CourtListener opinion 4382607

pension: eri- Reach," and 4) valuation of certain stock options. 3 counsel for Ms. Lamm prepared a QDRO for an account that was awarded solely to Mr. Lamm. The second QDRO, also prepared by counsel for Ms. Lamm and dated December 3, 2007, was for Mr. Lamm's "Dupont Pension and Retirement Plan." This QDRO named Ms. Lamm as the "alternate payee" and stated that she was entitled to 50% of Mr. Lamm's retirement plan as of August 30, 2002. The family court entered the "Dupont Pension and Retirement Plan" QDRO on February 15, 2008 ("2008 retirement plan QDRO"). Following entry of the 2008 retirement plan QDRO, no activity occurred


CourtListener opinion 4382607

of assignments of error including the family

alternate payee: oved from the active docket of the Court." After the circuit court's order was entered, counsel for Ms. Lamm prepared two QDROs. The first QDRO, dated December 3, 2007, was for Mr. Lamm's "Dupont Savings and Investment Plan." This QDRO named Ms. Lamm as the "alternate payee" and stated that she was entitled to 50% of Mr. Lamm's savings and investment plan as of December 31, 2004. This QDRO was not signed by the family court judge, nor was it entered. We note that the family court's final order, which was affirmed by the circuit court, did not award Ms. Lamm any portion of the savings account. Thus, it is unclear why 2 Ms. L


CourtListener opinion 4382671

CourtListener opinion 4382671 Extracted reporter citation: 527 S.W.3d 299. Docket: 13-17-00217-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4382671 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 4382671

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 4382671

QDRO: GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.003 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). of appellee Kathleen M. Vela. 2 By two issues, that we construe as three, Jesus contends that the trial court did not correct a clerical error, the final divorce decree is unambiguous, and the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") is void. 3 We affirm. I. BACKGROUND In 2010, the divorce court 4 rendered and signed a final divorce decree dissolving the marriage of Kathleen and Jesus. Kathleen's divorce attorney signed the final divorce decree approved as to form only, while Kathleen and Jesus signed it, approving and consenting to both form and substance. On the same d


CourtListener opinion 4382671

retirement benefits: . P. 41.3. 3 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.101 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) (conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the trial court that renders a final divorce decree "to render an enforceable [QDRO] . . . permitting payment of," among other things, a retirement plan to an alternate payee). 4 For ease of reading, we refer to the "divorce court" when discussing the proceedings concerning the divorce decree, and we refer to the "trial court" when discussing the nunc pro tunc proceedings. 2 Kathleen 35% of Jesus's military retirement benefits, although all parties and the divorce court also signed the QDRO. 5 The t


CourtListener opinion 4382671

alternate payee: FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.101 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) (conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the trial court that renders a final divorce decree "to render an enforceable [QDRO] . . . permitting payment of," among other things, a retirement plan to an alternate payee). 4 For ease of reading, we refer to the "divorce court" when discussing the proceedings concerning the divorce decree, and we refer to the "trial court" when discussing the nunc pro tunc proceedings. 2 Kathleen 35% of Jesus's military retirement benefits, although all parties and the divorce court also signed the QDRO. 5 The trial court held a hear


CourtListener opinion 4382671

domestic relations order: ANN. § 74.003 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). of appellee Kathleen M. Vela. 2 By two issues, that we construe as three, Jesus contends that the trial court did not correct a clerical error, the final divorce decree is unambiguous, and the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") is void. 3 We affirm. I. BACKGROUND In 2010, the divorce court 4 rendered and signed a final divorce decree dissolving the marriage of Kathleen and Jesus. Kathleen's divorce attorney signed the final divorce decree approved as to form only, while Kathleen and Jesus signed it, approving and consenting to both form and substance. On the same d


CourtListener opinion 4386876

CourtListener opinion 4386876 Extracted reporter citation: 397 S.W.3d 162. Docket: Entry. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4386876 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 4386876


CourtListener opinion 4386876

QDRO: AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 16-2919-FC4, HONORABLE JOHN MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Eva Ramirez appeals from the trial court's order granting Eddie Ramirez, Jr.'s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and the trial court's related qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) signed on the same day.1 Eva argues that the mistakes in the parties' agreed final decree of divorce (the decree), if any, were judicial errors and, thus, could not be corrected by a judgment nunc pro tunc. For the following reasons, we affirm the challenged orders. Background Eddie filed a petition for divorce in September 2016. The parties e


CourtListener opinion 4386876

retirement benefits: s in the decree: IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that the husband, is awarded the following as his sole and separate property, and the wife is divested of all right, title, interest, and claim in and to that property: . . . . A portion of Eddie Ramirez, Jr.'s retirement benefits in State Farm 401(k) arising out of Eddie Ramirez, Jr.'s employment with State Farm as of September 30, 2016, that portion being $32,040.50, together with any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on that amount arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final Decree


CourtListener opinion 4386876

401(k): orneys signed the ISA and filed it with the trial 1 Because the parties have the same last name, we refer to them by their first names. court in October 2016. Relevant to this appeal, the ISA included the following agreement as to the division of Eddie's 401(k) from State Farm Insurance (the 401(k)): Wife is awarded . . . a portion of the Husband's 401k from State Farm Insurance that portion being $32,040.50 as of the date of this agreement, September 30, 2016. A QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] will be submitted to the Court for entry to effect the division of the Husband's 401k. Husband is awarde


CourtListener opinion 4386876

domestic relations order: 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 16-2919-FC4, HONORABLE JOHN MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Eva Ramirez appeals from the trial court's order granting Eddie Ramirez, Jr.'s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and the trial court's related qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) signed on the same day.1 Eva argues that the mistakes in the parties' agreed final decree of divorce (the decree), if any, were judicial errors and, thus, could not be corrected by a judgment nunc pro tunc. For the following reasons, we affirm the challenged orders. Background Eddie filed a petition for divorce in September 2016. The parties e


CourtListener opinion 4386956

CourtListener opinion 4386956 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4386956 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 4386956


CourtListener opinion 4386956

QDRO: ber 1, 2017. Having reviewed the record and the parties' arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court's judgment but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court's judgment and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). We modify the trial court's judgment so that paragraph R-5 reads as follows: A portion of Eric Jonjak's retirement benefits in Bog Farm Profit Sharing 401k Acct. No. 803508-00000 arising out of ERIC JONJAK'S employment with Bog Farm as of June 1, 2017, that portion being $962,000. We modify paragraph 2 of the QDRO to delete the sentence that rea


CourtListener opinion 4386956

retirement benefits: t but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court's judgment and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). We modify the trial court's judgment so that paragraph R-5 reads as follows: A portion of Eric Jonjak's retirement benefits in Bog Farm Profit Sharing 401k Acct. No. 803508-00000 arising out of ERIC JONJAK'S employment with Bog Farm as of June 1, 2017, that portion being $962,000. We modify paragraph 2 of the QDRO to delete the sentence that reads: [Griffith's] interest in the Plan shall be adjusted for investment earnings and losses allocable thereto in accordance with the


CourtListener opinion 4386956

401(k): . Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court's judgment and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). We modify the trial court's judgment so that paragraph R-5 reads as follows: A portion of Eric Jonjak's retirement benefits in Bog Farm Profit Sharing 401k Acct. No. 803508-00000 arising out of ERIC JONJAK'S employment with Bog Farm as of June 1, 2017, that portion being $962,000. We modify paragraph 2 of the QDRO to delete the sentence that reads: [Griffith's] interest in the Plan shall be adjusted for investment earnings and losses allocable thereto in accordance with the terms of the Plan thereafter. Th


CourtListener opinion 4386956

domestic relations order: 7. Having reviewed the record and the parties' arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court's judgment but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court's judgment and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). We modify the trial court's judgment so that paragraph R-5 reads as follows: A portion of Eric Jonjak's retirement benefits in Bog Farm Profit Sharing 401k Acct. No. 803508-00000 arising out of ERIC JONJAK'S employment with Bog Farm as of June 1, 2017, that portion being $962,000. We modify paragraph 2 of the QDRO to delete the sentence that rea


CourtListener opinion 4386957

CourtListener opinion 4386957 Extracted reporter citation: 347 S.W.3d 345. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4386957 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 4386957


