in 1973 and divorced in 1993, meaning they were together for about half of his tenure at DuPont. Third, Matthews' divorce decree, entered by the Delaware Family Court in 1995, included a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that required DuPont to pay a specified portion of Matthews' pension benefit directly to his ex-wife. And fourth, DuPont amended its Plan at the end of 2007, reducing benefits to pensioners for post-2007 work by two-thirds. 2 II Although Matthews' pension benefit determination involved numerous byzantine calculations, this appeal turns on on


CourtListener opinion 4153347

pension: ct Court's summary judgment in favor of his former employer, E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company, in a case arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The District Court held that the decision of DuPont's Plan Administrator to revise Matthews' pension-benefit calculation was entitled to deference under ERISA. Matthews argues that the District Court should have reviewed the Administrator's decision de novo because it was interpreting a state court order instead of the Plan. We agree with the parties that the standard of review dictates the result in this appeal and because the District Court should ha


CourtListener opinion 4153347

ERISA: E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company, in a case arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The District Court held that the decision of DuPont's Plan Administrator to revise Matthews' pension-benefit calculation was entitled to deference under ERISA. Matthews argues that the District Court should have reviewed the Administrator's decision de novo because it was interpreting a state court order instead of the Plan. We agree with the parties that the standard of review dictates the result in this appeal and because the District Court should have applied de novo review, we will reverse. I Four und


CourtListener opinion 4153347

domestic relations order: ere from 1973 to 2013. Second, Matthews married his ex-wife in 1973 and divorced in 1993, meaning they were together for about half of his tenure at DuPont. Third, Matthews' divorce decree, entered by the Delaware Family Court in 1995, included a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that required DuPont to pay a specified portion of Matthews' pension benefit directly to his ex-wife. And fourth, DuPont amended its Plan at the end of 2007, reducing benefits to pensioners for post-2007 work by two-thirds. 2 II Although Matthews' pension benefit determination involved numerous byzantine calculations, this appeal turns on on


CourtListener opinion 4153742

CourtListener opinion 4153742 Extracted reporter citation: 654 N.E.2d 1254. Docket: OT-16-017 Appellant Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4153742 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 4153742

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 4153742

QDRO: y more going forward. [Appellee-Defendant] has completed her education, and yet makes $29,500 at most a year. Their respective ages and health do not appear to be a factor. There is great disparity in their retirement benefits. Even after splitting by QDRO, Plaintiff is young and skilled enough to replenish and grow his retirement benefits before he will need them. Defendant does not make enough to have disposable income to invest in her 401(k) at work after expenses. This is a 10-year marriage, and all of the growth in income-earning ability of Plaintiff occurred while the Defendant and he were mar