CourtListener opinion 4426292

pension: 0/50) 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 court concludes this to be a premarital asset. 21. Husband shall become the sole owner of his


CourtListener opinion 4426292

401(k): d's valuations of the residence, farm land and operations convincing. 60. The Court finds Wife's valuations of the residence[,] farm land and operations convincing. …. 63. Based upon evidence and testimony presented the Court finds Husband's [Unimin] 401(k) to have a pre-marital rollover amount of $85,002.26 which will be fully set aside to him. 64. Based upon evidence and testimony the Court finds Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 4 of 17 Husband's Unimin 401(k) valued at $346,365.53. …. 66. Based upon the evidence and testimony presented the Court


CourtListener opinion 4426292

domestic relations order: the sole owner of the Edwards 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


CourtListener opinion 4426786

CourtListener opinion 4426786 Extracted reporter citation: 647 F.3d 221. Docket: 32 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4426786 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 4426786

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 4426786

QDRO: P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI*, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2019 Appellant, Tina M. Jago ("Wife"), appeals from the order entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, which vacated a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") the court had previously entered upon joint petition of Wife and Geoffrey H. Jago ("Husband") and denied the parties' amended joint petition for entry of an amended QDRO.1 We affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. The parties married on June 21, 1997, and are still married. Husband is a participant in a JetBlu


CourtListener opinion 4426786

retirement benefits: he parties' amended joint petition for entry of an amended QDRO.1 We affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. The parties married on June 21, 1997, and are still married. Husband is a participant in a JetBlue Airways Retirement Plan ("Plan").2 On June 21, 2018, ____________________________________________ 1 Husband did not file a notice of appeal, and he is not a party to this appeal. 2 The parties do not dispute and the record makes clear the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., governs this Plan. ____________________________________ * Reti


CourtListener opinion 4426786

pension: granting an interest in the benefits of the participant's retirement plan to a non-participant. Id. at 851, 117 S.Ct. at 1765, 138 L.Ed.2d at ___ (citing 29 U.S.C.A. § 1056(d)(1)). "The purpose of the proscription, in ERISA, on alienation and assignment of pension funds is to protect the participant from [the participant's] own financial improvidence." Richardson v. Richardson, 774 A.2d 1267, 1270 (Pa.Super. 2001). ERISA's anti-alienation provision is compulsory and has few limited statutory exceptions. Boggs, supra at 851, 117 S.Ct. at 1765, 138 L.Ed.2d at ___ (citing 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1056(d)(2), (3)(A)). ERISA


CourtListener opinion 4426786

ERISA: ("Plan").2 On June 21, 2018, ____________________________________________ 1 Husband did not file a notice of appeal, and he is not a party to this appeal. 2 The parties do not dispute and the record makes clear the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., governs this Plan. ____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S26018-19 the couple filed a "Verified Joint Petition for QDRO." In the petition, the parties sought to transfer $400,000.00 from the Plan to an individual retirement account ("IRA") in Wife's name. The petition


CourtListener opinion 4427027

CourtListener opinion 4427027 Extracted case name: MALHOTRA v. MALHOTRA. Docket: 1 CA-CV 18-0403 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4427027 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 4427027


CourtListener opinion 4427027

QDRO: ions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 5 MALHOTRA v. MALHOTRA Decision of the Court I. The Appeal Is Timely. ¶9 Rakesh argues the appeal is untimely because Neera did not appeal a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered in August 2011 or a February 2015 order addressing some of the same issues. Assuming those decisions were appealable orders, Rakesh has not shown how Neera was aggrieved by those decisions or that they were inconsistent with the Decree. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 1(d) (requiring a party to be aggrieved to appeal). It was not until entry of the


CourtListener opinion 4427027

retirement benefits: STORY ¶2 Rakesh petitioned for divorce in late 2006, and after significant motion practice and a trial, in May 2011, the court entered the Decree. Rakesh, who is a medical doctor, was the chief operating officer of Saguaro Medical Associates (SMA). SMA had a retirement plan called the SMA Pension Plan or Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan). Along with awarding other assets, as relevant here, the Decree stated: At trial, it was undisputed that the following assets titled in the [Plan] were community property. The values of these assets were also undisputed: Cash in the amount of $12,000; stocks and bonds valued at $572,226; C


CourtListener opinion 4427027

pension: divorce in late 2006, and after significant motion practice and a trial, in May 2011, the court entered the Decree. Rakesh, who is a medical doctor, was the chief operating officer of Saguaro Medical Associates (SMA). SMA had a retirement plan called the SMA Pension Plan or Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan). Along with awarding other assets, as relevant here, the Decree stated: At trial, it was undisputed that the following assets titled in the [Plan] were community property. The values of these assets were also undisputed: Cash in the amount of $12,000; stocks and bonds valued at $572,226; Cash value of two New Yo


CourtListener opinion 4427027

domestic relations order: the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 5 MALHOTRA v. MALHOTRA Decision of the Court I. The Appeal Is Timely. ¶9 Rakesh argues the appeal is untimely because Neera did not appeal a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered in August 2011 or a February 2015 order addressing some of the same issues. Assuming those decisions were appealable orders, Rakesh has not shown how Neera was aggrieved by those decisions or that they were inconsistent with the Decree. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 1(d) (requiring a party to be aggrieved to appeal). It was not until entry of the


CourtListener opinion 4427266

CourtListener opinion 4427266 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Werths. Extracted reporter citation: 33 S.W.3d 541. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4427266 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 4427266

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 4427266

QDRO: ocedural requirements for the appeal." Id. at 596. Spiece relied on Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Mo. banc 2003), as further authority to require the circuit court to denominate an order as a judgment before it could be appealed. Brooks involved a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), which is a 6 "special order after a final judgment" that may be appealed pursuant to section 512.020(5). Brooks held, "Although the QDRO is an appealable special order, to perfect the appeal it is still necessary to denominate the order as a ‘judgment or decree.'" Id. at 532. In Spiece, the appellant tried to distinguish and limit Brooks' ho


CourtListener opinion 4427266

domestic relations order: equirements for the appeal." Id. at 596. Spiece relied on Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Mo. banc 2003), as further authority to require the circuit court to denominate an order as a judgment before it could be appealed. Brooks involved a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), which is a 6 "special order after a final judgment" that may be appealed pursuant to section 512.020(5). Brooks held, "Although the QDRO is an appealable special order, to perfect the appeal it is still necessary to denominate the order as a ‘judgment or decree.'" Id. at 532. In Spiece, the appellant tried to distinguish and limit Brooks' ho


CourtListener opinion 4428634

CourtListener opinion 4428634 Docket: A-2969-16T4 JOANNA B. ORLOWSKI. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4428634 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 4428634


CourtListener opinion 4428634

QDRO: GEIGER, J.A.D. In this post-judgment matrimonial appeal, we consider whether a court may compel reimbursement of college tuition, forensic accountant's fees, and counsel fees, through an enhanced wage garnishment and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) against the obligor's individual annuity account funds on deposit in an annuity governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1461. We hold that unpaid awards for counsel fees and expert witness fees relating to child support, property distribution, and college tuition reimbursement are enforceable by QDR


CourtListener opinion 4428634

pension: e Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1461. We hold that unpaid awards for counsel fees and expert witness fees relating to child support, property distribution, and college tuition reimbursement are enforceable by QDRO from ERISA protected pension funds when an ex-spouse is the alternative payee of the QDRO. We further hold the counsel fee judgments relating to child and spousal support are enforceable through an enhanced wage garnishment. I. The complex procedural history underlying this appeal necessitates a brief review of the proceedings that led to the arrearages owed to plaintiff Joanna


CourtListener opinion 4428634

ERISA: s fees, and counsel fees, through an enhanced wage garnishment and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) against the obligor's individual annuity account funds on deposit in an annuity governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1461. We hold that unpaid awards for counsel fees and expert witness fees relating to child support, property distribution, and college tuition reimbursement are enforceable by QDRO from ERISA protected pension funds when an ex-spouse is the alternative payee of the QDRO. We further hold the counsel fee judgments relating to child


