CourtListener opinion 10458328

QDRO: m any and all claims of the creditors of the beneficiary or participant, other than claims by the Maryland Department of Health." MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to "(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankruptcy case filed before January 1, 1988." MD.


CourtListener opinion 10458328

1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present

QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

retirement benefits: . CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to "(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankruptcy case filed before January 1, 1988." MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(2). Title 19 of the Health-General Article in the Maryland Code gover


CourtListener opinion 10458328

alternate payee: ded, shall be exempt from any and all claims of the creditors of the beneficiary or participant, other than claims by the Maryland Department of Health." MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to "(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankrup


CourtListener opinion 10458328

domestic relations order: all claims of the creditors of the beneficiary or participant, other than claims by the Maryland Department of Health." MD. CODE ANN., CTS. AND JUD. PROC. § 11-504(h)(1). The Exemption Provision does not apply to "(i) [a]n alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in § 414(p) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (ii) [a] retirement plan, qualified under § 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended under § 408 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) [t]he assets of a bankruptcy case filed before January 1, 1988." MD.


CourtListener opinion 10459314

CourtListener opinion 10459314 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Cracker. Extracted reporter citation: 573 U.S. 122. Docket: No. 14. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10459314 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 10459314

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 10459314

QDRO: er").1 The Consent Order provides for the Debtor to receive a distributive award of $22,677.31 to be paid through a Qualified Domestic Relations 1 The Trustee filed a copy of the Consent Order as an exhibit to his Objection. (Docket No. 14, Ex. A). Order (QDRO). As of the petition date, the funds remained in Mr. Myatt's retirement account. The Debtor listed the award in her bankruptcy schedules under the category "other amounts someone owes you." (Docket No. 1). She also asserted an exemption under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1C-1601(a)(9) and 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3) in the total funds of both her individual retiremen


CourtListener opinion 10459314

retirement benefits: aim for Property Exemptions (Docket No. 14, the "Objection") filed by the chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee"). The Trustee objected to the exemption that Catherine Mary Grossman Myatt (the "Debtor') claimed in her interest in her former husband's 401(k) retirement account. The Debtor asserts that the interest, which totals $22,677.31, is fully exempt under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1C-1601(a)(9) and 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will overrule the Objection, finding that the Debtor possesses an interest in her former husband's 401(k) account that is excluded from the bankruptcy estate. J


CourtListener opinion 10459314

pension: 6). There is also a third category, divisible property, which is any real or personal property acquired by either spouse after the date of separation, but before the date of distribution. Id. By statute, marital property includes "all vested and nonvested pension, retirement, and other deferred compensation rights[.]" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20(b)(1). Only marital and divisible property are subject to equitable distribution in the event of divorce and there is a rebuttable presumption that property acquired after the date of marriage and before separation is marital property. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20(b)(1). Up


CourtListener opinion 10459314

ERISA: bmitting this matter for ruling on the papers, including the Consent Order, as well as the arguments of counsel. The Court subsequently entered an order reopening the evidentiary record for the limited purpose of determining whether Mr. Myatt's account is ERISA-qualified. (Docket No. 22). In response to the order, the Trustee and Debtor's counsel stipulated and agreed that, based upon a review of the relevant documentation, Mr. Myatt's retirement plan "is an ERISA-qualified 401(k) plan/account." (Docket No. 23). The Court accepts the stipulation of the parties on this issue and finds that Mr. Myatt possesses


CourtListener opinion 10459901

CourtListener opinion 10459901 Extracted reporter citation: 605 F.2d 1169. Docket: and of facts that are part of public records. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10459901 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 10459901


CourtListener opinion 10459901

QDRO: ing attorney fees on Baglio's personal credit card. On March 15, 2018, Baglio filed a motion to enforce the final decree. The motion resulted in several orders, all designed to get Newton to comply with the decree. An order entered on July 18, 2018, was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which assigned to Baglio 50% of Newton's pension, per the final decree. Another order entered that day directed Special Master Zenon Myszkowski4 to investigate and make recommendations to the Court regarding Newton's defaults under the final decree. Myszkowski filed his report and recommendation on November 12, 2018, recommending that the sta


CourtListener opinion 10459901

pension: L SECURITY, LLC, Defendants. OPINION Plaintiff Darrell Newton and Defendant Josephine Baglio agreed to the entry of a final decree dissolving their marriage. The decree, which apportioned their community property, included an equal division of Newton's pension plan. The decree also required Newton to make "equalization payments" to Baglio, pay certain community debts, and turn over to Baglio certain vehicles and other personal property. Newton made the first equalization payment. Thereafter, he defaulted in a number of material respects. After repeated attempts to get Newton to pay as agreed, in late 2020 the


CourtListener opinion 10459901

domestic relations order: ney fees on Baglio's personal credit card. On March 15, 2018, Baglio filed a motion to enforce the final decree. The motion resulted in several orders, all designed to get Newton to comply with the decree. An order entered on July 18, 2018, was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which assigned to Baglio 50% of Newton's pension, per the final decree. Another order entered that day directed Special Master Zenon Myszkowski4 to investigate and make recommendations to the Court regarding Newton's defaults under the final decree. Myszkowski filed his report and recommendation on November 12, 2018, recommending that the sta


CourtListener opinion 10459901

valuation/division: Adv. no. 21-1016-t JOSEPHINE M. BAGLIO and TRIAD NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC, Defendants. OPINION Plaintiff Darrell Newton and Defendant Josephine Baglio agreed to the entry of a final decree dissolving their marriage. The decree, which apportioned their community property, included an equal division of Newton's pension plan. The decree also required Newton to make "equalization payments" to Baglio, pay certain community debts, and turn over to Baglio certain vehicles and other personal property. Newton made the first equalization payment. Thereafter, he defaulted in a number of material respects. After repeated attempts


CourtListener opinion 10459911

CourtListener opinion 10459911 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: in this case. See St. Louis Baptist Temple. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10459911 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 10459911


CourtListener opinion 10459911

QDRO: D-F. Debtors did not object to any proofs of claim. Two complications arose during the case. First, Mr. DeKeyzer has an ex-wife living in Louisiana, and Counsel billed a couple of hours learning whether their Louisiana qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which split retirement accounts in their divorce, affected Debtors' plan. Second, Debtors filed two motions to incur debt, one so Mr. DeKeyzer could buy a car for his disabled adult son in Louisiana and the other to pay for LASIK eye surgery. Both motions were granted. Additionally, Counsel represented that Debtors in this case required more "hand


CourtListener opinion 10459911

retirement benefits: t object to any proofs of claim. Two complications arose during the case. First, Mr. DeKeyzer has an ex-wife living in Louisiana, and Counsel billed a couple of hours learning whether their Louisiana qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which split retirement accounts in their divorce, affected Debtors' plan. Second, Debtors filed two motions to incur debt, one so Mr. DeKeyzer could buy a car for his disabled adult son in Louisiana and the other to pay for LASIK eye surgery. Both motions were granted. Additionally, Counsel represented that Debtors in this case required more "hand holding" than average.4 This is


CourtListener opinion 10459911

domestic relations order: ted on Debtors' Schedules D-F. Debtors did not object to any proofs of claim. Two complications arose during the case. First, Mr. DeKeyzer has an ex-wife living in Louisiana, and Counsel billed a couple of hours learning whether their Louisiana qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which split retirement accounts in their divorce, affected Debtors' plan. Second, Debtors filed two motions to incur debt, one so Mr. DeKeyzer could buy a car for his disabled adult son in Louisiana and the other to pay for LASIK eye surgery. Both motions were granted. Additionally, Counsel represented that Debtors in this case required more


CourtListener opinion 10459976

CourtListener opinion 10459976 Extracted reporter citation: 605 F.2d 1169. Docket: 22-10933-t13 Debtor. OPINION Before the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10459976 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 10459976


CourtListener opinion 10459976

QDRO: division of the TSP account. Debtor responded pro se to the Contempt Motion on November 14, 2022. Eight days later, he filed this chapter 13 case. Also on November 22, 2022, the state court entered a Federal Employees Retirement System Order (the "FERS QDRO")5 relating to the division of the FERS benefits. The FERS 5 QDRO is an acronym for a "Qualified Domestic Relations Order," an order recognized by pension plan and retirement account administrators as sufficient in form and substance to change plan or account rights and ownership. QDRO was submitted by Racquel's counsel and agreed to by Debtor. No simi