CourtListener opinion 4386957

QDRO: decree dissolving his marriage to Kathye Marlene Griffith and dividing their marital property. Jonjak asserts the decree divides Jonjak's retirement account contrary to the terms of the parties' mediated settlement agreement (MSA). Jonjak also challenges a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) implementing that division. We will modify the decree and the QDRO and affirm as modified. BACKGROUND Jonjak filed for divorce from Griffith in 2015 on the grounds of insupportability. On June 1, 2017, the parties signed an MSA dividing most of their marital property. In relevant part, the MSA states Griffith "will receive $962,000 from the Bo


CourtListener opinion 4386957

retirement benefits: D-1-FM-15-003489, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Eric Jonjak appeals from a divorce decree dissolving his marriage to Kathye Marlene Griffith and dividing their marital property. Jonjak asserts the decree divides Jonjak's retirement account contrary to the terms of the parties' mediated settlement agreement (MSA). Jonjak also challenges a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) implementing that division. We will modify the decree and the QDRO and affirm as modified. BACKGROUND Jonjak filed for divorce from Griffith in 2015 on the grounds of insupportability. On June 1, 2017, the part


CourtListener opinion 4386957

401(k): filed for divorce from Griffith in 2015 on the grounds of insupportability. On June 1, 2017, the parties signed an MSA dividing most of their marital property. In relevant part, the MSA states Griffith "will receive $962,000 from the Bog Farm Profit Sharing 401k, which is 53% of the value of the account as represented by [Jonjak] on the day of the mediation via QDRO prepared by [Jonjak]." The following day, the parties appeared before a district court and announced the agreement. The district court pronounced the divorce and instructed Jonjak to prepare a decree consistent with the MSA. Approximately six mont


CourtListener opinion 4386957

alternate payee: e MSA divided the 401k on the date of the mediation or when the court signed a QDRO implementing the division. See Quijano v. Quijano, 347 S.W.3d 345, 353–54 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) ("The purpose of a QDRO is to create or recognize an alternate payee's right, or to assign an alternate payee the right, to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan."). The district court ruled that Griffith "gets $962,000 as of June 1st, 2017, which is the date of the—the date of the mediation." The district court then signed Griffith's proposed decree and QDRO after stri


CourtListener opinion 4387812

CourtListener opinion 4387812 Extracted reporter citation: 520 U.S. 833. Docket: 18-30942. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4387812 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 4387812

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 4387812

QDRO: NES, Circuit Judges. HAYNES, Circuit Judge: This case is a dispute between decedent Gerald Miletello's ex-wife Sandra and widow Pam about who is entitled to the funds in Gerald's 401(k) retirement account. The dispute hinges on the existence and timing of a "qualified domestic relations order," or QDRO, which is controlled by federal law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sandra, concluding that she had timely received a QDRO. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment that Sandra is entitled to $500,000 of the 401(k) balance. Case: 18-30942 Document: 00514917969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2019


CourtListener opinion 4387812

retirement benefits: r the Western District of Louisiana Before BARKSDALE, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. HAYNES, Circuit Judge: This case is a dispute between decedent Gerald Miletello's ex-wife Sandra and widow Pam about who is entitled to the funds in Gerald's 401(k) retirement account. The dispute hinges on the existence and timing of a "qualified domestic relations order," or QDRO, which is controlled by federal law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sandra, concluding that she had timely received a QDRO. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment that Sandra is entitled to $500,000 of


CourtListener opinion 4387812

pension: ause it post-dates Gerald's death. She relies on Rivers v. Central & South West Corp., 186 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 1999), in support of her argument. Rivers had very different facts from those here. There, a husband and wife were married while the husband earned a pension at a company. Id. at 682. They divorced more than a decade before he retired. Id. Their divorce settlement did not address his pension. Id. He remarried while still earning a pension. Id. He retired, received payments under the pension, and died years later. Id. His ex-wife requested a QDRO a decade after he died. Id. We affirmed summary judgment against he


CourtListener opinion 4387812

ERISA: ly received a QDRO. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment that Sandra is entitled to $500,000 of the 401(k) balance. Case: 18-30942 Document: 00514917969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2019 No. 18-30942 I. Background A. The ERISA Regulatory Scheme The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") is a comprehensive federal statute that regulates employee benefit plans. Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 841 (1997). It covers defined contribution plans like 401(k) accounts. See LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S. 248, 250 (2008). ERISA generally prohibits the a


CourtListener opinion 4389543

CourtListener opinion 4389543 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Greenlee. Extracted reporter citation: 516 U.S. 16. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4389543 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 4389543


CourtListener opinion 4389543

QDRO: e of the withdrawal. The court ruled that Jordan owed Whitted $55,000, "minus taxes and penalties" and plus interest required by statute. The court ordered Whitted to provide a bank account, or if necessary, to prepare a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) within 20 days, so that Jordan could transfer any and all funds remaining in the retirement account. If Jordan transferred less than the amount owed, the court ordered Jordan to pay Whitted $1,000 per month until the entire debt was satisfied. Here, the court declined to reduce the principal judgment amount based on estimated taxes and penalties. The


CourtListener opinion 4389543

retirement benefits: for approximately $165,000 in unpaid child support. In the second proceeding that is the subject of this appeal, the court entered judgment against Lori Jordan for a principal sum of $55,000—enforcing a provision of the decree that required her to transfer retirement account funds to Whitted. The court allowed Jordan to offset the amount she owed to Whitted against the larger amount Whitted owed to her. Both parties appeal, challenging the offset, the calculation and rate of interest on the principal judgment amount, and the allocation of responsibility for any penalties or taxes stemming from the withdrawal of retirement f


CourtListener opinion 4389581

CourtListener opinion 4389581 Extracted reporter citation: 741 P.2d 432. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4389581 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 4389581

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 4389581

QDRO: appears that it was filed more than 30 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order. See NRAP 4(a)(1); NRAP 26(c). The decree of divorce was entered on October 16, 2018, with written notice of entry served on October 17, 2018. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order was filed January 9, 2019, with written notice of entry served on January 10, 2019, but the notice of appeal was not filed until March 26, 2019, and a second notice of appeal was filed on April 5, 2019, both well after the expiration of the 30- day time period to appeal. NRAP 4(a). An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court.


CourtListener opinion 4389581

domestic relations order: hat it was filed more than 30 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order. See NRAP 4(a)(1); NRAP 26(c). The decree of divorce was entered on October 16, 2018, with written notice of entry served on October 17, 2018. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order was filed January 9, 2019, with written notice of entry served on January 10, 2019, but the notice of appeal was not filed until March 26, 2019, and a second notice of appeal was filed on April 5, 2019, both well after the expiration of the 30- day time period to appeal. NRAP 4(a). An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court.


CourtListener opinion 4391215

CourtListener opinion 4391215 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 06-18-00076-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4391215 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 4391215


CourtListener opinion 4391215

domestic relations order: satisfactory response was not filed by April 16, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Carolyn's response cites to authority stating that a trial court retains continuing subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce or clarify a divorce decree or amend a qualified domestic relations order. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.002 (West Supp. 2018), §§ 9.008, 9.1045 (West 2006). 1 The trial court did so in its August 2017 order, and no further requests for clarification were sought by the parties. Because it entered the same order in 2018, the order was not a clarification of either the divorce decree or the 2017 order based on a motion by the part


CourtListener opinion 4391256

CourtListener opinion 4391256 Extracted reporter citation: 11 N.E.3d 1119. Docket: H-18-006 Appellant Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4391256 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 4391256


CourtListener opinion 4391256

QDRO: marital and premarital portions of the "retirement-related interests" ensued. {¶ 4} Following a voluntary dismissal without prejudice due to a tentative agreement between the parties, Mrs. Bursley renewed her motion on May 23, 2017, along with a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) prepared by QDRO Consultants because the tentative agreement broke down. The QDRO divided equally the total balance of the disputed account identified as "PIM USA 401(k) TTEE for Gary 2. Bursley" and created during the marriage. A hearing on Mrs. Bursley's motion was held before a magistrate on September 26, 2017, and the hearing transcript is i


CourtListener opinion 4391256

retirement benefits: ty objected to the magistrate's recommendation, nor appealed the trial court's order. {¶ 3} Then on September 24, 2015, Mrs. Bursley filed a "Motion to Reopen Divorce and Enforce Decree" arguing that Mr. Bursley was withholding her marital portion of his retirement benefits due to a dispute with a third-party consultant that "pursuant to the records in place with the plan provider there is no premarital interest and the entire account is subject to division." Mrs. Bursley acknowledged "at some point and time there may have been a premarital component to the account" but the premarital component "is not discernable today."