CourtListener opinion 4431332

CourtListener opinion 4431332 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Russell. Extracted reporter citation: 411 S.W.3d 445. Docket: sheet. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4431332 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 4431332

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 4431332

QDRO: tances." Neither party filed a post-trial motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment. The trial court lost plenary power as of June 11, 2017. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(d). Robert subsequently presented Sharon with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)1 that awarded Robert $100,000 of Sharon's 401(k).2 Sharon then filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, arguing that the final divorce decree contained a clerical error causing the distribution of the marital estate to be erroneously divided in a manner not in compliance with the MSA and asking the trial court to correct the clerical error. See Tex. R. C


CourtListener opinion 4431332

retirement benefits: because it would be correcting a judicial error. At the hearing, the trial court indicated to the parties that it intended to grant Sharon's motion. Robert offered and the trial court admitted his responsive brief. 1 A QDRO permits payment of a pension, retirement plan, or other employee benefits to an alternate payee. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.101. 2 The trial court already had signed a QRDO that awarded Sharon $100,000 of Robert's 401(k) in compliance with the MSA. 3 Sharon also offered various documents, to some of which Robert stipulated and to some of which he objected. The trial court admitted all of Sharon's


CourtListener opinion 4431332

pension: he decree because it would be correcting a judicial error. At the hearing, the trial court indicated to the parties that it intended to grant Sharon's motion. Robert offered and the trial court admitted his responsive brief. 1 A QDRO permits payment of a pension, retirement plan, or other employee benefits to an alternate payee. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.101. 2 The trial court already had signed a QRDO that awarded Sharon $100,000 of Robert's 401(k) in compliance with the MSA. 3 Sharon also offered various documents, to some of which Robert stipulated and to some of which he objected. The trial court admitte


CourtListener opinion 4431332

401(k): signed another MSA regarding their property on March 1, 2017 and filed it with the trial court. See id. In pertinent part, this MSA provided that Robert was to receive all property listed on the attached exhibit A, which expressly included $50,000 of Sharon's 401(k) as of March 1, 2017. The exhibit further stated: "Husband is awarded a lump sum of $50,000, regardless of market fluctuation." On May 1, 2017, the trial court held a prove-up hearing. The record does not contain a transcript of this hearing. The judge's docket-sheet notation states: "Uncontested Divorce. W present w/atty. H's atty present. Amicus present.


CourtListener opinion 4433168

CourtListener opinion 4433168 Extracted case name: HEATHER WILSON v. MICHAEL. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4433168 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 4433168


CourtListener opinion 4433168

retirement benefits: alimony to the defendant; that court created an effectively equal division of the parties' marital assets by ordering the plaintiff to discharge the mortgage on the marital property, in which the defendant continues to reside, and to convey funds from her retirement plan to the defendant. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court erred in its property division by making a property award enforceable by a modifiable alimony award; the court, which entered orders designating the defendant as the alternate payee pursuant to a domestic relations order but recognized that a decision by the plaintiff


CourtListener opinion 4433168

pension: the parties' young children and allowing the plaintiff to continue working. The defendant took an early retirement package and elected, irrevocably, the 50 percent option form of reduced retirement income for the plaintiff's benefit.3 The defendant's current pension payment is $393 per week, and he receives social security income in the amount of $249 per week. The court found the defen- dant's net income to be $842 per week, based on a gross income of $982 per week.4 The court declined the plaintiff's request to impute $27,105 in annual retire- ment income withdrawals to the defendant from his retirement investment ac


CourtListener opinion 4433168

alternate payee: lan to the defendant. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court erred in its property division by making a property award enforceable by a modifiable alimony award; the court, which entered orders designating the defendant as the alternate payee pursuant to a domestic relations order but recognized that a decision by the plaintiff to remarry could divest the defendant of that award because a new spouse would have to consent to the designation of the defendant as the survivor beneficiary under the terms of the plaintiff's retirement plan, acted within its discre- tion in fashioning the award, a


CourtListener opinion 4433168

domestic relations order: e retired and that, if the plaintiff is remarried when she retires, the new spouse would have to consent to the designation of the defen- dant as the survivor beneficiary. The court entered orders designating the defendant as the alternate payee pursuant to a domestic relations order.5 The court fur- ther ordered that no alimony was payable by one party to the other except as set forth in section G.4 of the dissolution judgment, which governed the distribution of the parties' respective retirement accounts. Pursuant to section G.4 (v) of the dissolution judgment, the defen- dant was awarded $1 per year in alimony ‘‘modifiable only to en


CourtListener opinion 4433527

CourtListener opinion 4433527 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4433527 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 4433527


CourtListener opinion 4433527

QDRO: e, in her third and fourth assignments of error, also argues that the circuit court improperly utilized its contempt power to "require" or "order" her to make an early withdrawal from her retirement account, we address that argument below. - 11 - without a [qualified domestic relations order] . . . creates a ‘current and actual' ‘ability to pay,' is erroneous as a matter of law, arbitrary and capricious, and a clear abuse of discretion." To the extent that wife's assignment of error challenges the circuit court's finding that she has the ability to pay the amounts owed, we hold that wife has waived any such argument. Neither in closing arg


CourtListener opinion 4433527

retirement benefits: ality on the circuit court's final order of divorce after twenty-one days. We thus hold that the circuit court did not err in entering further orders in this matter, including the contempt order at issue in this appeal.3 Creating a "Back Door" to Invade a Retirement Account (Assignment of Error Four) Wife argues that the circuit erred by entering its contempt order because the order "creates a ‘back door' to invade a retirement account where there is no qualified domestic relations order." She contends that the circuit court's "finding that the retirement account 3 To the extent that wife, in her third and fourth assig


CourtListener opinion 4433527

domestic relations order: third and fourth assignments of error, also argues that the circuit court improperly utilized its contempt power to "require" or "order" her to make an early withdrawal from her retirement account, we address that argument below. - 11 - without a [qualified domestic relations order] . . . creates a ‘current and actual' ‘ability to pay,' is erroneous as a matter of law, arbitrary and capricious, and a clear abuse of discretion." To the extent that wife's assignment of error challenges the circuit court's finding that she has the ability to pay the amounts owed, we hold that wife has waived any such argument. Neither in closing arg


CourtListener opinion 4433527

valuation/division: . . July 1st [2013]" and that the award would be "nonmodifiable" and "without prejudice . . . to [husband] regarding child support." Both parties affirmed that the agreement, which was read into the record, "resolv[ed] all issues in [the] case," including equitable distribution, child support, spousal support, and the grounds for the divorce. The agreement was silent on attorney's fees. The circuit court's final order of divorce incorporated the settlement agreement. It also provided that husband would maintain health and dental insurance for the children and that certain expenses that were not covered by husband's insurance


CourtListener opinion 4434016

CourtListener opinion 4434016 Extracted case name: R.M. v. L.M. Extracted reporter citation: 448 A.2d 223. Docket: of months that the pension plan participant was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4434016 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 4434016


CourtListener opinion 4434016

QDRO: inded the February 17, 2009 order. After Borne's bankruptcy case was dismissed with prejudice, the Family Court reinstated the February 17, 2009 order in its entirety with a new effective date of May 26, 2009. 3 pension failed because Borne had not filed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") as required by the Ancillary Order. Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed the corrected rule to show cause and advised Borne to seek the assistance of an attorney to aid him in drafting the QDRO and submit it to the military to pursue his claim for a portion of Reynold's military benefits. (6) On January 12, 2017, Borne filed a motion to co


CourtListener opinion 4434016

retirement benefits: anted Reynold's motion to offset; (v) denied Borne's petition for order to show cause for contempt and fraud, motion to compel, motion for satisfaction of child support, motion for discovery, and 5 The VA waiver allows veterans to waive a portion of their retirement benefits in exchange for VA benefits. Reynold receives a 30% disability benefit due to back injuries sustained during her military service. Disability benefits are not divisible marital property. R.M. v. L.M., 2017 WL 4335170, at *6 (Del. Fam. Ct. July 12, 2017). 5 memorandum in support of fraud; and (vi) awarded Reynold attorneys' fees and costs. This appeal f