CourtListener opinion 10459976

retirement benefits: UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO In re: STEVEN D. HARRISON, Case No. 22-10933-t13 Debtor. OPINION Before the Court is Racquel Harrison's Amended Motion to Determine that Stay Does Not Apply to Division of Retirement Account or, Alternatively, for Relief From Stay. To rule on the motion, the Court must construe a final divorce decree entered almost two years prepetition and determine its effect on Debtor's retirement account. The Court finds and concludes that the final decree divided all community property into the separate property of the divorcing parties, including the


CourtListener opinion 10459976

pension: so on November 22, 2022, the state court entered a Federal Employees Retirement System Order (the "FERS QDRO")5 relating to the division of the FERS benefits. The FERS 5 QDRO is an acronym for a "Qualified Domestic Relations Order," an order recognized by pension plan and retirement account administrators as sufficient in form and substance to change plan or account rights and ownership. QDRO was submitted by Racquel's counsel and agreed to by Debtor. No similar QDRO was entered for the TSP account. Debtor filed a chapter 13 plan on December 16, 2022. The plan proposes to pay allowed unsecured claims 100% with


CourtListener opinion 10459976

domestic relations order: ht days later, he filed this chapter 13 case. Also on November 22, 2022, the state court entered a Federal Employees Retirement System Order (the "FERS QDRO")5 relating to the division of the FERS benefits. The FERS 5 QDRO is an acronym for a "Qualified Domestic Relations Order," an order recognized by pension plan and retirement account administrators as sufficient in form and substance to change plan or account rights and ownership. QDRO was submitted by Racquel's counsel and agreed to by Debtor. No similar QDRO was entered for the TSP account. Debtor filed a chapter 13 plan on December 16, 2022. The plan proposes to pay a


CourtListener opinion 10460289

CourtListener opinion 10460289 Extracted reporter citation: 708 F.2d 865. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10460289 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 10460289

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 10460289

QDRO: of the divorce, Debtor had a deferred compensation account with VALIC (the "VALIC Account"). The Divorce Judgment provided that "pursuant to the terms of the in-Court Stipulation dated November 24, 2004 and as more specifically set forth therein, separate Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ["QDRO"] (2) 2 The record consists of the Petition (the "Petition" at Doc. 1); chapter 13 Plan (the "Plan" at Doc. 2); Amended chapter 13 Plan (the "Amended Plan" at Doc. 19); Objection to Confirmation of Amended Plan and Request for Additional Relief (the "Plan Objection" at Doc. 26); Creditor's Supplemental Objection to Confirmation of Amended Plan


CourtListener opinion 10460289

retirement benefits: or signed by the Matrimonial Court addressing Creditor's interest in the VALIC Account. (Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 6). Without a QDRO in place, Debtor withdrew the entire VALIC Account balance over a period of time and transferred it to a VOYA Pershing IRA retirement account ("VOYA Account"). From July 2017 through September 2018, Debtor took out approximately $484,000.00 from the VOYA Account, deposited that money into his personal M&T Bank checking account (the "M&T Account") and closed the VOYA Account. No funds from or originating from the VALIC Account or any of Debtor's retirement funds were paid to Creditor. (See Sti


CourtListener opinion 10460289

domestic relations order: vorce, Debtor had a deferred compensation account with VALIC (the "VALIC Account"). The Divorce Judgment provided that "pursuant to the terms of the in-Court Stipulation dated November 24, 2004 and as more specifically set forth therein, separate Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ["QDRO"] (2) 2 The record consists of the Petition (the "Petition" at Doc. 1); chapter 13 Plan (the "Plan" at Doc. 2); Amended chapter 13 Plan (the "Amended Plan" at Doc. 19); Objection to Confirmation of Amended Plan and Request for Additional Relief (the "Plan Objection" at Doc. 26); Creditor's Supplemental Objection to Confirmation of Amended Plan


CourtListener opinion 10460289

valuation/division: onial Case by Creditor. Id. ("The Court is cognizant of the fact that this bankruptcy case is defined by Debtor's ongoing matrimonial and familial dispute"). As in many chapter 13 cases involving a divorced debtor, the primary debt was unpaid court-ordered equitable distribution. Considering Congress's express intention to permit this type of debt to be discharged in chapter 13 cases, the Court finds the filing of the Petition was not for a greedy or unworthy purpose. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1328(a) and 523(a)(15). This is Debtor's first bankruptcy case, and he is contributing a portion of his Social Security income to make the paymen


CourtListener opinion 10460341

CourtListener opinion 10460341 Extracted case name: LLP v. HSBC. Extracted reporter citation: 521 F.3d 130. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10460341 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 10460341


CourtListener opinion 10460341

QDRO: 's application for enforcement of the Amended Judgment of Divorce with regard to the transfer of marital retirement accounts was granted to the extent that Yao was directed to supply all information requested by Pension Actuaries Inc. for completion of the Qualified Domestic Relation Orders ("QDRO(s)") in this action by June 15, 2018. (Id. at 3– 4.) On July 31, 2018, Kao filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. ("Petition," Chapter 7 Case, ECF Doc. # 1.) The deadline to file a complaint objecting to Kao's discharge was extended by stipulation to February 28, 2019. ("Stipulation Extending Time to Oppose Discharge


CourtListener opinion 10460341

retirement benefits: ve share of Yao's enhanced earning capacity ("Defendant's Distributive Share"). But the Amended Judgment of Divorce only required Yao to pay Kao after he receives Kao's payment. (Id. at 7–8.) The Amended Judgment of Divorce separately ordered a division of retirement accounts, child support, and counsel fees from Yao to Kao's former attorney. (Id. at 8–11.) 2 The Declaration filed as ECF Doc. # 24 is substantively similar to the Opposition, ECF Doc. # 27. Subsequently, Yao filed an application for a money judgment for the non-retirement equitable distribution and for counsel fees incurred. On June 1, 2018, the State Court


CourtListener opinion 10460341

pension: Defendant's Distributive Share. Further, Kao's application for enforcement of the Amended Judgment of Divorce with regard to the transfer of marital retirement accounts was granted to the extent that Yao was directed to supply all information requested by Pension Actuaries Inc. for completion of the Qualified Domestic Relation Orders ("QDRO(s)") in this action by June 15, 2018. (Id. at 3– 4.) On July 31, 2018, Kao filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. ("Petition," Chapter 7 Case, ECF Doc. # 1.) The deadline to file a complaint objecting to Kao's discharge was extended by stipulation


CourtListener opinion 10460341

domestic relations order: at 8.) Defendant further represents that a hearing was scheduled for January 30, 2020 in New York State Family Court regarding child support arrears owed by Plaintiff.6 (Opposition ¶ 6.) 5 Defendant filed two attachments under seal, containing a Proposed Domestic Relations Order (ECF Doc. # 27-2, Ex. A) and the Money Judgment Support Order and Violation of Support Order, and related Findings of Fact, dated October 8, 2019 (Id., Ex. B). 6 The automatic stay does not apply to a broad range of issues arising in the matrimonial action in State Court. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(2). D. Reply to Summary Judgment Opposition Plaintiff's


CourtListener opinion 10461157

CourtListener opinion 10461157 Extracted reporter citation: 471 F.3d 391. Docket: in the bankruptcy case reflects that no objection t. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10461157 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 10461157


CourtListener opinion 10461157

QDRO: - 81). The Trustee points to the fact that Ms. Blakesley ignored three letters from Mr. Blakesley's divorce attorney in March, April and May 2019, concerning rollover of funds in her 401(k) and the need for Ms. Blakesley to cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. (ECF AP No. 22-6). Here, it is undisputed that the only contact between the Trustee and Ms. Blakesley concerning this adversary proceeding was the delivery by regular first class mail of the Summons and Complaint. There was no pre-litigation demand letter.9 There were no orders issued by this Court, after service of the Summons and before entry of the


CourtListener opinion 10461157

401(k): shed by Second Circuit precedent, the answer is yes. III. FACTS James Blakesley2 filed a petition under Chapter 7 on June 6, 2019. (Case No. 19-20566, ECF No. 1).3 In Schedule A/B of his petition, Mr. Blakesley listed his interest in Ms. Blakesley's 401(k) account in the amount of $90,000 arising out of a "divorce property settlement" (it also arose out of a Judgment of Divorce). (ECF BK No. 1, Sch. A/B ¶ 29). On Schedule C of his petition, Mr. Blakesley listed his interest in the funds in that 401(k) account as fully exempt, in the total amount of $90,000. (Id. at Sch. C). The docket in the bankruptcy cas


CourtListener opinion 10461157

domestic relations order: Trustee points to the fact that Ms. Blakesley ignored three letters from Mr. Blakesley's divorce attorney in March, April and May 2019, concerning rollover of funds in her 401(k) and the need for Ms. Blakesley to cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. (ECF AP No. 22-6). Here, it is undisputed that the only contact between the Trustee and Ms. Blakesley concerning this adversary proceeding was the delivery by regular first class mail of the Summons and Complaint. There was no pre-litigation demand letter.9 There were no orders issued by this Court, after service of the Summons and before entry of the