CourtListener opinion 4391256

pension: ontracts are generally construed against the drafter. Rohlman v. Rohlman, 2018-Ohio-1543, 110 N.E.3d 1006, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.). {¶ 19} We first look to the parties' separation agreement for the relevant clauses. Article 4(C), entitled, "Division of Property: Pension and/or Retirement Plan," states: Husband has a pension and/or retirement plan through his place of employment. All amounts in husband's 401(k) earned prior to the date of 9. marriage are the sole property of husband per the Antenuptial Agreement of the parties. Any amounts paid into the Uni-K plan, including any gains therefrom, from the date of m


CourtListener opinion 4391256

401(k): d her motion on May 23, 2017, along with a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) prepared by QDRO Consultants because the tentative agreement broke down. The QDRO divided equally the total balance of the disputed account identified as "PIM USA 401(k) TTEE for Gary 2. Bursley" and created during the marriage. A hearing on Mrs. Bursley's motion was held before a magistrate on September 26, 2017, and the hearing transcript is in the record. The magistrate entered in the record his decision determining that Mr. Bursley failed to show by a preponderance of competent, credible evidence that any portion o


CourtListener opinion 4392209

CourtListener opinion 4392209 Extracted reporter citation: 80 A.3d 464. Docket: 724 WDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4392209 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 4392209

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 4392209

QDRO: 4-2009 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 30, 2019 Appellant, Julie Conway ("Wife"), appeals from the order entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which denied her motion for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") reflecting the terms of her Marital Settlement Agreement ("MSA") with Appellee Michael Conway ("Husband"). We reverse and remand with instructions. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Husband and Wife married on July 12, 1991 and separated in August 2007. During their marriage, Husband was employed as a poli


CourtListener opinion 4392209

pension: J-A05001-19 2019 PA Super 138 MICHAEL CONWAY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : JULIE CONWAY : : Appellant : : v. : : CITY OF ERIE POLICE RELIEF AND : PENSION ASSOCIATION : : Appellee No. 724 WDA 2018 Appeal from the Order May 8, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Domestic Relations at No(s): 13394-2009 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 30, 2019 Appellant, Julie Conway ("Wife"), appeals from the order entered in the Erie County Cou


CourtListener opinion 4392209

alternate payee: the parties is to be ascertained from the express language of the agreement itself. Bianchi v. Bianchi, 859 A.2d 511, 515 (Pa.Super. 2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A QDRO is an order "which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a -7- J-A05001-19 participant under [a pension] plan. To be ‘qualified,' the order must contain certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits." Smith v. Smith, 595 Pa. 80, 85 n.3, 938 A.2d 246, 248 n.3 (2007) (emphasis added). In cases where parties have enter


CourtListener opinion 4392209

domestic relations order: FORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 30, 2019 Appellant, Julie Conway ("Wife"), appeals from the order entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which denied her motion for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") reflecting the terms of her Marital Settlement Agreement ("MSA") with Appellee Michael Conway ("Husband"). We reverse and remand with instructions. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Husband and Wife married on July 12, 1991 and separated in August 2007. During their marriage, Husband was employed as a poli


CourtListener opinion 4392796

CourtListener opinion 4392796 Extracted reporter citation: 80 A.3d 464. Docket: 724 WDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4392796 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 4392796


CourtListener opinion 4393836

CourtListener opinion 4393836 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4393836 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 4393836

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 4393836

domestic relations order: filed his petition, Ms. Dowell informed him that she was moving out of her apartment in Naples, but she did not specify that she was moving out of Naples to Tampa. Ms. Dowell was served with the paternity petition and the trial court's Standing Temporary Domestic Relations Order at her address in Naples on June 30, 2018. The standing order included the following directive: \Neither party will remove


CourtListener opinion 4395731

CourtListener opinion 4395731 Extracted case name: L.B. v. T.B. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 28171 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4395731 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 4395731


CourtListener opinion 4395731

retirement benefits: The entry had been signed by the trial judge and Dawn's attorney, and by counsel for Robert "Per email authorization." {¶ 10} On October 27, 2016, Dawn's attorney filed a "Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order," which assigned certain of Robert's retirement benefits to Dawn; specifically, it assigned Dawn "100% of the vested portion of [Robert's] account balance under the Plan" as of August 3, 2016. The order was signed by Dawn's attorney and the trial judge; above the signature line for Robert's attorney was the statement "Seen but not approved." {¶ 11} On January 6, 2017, Robert voluntarily dismissed the objec


CourtListener opinion 4395731

domestic relations order: and future spousal support arrearage and ongoing obligation." The entry had been signed by the trial judge and Dawn's attorney, and by counsel for Robert "Per email authorization." {¶ 10} On October 27, 2016, Dawn's attorney filed a "Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order," which assigned certain of Robert's retirement benefits to Dawn; specifically, it assigned Dawn "100% of the vested portion of [Robert's] account balance under the Plan" as of August 3, 2016. The order was signed by Dawn's attorney and the trial judge; above the signature line for Robert's attorney was the statement "Seen but not approved." {¶ 11} On


CourtListener opinion 4395830

CourtListener opinion 4395830 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Porterfield. Extracted reporter citation: 54 A.3d 525. Docket: 2018-147 Douglas S. Johnston Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4395830 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 4395830


CourtListener opinion 4395830

QDRO: C, White River Junction, for Defendant-Appellee. PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Skoglund and Robinson, JJ., and Teachout, Supr. J. and Howard, Supr. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned ¶ 1. SKOGLUND, J. This case asks us to examine that strange procedural device, the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and how it intersects with the statute of limitations for actions on judgments. The parties divorced in November 2004. As part of the divorce, the court ordered wife to transfer funds from her retirement account to husband. In 2006, the court approved a proposed QDRO to effectuate the transfer of said funds. The order was never "qualified," howe


CourtListener opinion 4395830

retirement benefits: ocedural device, the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and how it intersects with the statute of limitations for actions on judgments. The parties divorced in November 2004. As part of the divorce, the court ordered wife to transfer funds from her retirement account to husband. In 2006, the court approved a proposed QDRO to effectuate the transfer of said funds. The order was never "qualified," however, because there was no money in the retirement account that wife identified. The court approved another proposed QDRO in February 2007 specifying a different retirement account identified by wife. In August 2017, husb


CourtListener opinion 4395830

pension: ess is that the DRO cannot reach a result inconsistent with the underlying substantive order." Id. ¶ 6. "In short," Turner explains: when dividing retirement benefits, the law of equitable distribution is not playing on its home field. Because of ERISA, pension issues are litigated in material part upon the home field of the plan administrator. . . . Because the plan administrator is not required to play by normal state court rules, normal state court procedures must be adapted to the unique setting of DROs under ERISA. Id. ¶ 7. With this overview in mind, we turn to the facts. The parties here divorced in


CourtListener opinion 4395830

ERISA: and remand. ¶ 2. We begin with an overview of the relevant law governing the division of retirement accounts. A court must engage in a two-step process to divide retirement accounts governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. It first "enters a substantive order which equitably divides and assigns the parties' property." Breslin v. Synnott, 2012 VT 57, ¶ 6, 192 Vt. 79, 54 A.3d 525. It then enters a Domestic Relations Order (DRO) "directing the [retirement] plan administrator to make certain specified payments to the ex-spouse." Id. (citations omitte


CourtListener opinion 4396240

CourtListener opinion 4396240 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Hoffman. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 324 EDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4396240 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 4396240

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 4396240

QDRO: hat arise thereafter, as well. Husband, through his counsel, shall be responsible for drafting any Qualified Domestic Relations Order that is necessary to facilitate said transfer. Wife shall cooperate in signing said Qualified Domestic Relations Order [("QDRO")] within ten (10) days of demand. Id. at 8-9. Finally, the PSA provided that it was binding and remained in full force and effect until terminated under the terms of the PSA, that it would be incorporated in, but not merged with, "any Divorce Decree which may be granted by a court of competent jurisdiction," and that it inured to the benefit of thei