CourtListener opinion 4434016

pension: filed by Borne and his ex-wife, Betty H. Reynold. The Family Court: (i) determined the fraction to be used to calculate Borne's and Reynold's respective shares of each other's military pensions; (ii) concluded that Reynold owed Borne $47,900.40 in military pension arrears, retroactive to June 1, 2012; (iii) granted Reynold's motion to offset the arrearage by 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). sums Borne owed to Reynold under a prior Family Court order; and (iv) denied various other motions filed by Borne, finding them to be "filings seek[ing] to re- litigate


CourtListener opinion 4434016

domestic relations order: February 17, 2009 order. After Borne's bankruptcy case was dismissed with prejudice, the Family Court reinstated the February 17, 2009 order in its entirety with a new effective date of May 26, 2009. 3 pension failed because Borne had not filed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") as required by the Ancillary Order. Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed the corrected rule to show cause and advised Borne to seek the assistance of an attorney to aid him in drafting the QDRO and submit it to the military to pursue his claim for a portion of Reynold's military benefits. (6) On January 12, 2017, Borne filed a motion to co


CourtListener opinion 4434724

CourtListener opinion 4434724 Docket: 17AP-655 2 not mature. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4434724 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 4434724

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 4434724

QDRO: ohnson] is awarded an equal division of the [IBM] personal pension plan * * *. [McCarthy] shall promptly and fully cooperate with the transfer of the one[-]half interests awarded to [Johnson] in each of the above retirement plans to [Johnson's] name via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, rollover or other appropriate instrument. (Nov. 16, 2005 Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce at 15-16.) {¶ 3} Almost 12 years after the parties' divorce, Johnson moved for clarification of the November 16, 2005 divorce decree. Johnson argued that the decree was ambiguous because it did not specify the date on which the valuation and division of the IBM p


CourtListener opinion 4434724

retirement benefits: he IBM pension, the trial court ordered: [Johnson] is awarded an equal division of the [IBM] personal pension plan * * *. [McCarthy] shall promptly and fully cooperate with the transfer of the one[-]half interests awarded to [Johnson] in each of the above retirement plans to [Johnson's] name via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, rollover or other appropriate instrument. (Nov. 16, 2005 Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce at 15-16.) {¶ 3} Almost 12 years after the parties' divorce, Johnson moved for clarification of the November 16, 2005 divorce decree. Johnson argued that the decree was ambiguous because it did not sp


CourtListener opinion 4434724

pension: n a judgment dated November 16, 2005, the trial court granted Johnson and defendant-appellee, Donald McCarthy, a divorce. In addition to determining custody and support issues, the trial court also divided the parties' marital assets, including McCarthy's IBM pension. At the time of the divorce, McCarthy's IBM pension benefits were vested, but No. 17AP-655 2 not mature. The trial court found that the entirety of the IBM pension constituted marital property. In dividing the IBM pension, the trial court ordered: [Johnson] is awarded an equal division of the [IBM] personal pension plan * * *. [McCarthy] shall promptly


CourtListener opinion 4434724

domestic relations order: awarded an equal division of the [IBM] personal pension plan * * *. [McCarthy] shall promptly and fully cooperate with the transfer of the one[-]half interests awarded to [Johnson] in each of the above retirement plans to [Johnson's] name via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, rollover or other appropriate instrument. (Nov. 16, 2005 Judgment Entry – Decree of Divorce at 15-16.) {¶ 3} Almost 12 years after the parties' divorce, Johnson moved for clarification of the November 16, 2005 divorce decree. Johnson argued that the decree was ambiguous because it did not specify the date on which the valuation and division of the IBM p


CourtListener opinion 4438413

CourtListener opinion 4438413 Extracted case name: JILL GILBERT CALLAHAN v. JAMES CALLAHAN. Extracted reporter citation: 116 A.3d 317. Docket: of continuances. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4438413 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 4438413


CourtListener opinion 4438413

QDRO: longings and transferred title to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff shall be solely responsible for all of the above referenced costs pertaining to the property and she shall hold the defendant harmless thereon.'' 28 See footnote 1 of this opinion. 29 ‘‘A QDRO is the exclusive means by which to assign to a nonemployee spouse all or any portion of pension benefits provided by a plan that is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.'' Krafick v. Krafick, 234 Conn. 783, 786 n.4, 663 A.2d 365 (1995).


CourtListener opinion 4438413

pension: e defendant's overpayment.10 Thus, a reversal of the court's suspension of alimony payments would not afford the plaintiff any practical relief because the amount of the defendant's overpayment was reduced by the amount of alimony that accrued during the sus- pension. Thus, the issue on appeal is moot and, as a result, we do not reach the merits of the plaintiff's claim. See Altraide v. Altraide, supra, 153 Conn. App. 332. IV The plaintiff's fourth claim on appeal is that the court, on remand, erred in determining that the May, 2012 financial orders, which this court ordered reinstated; see Callahan v. Callahan, supra


CourtListener opinion 4438413

valuation/division: her marriage to the defendant. The matter was tried to the court, Munro, J., in March, 2012. On May 8, 2012, the court issued a memorandum of decision rendering judgment dissolving the parties' marriage on the ground of irre- trievable breakdown, and entering property division and alimony orders (May, 2012 dissolution judgment). On June 15, 2012, the defendant filed a motion to open the judgment of dissolution and attendant financial orders, which was granted on November 6, 2012. The court then held an evidentiary hearing and, in a Febru- ary 27, 2014 memorandum of decision, issued substitute financial orders (February, 2014 deci


CourtListener opinion 4439149

CourtListener opinion 4439149 Extracted reporter citation: 878 N.E.2d 16. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4439149 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 4439149


CourtListener opinion 4439149

QDRO: e of the pension based upon a marriage term of six years—a period that represented the time that the parties were together during Todd's military service.1 {¶ 4} To implement the pension division, the judgment specified that a consulting firm would prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")2 and submit it to the court for approval within 45 days of the entry of the decree. (A QDRO is a court order that "implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7.) The judgment further provided that the court would re


CourtListener opinion 4439149

retirement benefits: is opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Walsh v. Walsh, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-3723.] Divorce—R.C. 3105.171(I)—Property division in final decree of divorce is not modifiable unless both spouses consent—Military retirement benefits— Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. 1408—A trial court does not have jurisdiction under Civ.R. 60(B) to modify a division of property in a final decree of divorce when both spouses have not consented to the modification. (No. 2018-1073—Submitted July 9, 2019—Decided September 18, 2019.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for T


CourtListener opinion 4439149

pension: modifiable "except upon the express written SUPREME COURT OF OHIO consent or agreement to the modification by both spouses." In the case before us, the domestic-relations court granted relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) to modify a decree that divided pension benefits even though both parties had not agreed to the modification. We conclude that the trial court lacked authority to modify the decree. Because the court of appeals below held otherwise, we reverse its judgment. I. BACKGROUND A. The terms of the divorce decree {¶ 2} Todd and Sandra Walsh married in August 1994 and separated six years later. More th


CourtListener opinion 4439149

domestic relations order: ension based upon a marriage term of six years—a period that represented the time that the parties were together during Todd's military service.1 {¶ 4} To implement the pension division, the judgment specified that a consulting firm would prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")2 and submit it to the court for approval within 45 days of the entry of the decree. (A QDRO is a court order that "implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7.) The judgment further provided that the court would re


CourtListener opinion 4439669

CourtListener opinion 4439669 Extracted reporter citation: 83 N.E.3d 999. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4439669 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 4439669


CourtListener opinion 4439669

QDRO: 8, but those exhibits are not in the record. However, the wording of the final decree is not in dispute. Husband has a vested pension in [the] Police and Fireman's Pension Fund all of which was accumulated during the term of the marriage. Husband shall by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assign to Wife fifty (50) percent of said pension as of the date of the divorce and Wife shall be entitled to all post-retirement benefits of said plan including, but not limited to, all cost of living and other benefits of said plan. On November 1, 2004, the trial court issued a DPO (that is in the record before us), which was accepted by the