CourtListener opinion 10461243

CourtListener opinion 10461243 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10461243 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 10461243


CourtListener opinion 10461243

retirement benefits: ct agreed as to the contempt charge but remanded on the latter, stating "[i]t would seem while laches does not bar collection of the original definite amount set forth in the 1994 judgment, it is arguable if it is available if the formula is applied to all retirement benefits Appellee has already received and/or will receive in the future." It remanded. Following remand, the trial court found laches was a defense. The wife appealed and the Fifth District determined Appellee's original legal obligation to Appellant as set forth in the trial court's December 1, 1994 Entry is not barred by laches. To find otherwise would


CourtListener opinion 10461243

pension: that balances the competing policies. Toki v. Toki, 2020 WL 261246 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). The appellate court applied laches to bar collection of interest during the period of the wife's inaction. In 1994, the wife was awarded a portion of her husband's pension, payable when he retired. He retired in 2002 and paid her $20,000.00, less than half the amount owed. In 2017, the wife filed contempt action and moved to construe the decree. The trial court found both barred by laches. The Fifth District agreed as to the contempt charge but remanded on the latter, stating "[i]t would seem while laches does not bar col


CourtListener opinion 10461243

domestic relations order: e court is convinced that the decisions that exist were driven less by an understanding of the precedential case law and more by a desire to do equity. In one of the earlier cases, from 1889, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas considered whether a domestic relations order is subject to the dormancy statute, finding "a decree for alimony, being a statutory judgment, and being, in all respects but one, an ordinary judgment at law, it is subject to the limitations imposed on ordinary judgments under [the dormancy statute]." Mullane v. Folger, 10 Ohio Dec.Reprint 485, 487 (Hamilton Cty. Ct. Com. Pl. 1889). The Supreme Court


CourtListener opinion 10461262

CourtListener opinion 10461262 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: of factors figured into the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10461262 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 10461262

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 10461262

QDRO: n this Note immediately due. On December 17, 2009, Mr. Ptacek individually executed a mortgage on his home in Strongsville, Ohio, in the amount of $625,000. On January 14, 2011, the domestic relations court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). The QDRO was issued to effect the division of "the parties' respective interests in a certain retirement plan sponsored by S.I.I. Investments, Inc. in which [Mr. Ptacek] is the Participant." According to the terms of the QDRO, the administrator of the retirement plan was to transfer to the debtor "an amount equal to $150,000.00 of [Mr. Ptacek's] bala


CourtListener opinion 10461262

retirement benefits: s home in Strongsville, Ohio, in the amount of $625,000. On January 14, 2011, the domestic relations court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). The QDRO was issued to effect the division of "the parties' respective interests in a certain retirement plan sponsored by S.I.I. Investments, Inc. in which [Mr. Ptacek] is the Participant." According to the terms of the QDRO, the administrator of the retirement plan was to transfer to the debtor "an amount equal to $150,000.00 of [Mr. Ptacek's] balance as of November 16, 2010." The QDRO stated that the lump sum payment of the $150,000 had to occur "as soon as


CourtListener opinion 10461262

pension: with full force to bankruptcy proceedings and "the values underlying the doctrine[s]—judicial economy and prevention of inconsistent decisions—are particularly served by applying it to Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings." Trs. of Operating Eng'rs Local 324 Pension Fund v. Bourdow Contracting, Inc., 919 F.3d 368, 381 (6th Cir. 2019). Under the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, a federal court must give "a state court judgment the same preclusive effect that the judgment would have in a state court." In re Fordu, 201 F.3d at 703 (citing Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 38


CourtListener opinion 10461262

domestic relations order: al balance and interest on this Note immediately due. On December 17, 2009, Mr. Ptacek individually executed a mortgage on his home in Strongsville, Ohio, in the amount of $625,000. On January 14, 2011, the domestic relations court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). The QDRO was issued to effect the division of "the parties' respective interests in a certain retirement plan sponsored by S.I.I. Investments, Inc. in which [Mr. Ptacek] is the Participant." According to the terms of the QDRO, the administrator of the retirement plan was to transfer to the debtor "an amount equal to $150,000.00 of [Mr. Ptacek'


CourtListener opinion 10461879

CourtListener opinion 10461879 Extracted reporter citation: 748 F.3d 142. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10461879 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 10461879


CourtListener opinion 10461879

QDRO: h a non-dischargeable ownership interest in the 401(k) that is not dischargeable under any provision of the Code and for the imposition of a constructive trust based upon a theory of unjust enrichment. Specifically, Plaintiff has pleaded the existence of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland granting her a vested property right in "50% of the Defendant's Total Account Balance" in the 401(k) as of January 16, 2018. Compl. 6–10, 13 16, 33, 39, 42. Plaintiff has also pleaded that the Defendant came into possession of that vested property interest. Compl. 12, 15– 16, 18, 38–39. Lastly,


CourtListener opinion 10461879

retirement benefits: d. 663, 668 (1980) ("The purpose of the remedy is to prevent the unjust enrichment of the holder of the property."); Robinette v. Hunsecker, 439 Md. 243, 259, 96 A.3d 94, 103 (2014) (concluding that the court "has authority to impose a constructive trust on retirement benefits [already] received by a surviving spouse when . . . circumstances [] give the former spouse a ‘higher equitable call' to the promised benefits."). enriched if he was permitted to retain it. Compl. 14–17, 25, 33, 35, 37–39, 41–42. For the foregoing reasons, although the § 523(a)(15) theory as pleaded is incorrect, the Plaintiff has stated a plausible c


CourtListener opinion 10461879

401(k): d Complaint to Determine Dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(15), 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(2)(B), and 523(a)(4)1 (the "Complaint"). In her Complaint, Plaintiff seeks a determination that she holds a non- dischargeable property interest in the Defendant's 401(k) account and certain restricted stock of CoStar Group, Inc. (the "Stock") or, in the alternative, that the Defendant owes her a debt that should be excepted from discharge under the provisions cited above. Plaintiff's Complaint includes the following five counts: (I) Denial of Discharge Regarding 401(k) Account Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15); (II)


CourtListener opinion 10461879

domestic relations order: schargeable ownership interest in the 401(k) that is not dischargeable under any provision of the Code and for the imposition of a constructive trust based upon a theory of unjust enrichment. Specifically, Plaintiff has pleaded the existence of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland granting her a vested property right in "50% of the Defendant's Total Account Balance" in the 401(k) as of January 16, 2018. Compl. 6–10, 13 16, 33, 39, 42. Plaintiff has also pleaded that the Defendant came into possession of that vested property interest. Compl. 12, 15– 16, 18, 38–39. Lastly,


CourtListener opinion 10462250

CourtListener opinion 10462250 Extracted reporter citation: 868 F.2d 614. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10462250 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 10462250


CourtListener opinion 10462250

QDRO: cree of Divorce7 which provided, inter alia, that the Defendant would receive the sum of $182,094.00 from her ex-husband's pension plan at the Ingersoll-Rand Company and the divorce court implemented that division by signing on that same date a First Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (the "QDRO") which generally delineated that the pension plan would establish a QDRO retirement account in the Defendant's name in the designated amount of $182,094.00.8 Notwithstanding the terms of the Supplemental Fee Agreement, the Defendant never tendered any of the proceeds from the QDRO retirement account to the Plaintiff. On February 5, 2018, the D


CourtListener opinion 10462250

retirement benefits: ted that the pension plan would establish a QDRO retirement account in the Defendant's name in the designated amount of $182,094.00.8 Notwithstanding the terms of the Supplemental Fee Agreement, the Defendant never tendered any of the proceeds from the QDRO retirement account to the Plaintiff. On February 5, 2018, the Defendant authorized a partial distribution from the QDRO retirement account which, after federal tax withholdings of $47,058,83, resulted in her receipt of net proceeds in the amount of $100,000.00.9 This $100,000.00 check was later deposited by the Defendant into an IRA account managed by Fidelity Investments (th


CourtListener opinion 10462250

pension: cified the means by which the growing sum of attorneys' fees would ultimately be addressed. Among the sources of payment identified in the SFA was any interest which the Defendant subsequently obtained through the divorce action in her soon-to-be ex-spouse's pension plan, which the Defendant agreed to liquidate within five business days of receipt in order to pay any outstanding fees to the Plaintiff. The SFA further required the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff any sales proceeds which the Defendant might realize from the sale of her family's homestead through the divorce action. The specified sources did not preclu


