CourtListener opinion 9392535

ERISA: Mary Kathryn Wallace seeks to have her late husband's 401(k) profit- sharing plan transferred into her name although there is no corresponding domestic relations order. The plan at issue is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). To complete the transfer, ERISA requires the parties to obtain a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) pursuant to Iowa domestic relations law. At the time a petition was filed in this matter, Mary Kathryn and Douglas Wallace were happily married and opposed to seeking a domestic relations order through divorce or separate maintenance proceedings


CourtListener opinion 9393313

CourtListener opinion 9393313 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Schneider. Extracted reporter citation: 824 N.E.2d 177. Docket: 4-22-0770 Carla Bender not precedent except. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9393313 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 9393313

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 9393313

QDRO: eld: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) denied maintenance to the respondent, (2) allocated the petitioner her entire pension, (3) ordered the petitioner's retirement account be divided via a qualified domestic relations order, and (4) admitted certain evidence pertaining to the petitioner's health. ¶2 Respondent, John Leitzen, appeals from the McLean County circuit court's judgment dissolving his marriage to petitioner, Heidi Leitzen. On appeal, John argues the court erred when it (1) denied his request for maintenance; (2) awarded Heidi her entire pension; (3) required the


CourtListener opinion 9393313

retirement benefits: ncurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) denied maintenance to the respondent, (2) allocated the petitioner her entire pension, (3) ordered the petitioner's retirement account be divided via a qualified domestic relations order, and (4) admitted certain evidence pertaining to the petitioner's health. ¶2 Respondent, John Leitzen, appeals from the McLean County circuit court's judgment dissolving his marriage to petitioner, Heidi Leitzen. On appeal, John argues the court erred when it (1) denied his request for maintenance; (2


CourtListener opinion 9393313

pension: tice DeArmond and Justice Steigmann concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) denied maintenance to the respondent, (2) allocated the petitioner her entire pension, (3) ordered the petitioner's retirement account be divided via a qualified domestic relations order, and (4) admitted certain evidence pertaining to the petitioner's health. ¶2 Respondent, John Leitzen, appeals from the McLean County circuit court's judgment dissolving his marriage to petitioner, Heidi Leitzen. On appeal, John argues the court erred w


CourtListener opinion 9393313

ERISA: of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/12-1006(a) (West 2020)), "[a] debtor's interest in or right *** to *** payments under a retirement plan is exempt from judgment." However, section 1056(d) of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C.A. § 1056(d) (2020)) provides that a valid QDRO creates or recognizes a former spouse's right to receive "all or a portion" of benefits payable to a participant under a qualifying retirement plan. The parties do not dispute Heidi's 401(k) was a qualifying plan under ERISA. Additionally, "our supreme court has held that it is ‘beyond dispute'


CourtListener opinion 9394100

CourtListener opinion 9394100 Extracted case name: MR SHANNON RAY FERGUSON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM KNOX CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MARCUS L. VANOVER. Extracted reporter citation: 634 S.W.3d 589. Docket: 2021-CA-1442-MR SHANNON RAY FERGUSON APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9394100 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 9394100


CourtListener opinion 9394100

QDRO: D. She has been deemed 100% disabled by her doctor. She currently has no source of income and was awarded liquid assets of only $4000 and her 2005 truck from the marital property. While she was also awarded half of Chad's retirement, to be divided via a QDRO,3 she should not have to drain funds needed for her future to survive now. Shannon is only in her early fifties and could easily live significantly longer. Retirement funds should not be deemed a readily available source of income for Shannon to meet her present-day needs. See Naramore v. Naramore, 611 S.W.3d 281, 288 (Ky. App. 2020). See also Daunhauer


CourtListener opinion 9394100

retirement benefits: Knox Circuit Court's order allocating assets between Shannon and Chad Toy Ferguson, a formerly married couple. We reverse the trial court as to the maintenance award (in both the amount and duration), and we reverse the circuit court's division of Chad's retirement account and remand for further consideration of the date of valuation but we affirm the trial court in all other respects. FACTS The parties married in 1994 and had three children, all of whom have reached majority. The parties separated in September 2018. Shannon filed her petition for dissolution of marriage the following month. Besides asking for the marr


CourtListener opinion 9394100

pension: h the maintenance award can be reduced or eliminated." Calloway v. Calloway, 832 S.W.2d 890, 894 (Ky. App. 1992). However, on remand, the court shall enter an order of maintenance in an amount and duration that considers all factors of KRS 403.200(2). 2. PENSION We affirm the circuit court's 50% division of Chad's pension but reverse and remand on the issue of whether the date of the pension's valuation should be the date of the parties' separation or the date dissolution was granted. In Thielmeier v. Thielmeier, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 2021-SC-0532-DG, 2022 WL 17726617 (Ky. 2022), the Kentucky Supreme Court clea