CourtListener opinion 4439669

retirement benefits: s Pension Fund all of which was accumulated during the term of the marriage. Husband shall by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assign to Wife fifty (50) percent of said pension as of the date of the divorce and Wife shall be entitled to all post-retirement benefits of said plan including, but not limited to, all cost of living and other benefits of said plan. On November 1, 2004, the trial court issued a DPO (that is in the record before us), which was accepted by the OP&F Pension Fund on January 10, 2005. The DPO set forth the following language: II. Amount Payable to the Alternate Payee: Upon the Plan Parti


CourtListener opinion 4439669

pension: , J.: Defendant-appellant, Geraldine Hollingshead, appeals from a judgment denying her three motions (motion for relief from judgment, motion to adopt an amended Division of Property Order ("DPO"), and motion for an order requiring the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund ("OP&F Pension Fund") to provide Grisafo's "personal history record" to her), and granting plaintiff-appellee Kevin Grisafo's motion for attorney fees. Hollingshead raises five assignments of error for our review: 1. The trial court erred in finding that the [DPO] was consistent with the Final Decree. 2. The trial court erred in finding that ap


CourtListener opinion 4439669

alternate payee: g and other benefits of said plan. On November 1, 2004, the trial court issued a DPO (that is in the record before us), which was accepted by the OP&F Pension Fund on January 10, 2005. The DPO set forth the following language: II. Amount Payable to the Alternate Payee: Upon the Plan Participant [Grisafo] receiving a payment from the Public Retirement Program [the OP&F Pension Fund], the court orders that the Alternate Payee [Hollingshead] shall receive payment in accordance with and subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 3105.82 to 3105.90. (Please designate the type and the method of payment): A. Type o


CourtListener opinion 4439887

CourtListener opinion 4439887 Extracted reporter citation: 290 U.S. 111. Docket: 23628-17. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4439887 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 4439887

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 4439887

QDRO: in exceptions in section 72(t)(2). See sec. 4974(c). The statutory scheme expressly addresses transfers as part of property settlements incident to divorce or separation, providing an exception for a distribution made to an alternative payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Sec. 72(t)(2)(C). Petitioner's withdrawal does not fit that exception. See, e.g., Hartley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012- 311. -5- [*5] Petitioner does not argue that the Merrill Lynch withdrawal is not income or that any statutory exception in section 72(t)(2) applies; he argues rather that the Court should (1) disregard entirely the Merrill Lynch


CourtListener opinion 4439887

retirement benefits: amended, in effect for the year at issue. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. -2- [*2] The issues for decision are whether petitioner's withdrawal from his individual retirement account (IRA) is (1) included in gross income and (2) subject to the 10% additional tax on early distributions from qualified retirement plans imposed by section 72(t). FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference. Petitioner resided in California when he ti


CourtListener opinion 4439887

domestic relations order: ons in section 72(t)(2). See sec. 4974(c). The statutory scheme expressly addresses transfers as part of property settlements incident to divorce or separation, providing an exception for a distribution made to an alternative payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Sec. 72(t)(2)(C). Petitioner's withdrawal does not fit that exception. See, e.g., Hartley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012- 311. -5- [*5] Petitioner does not argue that the Merrill Lynch withdrawal is not income or that any statutory exception in section 72(t)(2) applies; he argues rather that the Court should (1) disregard entirely the Merrill Lynch


CourtListener opinion 4441033

CourtListener opinion 4441033 Extracted reporter citation: 167 A.3d 127. Docket: 1736 WDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4441033 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 4441033


CourtListener opinion 4441033

QDRO: hompson's SERS disability pension. Specifically, Brenda Thompson argues while a portion of the pension represents disability payments made to Steven Thompson which were owed him following a shoulder injury suffered while on duty as a corrections officer, a QDRO could determine what portion was attributable to disability and what portion would be attributable to what we will call the earned pension. She further argues as -2- J-S27030-19 the earned pension is a marital asset, she should be awarded a portion of that pension. We begin by reiterating that a review of the distribution of marital assets looks t


CourtListener opinion 4441033

pension: rdering distribution of assets. In this timely appeal, Brenda Thompson raises two claims. She argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award her, (1) an equitable share of Steven Thompson's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System pension (SERS), and (2) an equitable share of the fair rental value of the marital residence that Steven Thompson occupied from the date of separation. After a thorough review of the submissions by the parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we affirm. Our standard of review when examining an order regarding equitable distribution of marital assets i


CourtListener opinion 4441033

401(k): pson], however, is already limited in what he can do, any worsening of his health would cause him to lose his bus driver's income, leaving him only his retirement until he could qualify for Social Security. Further, as noted, [Brenda Thompson] has begun a 401K at her present employment. Under these circumstances, it does not appear to be appropriate to award any portion of the retirement to [Brenda Thompson]. However, [Steven Thompson] chose joint and survivor status on the retirement, the Court will order him not to modify the current survivor who is [Brenda Thompson]. At the time of [Steven Thompson's] de


CourtListener opinion 4441033

survivor benefits: hompson] chose joint and survivor status on the retirement, the Court will order him not to modify the current survivor who is [Brenda Thompson]. At the time of [Steven Thompson's] death years from now, if [Brenda Thompson] survives [Steven Thompson], the survivor benefit will aid [Brenda Thompson] in her retirement, and reward her for her substantial contribution to the marriage as a homemaker and mother, without further detriment to [Steven Thompson]. Trial Court Opinion, at 8. The trial court provided reasoning behind the decision to leave the SERS pension in Steven Thompson's name. That decision provides both part


CourtListener opinion 4441854

CourtListener opinion 4441854 Extracted reporter citation: 460 U.S. 462. Docket: 19-3001 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4441854 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 4441854


CourtListener opinion 4441854

QDRO: litigation, Saghafi repeatedly attacked the family court's jurisdiction, but never succeeded. The family court rejected Saghafi's arguments and entered a divorce decree, which was affirmed on appeal. Shortly after the divorce, the family court issued two qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) requiring Saghafi to sign off on the division of certain retirement funds. He ignored the orders. The family court found Saghafi in contempt and encouraged Bakhtiar to enforce the QDROs in a federal ERISA action. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Which led to this case. As Bakhtiar's guardian, Simonoff filed this action for declaratory and injunctive rel


CourtListener opinion 4441854

ERISA: THAPAR, Circuit Judge. All family disputes are sad. This one is no exception. But we need not determine who is in the right. All we must decide is whether the district court made a reasonable judgment call when it declined to award attorney's fees in this ERISA enforcement suit. It did, and we affirm. I. Dr. Mehdi Saghafi and Fourough Bakhtiar had been married for 55 years when things took a turn. Within a few days of each other, Saghafi filed for guardianship of his wife on the ground of incompetence, and Bakhtiar filed for divorce. Here's what happened according to Saghafi. His and Bakhtiar's estranged


CourtListener opinion 4441854

domestic relations order: n, Saghafi repeatedly attacked the family court's jurisdiction, but never succeeded. The family court rejected Saghafi's arguments and entered a divorce decree, which was affirmed on appeal. Shortly after the divorce, the family court issued two qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) requiring Saghafi to sign off on the division of certain retirement funds. He ignored the orders. The family court found Saghafi in contempt and encouraged Bakhtiar to enforce the QDROs in a federal ERISA action. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Which led to this case. As Bakhtiar's guardian, Simonoff filed this action for declaratory and injunctive rel


CourtListener opinion 4442202

CourtListener opinion 4442202 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 4442202 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 4442202


CourtListener opinion 4442202

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 4442202

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 4442202

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 4442202

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 4442959

CourtListener opinion 4442959 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Farrell & Howe. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-18-2706. This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4442959 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 4442959