CourtListener opinion 10462250

domestic relations order: vorce7 which provided, inter alia, that the Defendant would receive the sum of $182,094.00 from her ex-husband's pension plan at the Ingersoll-Rand Company and the divorce court implemented that division by signing on that same date a First Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (the "QDRO") which generally delineated that the pension plan would establish a QDRO retirement account in the Defendant's name in the designated amount of $182,094.00.8 Notwithstanding the terms of the Supplemental Fee Agreement, the Defendant never tendered any of the proceeds from the QDRO retirement account to the Plaintiff. On February 5, 2018, the D


CourtListener opinion 10462451

CourtListener opinion 10462451 Extracted reporter citation: 500 F.3d 344. Docket: maintained by the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adversary Pro. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10462451 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 10462451


CourtListener opinion 10462451

QDRO: rd but was not part of the summary judgment the reason for the dismissal of the Defamation Suit and attorney's fee award was the Release in the Divorce Decree—i.e., any of the claims asserted in the Defamation Suit had been released.4 B. The Post-Divorce QDRO Suit The Family Court also oversaw a post-divorce enforcement action centering around the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) completion and approval process. Specifically, the Divorce Decree had awarded MJP a portion of certain of SP's retirement benefits and stated that the details would be defined in a subsequent QDRO that would be signed by th


CourtListener opinion 10462451

retirement benefits: -Divorce QDRO Suit The Family Court also oversaw a post-divorce enforcement action centering around the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) completion and approval process. Specifically, the Divorce Decree had awarded MJP a portion of certain of SP's retirement benefits and stated that the details would be defined in a subsequent QDRO that would be signed by the Family Court after the Divorce Decree. The Family Court went on to state that "Husband [MJP] shall pay 100% for cost of QDRO drafting and submission and any all [sic] applicable Federal Income Taxes and State Taxes associate with the husband's receipt of thes


CourtListener opinion 10462455

CourtListener opinion 10462455 Extracted reporter citation: 500 F.3d 344. Docket: maintained by the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adversary Pro. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10462455 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 10462455

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 10462455

QDRO: Memorandum Opinion makes it very clear that the reason for the dismissal of the Defamation Suit and attorney's fee award was the Release in the Divorce Decree—i.e., any of the claims asserted in the Defamation Suit had been released. B. The Post-Divorce QDRO Suit The Family Court also oversaw a post-divorce enforcement action centering around the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) completion and approval process. Specifically, the 2 The court takes judicial notice of this opinion that is available in the public record but was not part of the summary judgment evidence. [Courts may take judicial noti


CourtListener opinion 10462455

retirement benefits: l from the Family Court was transferred to Texarkana from the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 73.001. Divorce Decree had awarded MJP a portion of certain of SP's retirement benefits and stated that the details would be defined in a subsequent QDRO that would be signed by the Family Court after the Divorce Decree. The Family Court went on to state that "Husband [MJP] shall pay 100% for cost of QDRO drafting and submission and any all [sic] applicable Federal Income Taxes and State Taxes associate with the husband's receipt of these


CourtListener opinion 10463930

CourtListener opinion 10463930 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CHELSEY JAON NUNEZ AND ELIAS NUNEZ. Extracted reporter citation: 733 N.W.2d 683. Docket: 23-1452. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10463930 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 10463930


CourtListener opinion 10463930

QDRO: arital portion of the pension—neither party seeks the alternative relief of valuing the "IPERS account at the refund value as of the time of trial and order[ing] a property equalization payment from" him to Chelsey "in lieu of dividing the IPERS account via a QDRO." In re Marriage of Boland-Chambers, No. 14-0920, 2015 WL 1849501, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2015) (finding an equalization payment more equitable given that "IPERS retirement options and the circumstances of the parties could be drastically different by the time the parties retire"). Because neither Chelsey nor Elias seeks this alternative arrangement,


CourtListener opinion 10463930

retirement benefits: ecree fairly distributed tax burdens and benefits, we affirm. Pension Survivorship Rights. Elias's final property-division challenge relates to his IPERS pension. Elias does not challenge that Chelsey is entitled to her share of the marital portion of his retirement benefits under the Benson formula while he is living or as a beneficiary if he dies before retiring.3 But he asserts the decree went too far in granting Chelsey survivorship rights by requiring he designate her as the contingent annuitant to receive fifty percent of his benefits for her entire life if he dies after retiring and starting to receive benefits. In


CourtListener opinion 10463930

pension: arties to file separate tax returns for 2022—successful collaboration seems unlikely—and the court equitably allocated credits and deductions. Third, we agree with Elias that the decree went too far in awarding Chelsey survivorship rights in Elias's IPERS pension, as the Benson formula protects her future interests and the short length of the marriage tips the balance of equities against a right of survivorship. Fourth, the visitation schedule is in the children's best interest because they are served by its consistency and it gives them meaningful parenting time with Elias. Fifth, we see no gross abuse of discr


CourtListener opinion 10463930

survivor benefits: tant to receive fifty percent of his benefits for her entire life if he dies after retiring and starting to receive benefits. In support, Elias points to the short duration of the marriage and his intent to remarry and one day designate a new spouse as his surviving spouse. Chelsey counters that without being the contingent annuitant, there is no guarantee she will receive the full share of her benefits.4 3 In In re Marriage of Benson, our supreme court adopted a formula for determining a spouse's "share of any payout of a matured benefit from" the other spouse's "pension plan." In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 2


CourtListener opinion 10463932

CourtListener opinion 10463932 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF HOLLY LYNN TRULSON AND TIMOTHY TODD TRULSON Upon the Petition of HOLLY LYNN. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 23-0732. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10463932 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 10463932


CourtListener opinion 10463932

QDRO: evidence of their value, is to divide them using the Benson formula."). Under this method, "the non-pensioner spouse is awarded a percentage (frequently fifty percent) of a fraction of the pensioner's benefits (based on the duration of the marriage), by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which is paid if and when the benefits mature." Sullins, 715 N.W.2d at 250. "The fraction represents the portion of the pension attributable to the parties' joint marital efforts. The numerator in the fraction is the number of years the pensioner accrued benefits under the plan during the marriage, and the denominator is the total number of yea


CourtListener opinion 10463932

retirement benefits: erty division, the parties had a trial and the district court divided the property in its decree dissolving the marriage. Timothy appeals, claiming the division of property was not equitable. More specifically, the appeal focuses primarily on the parties' retirement accounts and benefits. As to the nature and value of the parties' retirement accounts and benefits, at the time of dissolution, Holly had an individual retirement account (IRA) valued at $137,000. Timothy had a Roth IRA, which the parties agreed to value at $115,906.1 In addition to her IRA, Holly had accumulated retirement benefits through her work. As a pub


CourtListener opinion 10463932

pension: d. Retirement accounts and 4 benefits are divisible marital property. In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 248 (Iowa 2006). As such, they need to be valued. In this case, the sticking point is valuing Holly's IPERS benefits. There are two types of pension plans—defined-benefit plans and defined-contribution plans. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 254 (Iowa 1996). The difference between the two is that under a defined-benefit plan the future benefit is specified in advance based on a formula or schedule whereas under a defined-contribution plan the contributions are specified without a predetermi


CourtListener opinion 10463932

domestic relations order: of their value, is to divide them using the Benson formula."). Under this method, "the non-pensioner spouse is awarded a percentage (frequently fifty percent) of a fraction of the pensioner's benefits (based on the duration of the marriage), by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which is paid if and when the benefits mature." Sullins, 715 N.W.2d at 250. "The fraction represents the portion of the pension attributable to the parties' joint marital efforts. The numerator in the fraction is the number of years the pensioner accrued benefits under the plan during the marriage, and the denominator is the total number of yea


CourtListener opinion 10466032

CourtListener opinion 10466032 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10466032 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 10466032


CourtListener opinion 10466032

retirement benefits: ached to the agreement listed the separate prop- erty, income, and debts of Christina, including the house in which she was living prior to the marriage; exhibit B attached to the agreement listed the separate property, income, and debts of Daniel, including "Retirement plan: Con Agra $1,000." Daniel and Christina were married in 2008 and have four children. On March 31, 2022, Christina filed a complaint for dissolution of marriage. - 884 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 32 Nebraska Appellate Reports DIBUONO-GONZALEZ V. GONZALEZ Cite as 32 Neb. App. 881 1. Christina Seeks Protection Order On March 22, 2022, C