CourtListener opinion 9394100

401(k): ion's valuation should be the date of the parties' separation or the date dissolution was granted. In Thielmeier v. Thielmeier, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 2021-SC-0532-DG, 2022 WL 17726617 (Ky. 2022), the Kentucky Supreme Court clearly held that a party's -12- 401(k) (a type of retirement account) had to be valued as of the date of the divorce for purposes of determining the value of the marital estate, but that the family court had discretion to divide the marital estate in just proportions (not necessarily evenly) and also a duty to make findings explaining why its division was just under KRS 403.190: When divid


CourtListener opinion 9396619

CourtListener opinion 9396619 Docket: 0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9396619 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 9396619


CourtListener opinion 9396619

QDRO: es that the agreement was based on the parties' full disclosure of assets and allows a court to divide any non-disclosed asset with a value in excess of $1,000. -2- On the date of the entry of the final decree of divorce, the circuit court also entered a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") in relation to husband's "Ernst & Young Partnership Defined Benefit Retirement Plan" ("defined benefit plan"). The QDRO provided that wife would receive half of husband's benefits from the plan. At the same time, the circuit court entered another QDRO in relation to husband's "Ernst & Young Partnership Retirement Plan" ("profit-sharing plan"),


CourtListener opinion 9396619

retirement benefits: ach be separately responsible for the payment of taxes on any retirement proceeds that he/she receives subsequent to the execution of this [a]greement." Related to these provisions, Paragraph 16(G) provides that each party had disclosed all their respective retirement benefits. In Paragraph 24, the PSA addresses attorney fees, providing for the award of reasonable attorney fees to a party who either enforced provisions of or defended claims against the PSA. Paragraph 29 of the PSA states that the agreement was based on the parties' full disclosure of assets and allows a court to divide any non-disclosed asset with a value in


CourtListener opinion 9396619

pension: of divorce which affirmed, ratified, and incorporated the parties' PSA. Relevant to these appeals, the PSA provides, in Paragraph 16(A), that "[t]he parties agree to equally divide the following retirement assets," including husband's "Ernst & Young LLP pension, which yields a total of approximately $20,000 per month." In addition, "[t]he parties will each be separately responsible for the payment of taxes on any retirement proceeds that he/she receives subsequent to the execution of this [a]greement." Related to these provisions, Paragraph 16(G) provides that each party had disclosed all their respective retir


CourtListener opinion 9396619

401(k): ph 16(G) states that "[e]ach party hereby warrants and represents that except as specifically identified hereinabove, he or she has no other retirement accounts or benefits of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to IRAs, defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans, deferred compensation plans, profit sharing plans, pensions or annuities." Additionally, in Paragraph 29, the agreement provides that [t]he above and foregoing [a]greement of the parties is predicated upon the fact that each of the parties hereto has made a full, complete and total disclosure to the other of the nature and extent of all the ass


CourtListener opinion 9396624

CourtListener opinion 9396624 Docket: 0314-22-4 GLENN DANCE FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9396624 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 9396624


CourtListener opinion 9398343

CourtListener opinion 9398343 Extracted reporter citation: 922 N.E.2d 214. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9398343 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 9398343

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 9398343

QDRO: E. BROWN 109 East High St. 40 North Main Street Mt. Vernon, OH 43050 Mansfield, OH 44902 Gwin, P.J. {¶1} Appellant appeals the September 14, 2022 judgment of the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, adopting appellee's proposed QDRO. Facts & Procedural History {¶2} Appellee Michael Earnest ("Husband") and appellant Julie Perkins Earnest ("Wife") were married on June 18, 1988. Husband filed a complaint for divorce on January 27, 2021. {¶3} The parties, their counsel, the magistrate, and the trial court judge each signed an agreed judgment entry and decree of divorce that was fi


CourtListener opinion 9398343

retirement benefits: , of Husband's FTP 401(k) as of 10/31/2018, and Husband shall retain the balance. 10/31/2018 shall be the valuation date. Husband is the Plan Participant and Wife is the Alternate Payee. Husband shall cause a QDRO to be prepared and filed to divide the retirement account. The parties shall share equally in the cost of preparation and filing of the QDRO. Otherwise, each party shall retain any retirement benefits or accounts that they have accumulated in their individual names free and clear of any claim on the part of the other and each waives any interest in the other's retirement account. This includes Wife's rig


CourtListener opinion 9398343

401(k): 1, 2018. {¶4} The original agreed judgment entry and decree of divorce contained a clerical error. The language in the "accounts" portion of the original judgment entry stated "Wife shall retain 50% of the statement balance, less $29.020, of Husband's FTP 401(k)." The parties agreed the correct number was $29,020, not $29.020. Upon Husband's motion, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry on September 14, 2022, correcting the number. Each of the parties, their counsel, and the trial judge signed the nunc pro tunc entry. {¶5} Specifically at issue in this appeal is the language contained in the divorce d