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 4442959

retirement benefits: hat when she and Ronald were married on May 19, 1991, Ronald was employed as a firefighter by the city of Evanston. The assets listed as property acquired during their marriage included real property located in Niles, Illinois; vehicles; bank accounts; and "Retirement plans." Ronald filed a pro se answer, which consisted of a single sentence: "Yes, I agree to a divorce from Jodi A. Shulga." ¶4 On April 12, 2016, the circuit court entered an order dissolving the marriage. The court's order incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA). Article V of the MSA, entitled "Marital Property," provided in relevant part as fol


CourtListener opinion 4442959

pension: ald Shulga. The case ran its natural course and terminated with a judgment for dissolution of marriage. After Ronald's death, Jodi filed a third-party complaint against Mary Klebba-Shulga, alleging that Mary was unjustly enriched because she was receiving a pension as the surviving spouse of a disabled firefighter pursuant to section 4-114 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/4-114 (West 2016)). Jodi's complaint sought the imposition of a constructive trust. The Nos. 1-18-2028, 1-18-2706 cons. circuit court granted the relief sought in Jodi's amended complaint, and Mary now appeals. We affirm. ¶2 BACKG


CourtListener opinion 4442959

alternate payee: arriage until the date of the divorce. The QILDRO further provided that, so long as it was in effect, Ronald was prohibited from choosing "a form of payment of the retirement benefit that has the effect of diminishing the amount of the payment to which the alternate payee is entitled," unless that alternate payee consented in writing and the consent was notarized and filed with the Fund. Both the MSA and the QILDRO are silent with respect to the allocation of any firefighter death benefits. ¶7 On May 11, 2017, the Board of Trustees of the Firefighters' Pension Fund of Evanston (the Board) issued an administrative decisio


CourtListener opinion 4442959

domestic relations order: rty," provided in relevant part as follows: "RONALD is currently a participant in the following accounts: a. City of Evanston Pension Plan *** JODI is awarded fifty percent (50%) of the marital portion of said accounts via a *** Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) ***. The remaining balance after the disbursement delineated herein shall be awarded to RONALD as his sole and exclusive property, free and clear of any claim or interest by JODI. ***. Jodi and Ronald shall take all necessary actions to satisfy the foregoing conditions and to implement all of the provisions of this -2- Nos. 1-18-2028,


CourtListener opinion 4444011

CourtListener opinion 4444011 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4444011 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 4444011


CourtListener opinion 4444011

QDRO: r payment because Richard had been terminated from his position as a marshal and earned no other income. The court also deferred resolving the vacation and sick pay issue. Also in June 2015, the district court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Richard's PERS benefits and a QDRO dividing Eleni's PERS benefits. The QDRO dividing Richard's PERS benefits recognized Richard as the participant in PERS and Eleni as the alternate payee. It \assign[ed] to Eleni[ the right to receive a portion of


CourtListener opinion 4444011

retirement benefits: GORE, No. 73977 Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. FILE ELENI KILGORE, Respondent/Cross-Appellant. OCT 0 3 2019 BY ct Appeal and cross-appeal from orders resolving a motion to allocate omitted assets and modifying a divorce decree as it relates to PERS retirement benefits. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Cheryl B. Moss, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Betsy Allen and Betsy Allen, Las Vegas, for Appellant/Cross-Respondent. Page Law Office and Fred Page, Las Vegas, for Respondent/Cross-Appellant. BEFORE PICKERING, PARRAGUIRRE and CADISH, JJ. OPINION By the Court, PARRAGUIRRE,


CourtListener opinion 4444011

pension: Eleni Kilgore's divorce. Specifically, we consider whether the district court abused its discretion or otherwise erred when it concluded that Eleni was entitled to her community SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ICI -41-0 1 property share of Richard's pension benefits even though Richard had not yet retired, reduced this amount to judgment, and ordered Richard to pay Eleni a monthly amount it deemed fair. We also consider whether the district court erred when it concluded that Richard's vacation and sick pay were omitted from the divorce decree and thereafter divided them equally between Richard and Eleni.


CourtListener opinion 4444011

alternate payee: 15, the district court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Richard's PERS benefits and a QDRO dividing Eleni's PERS benefits. The QDRO dividing Richard's PERS benefits recognized Richard as the participant in PERS and Eleni as the alternate payee. It \assign[ed] to Eleni[ the right to receive a portion of


CourtListener opinion 4444404

CourtListener opinion 4444404 Extracted reporter citation: 645 N.E.2d 1300. Docket: 2018-CA-133 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4444404 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 4444404


CourtListener opinion 4444404

QDRO: ng from the account. Because the marital portion of the account was stipulated and the value of the account was simply the balance, Jessica claims the trial court should have awarded her one-half of the marital portion to be allocated immediately through a qualified domestic relations order. Third, if deferring distribution until Tyler's retirement was proper, Jessica claims the trial court should have included language in its decision restraining Tyler from unilaterally withdrawing the funds or borrowing against the account. {¶ 27} Upon review, we agree that the trial court misstated the balance in Tyler's 401(k) account and that it abu


CourtListener opinion 4444404

retirement benefits: thirties. That being so, we see no sound reason to defer Jessica's receipt of her half of the marital portion of the account until Tyler's future retirement. Although we are cognizant of the discretion a trial court enjoys in considering the disposition of retirement benefits, Hoyt at 180, we conclude that the trial court acted unreasonably here in not simply awarding Jessica one-half of the stipulated value of the marital portion, which was $11,849.75 as of December 31, 2017, plus or minus any gains or losses that occur prior to the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order promptly allocating Jessica's share to


CourtListener opinion 4444404

pension: t in the marital portion of Tyler's 401(K) account. We also see no sound reasoning process to support deferring distribution of Jessica's one- half interest to her until Tyler's retirement likely many years in the future. "When a trial court decides that a pension or retirement asset shall be paid by deferred distribution, it has created a situation where the parties' affairs are not concluded. The non-employed spouse may be placed in a position where he or she must monitor the fund * * *." Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 182, 559 N.E.2d 1292 (1990). Thus, "when circumstances permit, [trial courts] should strive


CourtListener opinion 4444404

401(k): a 2005 Hornet travel trailer as his separate property. Fourth, she challenges the trial court's finding that a $30,000 down payment for the marital residence was Tyler's separate property. Fifth, she asserts that the trial court erred in allocating Tyler's 401(k) account. Sixth, she maintains that the trial court erred in refusing to require Tyler or the two self-storage companies to pay some of her attorney fees. Seventh, she contends the trial court erred in ordering shared parenting. Eighth, she claims the trial court erred in failing to award her child support. {¶ 3} The record reflects that the parties ma


CourtListener opinion 4445305

CourtListener opinion 4445305 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Farrell. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-18-2706. This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4445305 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 4445305


CourtListener opinion 4445305

retirement benefits: hat when she and Ronald were married on May 19, 1991, Ronald was employed as a firefighter by the City of Evanston. The assets listed as property acquired during their marriage included real property located in Niles, Illinois; vehicles; bank accounts; and "Retirement plans." Ronald filed a pro se answer, which consisted of a single sentence: "Yes, I agree to a divorce from Jodi A. Shulga." ¶4 On April 12, 2016, the circuit court entered an order dissolving the marriage. The court's order incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA). Article V of the MSA, entitled "Marital Property," provided in relevant part as fol


CourtListener opinion 4445305

alternate payee: arriage until the date of the divorce. The QILDRO further provided that, so long as it was in effect, Ronald was prohibited from choosing "a form of payment of the retirement benefit that has the effect of diminishing the amount of the payment to which the alternate payee is entitled," unless that alternate payee consented in writing and the consent was notarized and filed with the Fund. Both the MSA and the QILDRO are silent with respect to the allocation of any firefighter death benefits. ¶7 On May 11, 2017, the Board of Trustees of the Firefighters' Pension Fund of Evanston (Board) issued an administrative decision o


CourtListener opinion 4446813

CourtListener opinion 4446813 Extracted reporter citation: 633 A.2d 589. Docket: 208 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4446813 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 4446813