CourtListener opinion 10466032

domestic relations order: ded to Christina ($54,761 + $3,250) with a subtotal amount to balance of $33,898 ($125,807 − $58,011 = $67,796 ÷ 2 = $33,898). Including the amount owed under the temporary order of $5,588.35, Daniel is ordered to transfer $39,486.35 to Christina by qualified domestic relations order. (b) Daniel's Retirement Account Daniel argues the district court erred by classifying only $1,000 of his retirement fund as nonmarital. He contends that under the terms of the premarital agreement, the entirety of his retirement account should have been classified as a nonmarital asset. We disagree. Absent the premarital agreement, Daniel's nonmarital


CourtListener opinion 10466032

valuation/division: eets 32 Nebraska Appellate Reports DIBUONO-GONZALEZ V. GONZALEZ Cite as 32 Neb. App. 881 Christina Dibuono-Gonzalez, appellee, v. Daniel Gonzalez, appellant. ___ N.W.3d ___ Filed May 21, 2024. No. A-23-439. 1. Divorce: Child Custody: Child Support: Property Division: Alimony: Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. In an action for the dissolution of marriage, an appellate court reviews de novo on the record the trial court's determinations of custody, child support, property division, alimony, and attorney fees; these determinations, however, are initially entrusted to the trial court's discretion and will normally be a


CourtListener opinion 10469835

CourtListener opinion 10469835 Extracted reporter citation: 759 F.2d 9. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10469835 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 10469835

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 10469835

QDRO: George's County, Maryland stated that "the marital portion of the plaintiff's pension shall be equitably divided pursuant to MD F AM . L AW C ODE A NN . § 8-201 et. seq., in accordance with the terms and conditions of the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)], which the parties have submitted simultaneously herewith . . . ." Id. at 7. The record does not contain the QDRO, but the appellant stated the QDRO was submitted and accepted by OPM in 1996. Id. at 2. The appellant filed the instant Board appeal challenging OPM's decision regarding the disbursement of funds from his retirement annuity to his former spou


CourtListener opinion 10469835

retirement benefits: Neese v. Office of Personnel Management, 61 M.S.P.R. 70, 71-74 (1994) (finding that, despite 4 The appellant provides a March 14, 1996 letter in which OPM informed him that his former spouse had submitted a divorce decree awarding her a portion of his future retirement benefits and that, as soon as it received a court-certified copy of the divorce decree and the QDRO, it would determine the court order acceptable for processing. PFR File, Tab 6 at 9-10. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board will not consider evidence submitted for the first time with the petition for review absent a showing that it was unavailable before the recor


CourtListener opinion 10469835

pension: § 1201.113(b). BACKGROUND On August 7, 1995, the appellant divorced his spouse. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 6-8. The divorce decree issued by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland stated that "the marital portion of the plaintiff's pension shall be equitably divided pursuant to MD F AM . L AW C ODE A NN . § 8-201 et. seq., in accordance with the terms and conditions of the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)], which the parties have submitted simultaneously herewith . . . ." Id. at 7. The record does not contain the QDRO, but the appellant stated the QDRO was submitted and accepted by


CourtListener opinion 10469835

valuation/division: e Board's final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). BACKGROUND On August 7, 1995, the appellant divorced his spouse. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 6-8. The divorce decree issued by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland stated that "the marital portion of the plaintiff's pension shall be equitably divided pursuant to MD F AM . L AW C ODE A NN . § 8-201 et. seq., in accordance with the terms and conditions of the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)], which the parties have submitted simultaneously herewith . . . ." Id. at 7. The record does not contain the QDRO, but the appellant stated the QDRO was


CourtListener opinion 10473907

CourtListener opinion 10473907 Docket: 368469 Lapeer Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10473907 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 10473907


CourtListener opinion 10473907

QDRO: aintiff appeals by right the judgment entered by the trial court in favor of defendant. We affirm. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties were divorced via a judgment of divorce in 2004. In 2005, the parties stipulated to the entry of three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) regarding each party's right to receive retirement benefits from the other's retirement plan upon retirement or death. However, due to an apparent human error, only two of the proposed QDROs were entered, both regarding plaintiff's right to receive benefits from defendant's plan; the third QDRO, regarding defendant's right to receive benefits from


CourtListener opinion 10473907

retirement benefits: nt. We affirm. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties were divorced via a judgment of divorce in 2004. In 2005, the parties stipulated to the entry of three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) regarding each party's right to receive retirement benefits from the other's retirement plan upon retirement or death. However, due to an apparent human error, only two of the proposed QDROs were entered, both regarding plaintiff's right to receive benefits from defendant's plan; the third QDRO, regarding defendant's right to receive benefits from plaintiff's plan, was never entered.1 In March 2022, plaintiff ret


CourtListener opinion 10473907

pension: ere entered, both regarding plaintiff's right to receive benefits from defendant's plan; the third QDRO, regarding defendant's right to receive benefits from plaintiff's plan, was never entered.1 In March 2022, plaintiff retired and began collecting monthly pension payments and retirement benefits. Defendant subsequently learned of plaintiff's retirement and discovered that the QDRO regarding those benefits had not been entered. Defendant moved the trial court to enter a QDRO regarding those benefits as provided for in the divorce judgment; the order was entered 1 The parties agree that the QDRO was prepared but nev


CourtListener opinion 10473907

domestic relations order: peals by right the judgment entered by the trial court in favor of defendant. We affirm. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties were divorced via a judgment of divorce in 2004. In 2005, the parties stipulated to the entry of three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) regarding each party's right to receive retirement benefits from the other's retirement plan upon retirement or death. However, due to an apparent human error, only two of the proposed QDROs were entered, both regarding plaintiff's right to receive benefits from defendant's plan; the third QDRO, regarding defendant's right to receive benefits from


CourtListener opinion 10473931

CourtListener opinion 10473931 Extracted case name: In re ESTATE OF JENNIFER L. FOWLER. SHELLIE SPACIL. Extracted reporter citation: 447 F3d 967. Docket: 365600 St. Clair Probate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10473931 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 10473931


CourtListener opinion 10473931

QDRO: ters' Commentary, (ICLE, February 2023 Update), p 631: Under the provisions of subsections (2), (3), and (4), the liability stated in subsection (1) does not apply to trusts that are a part of a qualified retirement plan and does not impair rights under a qualified domestic relations order. Additionally, assets are not to be used to pay the items described in subsection (1) if those assets would not have been subject to creditors' claims if paid to a testamentary trust or to other than the probate estate. Similarly, assets received from a trust that was not revocable by the decedent/settlor are not exposed to the liability described in s


CourtListener opinion 10473931

retirement benefits: by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, which named Jennifer's trust as the beneficiary. After Jennifer's death, Metropolitan Life paid a claim on that policy and disbursed $438,385.20 to Jennifer's trust. Jennifer also participated in her employer's 401(k) retirement plan, known as the DTE Electric Company Savings & Stock Ownership Plan for Employees Represented by Local 223 of 2 This Court in its previous opinion affirmed the final judgment entered in favor of Helen's estate from the wrongful-death action. Brooks, unpub op at 1, 10. -3- the Utility Workers Union of America ("Savings & Stock Plan"). The terms of the Sav


CourtListener opinion 10473931

pension: from reaching the lump-sum payment of the remaining 401(k) account funds. State laws that relate to qualified employee benefit plans are superseded by ERISA. Selflube, Inc v JJMT, Inc, 278 Mich App 298, 305; 750 NW2d 245 (2008). ERISA provides that "[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated." 29 USC 1056(d)(1). ERISA's antialienation provision only obligates protecting benefits up to the point of payment. Once a pension plan has sent payments to the beneficiary, relinquishing control over the payments, attachment of those funds by a creditor does not invo


CourtListener opinion 10473931

ERISA: sidered to be a trust described in subsection (1). The probate court ruled that Jennifer's 401(k) account funds were not available to pay her creditors because the funds are part of a plan complying with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 USC 1001 et seq. There is no dispute that the Savings & Stock Plan is a qualified 401(k) account that was intended to provide Jennifer with retirement income during her lifetime. However, the Savings & Stock Plan provides that, after Jennifer's death, any remaining funds are to be paid to the fund beneficiary's estate in a lump sum if there is no survi


CourtListener opinion 1047448

CourtListener opinion 1047448 Extracted case name: ROY L. HAMILTON v. ELIZABETH K. HAMILTON. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: M2010-02329-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1047448 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 1047448


CourtListener opinion 1047448

QDRO: an and to Mr. Hamilton's child support obligations. This appeal arises from a petition to modify custody filed by Mr. Hamilton in the Chancery Court of Rutherford County in August 2010; Ms. Hamilton's notice of lodging of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on September 2, 2010, and Mr. Hamilton's motion to re- evaluate income assignment; the parties' cross-petitions for contempt; Ms. Hamilton's motion for Rule 11 sanctions; and Mr. Hamilton's motion to restore telephone privileges. Following a hearing on September 7, 2010, the trial court entered a QDRO applicable to Mr. Hamilton's benefits from a General