CourtListener opinion 9398343

alternate payee: ree states as follows: Wife shall retain 50% of the statement balance, less $29,020, of Husband's FTP 401(k) as of 10/31/2018, and Husband shall retain the balance. 10/31/2018 shall be the valuation date. Husband is the Plan Participant and Wife is the Alternate Payee. Husband shall cause a QDRO to be prepared and filed to divide the retirement account. The parties shall share equally in the cost of preparation and filing of the QDRO. Otherwise, each party shall retain any retirement benefits or accounts that they have accumulated in their individual names free and clear of any claim on the part of the other an


CourtListener opinion 9402928

CourtListener opinion 9402928 Extracted reporter citation: 154 S.W.3d 93. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9402928 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 9402928


CourtListener opinion 9402928

QDRO: rce in Harris County. Jenkins proceeded pro se. As part of the divorce proceeding, the parties needed to decide how to divide their four retirement accounts. The parties met with Criswell's attorney in January 2020 to discuss the division and the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). At the meeting, the parties agreed that each would be awarded 50% of the other's community portion from their respective retirement accounts. Each would pay fees associated with preparing their own respective QDROs. In April 2020, Criswell's counsel filed a decree and prove-up submission for the divorce, which was subsequently granted by the c


CourtListener opinion 9402928

retirement benefits: ith Jevon Criswell married in December 2000 and separated nineteen years later. In January 2020, Criswell filed for divorce in Harris County. Jenkins proceeded pro se. As part of the divorce proceeding, the parties needed to decide how to divide their four retirement accounts. The parties met with Criswell's attorney in January 2020 to discuss the division and the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). At the meeting, the parties agreed that each would be awarded 50% of the other's community portion from their respective retirement accounts. Each would pay fees associated with preparing their own respective QD


CourtListener opinion 9402928

domestic relations order: ris County. Jenkins proceeded pro se. As part of the divorce proceeding, the parties needed to decide how to divide their four retirement accounts. The parties met with Criswell's attorney in January 2020 to discuss the division and the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). At the meeting, the parties agreed that each would be awarded 50% of the other's community portion from their respective retirement accounts. Each would pay fees associated with preparing their own respective QDROs. In April 2020, Criswell's counsel filed a decree and prove-up submission for the divorce, which was subsequently granted by the c


CourtListener opinion 9402928

valuation/division: (citing Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990)). B. Analysis 1. Meritorious Defense Jenkins first alleges that Criswell failed to allege a meritorious defense. Criswell responds that she was entitled to a fair and equitable division of the community property accumulated during the marriage and was unable to make the defense due to Jenkins's attempt to run out the clock on the court's plenary power. "[A]s a pretrial matter," the complainant must "present prima facie proof to support the contention" that she has a meritorious defense, which has the purpose of assuring the court "that valuable judicial resour


CourtListener opinion 9403130

CourtListener opinion 9403130 Extracted case name: CASWELL v. CASWELL. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0430 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9403130 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 9403130


CourtListener opinion 9403130

retirement benefits: under [Koelsch]." Paragraph 11 of the Stipulated DRO provides that [t]he Court retains jurisdiction to amend this Order but only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining its acceptance to the relevant System or Plan, and to supervise the payment of retirement benefits as provided in the Order to [Wife]. (Emphasis added.) No party appealed from the Stipulated DRO, which was an appealable order under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2). See Boncoskey v. Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. 448, 451, ¶ 12 (App. 2007) (recognizing right to appeal from domestic relations order as a special order entered after final judgment). ¶6 Almost six months aft


CourtListener opinion 9403130

pension: ge of Shanen Caswell ("Wife") and Shawn Caswell ("Husband") by consent decree (the "Consent Decree"), the superior court entered a stipulated domestic relations order (the "Stipulated DRO") providing for the distribution of the community interest in Husband's pension benefits upon his retirement. More than 18 months later, and over Husband's objection, the court entered an amended Domestic Relations Order (the "Amended DRO") requiring Husband to make monthly payments to Wife until he retires pursuant to Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176 (1986). Husband appeals from the Amended DRO. ¶2 When it entered the Stipulated DRO


CourtListener opinion 9403130

domestic relations order: separate special concurrence in which Presiding Judge Cruz joined. K I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 After dissolving the marriage of Shanen Caswell ("Wife") and Shawn Caswell ("Husband") by consent decree (the "Consent Decree"), the superior court entered a stipulated domestic relations order (the "Stipulated DRO") providing for the distribution of the community interest in Husband's pension benefits upon his retirement. More than 18 months later, and over Husband's objection, the court entered an amended Domestic Relations Order (the "Amended DRO") requiring Husband to make monthly payments to Wife until he retires pursuant to Koelsch v. Koelsc


CourtListener opinion 9403130

valuation/division: rt order presents a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Chopin v. Chopin, 224 Ariz. 425, 427, ¶ 6 (App. 2010). ¶10 The Arizona Supreme Court recognized in Koelsch that the portion of an employee pension that was earned during the employee's marriage is community property subject to equitable division upon dissolution of the employee's marriage. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 181. Noting that, after dissolution, the non-employee spouse will not begin to receive his or her share of the pension benefits until the employee spouse retires, the Koelsch court found that an employee spouse's decision to delay retirement after dissolution "d