CourtListener opinion 4396240

retirement benefits: oventry Township Police Department, and Wife worked as an account manager at Brown Printing Company. Husband's employment entitled him to a defined benefit pension to which he made no personal J-S61017-18 contributions, while Wife participated in a 401(k) retirement plan through her employer as well as a profit sharing plan. When Husband retired from his position as police chief in 2010, he elected a joint annuity benefits option through the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System ("PMRS"). Under this option, Husband received a lesser monthly payment than he would have received on a single-life annuity based solely


CourtListener opinion 4396240

pension: record. Husband and Wife married in 1989. Husband was employed as a police officer with the North Coventry Township Police Department, and Wife worked as an account manager at Brown Printing Company. Husband's employment entitled him to a defined benefit pension to which he made no personal J-S61017-18 contributions, while Wife participated in a 401(k) retirement plan through her employer as well as a profit sharing plan. When Husband retired from his position as police chief in 2010, he elected a joint annuity benefits option through the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System ("PMRS"). Under this option,


CourtListener opinion 4396240

ERISA: ed. A QDRO "is a domestic relations order that creates, recognizes, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a pension plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)." Wilder, Pa. Family Law Prac. and Proc. (5th ed.), at § 23-4 (footnote omitted). ____________________________________________ force after such time as a final decree in divorce may be entered.'" N.T. Trial, 2/8/16, at 91 (purporting to quote PSA, 6/18/12, at 2). However, the agreement actually states that it shall continue to be in force after the parti


CourtListener opinion 4398526

CourtListener opinion 4398526 Docket: I The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4398526 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 4398526


CourtListener opinion 4398526

QDRO: l or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan." State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355, 2010-Ohio-252, ¶ 18. "[T]he divorce decree is a final, appealable order and actually divides the property," whereas a QDRO or DOPO "is merely a tool used to execute the divorce decree." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 19; Taylor v. Taylor, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17 AP-763, 2018-Ohio-2530, ¶ 7. Moreover, "[a] QDRO does not in any way constitute further adjudication on the merits of the pension division, -21- Case No. 1-18-50 as its sole purpose is


CourtListener opinion 4398526

retirement benefits: 's separation agreement, which was incorporated into the parties' divorce decree, contains the following provisions: STUDENT LOANS The Wife shall assume and pay and hold the Husband harmless from liability as to the student loan debt owed to Navient. RETIREMENT ACCOUNT/ DOPO The parties agree that the Wife is a participant in the Public Employees Retirement System through her place of employment. The -7- Case No. 1-18-50 parties further agree that the Wife's current value for her OPERS Account is valued at $231,542.28. The parties further agree that the Husband's Retirement Account is valued at $22,811.41, an


CourtListener opinion 4398526

pension: execute the divorce decree." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 19; Taylor v. Taylor, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17 AP-763, 2018-Ohio-2530, ¶ 7. Moreover, "[a] QDRO does not in any way constitute further adjudication on the merits of the pension division, -21- Case No. 1-18-50 as its sole purpose is to implement the terms of the divorce decree. Therefore, it is the decree of divorce that constitutes the final determination of the court and determines the merits of the case." Wilson at 16. Thus, the denial of the implementation of a DOPO does not alter the provision of a divorce decree and th


CourtListener opinion 4398526

401(k): favor of the Husband in order to perfect the Agreement and intent of the parties. * * * The Husband shall have as his separate property, free and clear of any claims of Wife, all interest in retirement benefits, profit sharing and stock ownership, and 401(k) plans incidental to his employment with Tower Automotive. The Wife shall have as her separate property, free and clear of any claims of the Husband, all interest in the State of Ohio Deferred Compensation Plan. *** (Doc. No. 20). {¶13} As the overall equitable division of property was to be carried out by a PLOP paid to Jon from Valerie's OPER


CourtListener opinion 4399326

CourtListener opinion 4399326 Docket: 28863 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4399326 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 4399326


CourtListener opinion 4399326

QDRO: eal, Wife argues that Husband had the ability to pay the $185,758 property-division award in a lump-sum payment with his 401k. She also argues that, even if obtaining insurance was too expensive, the solution should have been for the trial court to issue a QDRO requiring Husband to transfer his 401k to her. Wife further argues that, given the offset (i.e., the fact that she had not made spousal-support payments and Husband had not made payments toward the property-division award), she has effectively paid spousal-support and, regardless, spousal-support payments are irrelevant to the issue of security or intere


CourtListener opinion 4399326

pension: tanding, she argues, rather than ordering no interest, the equitable solution would have been for the trial court to order Husband to pay interest beginning when her spousal-support obligation began. {¶10} The record reflects that Husband lives off of his pension and social-security income. At the time of the June 2017 hearing, Husband's income was approximately $50,000, his 401k was valued at approximately $132,000, and he had around $23,000 in his checking account. Given the trial court's broad discretion and Wife's argument on appeal, we cannot say that Wife has established that the trial court abused its dis


CourtListener opinion 4399326

401(k): at, given the cost of insurance premiums, it would be inequitable to require Husband to secure the property-division award. {¶9} On appeal, Wife argues that Husband had the ability to pay the $185,758 property-division award in a lump-sum payment with his 401k. She also argues that, even if obtaining insurance was too expensive, the solution should have been for the trial court to issue a QDRO requiring Husband to transfer his 401k to her. Wife further argues that, given the offset (i.e., the fact that she had not made spousal-support payments and Husband had not made payments toward the property-division awa


CourtListener opinion 4399326

valuation/division: ay Wife spousal support. {¶5} Now, in the parties' sixth appeal, Wife challenges the trial court's decision, raising four assignments of error for our review. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF [WIFE] BY FASHIONING A PROPERTY DIVISION THAT IS INEQUITABLE DUE TO THE FACT THAT [HUSBAND] HAS TEN YEARS TO PAY [WIFE] AND NO INTEREST OR SECURITY IS PROVIDED. {¶6} In her first assignment of error, Wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Husband to pay the property-division award over ten years, without any interest or security, as opposed to a lump-sum payment.


CourtListener opinion 4399327

CourtListener opinion 4399327 Extracted reporter citation: 925 So.2d 977. Docket: 29091 Appellant v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4399327 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 4399327


CourtListener opinion 4399327

QDRO: incorporated a separation agreement, provided that Ms. Archer was entitled to one-half of Mr. Dunton's pension through the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund as of the date of divorce. It further provided that "[s]hould Ohio law be amended so as to allow a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or similar Order, on state-administered pension plans, then said Order shall be filed on Husband's pension plan." The decree required thirty days' notice to Ms. Archer if Mr. Dunton elected to receive a lump sum instead of periodic pension payments and determined both the present value of the pension and Ms. Archer's one- half share as of the date of d


CourtListener opinion 4399327

retirement benefits: of Mr. Dunton's pension during his participation in DROP. This Court agrees. {¶7} In divorce cases, a trial court must designate marital and separate property and divide the property equitably between spouses. R.C. 3105.171(B). "Marital property" includes retirement benefits acquired by either spouse during the marriage. R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a)(i). See also Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 178-179 (1990). A qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") "implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution" by assigning to an alternate payee-spouse the right to receive benefit


CourtListener opinion 4399327

pension: Division. This Court reverses. I. {¶2} Deborah Archer and Steven Dunton divorced in 1993 after eighteen years of marriage. Their divorce decree, which incorporated a separation agreement, provided that Ms. Archer was entitled to one-half of Mr. Dunton's pension through the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund as of the date of divorce. It further provided that "[s]hould Ohio law be amended so as to allow a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or similar Order, on state-administered pension plans, then said Order shall be filed on Husband's pension plan." The decree required thirty days' notice to Ms. Archer if Mr.