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 4446813

QDRO: January 22, 2009. In that petition, Wife requested that the trial court order Husband to sign the QDROs she prepared, as required by the Order and the Amended Order.4 Petition to Enforce Order of Court, 1/22/2009. On May 1, 2009, the trial court entered a QDRO as an order of court (2009 QDRO). The 2009 QDRO, which was signed by Husband and Wife, provided that Wife's portion of the retirement benefit would be calculated ____________________________________________ 4 "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 participa


CourtListener opinion 4446813

retirement benefits: A22026-19 Berrington, 633 A.2d 589 (Pa. 1993). In Berrington, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that in a deferred distribution of a defined benefit pension, the spouse not participating may not be awarded any portion of the participant-spouse's retirement benefits which are based on post- separation salary increases, incentive awards or years of service. Any retirement benefits awarded to the non-participant spouse must be based only on the participant-spouse's salary at the date of separation. 633 A.2d at 594 (emphasis added).2 On January 28, 2005, the Pennsylvania legislature passed subsection (c) of secti


CourtListener opinion 4446813

pension: BER 15, 2019 John William Getty (Husband) appeals from the order entered December 17, 2018, which denied his petition for declaratory judgment. We affirm. This case involves the application of an important1 change in Pennsylvania law with respect to how pension plans are valued in divorce cases. Specifically, on January 28, 2005, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted legislation that overruled our Supreme Court's holding in Berrington v. ____________________________________________ 1 Among the amicus participants in Berrington, infra, were the following entities: the Pennsylvania Chapter of American Academy of M


CourtListener opinion 4446813

valuation/division: e employee spouse in the value of the pension." 23 Pa.C.S. § 3501 (comment to subsec. (c)). In other words, the pension was to be valued using the employee-spouse's salary as of the date of retirement, not as of the date of separation as in Berrington. The marital portion of the pension would be calculated by the use of a coverture fraction. See Smith v. Smith, 938 A.2d 246 (Pa. 2007). Moreover, on June 15, 2005, the legislature again amended subsection 3501(c) to provide that it was applicable to all proceedings pending on or after January 28, 2005. ____________________________________________ 2 The author of this opin


CourtListener opinion 4448715

CourtListener opinion 4448715 Extracted reporter citation: 906 N.W.2d 17. Docket: A-18-1121. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4448715 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 4448715


CourtListener opinion 4448715

QDRO: riod that the parties were married. The parties agree that Plaintiff shall receive an interest in Defendants VA Pension equal to 18.33% which is based on 61.5 months/330 months commencing with the February 2010 payment. Defendant's attorney shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") forthwith upon the entry of this Decree to effectuate this split. Both parties shall cooperate with each other as may be necessary to provide appropriate information for the entry of said QDRO. Following the entry of the decree, various discussions were had between Nancy's attorneys and Louis or his attorneys regarding preparation of the QDRO. L


CourtListener opinion 4448715

retirement benefits: rney. This order explicitly recognized Nancy's right to receive a portion of benefits payable under the Civil Service Retirement System. The order was prepared in accordance with final regulations issued by the OPM. The order states that Louis is eligible for retirement benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System based on employment with the U.S. government. The order assigned to Nancy 18.33 percent of Louis' gross monthly annuity (including any military benefits payable by the OPM) determined as of January 29, 2010. In early 2017, Nancy received a letter stating that she would begin receiving benefits August 1, 2016. Nanc


CourtListener opinion 4448715

pension: he decree recites that the parties had entered into an agreement relative to the issues of alimony, division of property, the payment of debts, and others matters set forth in the decree. A provision in the decree granted Nancy a portion of Louis's monthly VA pension. The decree states: VA PENSION: The Defendant receives a monthly pension from the VA, prorated for the period that the parties were married. The parties agree that Plaintiff shall receive an interest in Defendants VA Pension equal to 18.33% which is based on 61.5 months/330 months commencing with the February 2010 payment. Defendant's attorney shall pre


CourtListener opinion 4448715

domestic relations order: the parties were married. The parties agree that Plaintiff shall receive an interest in Defendants VA Pension equal to 18.33% which is based on 61.5 months/330 months commencing with the February 2010 payment. Defendant's attorney shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") forthwith upon the entry of this Decree to effectuate this split. Both parties shall cooperate with each other as may be necessary to provide appropriate information for the entry of said QDRO. Following the entry of the decree, various discussions were had between Nancy's attorneys and Louis or his attorneys regarding preparation of the QDRO. L


CourtListener opinion 4451230

CourtListener opinion 4451230 Extracted reporter citation: 44 A.3d 27. Docket: 1877 EDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4451230 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 4451230


CourtListener opinion 4451230

QDRO: ir economic issues before a divorce master, who filed his report and recommendation on September 20, 2017. The master recommended an equal split of the marital estate totaling $54,169.41, with Wife transferring to Husband $11,840.30 from her pension via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). While Wife presented additional evidence regarding her counsel fees totaling $15,000, and the master stated an inclination to grant the fees accrued in response to Husband's obdurate and vexatious conduct, it ultimately declined to award counsel fees because Wife did not request them in her divorce complaint. See Master's Report, 8/31/17, 5-6


CourtListener opinion 4451230

pension: ties argue their economic issues before a divorce master, who filed his report and recommendation on September 20, 2017. The master recommended an equal split of the marital estate totaling $54,169.41, with Wife transferring to Husband $11,840.30 from her pension via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). While Wife presented additional evidence regarding her counsel fees totaling $15,000, and the master stated an inclination to grant the fees accrued in response to Husband's obdurate and vexatious conduct, it ultimately declined to award counsel fees because Wife did not request them in her divorce com


CourtListener opinion 4451230

domestic relations order: c issues before a divorce master, who filed his report and recommendation on September 20, 2017. The master recommended an equal split of the marital estate totaling $54,169.41, with Wife transferring to Husband $11,840.30 from her pension via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). While Wife presented additional evidence regarding her counsel fees totaling $15,000, and the master stated an inclination to grant the fees accrued in response to Husband's obdurate and vexatious conduct, it ultimately declined to award counsel fees because Wife did not request them in her divorce complaint. See Master's Report, 8/31/17, 5-6


CourtListener opinion 4451230

valuation/division: vision at No(s): No. 2013-27844, BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J. FILED OCTOBER 29, 2019 In these consolidated appeals, Mark E. Poist ("Husband"), an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals from the May 15, 2018 equitable distribution order and divorce decree that ended his marriage to Sara L. Poist ("Wife") and resolved all outstanding economic claims. Husband also purports to appeal two interlocutory rulings that occurred during June 2016 and February 2018, respectively, and a third post-divorce order in which the trial court denied Husband's motion to recuse. We quash the interlo


CourtListener opinion 4451544

CourtListener opinion 4451544 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4451544 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 4451544


CourtListener opinion 4451544

QDRO: OHNSON, Former Wife, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Linda L. Nobles, Judge. October 30, 2019 B.L. THOMAS, J. In this family law case, Appellant (Former Husband) appeals the trial court's "Qualified Domestic Relations Order" allowing Appellee (Former Wife) to receive accrued earnings from Appellant's retirement plans when the final judgment did not address Appellee receiving such earnings. In a "Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage" entered on February 18, 1998, nunc pro tunc to January 7, 1997, Appellee was awarded one-half of Appellant's deferred compensation plan and


CourtListener opinion 4451544

retirement benefits: unty. Linda L. Nobles, Judge. October 30, 2019 B.L. THOMAS, J. In this family law case, Appellant (Former Husband) appeals the trial court's "Qualified Domestic Relations Order" allowing Appellee (Former Wife) to receive accrued earnings from Appellant's retirement plans when the final judgment did not address Appellee receiving such earnings. In a "Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage" entered on February 18, 1998, nunc pro tunc to January 7, 1997, Appellee was awarded one-half of Appellant's deferred compensation plan and one-half of Appellant's deferred compensation/social security replacement plan. The approxim