CourtListener opinion 9407350

CourtListener opinion 9407350 Extracted case name: SPELTZ v. SPELTZ. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0593 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9407350 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 9407350


CourtListener opinion 9407350

QDRO: d retirement accounts. Based on this division the court ordered Valerie to make an equalization payment to Robert. It also ordered that the parties retain an attorney to determine the community portion of their retirement accounts and to prepare any necessary qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO"). ¶3 Valerie scheduled the refinance of the parties' former marital residence ("Gilbert Property") for May 2020. Because she knew Robert would receive over $200,000 from the refinance proceeds, she filed an expedited petition to enforce the Decree provision awarding her one half of the military retirement payments he received after the termination


CourtListener opinion 9407350

retirement benefits: the parties' personal property, real property, and retirement accounts. Based on this division the court ordered Valerie to make an equalization payment to Robert. It also ordered that the parties retain an attorney to determine the community portion of their retirement accounts and to prepare any necessary qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO"). ¶3 Valerie scheduled the refinance of the parties' former marital residence ("Gilbert Property") for May 2020. Because she knew Robert would receive over $200,000 from the refinance proceeds, she filed an expedited petition to enforce the Decree provision awarding her one half of t


CourtListener opinion 9407350

domestic relations order: nt accounts. Based on this division the court ordered Valerie to make an equalization payment to Robert. It also ordered that the parties retain an attorney to determine the community portion of their retirement accounts and to prepare any necessary qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO"). ¶3 Valerie scheduled the refinance of the parties' former marital residence ("Gilbert Property") for May 2020. Because she knew Robert would receive over $200,000 from the refinance proceeds, she filed an expedited petition to enforce the Decree provision awarding her one half of the military retirement payments he received after the termination


CourtListener opinion 9407350

valuation/division: meaning should not be assigned to part of the language which would render another part meaningless, nor remake the language to alter the existing rights or obligations."). Moreover, it would conflict with the Decree's stated intention of equally dividing the community property and the court's duty to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of property. A.R.S. § 25-318(A). We therefore conclude the court did not err by enforcing the Decree's plain language dividing the community portion of Robert's military retirement as of the termination of the marital community. II. The Superior Court Properly Denied Robert's Cross Petition f


CourtListener opinion 9407392

CourtListener opinion 9407392 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of DAVID and. Extracted reporter citation: 16 Cal.4th 67. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9407392 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 9407392

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 9407392

QDRO: pursuant to a state court's domestic relations order, pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse or dependents, if and only if the state court order meets certain specifications. Such an order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' (hereafter a QDRO). (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3).)" (In re Marriage of Oddino (1997) 16 Cal.4th 67, 71.) 4 David is a cinematographer in the motion picture industry. 5 regarding the sale, acceptance of offers, David's right of first refusal, and the division of the proceeds from the sale. In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides for the payment of th


CourtListener opinion 9407392

retirement benefits: the assistance of a private mediator. The Settlement Agreement was incorporated into a judgment entered on January 19, 2019 (2019 Judgment). The Settlement Agreement provides for the division of the parties' assets including, as relevant here, two of David's retirement accounts. Specifically, paragraph 1.C states that the "community portion" of his "Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan (accrued benefits) xx4739 [MPI plan]" "shall be equally 4 divided per QDRO3 by the time rule/Brown by Louise Nixon. The fees and costs for Ms. Nixon shall be equally divided by the Parties. [David's] separate property shall be confirmed to him."


CourtListener opinion 9407392

pension: , 2019 (2019 Judgment). The Settlement Agreement provides for the division of the parties' assets including, as relevant here, two of David's retirement accounts. Specifically, paragraph 1.C states that the "community portion" of his "Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan (accrued benefits) xx4739 [MPI plan]" "shall be equally 4 divided per QDRO3 by the time rule/Brown by Louise Nixon. The fees and costs for Ms. Nixon shall be equally divided by the Parties. [David's] separate property shall be confirmed to him." Paragraph 1.D, titled "Dave's Motion Picture IAP Plan (defined contribution) xx4739 [IAP plan]," states t


CourtListener opinion 9407392

ERISA: ses for sale, the private mediator "shall select the broker as a binding arbitrator." The private mediator was also to resolve any dispute 3 "Under provisions of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; hereafter ERISA), private retirement plans may, pursuant to a state court's domestic relations order, pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse or dependents, if and only if the state court order meets certain specifications. Such an order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' (hereafter a QDRO). (29 U.S.C.