CourtListener opinion 4399327

alternate payee: determined both the present value of the pension and Ms. Archer's one- half share as of the date of divorce for that purpose. 2 {¶3} In 2003, the trial court issued a Division of Property Order ("DOPO") that set forth the amount payable to Ms. Archer as alternate payee from Mr. Dunton's monthly pension benefit or, in the alternative, the amount that would be distributed to her if Mr. Dunton elected a lump-sum distribution upon retirement. Mr. Dunton, however, elected to participate in a Deferred Retirement Option Plan ("DROP") instead of receiving his pension benefits.1 As a result of his decision, the monthly pension


CourtListener opinion 4400896

CourtListener opinion 4400896 Extracted reporter citation: 743 A.2d 518. Docket: 2492 EDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4400896 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 4400896

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 4400896

QDRO: hin claims raised in the 1925(b) statement. We will analyze the appeal based on Wife's claims of error in her 1925(b) statement, which are more clearly stated. -4- J-A07043-19 5. The Court erred in entering a final divorce order without first entering a QDRO (COAP). 6. The Court erred in failing to account for a cost of living increase on Husband's CSRS pension that was awarded for 2018. 7. The Court erred in failing to find that Wife had received and maintained $30,000 as her separate property. Wife's 1925(b) Statement, 7/26/18, at 1-2 (reordered for ease of review).2 In reviewing a challenge to the t


CourtListener opinion 4400896

retirement benefits: RS pension due to his thirty-three years of service with USPS. The trial court also recognized that Wife has substantial separate property to which Husband has no claim. Further, the trial court recognized the inequity in the fact that the Husband's CSRS retirement benefits are considered marital property subject to division, while Wife's Social Security benefits are exempt from equitable distribution. This Court has provided: Social Security benefits are not subject to equitable distribution. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 609–10, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 1371–72, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960) ("To engraft upon the Social Security s


CourtListener opinion 4400896

pension: _________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A07043-19 worked for Harleysville Insurance until January 2014. Husband now works part-time for the Bucks County Justice Center, making $14,155/year in gross income. Husband receives a pension from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) of $3,444/month based on his USPS employment; Husband was not covered by Social Security as a CSRS employee. Husband also receives $1,144/month in Social Security from employment after his USPS retirement. Wife receives $1,222/month from Social Security and makes approximately $10,000/year in income as a


CourtListener opinion 4400896

alternate payee: der of equitable distribution states that Husband's pension shall be distributed through a COAP and directs the parties to retain Matthew Morley, Esq. to prepare the COAP. Our Supreme Court has provided that a QDRO "creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under the plan." Smith v. Smith, 595 Pa. 80, 85, 938 A.2d 246, 248 (2007) (citation omitted). For the QDRO to be "qualified," it must include "certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits"; however, "[t]he actual qualifying of the domestic relatio


CourtListener opinion 4407309

CourtListener opinion 4407309 Extracted case name: HECTOR L. CASABLANCA v. ANOLAN CASABLANCA. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4407309 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 4407309


CourtListener opinion 4407309

QDRO: ich sought to preclude the defendant from presenting parol evidence in support of her motion to open the judgment. The court subsequently denied the defendant's motion to open, granted the plaintiff's motion to compel and ordered the defendant to sign the qualified domestic relations order. On the defendant's appeal to this court, held that the trial court errone- ously determined that the retirement asset provision of the parties' agreement was unambiguous, as the language of the provision was susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation: in light of the language in the provision, there was more than one possible approach to


CourtListener opinion 4407309

pension: take, and on the basis of equitable principles. She claimed that the relevant part of the retirement asset provision that required the amount of her anticipated future social security benefit to be subtracted from the amount of her share of the plaintiff's pension benefit was entered upon mutual mistake, and provided an inequitable and unconscionable windfall to the plaintiff. At a hearing on the parties' motions, the trial court granted a motion in limine filed by the plaintiff, which sought to preclude the defendant from presenting parol evidence in support of her motion to open the judgment. The court subsequ


CourtListener opinion 4407309

domestic relations order: defendant via a qualified domestic relations order, 50 percent of the value of the marital portion of his benefit in a certain retirement fund, minus the amount of the defendant's social security benefit. After the plaintiff submitted a proposed qualified domestic relations order to the defendant, the defendant refused to sign it, and the plaintiff filed a motion to compel, which sought a court order requiring the defendant to execute the proposed qualified domestic relations order. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to open the dissolution judgment on the grounds of mutual mistake and unilateral mistake, and on the basis


CourtListener opinion 4407309

valuation/division: ated into the dissolution judgment the terms of an agreement between the parties, which included a retirement asset provision that required the plaintiff to transfer to the defendant via a qualified domestic relations order, 50 percent of the value of the marital portion of his benefit in a certain retirement fund, minus the amount of the defendant's social security benefit. After the plaintiff submitted a proposed qualified domestic relations order to the defendant, the defendant refused to sign it, and the plaintiff filed a motion to compel, which sought a court order requiring the defendant to execute the proposed q


CourtListener opinion 4409505

CourtListener opinion 4409505 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Nickels. Extracted reporter citation: 935 N.E.2d 152. Docket: 18A-DN-1693 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4409505 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 4409505


CourtListener opinion 4409505

QDRO: ate. The only evidence in the record concerning the annuity is its value. Also, in her proposed division of the marital estate, Wife requested that the trial court award the annuity to Husband. 5 A trial court may not divide PERF pension accounts by way of qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") or otherwise order a party to assign benefit payments to a former spouse. See Everette v. Everette, 841 N.E.2d 210, 213–214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (concluding that pursuant to Indiana Code § 5-10.3-8-9(a) the husband's PERF account was exempt from levy, sale, garnishment, attachment, or other legal process, including a QDRO, but this did not leav


CourtListener opinion 4409505

retirement benefits: sset. But since Husband's 2 Husband was 54.56 years old on the date of valuation and will not qualify to receive his full pension benefit under the Rule of 85 until he is 56.1 years old. Tr. pp. 69, 73. 3 A spouse's "present right to withdraw pension or retirement benefits" constitutes property that belongs in the marital pot, as does a vested "pension or retirement benefit[ ] . . . payable after the dissolution of marriage." See I.C. § 31-9-2-98(b)(1), (2). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DN-1693 | June 24, 2019 Page 3 of 9 pension rights are vested, the pension is a marital asset . . . According


CourtListener opinion 4409505

pension: t Jill Creech, The Honorable J. Richard Appellee-Respondent. Campbell, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 29D04-1710-DN-9239 Mathias, Judge. [1] In this dissolution proceeding, Marvin Creech ("Husband") appeals the Hamilton Superior Court's valuation of his pension and the order to make a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DN-1693 | June 24, 2019 Page 1 of 9 lump sum equalization payment to Jill Creech ("Wife"). Concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] The parties' nearly thirty-five-year marriage was dissolved on June 18, 2018,


CourtListener opinion 4409505

domestic relations order: nly evidence in the record concerning the annuity is its value. Also, in her proposed division of the marital estate, Wife requested that the trial court award the annuity to Husband. 5 A trial court may not divide PERF pension accounts by way of qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") or otherwise order a party to assign benefit payments to a former spouse. See Everette v. Everette, 841 N.E.2d 210, 213–214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (concluding that pursuant to Indiana Code § 5-10.3-8-9(a) the husband's PERF account was exempt from levy, sale, garnishment, attachment, or other legal process, including a QDRO, but this did not leav


CourtListener opinion 4410159

CourtListener opinion 4410159 Docket: 343904 Alpena Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4410159 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 4410159


CourtListener opinion 4410159

QDRO: ualize the division of real estate, investment and banking assets, titled assets, and personal property, Wayne would pay Sandra $154,618.47 in "Non Retirement Assets." Similarly, to equalize the division of retirement assets, Sandra would provide Wayne with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for $101,204.03 from her retirement assets. Despite their agreement to the above, the parties disputed the method for completing the equalizing payments. Sandra proposed that the $154,618.47 owed to her be paid in full and in 1 For ease of reference, we will refer to the parties by their first names. -1- cash. However, Wayne submitted that he


CourtListener opinion 4410159

retirement benefits: Sandra would owe him only $1,204.03 from her retirement assets. Sandra challenged Wayne's proposal, arguing that as a result of tax consequences the $100,000 offset was not equal to $100,000 paid to her in cash because once she withdrew the $100,000 from her retirement accounts she would have to pay taxes and, if she withdrew the funds early, she would also incur a penalty for early withdrawal. In lieu of a trial and hearing, the parties submitted briefs to the trial court. The trial court ruled in favor of Wayne's distribution proposal, concluding that it would not consider the tax consequences of the distribution. In doing so


CourtListener opinion 4410159

domestic relations order: division of real estate, investment and banking assets, titled assets, and personal property, Wayne would pay Sandra $154,618.47 in "Non Retirement Assets." Similarly, to equalize the division of retirement assets, Sandra would provide Wayne with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for $101,204.03 from her retirement assets. Despite their agreement to the above, the parties disputed the method for completing the equalizing payments. Sandra proposed that the $154,618.47 owed to her be paid in full and in 1 For ease of reference, we will refer to the parties by their first names. -1- cash. However, Wayne submitted that he