CourtListener opinion 1047448

pension: itions for contempt; Ms. Hamilton's motion for Rule 11 sanctions; and Mr. Hamilton's motion to restore telephone privileges. Following a hearing on September 7, 2010, the trial court entered a QDRO applicable to Mr. Hamilton's benefits from a General Motors pension on September 14, 2010. By order entered October 7, 2010, the trial court found there had been no substantial change of circumstances that warranted modification of custody. The trial court awarded Ms. Hamilton attorney's fees in the amount of $5,000 for defending against Mr. Hamilton's petition as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c), and deni


CourtListener opinion 1047448

domestic relations order: ations to the parenting plan and to Mr. Hamilton's child support obligations. This appeal arises from a petition to modify custody filed by Mr. Hamilton in the Chancery Court of Rutherford County in August 2010; Ms. Hamilton's notice of lodging of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on September 2, 2010, and Mr. Hamilton's motion to re- evaluate income assignment; the parties' cross-petitions for contempt; Ms. Hamilton's motion for Rule 11 sanctions; and Mr. Hamilton's motion to restore telephone privileges. Following a hearing on September 7, 2010, the trial court entered a QDRO applicable to Mr. Hamilton's benefits from a Ge


CourtListener opinion 1047693

CourtListener opinion 1047693 Extracted case name: PEGGY DIANA SCHROER v. RICHARD MICHAEL SCHROER. Extracted reporter citation: 902 S.W.2d 918. Docket: M2010-01478-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1047693 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 1047693

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 1047693

QDRO: between the parties. Two-thirds of Husband's UPS pension was also ordered to be divided equally between the parties through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Wife's 401(k) account was likewise to be equally divided between the parties, through a separate Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Neither party was awarded alimony. The trial court's decision was memorialized in a Final Decree, entered on June 7, 2010. This appeal followed. -5- III. A NALYSIS A. Property Division in Divorce Cases Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-4-121(a)(1) authorizes the trial court in actions for divorce or for legal separation to equitably divide, distribute,


CourtListener opinion 1047693

retirement benefits: d $13.10 per hour. She was preparing to take a certification test, and she anticipated that if she passed the test and obtained certification, she would receive a 9% pay raise. Her 2009 income tax return showed an adjusted gross income of $30,720.2 Her 401(k) retirement account had a value of $2,846 on December 31, 2009. The forty-seven year old Husband earned a high school diploma and attended college for two years. He began working for United Parcel Service about eleven years before the parties married. He continued working there even after he was diagnosed with an advanced form of throat cancer in 1998. He underwent surgery,


CourtListener opinion 1047693

pension: of his cancer and of its treatment, he tires easily and only has energy for about three hours of activity a day. He was classified as totally disabled in 2007, and began receiving social security disability checks of about $2,010 per month. He also receives a pension from UPS that adds $3,040 to his monthly income. The testimony of the parties shows that the Husband attempted to keep his finances separate from Wife's as much as possible during their marriage. In 1986, Husband inherited $171,448 from his father, and he placed the money in a separate J.C. Bradford account. In 2002, his mother died, and he inherited $35,


CourtListener opinion 1047693

401(k): was paid $13.10 per hour. She was preparing to take a certification test, and she anticipated that if she passed the test and obtained certification, she would receive a 9% pay raise. Her 2009 income tax return showed an adjusted gross income of $30,720.2 Her 401(k) retirement account had a value of $2,846 on December 31, 2009. The forty-seven year old Husband earned a high school diploma and attended college for two years. He began working for United Parcel Service about eleven years before the parties married. He continued working there even after he was diagnosed with an advanced form of throat cancer in 1998. He


CourtListener opinion 1047704

CourtListener opinion 1047704 Extracted case name: JEANETTE HILL v. MICHAEL LESTER HILL. Extracted reporter citation: 43 S.W.3d 918. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1047704 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 1047704


CourtListener opinion 1047704

QDRO: lee/Mother's petition to change the surnames of the two minor children that were born to the marriage; (2) denial of Appellant/Father's petition to grant him visitation with the minor children; and (3) entry of an order requiring Appellant/Father to execute a qualified domestic relations order to effectuate the trial court's award of assets as child support. Finding no error, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3. Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded J. S TEVEN S TAFFORD, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which A LAN E. H IGHERS, P. J., W. S., and D AVID R. F ARMER, J., joined. Michael Lester Hill, Pikevill


CourtListener opinion 1047704

401(k): 2005, the trial court divided the parties' marital estate and established child support. The trial court noted that Mr. Hill's incarceration was taken into account in its decision to award assets as child support. These assets included Mr. Hill's share of his 401k account. No appeal was taken from either the order granting the divorce, or from the October 6, 2005 order dividing marital assets and setting child support. On April 23, 2008, Ms. Hill filed a petition to change her surname, as well as the surnames of the parties' minor children. Mr. Hill opposed the petition. On July 2, 2009, Mr. Hill filed a petition t


CourtListener opinion 1047704

domestic relations order: 's petition to change the surnames of the two minor children that were born to the marriage; (2) denial of Appellant/Father's petition to grant him visitation with the minor children; and (3) entry of an order requiring Appellant/Father to execute a qualified domestic relations order to effectuate the trial court's award of assets as child support. Finding no error, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3. Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded J. S TEVEN S TAFFORD, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which A LAN E. H IGHERS, P. J., W. S., and D AVID R. F ARMER, J., joined. Michael Lester Hill, Pikevill


CourtListener opinion 1047953

CourtListener opinion 1047953 Extracted case name: UNA P. IRVIN v. ERNEST J. IRVIN. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: M2010-01962-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1047953 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 1047953


CourtListener opinion 1047953

QDRO: remand. However, based upon our lack of jurisdiction, we cannot adjudicate these matters. Ambiguities in the Trial Court's Order Mr. Irvin asserts as his first issue that the trial court erred in not entering a Qualified -12- Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") as provided for in paragraph four of the memorandum of understanding, which memorandum was incorporated into the trial court's order. See paragraph four of the court's order. Mr. Irvin couches his argument as a contract issue, i.e., the court did not properly enforce the memorandum of understanding between the parties. In her brief, Ms. Irvin contends tha


CourtListener opinion 1047953

retirement benefits: y-five percent of the Husband's military retirement pension, based on a Major (04) with twenty years of service at retirement. The Wife shall not receive any disability that does not offset retirement, such as combat related disability. 4. The remaining retirement account not used to offset equity in the house (IRA or TSP) shall be divided equally by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In paragraph five of the trial court's order, supra, Judge Gasaway refers to a stipulation reached by the parties and filed with the court on September 14, 2009. There is only one document in the appellate record that is titled "Stipulatio


CourtListener opinion 1047953

pension: r the Thrift Savings Plan ["TSP"] that is closest to the face balance of $36,000.00, as of the date of this agreement. This is to equalize equity in the marital residence. 3. The Wife will receive twenty-five percent of the Husband's military retirement pension, based on a Major (04) with twenty years of service at retirement. The Wife shall not receive any disability that does not offset retirement, such as combat related disability. 4. The remaining retirement account not used to offset equity in the house (IRA or TSP) shall be divided equally by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In paragraph five of


CourtListener opinion 1047953

domestic relations order: ce at retirement. The Wife shall not receive any disability that does not offset retirement, such as combat related disability. 4. The remaining retirement account not used to offset equity in the house (IRA or TSP) shall be divided equally by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In paragraph five of the trial court's order, supra, Judge Gasaway refers to a stipulation reached by the parties and filed with the court on September 14, 2009. There is only one document in the appellate record that is titled "Stipulation." This document, which appears several times in the record, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: -8- 1. That


CourtListener opinion 1048137

CourtListener opinion 1048137 Extracted case name: PATRICIA ANN GHO MASSEY v. GREGORY JOEL CASALS. Extracted reporter citation: 315 S.W.3d 788. Docket: W2010-00284-COA-R3-JV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1048137 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 1048137


CourtListener opinion 1048137

QDRO: . Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-105 (Supp. 2010). This provision is limited by subsection 105(c), which provides that, any plan described in subsection 105(b), except a public plan under subsection 105(a), is not exempt from the claims of an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order. Thus, subject to statutory limitations, Mr. Casals' accounts with E*Trade are exempt from garnishment to satisfy a judgment for attorney's fees if they constitute a retirement plan that is qualified under the enumerated sections of the Internal Revenue Code. In his brief to this Court, Mr. Casals asserts that the undisputed proof in this case is that his