CourtListener opinion 9411887

CourtListener opinion 9411887 Extracted case name: MR SHERYL ANN KOSITZKY APPELLANT APPEALS FROM BARREN FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE MICA WOOD PENCE. Extracted reporter citation: 110 S.W.3d 336. Docket: 2022-CA-0355-MR SHERYL ANN KOSITZKY APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9411887 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 9411887


CourtListener opinion 9411887

QDRO: intenance, noting that she had received $110,457.00 from the sale of the house and approximately $11,000.00 from the sale of personal property, and that she would be allocated a share of his retirement benefits through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). She also received $673.00 per month in social security benefits. Neil included his final verified disclosure statement in a supplemental filing stating that he was retired and earned $8,206.44 per month through retirement and social security benefits. They owned several marital vehicles, including a 2014 Ford Pickup with $18,000.00 in equity, a 2019 M


CourtListener opinion 9411887

retirement benefits: pre-trial disclosure, Neil disputed that Sheryl was entitled to maintenance, noting that she had received $110,457.00 from the sale of the house and approximately $11,000.00 from the sale of personal property, and that she would be allocated a share of his retirement benefits through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). She also received $673.00 per month in social security benefits. Neil included his final verified disclosure statement in a supplemental filing stating that he was retired and earned $8,206.44 per month through retirement and social security benefits. They owned several marital vehicles, including a


CourtListener opinion 9411887

pension: Sheryl moved the court to alter, amend, or vacate the order pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 59.05 and for amendment or additional findings pursuant to CR 52.02. Her arguments were related to the awards of stock accounts, the retirement/pension accounts, personal injury money, and -7- maintenance. She requested additional findings as to her ability to support herself, noting that the court had only stated that she could flip burgers. In addition, she stated that she had sought $4,000.00 in temporary maintenance, which was discussed at the March 31, 2021, hearing but not ruled on due to the q


CourtListener opinion 9411887

valuation/division: resumption of KRS 403.190(3) frees the court from the perils of such speculation. Again, it fell to William to provide proof sufficient to identify the specific amount of the settlement proceeds that were non-marital. William's uncertainty whether the non-marital portion represented merely "the bulk [or] the entirety" of the proceeds assures us that even William himself can do no more than speculate. Keeney, 2011 WL 336719, at *3. We cannot hold that the mixed asset analysis in Keeney has any application to the retirement benefit in this case. In Muir v. Muir, 406 S.W.3d 31 (Ky. App. 2013), this Court addressed trac


CourtListener opinion 9412697

CourtListener opinion 9412697 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9412697 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 9412697


CourtListener opinion 9412697

QDRO: g husband from "disposing and/or encumbering any assets . . . , except as necessary in the ordinary course of business and only as mutually and expressly agreed to by the [p]arties." Husband argues that 8 On the same day, the circuit court also entered a qualified domestic relations order transferring 4,355 shares of Falco common stock to wife from "the Falco eMotors Inc. 401K Plan F/B/O Rakesh Dhawan." 9 Wife argues that husband's objections were not timely and did not preserve his arguments for appeal because they were filed after the entry of the final order of divorce. We disagree, as the circuit court expressly granted the parties lea


CourtListener opinion 9412697

401(k): ffered to value Falco at "approximately Despite finding that the accounts were marital, the circuit court did not divide Falco's 7 PayPal account and Wells Fargo checking account. -7- $200,000," based on an exhibit that was prepared for "purposes of the 401(k)," and allow husband to pay wife a monetary award for her share. Wife objected and argued that she "had asked not to distribute Falco USA because the valuation was . . . not represented" by that exhibit. Wife asked the circuit court to equalize the Falco shares, which it did. Next, the circuit court considered debts that "were taken out" by husband or F


CourtListener opinion 9412697

domestic relations order: from "disposing and/or encumbering any assets . . . , except as necessary in the ordinary course of business and only as mutually and expressly agreed to by the [p]arties." Husband argues that 8 On the same day, the circuit court also entered a qualified domestic relations order transferring 4,355 shares of Falco common stock to wife from "the Falco eMotors Inc. 401K Plan F/B/O Rakesh Dhawan." 9 Wife argues that husband's objections were not timely and did not preserve his arguments for appeal because they were filed after the entry of the final order of divorce. We disagree, as the circuit court expressly granted the parties lea


CourtListener opinion 9412697

valuation/division: Falco. After wife filed her pleadings, husband removed wife as a director of Falco, claiming that she stole money from the company. Husband opposed wife's emergency 1 The parties were equal shareholders in Falco India. The circuit court did not "make any equitable distribution of this asset," which is not challenged on appeal. Therefore, all references to Falco in this opinion are to the American corporation. -2- motion and denied her claims that he was "wasting" corporate funds. On January 31, 2020, the parties appeared before the circuit court for argument on wife's emergency motion. Husband agreed "to provide a full detail


CourtListener opinion 9412769

CourtListener opinion 9412769 Extracted case name: PALADINO v. MACGURN. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0513 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9412769 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 9412769