CourtListener opinion 4451544

domestic relations order: rmer Wife, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Linda L. Nobles, Judge. October 30, 2019 B.L. THOMAS, J. In this family law case, Appellant (Former Husband) appeals the trial court's "Qualified Domestic Relations Order" allowing Appellee (Former Wife) to receive accrued earnings from Appellant's retirement plans when the final judgment did not address Appellee receiving such earnings. In a "Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage" entered on February 18, 1998, nunc pro tunc to January 7, 1997, Appellee was awarded one-half of Appellant's deferred compensation plan and


CourtListener opinion 4452175

CourtListener opinion 4452175 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of SUSAN JANE. Extracted reporter citation: 571 S.W.3d 688. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4452175 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 4452175

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 4452175

QDRO: ial court's judgment dissolving her marriage with Michael Leo Freed ("Husband") that ordered an agreed-upon $11,063.60 adjustment in the division of Husband's 401(k), as previously provided in the trial court's judgment of legal separation and accompanying Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Finding no merit in Wife's sole point relied on, we affirm. Based upon the parties' stipulation for settlement of all issues, the trial court entered a Judgment and Decree of Legal Separation on August 14, 2017 (the "legal separation judgment"). 1 In accordance with that judgment, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations order on Octo


CourtListener opinion 4452175

401(k): T OF SCOTT COUNTY Honorable D. Blake Pearson AFFIRMED Susan Jane Freed ("Wife") appeals the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage with Michael Leo Freed ("Husband") that ordered an agreed-upon $11,063.60 adjustment in the division of Husband's 401(k), as previously provided in the trial court's judgment of legal separation and accompanying Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Finding no merit in Wife's sole point relied on, we affirm. Based upon the parties' stipulation for settlement of all issues, the trial court entered a Judgment and Decree of Legal Separation on August 14, 2017 (the "legal sepa


CourtListener opinion 4452175

domestic relations order: s judgment dissolving her marriage with Michael Leo Freed ("Husband") that ordered an agreed-upon $11,063.60 adjustment in the division of Husband's 401(k), as previously provided in the trial court's judgment of legal separation and accompanying Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Finding no merit in Wife's sole point relied on, we affirm. Based upon the parties' stipulation for settlement of all issues, the trial court entered a Judgment and Decree of Legal Separation on August 14, 2017 (the "legal separation judgment"). 1 In accordance with that judgment, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations order on Octo


CourtListener opinion 4452452

CourtListener opinion 4452452 Extracted reporter citation: 630 N.E.2d 763. Docket: 2019CA00010. This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4452452 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 4452452


CourtListener opinion 4452452

QDRO: sum of $44,592.85, representing her one-half of the total balance of the accounts. The separation agreement also made provisions regarding pension and retirement plans, with appellant specifically to receive $42,520.00 from appellee's Schwab account, via a QDRO. Under a heading of "Lump Sum Property Division Payment", appellee was also to pay appellant the sum of $47,907.15 as an equalization payment within sixty days of the filing of the decree. There was also a statement that the parties had each received a check for $10,000.00 on July 11, 2018, related to a reimbursement of earnest money for a potential pur


CourtListener opinion 4452452

retirement benefits: name and one in joint form, with the notation that appellee had paid to appellant, on July 11, 2018, the sum of $44,592.85, representing her one-half of the total balance of the accounts. The separation agreement also made provisions regarding pension and retirement plans, with appellant specifically to receive $42,520.00 from appellee's Schwab account, via a QDRO. Under a heading of "Lump Sum Property Division Payment", appellee was also to pay appellant the sum of $47,907.15 as an equalization payment within sixty days of the filing of the decree. There was also a statement that the parties had each received a check f


CourtListener opinion 4452452

pension: n appellee's name and one in joint form, with the notation that appellee had paid to appellant, on July 11, 2018, the sum of $44,592.85, representing her one-half of the total balance of the accounts. The separation agreement also made provisions regarding pension and retirement plans, with appellant specifically to receive $42,520.00 from appellee's Schwab account, via a QDRO. Under a heading of "Lump Sum Property Division Payment", appellee was also to pay appellant the sum of $47,907.15 as an equalization payment within sixty days of the filing of the decree. There was also a statement that the parties had eac


CourtListener opinion 4452452

valuation/division: one-half of the total balance of the accounts. The separation agreement also made provisions regarding pension and retirement plans, with appellant specifically to receive $42,520.00 from appellee's Schwab account, via a QDRO. Under a heading of "Lump Sum Property Division Payment", appellee was also to pay appellant the sum of $47,907.15 as an equalization payment within sixty days of the filing of the decree. There was also a statement that the parties had each received a check for $10,000.00 on July 11, 2018, related to a reimbursement of earnest money for a potential purchase of a home in Texas. Finally, provisions we


CourtListener opinion 4452468

CourtListener opinion 4452468 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 3315 EDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4452468 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 4452468

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 4452468

domestic relations order: nter such an order after conducting a conference on the petition. Here, the trial court conducted a hearing on Father's petition. At the hearing, Mother testified that she did not directly receive the support payments for Jessica, but that, pursuant to a domestic relations order requested by Father, Jessica had been receiving the support checks directly -3- J-S30002-19 since 1998. The trial court took the matter under advisement and, following a review of the certified record, issued an order denying Father's petition. See Order, 10/22/18. Upon review, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. Rather, it re


CourtListener opinion 4454753

CourtListener opinion 4454753 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Manor. Extracted reporter citation: 276 S.W.3d 138. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4454753 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 4454753


CourtListener opinion 4454753

QDRO: clarification order to be inconsistent with the final decree. See, e.g., Vanloh v. Vanloh, No. 03-08-00017-CV, 2008 WL 3984373, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Contrary to [wife's] assertions, however, the clarification of the [qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)] accurately reflects the property division as set out in the divorce decree and is consistent with the terms of the original QDRO."). c. Summary After reviewing the decree as a whole, we hold that the substitution of terms regarding how to tax Jeff's bonus payments constitutes a clarification, not a modification, and that such clarification e


CourtListener opinion 4454753

retirement benefits: the division the parties, and the trial court in its agreed decree, intended."); Seabron, 2013 WL 4685440, at *4 (holding that clarification of "gross present and future military retirement" did not alter the essential proportional division of the military retirement benefits); Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 274 S.W.3d 811, 819 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (holding that trial court's clarification order did not impermissibly modify division of property by requiring husband to pay taxes, penalties, and interest owed on wife's federal income tax obligation because money owed resulted from husband's actions); Zeolla, 15 S


CourtListener opinion 4454753

401(k): . 17 See Brown v. Brown, 236 S.W.3d 343, 350 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (stating that the decree as a whole and the circumstances surrounding its formation "reveal an affirmative intent that [husband] not be awarded anything from the [401(k)] plan and that [wife] receive all of it"). Similarly, there was no testimony at the enforcement hearing demonstrating an intent to award Jeff any portion of the specified bonus amounts. It would therefore be contrary to the decree to interpret the bonus provision as permitting Jeff to keep or to utilize any portion of the specified bonus amounts by with


CourtListener opinion 4454753

domestic relations order: ion order to be inconsistent with the final decree. See, e.g., Vanloh v. Vanloh, No. 03-08-00017-CV, 2008 WL 3984373, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Contrary to [wife's] assertions, however, the clarification of the [qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)] accurately reflects the property division as set out in the divorce decree and is consistent with the terms of the original QDRO."). c. Summary After reviewing the decree as a whole, we hold that the substitution of terms regarding how to tax Jeff's bonus payments constitutes a clarification, not a modification, and that such clarification e


CourtListener opinion 4455480

CourtListener opinion 4455480 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 180 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4455480 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 4455480

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 4455480

retirement benefits: The trial court thus concluded that Husband alone should bear responsibility for the taxes deducted as a result of the early liquidation of the accounts. Id. at 4, 12. The trial court properly considered the tax ramifications in assessing the value of the retirement accounts, and we decline Husband's invitation to overturn its well-supported findings and conclusions. -6- J-A24038-19 Husband further argues that the trial court's refusal to assign some shared responsibility for the taxes he paid is inequitable and fails to account for the fact that Husband's liquidation of the accounts was not voluntary and a result of