CourtListener opinion 1048137

retirement benefits: PATRICIA ANN GHO MASSEY v. GREGORY JOEL CASALS Direct Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Shelby County No. F7887 Herbert Lane, Special Judge No. W2010-00284-COA-R3-JV - Filed May 3, 2011 Appellant filed a motion to quash garnishment of his individual retirement accounts to satisfy an award of attorney's fees to Appellee, asserting the accounts were exempt pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 26-2-105 and 26-2-111. The trial court denied the motion to quash. We reverse. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Reversed and Remanded D AVID R. F ARMER, J., delivered the opinion of the Cour


CourtListener opinion 1048137

pension: essee: (1) The debtor's right to receive: (A) A social security benefit, unemployment compensation, a Families First program benefit or a local public assistance benefit; (B) A veterans' benefit; (C) A disability, illness, or unemployment benefit, or a pension that vests as a result of disability; (D) To the same extent that earnings are exempt pursuant to § 26-2-106, a payment under a stock bonus, pension, profitsharing, annuity, or similar plan or contract on account of death, age or length of service, unless: (i) Such plan or contract was established by or under the -4- auspices of an insider that empl


CourtListener opinion 1048137

ERISA: ankr. E.D. Tenn. 1989); In re Bowman, 109 B.R. 789 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1990); and In re Vandenberg, 276 B.R. 581 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2001), stands for the proposition that IRA accounts are "absolutely exempt" under the statutes. The Martin court determined that ERISA did not preempt the Tennessee statutes and that an IRA that qualified under section 408(a) of the Internal Revenue Code constituted a "retirement account" for the purpose of the Tennessee statutes. In re Martin, 102 B.R. at 645. The Bowman court concluded that a "retirement plan" as referenced in section 26-2-105(b) (then codified at 26-2-104(b)) included a


CourtListener opinion 1048219

CourtListener opinion 1048219 Extracted case name: ANTHONY V. JACKSON v. GINGER JACKSON. Extracted reporter citation: 861 S.W.2d 230. Docket: M2010-00575-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1048219 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 1048219

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 1048219

QDRO: f their respective pension and retirement plans. However, an agreement was never signed, and the issue regarding the parties' retirement plans remained unresolved. In 2003, Mother filed motions requesting that the trial court enter either a final order or a QDRO to resolve the matter. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order on August 31, 2004, in which it found, "from all the testimony and the evidence presented," that the value of Mother's pension on November 12, 2001, was $46,144, and the total value of Father's accounts as of November 12, 2001, was $139,737.2 Therefore, the court determined, the pa


CourtListener opinion 1048219

retirement benefits: s on November 12, 2001." The final decree "further directed the parties [to] prepare an appropriate qualified domestic relations order providing for an equal division of these assets or in the alternative to allow the parties to resolve any disparity in their retirement plans with a cash payout." After the final decree was entered, the parties attended a settlement conference and attempted to resolve all of their differences, including the provision of their respective pension and retirement plans. However, an agreement was never signed, and the issue regarding the parties' retirement plans remained unresolved. In 2003, Mothe


CourtListener opinion 1048219

pension: the parties to resolve any disparity in their retirement plans with a cash payout." After the final decree was entered, the parties attended a settlement conference and attempted to resolve all of their differences, including the provision of their respective pension and retirement plans. However, an agreement was never signed, and the issue regarding the parties' retirement plans remained unresolved. In 2003, Mother filed motions requesting that the trial court enter either a final order or a QDRO to resolve the matter. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order on August 31, 2004, in which it found, "from


CourtListener opinion 1048219

401(k): final decree entered December 28, 2001. Although the final decree of divorce is not included in the record before us, a subsequent order entered by the trial court states that the final decree "directed the parties to ascertain the fair market value of their 401K plans and determine the value of [Father's] Sverdrup savings plan and of his Jacobs stock holdings as of the close of business on November 12, 2001." The final decree "further directed the parties [to] prepare an appropriate qualified domestic relations order providing for an equal division of these assets or in the alternative to allow the parties to resol


CourtListener opinion 1048228

CourtListener opinion 1048228 Extracted case name: RONNIE GALE GILL v. NANCY JANE GILL. Extracted reporter citation: 16 S.W.3d 356. Docket: W2010-00921-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1048228 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 1048228


CourtListener opinion 1048228

QDRO: the stress of the work, anxiety about being fired, and his physical and mental condition. In anticipation of his retirement, on March 19, 2009, Husband filed a petition for termination of his alimony obligation. In the petition, Husband asserted that he 1 A qualified domestic relations order was entered to enforce this obligation. -2- no longer had the same earning capacity that he had at the time of the parties' divorce. He also alleged that Wife's economic situation had improved. In approximately May-June 2009, Husband received a "buyout" offer from Goodyear, that is, a lump sum payment in exchange for his agreement to retire early. Husba


CourtListener opinion 1048228

retirement benefits: -121(I) provides that the following factors are to be considered during a proceeding for modification of alimony: (1) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party, including income from pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other sources; (2) The relative education and training of each party, the ability and opportunity of each (continued...) -7- The trial judge determined that Husband's retirement from Goodyear significantly reduced his ability to pay alimony, and thus constituted a substantial and material change in circumstances. This finding was supported by


CourtListener opinion 1048228

pension: or which he would assume the repayment of an outstanding loan from that account. Wife was awarded the marital residence, the 1995 Dodge Caravan automobile, and the associated indebtedness on both. She was also awarded a one-half interest in Husband's Goodyear pension plan.1 The trial court also awarded Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $600 per month, finding that she was economically disadvantaged, had no realistic prospect for rehabilitation, and that Husband had the ability to pay support. After the divorce, Wife remained in the marital home, and the parties' adult daughter continued to live with her. Wife con


CourtListener opinion 1048228

401(k): 000 price differential in cash. Brenda said she and Husband had no house payment or car payment. Husband testified that, since the buyout, his only income was his pension check, a net income of $1275 per month. Husband said he cannot withdraw monies from his 401(k) until he reaches the age of fifty-nine and a half years old, and he cannot draw Social Security benefits until age sixty-two. Prior to the buyout, Husband's income from Goodyear was approximately $60,000 per year. Husband testified at length about his various health problems. He was previously hospitalized for kidney stones twice, suffers from bursitis, an


CourtListener opinion 1048239

CourtListener opinion 1048239 Extracted case name: JR. v. SUSAN M. STIEL. Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 823. Docket: M2010-01459-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1048239 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 1048239


CourtListener opinion 1048239

QDRO: Appeal from the Chancery Court for Williamson County No. 22761 James G. Martin III, Judge No. M2010-01459-COA-R3-CV - Filed March 16, 2011 This post divorce appeal arises from the lack of symmetry between the parties' 1995 Final Divorce Decree and a 1996 Qualified Domestic Relations Order that was not entered into contemporaneously with the Divorce Decree. The ex-husband, a General Motors retiree, contends the trial court erred in finding that his ex-wife was entitled to the marital portion of his early retirement supplements of his pension and in finding that her benefits are based on post-divorce increases to his pension benefits. For her


CourtListener opinion 1048239

retirement benefits: early retirement supplements of his pension and in finding that her benefits are based on post-divorce increases to his pension benefits. For her issue, the ex-wife contends the trial court erred in failing to grant her survivorship rights in the ex-husband's retirement benefits. We affirm the trial court in all respects. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed F RANK G. C LEMENT, J R., J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which P ATRICIA J. C OTTRELL, P.J., M.S., and A NDY D. B ENNETT, J., joined. James D. Helton II, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellant, Anthony F. Stiel, Jr. Ma


CourtListener opinion 1048239

pension: ions Order that was not entered into contemporaneously with the Divorce Decree. The ex-husband, a General Motors retiree, contends the trial court erred in finding that his ex-wife was entitled to the marital portion of his early retirement supplements of his pension and in finding that her benefits are based on post-divorce increases to his pension benefits. For her issue, the ex-wife contends the trial court erred in failing to grant her survivorship rights in the ex-husband's retirement benefits. We affirm the trial court in all respects. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirme


CourtListener opinion 1048239

ERISA: M. Krauskopf and Sharon Burgees Seiling, A Pilot Study on Marital Power as an Influence in Division of Pension Benefits at Divorce of Long Term Marriages, 1996 J. Disp. Resol. 169, 173 (1996)); see also Albert Feuer, Who is Entitled to Survivor Benefits from ERISA Plans?, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 919 (2007).13 We, therefore, find that Wife's reliance on 42 U.S.C. §1055 is misplaced. The question here is whether the survivor benefit was included, based upon the language in the Final Decree, in the award of benefits to Wife. Stated another way, was the survivor benefit marital property separate and apart from the pensi