CourtListener opinion 9412769

QDRO: 2 months starting March 1, 2004; (2) $47,568.75 as equalization of community assets; (3) $90,000 of attorneys' fees; and (4) $6,972.34 of costs. The Decree also awarded Paladino a portion of Macgurn's pension plan through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would be issued later to specifically direct the distribution of those benefits. ¶4 On April 22, 2005, the court awarded Paladino's share of pension plan benefits requiring Macgurn to distribute $286,700.29 to her (QDRO). After Macgurn did not comply, Paladino sought to enforce the QDRO. The court eventually issued a civil arrest warrant and entered


CourtListener opinion 9412769

pension: rior court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the superior court's denial of Macgurn's motions to invalidate and vacate the three judgments against him. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. The Superior Court Enters the Decree Judgment, Fee Judgment, and Pension Plan Judgment. ¶2 Before the superior court entered the decree dissolving the marriage between Macgurn and Paladino in 2004, Macgurn filed a written objection to Paladino's proposed form of judgment. Macgurn objected to the two paragraphs in the proposed Decree with text that permitted prejudgment interest, arguing that "[n]o interest should accrue . . . u


CourtListener opinion 9412769

domestic relations order: spousal maintenance over 12 months starting March 1, 2004; (2) $47,568.75 as equalization of community assets; (3) $90,000 of attorneys' fees; and (4) $6,972.34 of costs. The Decree also awarded Paladino a portion of Macgurn's pension plan through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would be issued later to specifically direct the distribution of those benefits. ¶4 On April 22, 2005, the court awarded Paladino's share of pension plan benefits requiring Macgurn to distribute $286,700.29 to her (QDRO). After Macgurn did not comply, Paladino sought to enforce the QDRO. The court eventually issued a civil arrest warrant and en


CourtListener opinion 9412804

CourtListener opinion 9412804 Extracted reporter citation: 221 A.3d 192. Docket: 1604 MDA 2022. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9412804 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 9412804

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 9412804

QDRO: oday. Wife will keep her Pennsylvania School System Employees Retirement Systems pension 100 percent. . . . The parties shall execute any and all documents necessary to effectuate the terms and conditions of this agreement including the preparation of any Qualified Domestic Relations Orders [QDRO2] or any other document necessary to transfer funds to or from the respective retirement accounts. PNA, 12/2/15, at 2-3, 5. The PNA required that three QDROs be drafted within 30 days of the December 2, 2015 date. It was not until nearly four years later, however, on June 28, 2019, that the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement (Ag


CourtListener opinion 9412804

retirement benefits: shall execute any and all documents necessary to effectuate the terms and conditions of this agreement including the preparation of any Qualified Domestic Relations Orders [QDRO2] or any other document necessary to transfer funds to or from the respective retirement accounts. PNA, 12/2/15, at 2-3, 5. The PNA required that three QDROs be drafted within 30 days of the December 2, 2015 date. It was not until nearly four years later, however, on June 28, 2019, that the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement (Agreement) for a domestic relations order regarding Husband's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement Syst


CourtListener opinion 9412804

pension: record before divorce master, Louis Shucker, Esquire, as follows: ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 The PNA was not merged with the divorce decree. J-S24018-23 [Husband's] military pension and his State Police pension will be divided 60 percent to [W]ife and 40 percent to [H]usband. [Husband's] deferred compensation plan will be divided the first [$]30,000 to [H]usband, [and] the remainder of the deferred compensation to be split 50/50 between the parties. [Husband's] Vanguard mutual fund will also be split 60 percent to [W]ife, 40 perc


CourtListener opinion 9412804

alternate payee: une 28, 2019, that the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement (Agreement) for a domestic relations order regarding Husband's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) State Police Pension. The Agreement provides, in part, that Wife (Alternate Payee) would receive 60% of the marital portion of Husband's (Member of SERS) retirement benefit, using the coverture fraction (numerator is SERS Member's years of credited service for the period from date of marriage to date of separation; denominator is total years of Member's service). Id. at ¶ 6. Both parties acknowledged that Husband's benefit was in pa


CourtListener opinion 9449263

CourtListener opinion 9449263 Extracted reporter citation: 966 N.W.2d 45. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9449263 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 9449263


CourtListener opinion 9449263

QDRO: Verzal v. Verzal 55 is misplaced. The Court of Appeals determined that it was an abuse of discretion under the spe- cific facts of that case to order a cash equalization payment in excess of liquid assets instead of making a qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) to divide the husband's retirement account. 56 The Court of Appeals did not determine that a trial court can never order an equalization payment in excess of a party's liquid assets. Additionally, Verzal is factually dis- tinguishable from the present case. The trial court in Verzal had classified the husband's retirement account as a marital asset but awa


CourtListener opinion 9449263

retirement benefits: urt of Appeals did not determine that a trial court can never order an equalization payment in excess of a party's liquid assets. Additionally, Verzal is factually dis- tinguishable from the present case. The trial court in Verzal had classified the husband's retirement account as a marital asset but awarded it in its entirety to the husband. The trial court then ordered the husband to pay a cash equalization pay- ment of over $57,000. 57 The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the equalization payment rather than dividing the retirement account through 51 Meints, supra note 44. 52 Id. 53