CourtListener opinion 4410159

valuation/division: n to more accurately and equitably divide the present value of the estate." Sandra moved for reconsideration, asserting in an affidavit that she intended to immediately withdraw the retirement funds. The court denied the motion, and this appeal follows. II. PROPERTY DIVISION A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Sandra argues that the trial court erred by declining to consider the possible tax consequences arising from the selected distribution method. The trial court's factual findings on the marital property's division are reviewed for clear error. Hodge v Parks, 303 Mich App 552, 554; 844 NW2d 189 (2014). Clear error occurs "when this C


CourtListener opinion 4410182

CourtListener opinion 4410182 Docket: 28799 29104 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4410182 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 4410182

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 4410182

QDRO: ee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT MICHAEL TUSTIN ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Appellant COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DR-2011-07-2007 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: June 26, 2019 TEODOSIO, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Michael K. Tustin appeals the qualified domestic relations orders issued by the trial court on September 1, 2017, and the entry of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, denying his motion for relief from judgment. We affirm. I. {¶2} In 2011, Julia Tustin, nka Julia Hoffman, filed a complaint for divorce from Michael Tustin. After a 2013 trial, a decree of divorce was entered, follow


CourtListener opinion 4410182

retirement benefits: able division of marital property. After again proceeding to trial, the trial court issued a decree of divorce on April 8, 2016. {¶3} The decree of divorce, in providing for the division of marital property, ordered that the parties' defined contribution retirement plans were to be divided equally, with Ms. 2 Hoffman to transfer to Mr. Tustin the amount of $103,436.62 in order to equalize the value of the accounts. The decree also provided that the parties were to each retain a motor vehicle, with Ms. Hoffman owing Mr. Tustin $2,040.00 to equalize the values. The trial court further found that Mr. Tustin owed Ms. Hoff


CourtListener opinion 4410182

pension: e expenses, attorney fees, taxes, and insurance, and in offsetting that amount against the $2,040.00 owed to Mr. Tustin, granted judgment against Mr. Tustin in the amount of $5,661.25, plus statutory interest. The decree further provided that Ms. Hoffman's pension plan was to be divided equally by a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). {¶4} Initially the parties submitted QDROs based upon the de facto marriage termination date of December 31, 2011, but were informed by QDRO Consultants that FirstEnergy Corp. was unable to calculate gains or losses on any participant accounts for periods prior to January


CourtListener opinion 4410182

401(k): n regarding the equitable division of marital property. After again proceeding to trial, the trial court issued a decree of divorce on April 8, 2016. {¶3} The decree of divorce, in providing for the division of marital property, ordered that the parties' defined contribution retirement plans were to be divided equally, with Ms. 2 Hoffman to transfer to Mr. Tustin the amount of $103,436.62 in order to equalize the value of the accounts. The decree also provided that the parties were to each retain a motor vehicle, with Ms. Hoffman owing Mr. Tustin $2,040.00 to equalize the values. The trial court further found that Mr. Tust


CourtListener opinion 4410259

CourtListener opinion 4410259 Extracted case name: ZEYNAB ABDULLAHI v. GIANNI ZANINI. Extracted reporter citation: 968 S.W.2d 26. Docket: 124133-FL REPORTED. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4410259 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 4410259


CourtListener opinion 4410259

QDRO: nefit that Husband would get would be a spousal benefit, not based on his own record of work, and therefore, it was inapplicable to this situation. 14 [T]he World Bank is not subject to the normal rules of QDROs[15] because it's not under the – the normal QDRO rules under U.S. law do not apply to the World Bank so the World Bank has their own set of rules and they have what's called a spousal support order. So you have to follow the spousal support order if you want to effectuate what we would refer to as a QDRO. The World Bank required the division of retirement benefits be granted as spousal support. D.


CourtListener opinion 4410259

retirement benefits: tended two sessions, and he then returned to his travels. After Husband returned from his travels at the end of 3 Wife testified that, because of the move, she took one year off of work without pay, and she lost benefits, including her contribution to her retirement accounts. During this year in Italy, Husband's income was the family's sole source of income. 3 October 2013, Wife found Viagra, Cialis, and other "performance enhancers" in Husband's luggage. At the end of 2013, Wife was told by her doctors that she needed surgery. Husband was traveling at the beginning of 2014 when Wife was initially scheduled to have the


CourtListener opinion 4410259

pension: Zeynab Abdullahi v. Gianni Zanini, No. 2390, September Term, 2017. ACQUIESCENCE RULE; MONETARY AWARD; DISSIPATION; CONTRIBUTION; MARITAL SHARE OF A PENSION The general rule is that a party may not acquiesce in a judgment and accept its benefits while attacking the judgment on appeal. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule. One exception exists where the judgment is "‘for less than the amount or short of the right claimed.'" Additionally, where Husband told Wife that he would not raise the acquie


CourtListener opinion 4410259

ERISA: an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a pension plan's participant under the respective pension plan." Robinette v. Hunsecker, 212 Md. App. 76, 81 n.2 (2013), aff'd, 439 Md. 243 (2014). 15 World Bank is non-ERISA. It is not subject to the federal ERISA legislation but they have historically honored domestic relations orders. Not Q[D]ROs but domestic relations orders as long as they designate the payment as spousal support. That's just a unique feature of a World Bank pension plan in terms of what they will recognize. As long as it is designated as spousal supp


CourtListener opinion 4411250

CourtListener opinion 4411250 Extracted reporter citation: 741 P.2d 432. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4411250 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 4411250

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 4411250

QDRO: appears that it was filed more than 30 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order. See NRAP 4(a)(1); NRAP 26(c). The decree of divorce was entered on October 16, 2018, with written notice of entry served on October 17, 2018. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order was filed January 9, 2019, with written notice of entry served on January 10, 2019, but the notice of appeal was not filed until March 26, 2019, and a second notice of appeal was filed on April 5, 2019, both well after the expiration of the 30- day time period to appeal. NRAP 4(a). An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court.


CourtListener opinion 4411250

domestic relations order: hat it was filed more than 30 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order. See NRAP 4(a)(1); NRAP 26(c). The decree of divorce was entered on October 16, 2018, with written notice of entry served on October 17, 2018. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order was filed January 9, 2019, with written notice of entry served on January 10, 2019, but the notice of appeal was not filed until March 26, 2019, and a second notice of appeal was filed on April 5, 2019, both well after the expiration of the 30- day time period to appeal. NRAP 4(a). An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court.


CourtListener opinion 4412994

CourtListener opinion 4412994 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2697 EDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4412994 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 4412994


CourtListener opinion 4412994

pension: intiff's second amended complaint with prejudice. 1 We quash the appeal. We glean the following case history from the record. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on March 24, 2017. Plaintiff alleged therein that a portion of his monthly pension benefits from his employer MACK/UAW had been paid to Elaine Vetoviyz, his former spouse, pursuant to a qualified ____________________________________________ 1Also before us is an application to withdraw filed by Plaintiff's counsel, Donald P. Russo, Esquire, in which he indicates that on April 25, 2019, our Supreme Court suspended him from practicing la


CourtListener opinion 4412994

domestic relations order: l briefing was concluded in this appeal prior to the suspension, we deem it appropriate to proceed with resolution of the appeal. Our prothonotary shall assure that Mr. Aversa is personally served with this and any future filings in this matter. J-S06003-19 domestic relations order, and that Defendant, "a large human relations consulting firm," wrongfully failed to pay Plaintiff the full amount of his pension benefits for approximately two years after Ms. Vetovitz died. Complaint, 3/24/17, at ¶¶ 6-12. Plaintiff indicated that the damages sought pursuant to the Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") were "within the limits set fo


CourtListener opinion 4413045

CourtListener opinion 4413045 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Rockwell. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 79065-0-1112 Although the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4413045 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 4413045

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 4413045

QDRO: nt, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION and PENNY LEE ANTHONY, ) Respondent. ) FILED: July 1, 2019 SCHINDLER, J. — Joseph Anthony appeals the amount and duration of maintenance awarded to Penny Anthony. Joseph also contends the "Qualified Domestic Relations Order" (QDRO) does not accurately reflect the trial court's decision. The court did not make a finding on the income of the parties, and the court did not address the ability of Joseph to meet his needs and financial obligations while meeting those of Penny or enter written findings on the statutory factors. We affirm the decision to award maintenance. But we remand