CourtListener opinion 10487587

CourtListener opinion 10487587 Extracted case name: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. NATALIE THRYPHENIA COLLINS. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: AG No. 8. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10487587 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 10487587

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 10487587

domestic relations order: anction, this Court considered the attorney's prior disciplinary history, which included a 30-day suspension and two reprimands. Id. at 232–33. In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Hill, 398 Md. 95, 101–04 (2007), the attorney failed to prepare an Eligible Domestic Relations Order in one client matter, failed to timely prepare and submit a consent order in another matter, and failed to respond to Bar Counsel's request for information, in violation of MLRPC 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b) and 8.4(d). This 5 Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MLRPC") were renamed the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Profess


CourtListener opinion 10487670

CourtListener opinion 10487670 Extracted case name: JAY SALKINI v. IMAN SALKINI. Extracted reporter citation: 761 A.2d 949. Docket: 13-C-15-102131 REPORTED. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10487670 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 10487670

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 10487670

QDRO: L PROPERTY – DIVISION OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS. In a case in which the circuit court determined that husband's retirement account was marital property that should be divided equally as of the date of divorce, the court did not abuse its discretion in entering a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that provided that the amount to be transferred to the wife would be 50% of the balance in the plan on the date of divorce adjusted for investment earnings or losses on wife's share from the date of divorce to the date of transfer of wife's interest into a separate account. Circuit Court for Howard County Case No. 13-C-15-102131 REPORTED IN THE


CourtListener opinion 10487670

retirement benefits: repeated demands, [Husband] refuses to sign the attached QDRO. The attached QDRO is in compliance with the Amended Judgment of Divorce entered on February 23, 2016. 4. That [Husband] is the sole owner of Tecore, Inc. and controls distributions from the retirement plan. 3 5. That given [Husband's] refusal to cooperate in executing the QDRO, [Wife] is in need of the Court's execution of the proposed QDRO without [Husband's] signature. Paragraph 3 of Wife's proposed QDRO was worded as follows: 3. AMOUNT OF ALTERNATE PAYEE'S BENEFITS. (a) The Alternate Payee's [i.e., Wife's] interest in the Plan shall be 50% (fifty


CourtListener opinion 10487670

401(k): nson, Clerk In 2016, Jay Salkini ("Husband"), appellant, and Iman Salkini ("Wife"), appellee, were divorced by order of the Circuit Court for Howard County. This appeal is limited to the question of whether the investment earnings that accrued in Husband's 401(k) account subsequent to the date of divorce should have been divided between Husband and Wife pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), or whether all investment earnings in that account after the date of the divorce should be considered Husband's sole property. The Circuit Court for Howard County, which had ruled in the judgment of divo


CourtListener opinion 10487670

alternate payee: rement plan. 3 5. That given [Husband's] refusal to cooperate in executing the QDRO, [Wife] is in need of the Court's execution of the proposed QDRO without [Husband's] signature. Paragraph 3 of Wife's proposed QDRO was worded as follows: 3. AMOUNT OF ALTERNATE PAYEE'S BENEFITS. (a) The Alternate Payee's [i.e., Wife's] interest in the Plan shall be 50% (fifty percent) of the Participant's Total Vested Account Balance in the Plan, valued as of February 23, 2016 ("Valuation Date"). The Alternate Payee interest shall be adjusted for investment earnings or losses on her share from the valuation date to the date of segr


CourtListener opinion 10487962

CourtListener opinion 10487962 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF COLLEEN KENT. Docket: 2-19-0905 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10487962 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 10487962


CourtListener opinion 10487962

QDRO: rties' residence was valued at about $234,000, and the net equity was about $20,000. Foreclosure proceedings commenced on April 24, 2019. The trial court noted that, pursuant to earlier orders, a portion of Luis's 401(k) plan was to be divided pursuant to a QDRO and that funds necessary to bring the mortgage current were to be paid from these funds. The court noted that Colleen wished to remain in the marital residence, and Luis petitioned to sell it, because he could not continue to pay his support obligations and the mortgage. Colleen testified that she hoped to qualify to refinance the mortgage. ¶ 37 The co


CourtListener opinion 10487962

retirement benefits: f the court. Justices Bridges and Brennan concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The trial court did not err in entering various rulings in this marriage dissolution case, including orders concerning the division of marital property, the valuation of retirement benefits, and attorney fees. Affirmed. ¶2 Petitioner, Colleen Kent, appeals from the trial court's order, dissolving her marriage to respondent, Luis Cortez. She challenges several of the trial court's rulings, including those concerning the division of marital property, valuation of retirement benefits, and attorney fees. We affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND 2020 IL


CourtListener opinion 10487962

pension: Nevertheless, the court determined that the document was turned over prior to trial, not after trial. It also determined that application of the Hunt formula was correct, because it can be used for 401(k) plans, which are "arguably not a lot different from pension plans." Also, the court noted that the argument was raised after the court had already ruled. ¶ 47 The trial court also denied Colleen's motion to reconsider, finding that the Hunt formula applies to 401(k) plans. Further, it was "discoverable, and could have been discovered through diligence on the part of petitioner's attorney. I don't know what reaso


CourtListener opinion 10487962

401(k): ted that his monthly income was $8,673 (reflecting 2018 income). He currently earns $8,804 per month in gross income. Luis works for United Airlines and is eligible for an annual bonus; when paid, it is paid out in the first quarter of the year. His United 401(k) plan account balance in the first quarter of 2019 was $286,255.17. Luis began working at United on October 27, 1997, and began participating in the 401(k) plan on that date. He has regularly contributed to the plan since commencement of his employment. He has taken out two loans from the plan to pay bills and expenses. The first loan, in October 2014,


CourtListener opinion 10488421

CourtListener opinion 10488421 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Heinrich. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10488421 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 10488421


CourtListener opinion 10488421

QDRO: re hand delivered to Sterk on August 10, 2018, at noon. Later in the day on August 10, Keane filed a notice of court date for motion indicating a November 20, 2018, date for a hearing on the fee petition, and a copy of a motion seeking a revision in her qualified domestic relations order entered in her dissolution proceeding. Proof of delivery for those documents was left blank. ¶ 10 Keane appeared before the court on August 10, 2018, and sought a continuance for the August 28 hearing. Sterk was not present. As presented in her motion, Keane argued she could not be in Illinois on August 28 because her daughter was scheduled to start


CourtListener opinion 10488421

domestic relations order: livered to Sterk on August 10, 2018, at noon. Later in the day on August 10, Keane filed a notice of court date for motion indicating a November 20, 2018, date for a hearing on the fee petition, and a copy of a motion seeking a revision in her qualified domestic relations order entered in her dissolution proceeding. Proof of delivery for those documents was left blank. ¶ 10 Keane appeared before the court on August 10, 2018, and sought a continuance for the August 28 hearing. Sterk was not present. As presented in her motion, Keane argued she could not be in Illinois on August 28 because her daughter was scheduled to start


CourtListener opinion 10488422

CourtListener opinion 10488422 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF BARBARA ANN. Docket: sheets and the QDRO itself. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10488422 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 10488422


CourtListener opinion 10488422

QDRO: Schmidt concurred in the judgment. _____________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ¶1 Held: In an appeal in a divorce case, the appellate court found that the trial court properly entered both an initial and an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as to the ex-husband's pension. The appellate court, therefore, affirmed the trial court's judgment. ¶2 More than 30 years after her divorce was finalized, petitioner, Barbara Ann Gavin, sought to have the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the pension of her ex-husband, respondent, Joseph John Gavin, as provided


CourtListener opinion 10488422

retirement benefits: enefit service 6 [Joseph] received from the date of marriage, March 17, 1967, up to and including the date the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage was entered, April 6, 1987. If the plan pays a cost of living increase, improvement or any other post- retirement benefit increase to [Joseph], the amount of any benefit payment [Barbara] is receiving or is eligible to receive will be increased by a proportionate share of any cost of living increase or any other post-retirement benefit increase. [Barbara's] share of the accrued benefit shall not be adjusted for Social Security Leveling if elected by [Joseph]." ¶ 16 On


CourtListener opinion 10488422

pension: _______________________________________________ ORDER ¶1 Held: In an appeal in a divorce case, the appellate court found that the trial court properly entered both an initial and an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as to the ex-husband's pension. The appellate court, therefore, affirmed the trial court's judgment. ¶2 More than 30 years after her divorce was finalized, petitioner, Barbara Ann Gavin, sought to have the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the pension of her ex-husband, respondent, Joseph John Gavin, as provided for in the parties' marital settlement