CourtListener opinion 9449263

pension: mony from the other, nor would they be "eligible for alimony to be awarded in the future." The decree awarded Leslie "100% of her military disability and any payment related thereto" and stated that the parties "shall split equally (50/50) [Leslie's] military pension." The decree also ordered Leslie to pay Brian "a monthly equal- ization payment" of $750 for a total of 59 months, under the section titled "EQUALIZATION PAYMENT." Starting in July 2020, Leslie paid Brian $2,063 per month, representing 50 percent of Leslie's monthly payment received from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). Brian applied to D


CourtListener opinion 9449263

valuation/division: 3 09:11 AM CDT - 857 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports KARAS V. KARAS Cite as 314 Neb. 857 Leslie Irene Karas, appellee, v. Brian Anthony Karas, appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed August 4, 2023. No. S-22-693. 1. Divorce: Property Division: Alimony. In an action for dissolution of marriage, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) allows the district court to order payment of such alimony by one party to the other and division of property as may be reasonable. 2. Property Division: Alimony: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews a district court's determinations of alimony and divis


CourtListener opinion 9554593

CourtListener opinion 9554593 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KARLA J. UNKE AND WESLEY B. UNKE Upon the Petition of KARLA J. UNKE. Extracted reporter citation: 966 N.W.2d 630. Docket: 22-1089. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9554593 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 9554593


CourtListener opinion 9554593

QDRO: y divide the marital portion of both 4 [parties'] pensions." It then decreed that Wesley's pension was to be divided under the Benson formula:1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that [Wesley]'s MFPRS account shall be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order wherein [Karla] is awarded one- half of the monthly pension payments multiplied by a fraction wherein the numerator is the total number of months participating in the plan while married divided by the total of months [Wesley] participated in the plan. This shall also include an award of any surviving spouse benefits under the plan. The court reserves j


CourtListener opinion 9554593

pension: e basis for this appeal. Karla challenges the rulings denying her request for an order nunc pro tunc and dismissing her application for rule to show cause. Because Karla has not shown either an obvious error in the marital property order dividing Wesley's pension or Wesley's willful noncompliance with the child-support provisions of the decree, we affirm. We decline to award either party their appellate attorney fees. I. Background Facts. Karla petitioned to dissolve her marriage to Wesley in August 2020. In April 2021, the parties stipulated to child custody, physical care, and visitation for their two child


CourtListener opinion 9554593

domestic relations order: he marital portion of both 4 [parties'] pensions." It then decreed that Wesley's pension was to be divided under the Benson formula:1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that [Wesley]'s MFPRS account shall be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order wherein [Karla] is awarded one- half of the monthly pension payments multiplied by a fraction wherein the numerator is the total number of months participating in the plan while married divided by the total of months [Wesley] participated in the plan. This shall also include an award of any surviving spouse benefits under the plan. The court reserves j


CourtListener opinion 9554593

survivor benefits: f of the monthly pension payments multiplied by a fraction wherein the numerator is the total number of months participating in the plan while married divided by the total of months [Wesley] participated in the plan. This shall also include an award of any surviving spouse benefits under the plan. The court reserves jurisdiction to enter any subsequent orders that are necessary to implement this portion of the Decree. [Karla] shall be responsible for the drafting of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order and any costs administered by the plan administrator for implementing the QDRO shall be divided equally by the partie


CourtListener opinion 9554626

CourtListener opinion 9554626 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Cassidy. Extracted reporter citation: 231 A.3d 928. Docket: 312 MDA 2022 Appellant :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9554626 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 9554626


CourtListener opinion 9554626

QDRO: ecord. See id. The master then memorialized the agreement within his report as follows: vi. The Plaintiff, Petra DiNenna, the former spouse is awarded [forty-five percent] of the service member's disposable retirement pay as of his retirement date. If a [QDRO] were necessary, it was to be prepared by pension analysis with the parties sharing the cost of preparation. The master researched the issue of the necessity of a QDRO and recommends that the Uniform Services Former Spouses' Protection Act does not require a QDRO. Since military retirement pay is a federal entitlement and not a qualified pension plan,


CourtListener opinion 9554626

pension: S, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: AUGUST 9, 2023 David DiNenna, Sr. ("Husband") appeals from the order denying (1) his petition for special relief requesting that the trial court determine the amount of his military pension to be distributed to Petra DiNenna n/k/a Petra Thomas ("Wife"), and (2) his exceptions filed in response to a master's report concerning the same issue. We affirm. We glean the following facts from the certified record. Husband began serving in the military in 1987. He and Wife married in 1992 and separated in 2002, and thereafter initiated divorce pr