CourtListener opinion 4413045

retirement benefits: h said he works that amount of overtime to pay bills and does not want to continue working the same amount of overtime. Joseph testified he could pay $2,500 a month in maintenance to Penny and pay his expenses. Joseph testified the amount in his LTI 401(k) retirement account in 2014 was $26,000. Penny testified she receives $3,050 each month from Joseph and $500 a month in rent from her adult son Michael. Penny testified she has no retirement savings and wanted to remain in the family house. Penny testified that she planned to get her GED and then apply for minimum wage jobs. The court ruled at the conclusion of the tri


CourtListener opinion 4413045

pension: tified at trial. At the time of trial, Joseph was 53-years-old and Penny was 51-years-old. The court admitted a number of exhibits into evidence, including the financial declarations filed by Joseph and Penny and financial documents, including LTI W-2s and pension documentation. In his financial declaration, Joseph states his total gross monthly income is $7,807. He lists monthly wages of $3,504, overtime of $2,086, and military disability of $817. Joseph receives monthly military retirement income of $2,500. In his financial declaration, Joseph allocates $1,400 of the military retirement income to himself and $1


CourtListener opinion 4413045

401(k): . Joseph said he works that amount of overtime to pay bills and does not want to continue working the same amount of overtime. Joseph testified he could pay $2,500 a month in maintenance to Penny and pay his expenses. Joseph testified the amount in his LTI 401(k) retirement account in 2014 was $26,000. Penny testified she receives $3,050 each month from Joseph and $500 a month in rent from her adult son Michael. Penny testified she has no retirement savings and wanted to remain in the family house. Penny testified that she planned to get her GED and then apply for minimum wage jobs. The court ruled at the co


CourtListener opinion 4414310

CourtListener opinion 4414310 Extracted case name: DOOLING v. DOOLING. Extracted reporter citation: 904 N.W.2d 251. Docket: of days that the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4414310 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 4414310


CourtListener opinion 4414310

QDRO: uly 2014. • The court awarded Kristina $7,690.80 of the house proceeds "for monies expended to make the house marketable" and evenly divided the balance of the proceeds. • The court equally divided Shawn's retirement, valued at $108,468.41, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. • The court equally divided Shawn's vacation and comp time and ordered Shawn to pay Kristina $5,754.69 within 90 days. The court did not award Kristina any of Shawn's sick time. • The court ordered Shawn to pay the balance on the parties' Visa credit card and ordered Kristina to pay a $637.73 medi- cal debt. • Shawn received a tax exemption for two


CourtListener opinion 4414310

retirement benefits: uired during the marriage through the joint efforts of the parties.20 Section 42-366(8) states that for purposes of the division of property in a dissolution of marriage action, "[t]he court shall include as part of the marital estate . . . any pension plans, retirement plans, annuities, and other deferred com- pensation benefits owned by either party, whether vested or not vested."21 (Emphasis supplied.) Generally, deferred 20 Tyma v. Tyma, 263 Neb. 873, 644 N.W.2d 139 (2002). 21 See, Hosack v. Hosack, 267 Neb. 934, 678 N.W.2d 746 (2004); Longo v. Longo, 266 Neb. 171, 663 N.W.2d 604 (2003); Tyma, supra note 20; Kullbom v.


CourtListener opinion 4414310

pension: a testified that during the marriage, she worked part time when school was in session and earned about $10 or $11 an hour. In August 2015, Kristina obtained her first full-time job where she earns $13.50 an hour. She worked 40 hours a week with no 401K and no pension. She testified the parties' balance on their Visa credit card account was $17,737.82 as of October 2015. Before the parties purchased their house on South River Rock Drive, they owned a house on South 79th Street in La Vista. Kristina asked to be compensated for paying $6,880 to replace the air conditioner in the South 79th Street house in 2010. She claime


CourtListener opinion 4414310

401(k): ony Kristina testified that during the marriage, she worked part time when school was in session and earned about $10 or $11 an hour. In August 2015, Kristina obtained her first full-time job where she earns $13.50 an hour. She worked 40 hours a week with no 401K and no pension. She testified the parties' balance on their Visa credit card account was $17,737.82 as of October 2015. Before the parties purchased their house on South River Rock Drive, they owned a house on South 79th Street in La Vista. Kristina asked to be compensated for paying $6,880 to replace the air conditioner in the South 79th Street house in 2


CourtListener opinion 4414748

CourtListener opinion 4414748 Extracted reporter citation: 274 S.W.3d 811. Docket: 05-18-00536-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4414748 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 4414748


CourtListener opinion 4414748

QDRO: OF M.S. AND M.D.S., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-01157 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Schenck Michael Bolton appeals a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) withdrawing money from Bolton's employee retirement account to pay toward his child support arrearage. In four issues, Bolton contends (1) the issuance of the QDRO constitutes a taking without due process; (2) the QDRO is not an "enforcement" order; (3) the Office of the Attorney General failed to file a writ; and (4) the Office of the Attorney G


CourtListener opinion 4414748

retirement benefits: llas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-01157 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Schenck Michael Bolton appeals a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) withdrawing money from Bolton's employee retirement account to pay toward his child support arrearage. In four issues, Bolton contends (1) the issuance of the QDRO constitutes a taking without due process; (2) the QDRO is not an "enforcement" order; (3) the Office of the Attorney General failed to file a writ; and (4) the Office of the Attorney General is collaterally estopped from requesting the issuance of a Q


CourtListener opinion 4414748

domestic relations order: ND M.D.S., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-01157 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Schenck Michael Bolton appeals a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) withdrawing money from Bolton's employee retirement account to pay toward his child support arrearage. In four issues, Bolton contends (1) the issuance of the QDRO constitutes a taking without due process; (2) the QDRO is not an "enforcement" order; (3) the Office of the Attorney General failed to file a writ; and (4) the Office of the Attorney G


CourtListener opinion 4415871

CourtListener opinion 4415871 Extracted reporter citation: 904 A.2d 15. Docket: 594 WDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4415871 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 4415871


CourtListener opinion 4415871

QDRO: and one-half of the Pension Plan. As Husband's requests, we have reviewed Exhibit A attached to the Master's report, which evinces the marital assets and the distribution of those assets. The exhibit shows that the Pension Plan was distributed 50/50 by a QDRO using a coverture fraction. Moreover, the exhibit also shows that the amounts attributed to the non-qualified plan, the EPP, was a separate asset. Thus, Husband has failed to identify anything in the record that would indicate that the Pension Plan benefit was already subsumed in the $11,493.80 monthly payment awarded to Wife relating to the EPP. Thus,


CourtListener opinion 4415871

pension: , the court's order affirmed the Master's determination that a 50/50 split of marital assets was appropriate. The court also affirmed the Master's determination that Husband had dissipated a marital asset by relinquishing his interest in WEC's executive pension plan (EPP), during contract renegotiation in 2016 with WEC, which occurred between the parties' separation in 2015, and the trial in this matter. -4- J-A12009-19 As part of the renegotiation with WEC and Toshiba, Husband received a $7,000,000 Nationwide insurance policy, which was paid into an irrevocable trust for his benefit. At the same time, with


CourtListener opinion 4415871

valuation/division: Rosemary Roderick (Wife) appeals and Daniel L. Roderick (Husband) cross-appeals from the trial court's order, dated and entered on March 22, 2018, dismissing both Wife's and Husband's exceptions to the Master's Report and Recommendation, which dealt with equitable distribution and support issues.1 Wife also appealed and Husband cross-appealed from the order, dated and entered on August 21, 2018, that provided for a method of deferred ____________________________________________ 1The following day, on March 23, 2018, the trial court entered the divorce decree. -2- J-A12009-19 monthly equitable payments to Wife, which were


CourtListener opinion 4419596

CourtListener opinion 4419596 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PAMELA LOUISE PARLEE AND JONATHAN DAVID PARLEE Upon the Petition of PAMELA LOUISE. Extracted reporter citation: 807 N.W.2d 289. Docket: 18-1808. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4419596 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 4419596