CourtListener opinion 4455480

domestic relations order: responsible for all assessed taxes[.] 2. The learned trial court erred by utilizing the gross amount of the retirement and/or investment accounts for purposes of equitable distribution when [Husband] while under the specter of unmerited and unwarranted domestic relations orders and ____________________________________________ 2Husband filed his concise statement of errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) on January 31, 2019. The trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on March 15, 2019. -3- J-A24038-19 eventual imprisonment for purported contempt of said Orders was forced to liquidate certain retirement and/or investment


CourtListener opinion 4455480

valuation/division: affidavit on March 26, 2015, stating that the marriage was irretrievably broken pursuant to Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. § 3301(d). Wife filed a counter-affidavit of non-opposition to divorce on April 14, 2015. Following a hearing, an equitable distribution master issued a report and recommendation on April 11, 2017. Both parties objected to the report and recommendation and requested a hearing de novo. The trial court conducted a de novo hearing on April 4, 2018. At the hearing, counsel agreed that the equitable distribution proceeding would be conducted on a "case-stated basis" on documentary exhibits a


CourtListener opinion 4456496

CourtListener opinion 4456496 Extracted reporter citation: 327 S.W.3d 250. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4456496 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 4456496


CourtListener opinion 4456496

QDRO: ousal property agreements involuntarily as a result of Wright's "duress, threats, and/or coercion" and declared the three agreements void and unenforceable. On the same day that the trial court signed the declaratory judgment, the trial court also signed a qualified domestic relations order and an order 3 for interim attorney's fees that was later modified. Wright filed a motion for new trial, and the trial court issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law at her request on March 5, 2019 and March 25, 2019. Wright's notice of appeal followed. ISSUES In six issues on appeal, Wright contends that the trial court abused its d


CourtListener opinion 4456496

domestic relations order: erty agreements involuntarily as a result of Wright's "duress, threats, and/or coercion" and declared the three agreements void and unenforceable. On the same day that the trial court signed the declaratory judgment, the trial court also signed a qualified domestic relations order and an order 3 for interim attorney's fees that was later modified. Wright filed a motion for new trial, and the trial court issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law at her request on March 5, 2019 and March 25, 2019. Wright's notice of appeal followed. ISSUES In six issues on appeal, Wright contends that the trial court abused its d


CourtListener opinion 4458275

CourtListener opinion 4458275 Extracted reporter citation: 440 U.S. 48. Docket: 28243 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4458275 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 4458275


CourtListener opinion 4458275

QDRO: terest in the subject property. That interest vested ̶ that is, became fixed ̶ at the time the divorce decree was filed. However, at the time of the divorce, Lelak's retirement benefits with the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) were not subject to a qualified domestic relations order, nor could the benefits be withdrawn as Lelak had not retired. Thus, the divorce court ordered Lelak to make advance payments in the sum of $50 per week to Siddall to satisfy her portion of the account. {¶ 19} The analysis set forth in the bankruptcy court's opinion focused on whether the $50 weekly payments were dischargeable under the provisions of 1


CourtListener opinion 4458275

retirement benefits: Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which held that John Lelak's obligation to pay Siddall retirements benefits was discharged in bankruptcy, that he was not in contempt for failing to give Siddall a 10-day notice prior to withdrawing funds from his retirement account, and that Siddall was not entitled to attorney fees. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} In 1983, Lelak and Siddall divorced after 15 years of marriage. Of relevance hereto, the "final decree and judgment of divorce", issued on January 31, 1983, stated: As to the retiremen


CourtListener opinion 4458275

pension: interests are created and defined by state law and bankruptcy courts do not disturb them unless some federal interest requires a different result." Id., citing Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55, 99 S.Ct. 914, 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979). {¶ 17} In Ohio, pension or retirement benefits accumulated during the course of a marriage are marital assets subject to property division in a divorce action. Graham v. Graham, 2d Dist. Greene No. 92-CA-114, 1993 WL 350038, *4, citing Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128, 541 N.E.2d 597 (1990). Further, Ohio courts have held that "[o]nce the division of property is fixed by


CourtListener opinion 4458275

domestic relations order: the subject property. That interest vested ̶ that is, became fixed ̶ at the time the divorce decree was filed. However, at the time of the divorce, Lelak's retirement benefits with the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) were not subject to a qualified domestic relations order, nor could the benefits be withdrawn as Lelak had not retired. Thus, the divorce court ordered Lelak to make advance payments in the sum of $50 per week to Siddall to satisfy her portion of the account. {¶ 19} The analysis set forth in the bankruptcy court's opinion focused on whether the $50 weekly payments were dischargeable under the provisions of 1


CourtListener opinion 4459221

CourtListener opinion 4459221 Extracted reporter citation: 679 A.2d 1266. Docket: 442 WDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4459221 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 4459221


CourtListener opinion 4459221

QDRO: Wife] and [Husband's] counsel appeared at the hearing; [Husband] did not appear.1 The trial court proceeded and concluded that [Husband] was not in contempt of the equitable distribution order because the April 26, 2017 order required [Wife] to draft the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")] for the Northrup Grumman Savings Plan. Thereafter, [Wife] drafted a QDRO and presented it to the trial court for approval. On August 21, 2018, the trial court approved the QDRO. 1 [Husband], who lives in the state of California, has failed to appear at other equitable distribution enforcement hearings. As a result, the trial court issued ben


CourtListener opinion 4459221

pension: lt, the trial court issued bench warrants against [him] on May 11, 2018 and July 9, 2018. The warrants remain outstanding. Further, the trial court found [Husband] in contempt for failing to comply with equitable distribution orders regarding his military pension . . . as well as his failure to pay [Wife's] counsel fees from the equitable distribution order and her $15,035.18 share of the [parties'] G-Force Leadership, L.L.C. asset. On October 26, 2018, [Wife] then filed a second rule to show cause why [Husband] should not be held in contempt [of] the court[']s April 26, 2017 order of equitable distribution.


CourtListener opinion 4459221

401(k): ppeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, holding him in contempt of court for failure to comply with the court's equitable distribution orders and enjoining him from disposing of any portion of his American Airlines 401(k) plan for pilots. Upon careful review, we affirm. The trial court set forth the facts of this matter as follows: This divorce has such a long, agonizing, and tortured history . . . with which the Superior Court is familiar. . . . Importantly, the Superior Court [affirmed] the trial court's . . . equitable distribution order. [Husband] filed a petitio


CourtListener opinion 4459221

alternate payee: y, the plan administrator stated, "[a]ccording to our records, the Participant was eligible to be in the Plan, but our records indicate that there are no assets in the account to segregate. Therefore, as there are no assets in the account to assign to the Alternate Payee, there will be no review of this order, and our file on this matter is considered closed." As a consequence, the trial court issued an order on December 6, 2018 finding [Husband] in contempt for depleting the mar[ital] asset because a QDRO could not issue against the account. Further, the trial court directed the Washington County Prothonotary to ente


CourtListener opinion 4461567

CourtListener opinion 4461567 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Tulleners FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Judith Tulleners and Andre Tulleners. Extracted reporter citation: 50 P.3d 298. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4461567 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 4461567

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 4461567

QDRO: . Instead, in a memorandum opinion, the court awarded the assets in the following manner: Community property Separate property Andre $718,172 plus a QDRO1 $20,000 addressing the community interest in Judith's pension payments Judith $301,742, plus a QDRO $251,730 plus the 67.6 addressing the community percent separate property property interest in her pension interest in her pension payments payments See Report of Proceedings (RP)2 at 293. 1 Qualified domestic relations order. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 1056(d)(3)(A). 2 The report of proceedings contains a pagination error. The pages numbered 167 through 17


CourtListener opinion 4461567

retirement benefits: led for divorce in May 2016, she and Andre were both in their early 70s and retired. Both were living on social security and retirement assets. At the divorce trial, Judith was able to provide a calculation from the administrator of her public employment retirement plan for the percentage of her pension payment that was community versus separate property. The administrator determined it was 67.6 percent separate property and 32.4 percent community property. Her retirement plan included a small defined contribution component, worth $11,872, to which she contributed before and during the marriage. The court characterize