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 4419596

QDRO: and the anticipated monthly pay-out on the account at retirement. The record supports a finding that Pam does not have a pension account and Jon has this single pension account. The FERS pension account shall be divided using the Benson formula through a QDRO awarding Pam her marital portion of the FERS pension. Jon also had an Edward Jones traditional IRA account that he cashed out in January 2017 in the amount of $35,861.85. The amount of cash Jon received in January 2017 was $25,103.29. This liquidation was done without Pam's knowledge or consent and was done before the parties separated. Jon testified


CourtListener opinion 4419596

retirement benefits: pay, and we find the court's extrapolation of his earnings in the amount of $83,887 was supported by the evidence presented.4 He listed monthly expenses of $3653.54. The parties' annual incomes differ by $50,000. The court discussed the value of parties' retirement accounts and distributed them equitably: 4 As found by the court, Jon is on pace to earn $83,887 in gross wages in calendar year 2018. He has worked overtime during his career at USPS. Jon's overtime is not guaranteed but has been regular and consistent throughout his career. Jon's current annual salary is $69,327. He receives additional income due to his sh


CourtListener opinion 4419596

pension: ount to pay her legal fees. She withdrew funds in the total amount of $11,779.72 and received $10,000. The balance was held to pay toward state and federal taxes. This information is confirmed by Pam's testimony and exhibits. Pam testified that she has no pension accounts and that the Ace Body and Motor SEP Account is the only retirement account she has. Jon has a Thrift Savings Plan with a value of $58,800.19 as of December 31, 2017. Jon offered no updated statements for this account at the time of trial. Jon also has a Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) pension account. Jon provided a statement to ref


CourtListener opinion 4419596

valuation/division: support awarded. See Mauer, 874 N.W.2d at 106 ("[W]e will disturb a district court determination [in a dissolution proceeding] only when there has been a failure to do equity."). The trial court correctly noted the statutory factors used to determine an equitable distribution of marital assets and spousal support and analyzed those 4 factors. At the time of the trial, the parties had been married for thirty-five years. Both were in their fifties, and the trial court found both were in "fair" health. Neither had advanced degrees at the time of marriage. Both parties worked fulltime throughout the marriage, with Pam earning s


CourtListener opinion 4423119

CourtListener opinion 4423119 Extracted reporter citation: 201 A.3d 728. Docket: 6 MDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4423119 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 4423119


CourtListener opinion 4423119

QDRO: of Lancaster County Civil Division at No(s): CI-18-08912 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 06, 2019 Bruce L. Clark ("Husband") appeals pro se from the order denying his petition to vacate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") entered in the divorce action between Husband and Lysbeth W. Clark ("Wife"). After our review, we affirm. The parties signed a post-nuptial agreement on December 27, 1984. On July 8, 2016, Wife filed a petition to enforce the agreement. The trial court granted Wife's petition. In response, Husband filed various motions. On July 14, 2016, Hus


CourtListener opinion 4423119

pension: a petition for a QDRO on December 8, 2016, and the trial court scheduled the matter to be heard on December 13, 2016. On December 15, 2016, the parties reached an agreement and executed a QDRO with respect to Wife's entitlement to a portion of Husband's pension. However, from January of 2017 through mid-November 2017, Husband filed six petitions challenging the validity of the post-nuptial agreement. These petitions were all denied. Husband filed an appeal to this Court and, in 2018, we affirmed the trial court's order denying Husband's motion for the "Determination of the Obvious Validity of the Defendant's


CourtListener opinion 4423119

domestic relations order: ter County Civil Division at No(s): CI-18-08912 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 06, 2019 Bruce L. Clark ("Husband") appeals pro se from the order denying his petition to vacate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") entered in the divorce action between Husband and Lysbeth W. Clark ("Wife"). After our review, we affirm. The parties signed a post-nuptial agreement on December 27, 1984. On July 8, 2016, Wife filed a petition to enforce the agreement. The trial court granted Wife's petition. In response, Husband filed various motions. On July 14, 2016, Hus


CourtListener opinion 4424908

CourtListener opinion 4424908 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Zamudio. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Third District Docket No. 3-16-0537. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4424908 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 4424908


CourtListener opinion 4424908

pension: 16. At issue during the dissolution proceedings was whether Frank's 48 months of permissive military service credit, which he earned prior to the marriage but purchased during the marriage with marital funds in order to enhance his State Retirement Systems pension, was marital property that should be considered when determining the marital portion of his pension. Ultimately, the trial court determined the enhancement itself was not marital property, but it found that Frank must reimburse Louise for her marital share of the funds used to purchase the enhancement. Frank does not dispute that portion of the trial co


CourtListener opinion 4424908

domestic relations order: s that were available to teachers with at least 20 years of service by making two one-time payments to the TRS of $7397.46 and $6390.60. Id. at 754-55. Following the husband's retirement later that year, the wife filed a motion seeking a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO) to divide the husband's pension. Id. at 755. The Massac County circuit court found that the husband's nonmarital monetary contributions could not be severed from the rest of his pension, and thus, it included the portion of the pension attributable to the early retirement incentives purchased by the husband as part of the marital pension. Id. T


CourtListener opinion 4424908

valuation/division: of permissive military service credit, which he earned prior to the marriage but purchased during the marriage with marital funds in order to enhance his State Retirement Systems pension, was marital property that should be considered when determining the marital portion of his pension. Ultimately, the trial court determined the enhancement itself was not marital property, but it found that Frank must reimburse Louise for her marital share of the funds used to purchase the enhancement. Frank does not dispute that portion of the trial court's ruling. ¶2 Louise appeals, asserting the trial court's judgment is reversible er


CourtListener opinion 4424912

CourtListener opinion 4424912 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Davis. Extracted reporter citation: 555 U.S. 285. Docket: 1-17-2135. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4424912 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 4424912


CourtListener opinion 4424912

QDRO: federal court, subject to further order of that court. ¶ 11 The executor and Betty filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the federal action. The executor argued that, under ERISA, the divorce decree constituted a "qualified domestic relations order" (QDRO), 1 such that the estate, rather than Betty, was the proper beneficiary of the proceeds of the 401(k) account. Alternatively, the executor argued that, even if the divorce decree was not a QDRO under ERISA, Betty could only receive the funds in the 401(k) account as a constructive trustee for the benefit of the estate. Betty's cross-motion argued that t


CourtListener opinion 4424912

retirement benefits: xecutor), as executor of the estate of P. Kevin Cunningham (the decedent), filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County against defendant-appellant Betty Cunningham (Betty), seeking a declaratory judgment regarding funds from the decedent's 401(k) retirement account. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the executor and against Betty. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 The decedent and Betty were married in 1981. During and after the marriage, the decedent was employed by Loparex LLC (Loparex).


CourtListener opinion 4424912

pension: f her IRA at Invesco and her 401(k) account ***. The Husband [the decedent] shall retain sole ownership of his IRA at Invesco and his 401(k) account at Fidelity. Each party warrants and represents that neither he nor she has any other interest in any other pension, IRA, 401(k) ESOP, or other retirement plan, except as may be specified above." ¶6 The divorce decree subsequently stated that: "Except as otherwise provided herein, each of the parties hereto does hereby forever relinquish, release, waive, and quitclaim to the other party hereto all property rights and claims which he or she now has or may hereafter ha


CourtListener opinion 4424912

ERISA: al court with respect to the 401(k) account. The executor filed an answer and counterclaim in the interpleader action, alleging that the estate was the proper beneficiary of the 401(k) plan under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (2012)). In addition, the executor also asserted state law claims against Betty, alleging breach of the divorce decree and seeking the imposition of a constructive trust for the benefit of the estate. The funds from the 401(k) account were deposited with the clerk of the federal court, subject to further order of that court. ¶


CourtListener opinion 4426292

CourtListener opinion 4426292 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Marek. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 18A-DR-2860 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4426292 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 4426292

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 4426292

QDRO: rds Jones IRA in the amount of $29,447.66. 18. Husband's Unimin 401(k) shall be equally (50/50) divided, with the exception of the $85,002.26 pre-marital rollover amount, with Wife to receive a lump sum $173,182.77 by qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and Husband shall be the sole owner of the remaining balance.… 19. Husband's Unimin Pension plan shall be equally (50/50) [divided] by QDRO. The Court finds Wife's interest to be in the amount of $37,116.86. Husband shall become the sole owner of the remaining balance.… 20. Husband shall become the sole owner of the Putnam Investment account. The