CourtListener opinion 9554626

domestic relations order: report is a copy of the Uniform Services Former Spouses' Protection Act and a treatise titled Dividing ____________________________________________ 1 The word "quatro" appears to be an erroneous transcription of the abbreviation "QDRO," short for Qualified Domestic Relations Order. As we will discuss in the body of this memorandum, Husband points to this error as evidence of an ambiguity in the contract. -2- J-A13008-23 Military Retired Pay Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouse's Protection Act and they are marked are Exhibits "B" and "C" respectively. vii. The language to be used in this Divorce Decree is recommended


CourtListener opinion 9554626

valuation/division: e following facts from the certified record. Husband began serving in the military in 1987. He and Wife married in 1992 and separated in 2002, and thereafter initiated divorce proceedings. In 2005, the trial court appointed a master to address, inter alia, equitable distribution of marital property and alimony. The master held a hearing wherein the sole issue to be addressed was equitable distribution of Husband's military pension. ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A13008-23 Husband and Wife reached an agreement at the hearing, and thus no testimony was t


CourtListener opinion 9556229

CourtListener opinion 9556229 Extracted case name: M.E.V. v. R.D.V. Extracted reporter citation: 260 A.3d 256. Docket: 3116 EDA 2022 v. : : : STEPHANIE H. WINEGRAD : : :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9556229 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 9556229

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 9556229

QDRO: prehensive agreement covered division of all the parties' assets including a payment of $100,000 from Husband to Wife and a transfer of various sums from Husband's 401(k), cash balance plan and IRA account to Wife using Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) transfers. (See id. at 3-4). The parties affirmed that this agreement resolved all outstanding divorce and equitable distribution issues; acknowledged their relinquishment of any and all claims they could have filed under the Divorce Code and waiver of their right to file exceptions; and stated their willingness to complete and sign all documents neces


CourtListener opinion 9556229

401(k): tstanding divorce and equitable distribution issues." (N.T. Hearing, 10/26/21, at 2). The comprehensive agreement covered division of all the parties' assets including a payment of $100,000 from Husband to Wife and a transfer of various sums from Husband's 401(k), cash balance plan and IRA account to Wife using Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) transfers. (See id. at 3-4). The parties affirmed that this agreement resolved all outstanding divorce and equitable distribution issues; acknowledged their relinquishment of any and all claims they could have filed under the Divorce Code and waiver of their righ


CourtListener opinion 9556229

alternate payee: t's signing of a QDRO in March of 2023 as evidencing that the parties' divorce action remained pending when she filed for intervention, we disagree. (See Winegrad's Brief, at 7, 11). "A QDRO is a type of domestic relations order that creates or recognizes an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a [retirement] plan." Jago v. Jago, 217 A.3d 289, 293 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). However, QDROs are merely procedural devices which are adjunct to entry of divorce decrees and implement provisions of the decrees. See id


CourtListener opinion 9556229

domestic relations order: 5 Insofar as Attorney Winegrad points to the trial court's signing of a QDRO in March of 2023 as evidencing that the parties' divorce action remained pending when she filed for intervention, we disagree. (See Winegrad's Brief, at 7, 11). "A QDRO is a type of domestic relations order that creates or recognizes an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a [retirement] plan." Jago v. Jago, 217 A.3d 289, 293 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). However, QDROs are merely procedural devices which are adjunct to entry of divorce decrees a


CourtListener opinion 9637458

CourtListener opinion 9637458 Extracted reporter citation: 246 P.3d 958. Docket: 48705 JUDY KATSEANES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9637458 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 9637458


CourtListener opinion 9637458

QDRO: ey ("Judy"), and Jeff, Jeff was required to pay Judy spousal support. Following several years of insufficient payments, Judy filed a lawsuit to seek enforcement of spousal support. During the proceedings, the district court orally granted Judy's request for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning Judy 100% of Jeff's 401k plan. After the court orally issued its order in open court, but before the district court signed a written order reflecting the oral ruling, Jeff withdrew all of the funds from the 401k. The district court ordered Jeff to return the funds and provide an accounting. When the accounting was not timely provided, the


CourtListener opinion 9637458

retirement benefits: led from the bench as to the QDRO, but took the question of attorney fees under advisement. The day after the district court granted the QDRO on January 6, but before the court signed a written order on January 27, Jeff called Rudd & Company, the third-party retirement plan administrator for his 401k. Jeff told a Rudd & Company employee, Erin Dupree, that his attorney informed him things were resolved, there was no QDRO, and he could access his funds. Dupree and the company's CPA, Christian Zollinger, followed up with Oleson, on January 13, 2021, to verify that there was no QDRO. According to Dupree, Oleson told her, while usi


CourtListener opinion 9637458

401(k): owing several years of insufficient payments, Judy filed a lawsuit to seek enforcement of spousal support. During the proceedings, the district court orally granted Judy's request for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning Judy 100% of Jeff's 401k plan. After the court orally issued its order in open court, but before the district court signed a written order reflecting the oral ruling, Jeff withdrew all of the funds from the 401k. The district court ordered Jeff to return the funds and provide an accounting. When the accounting was not timely provided, the district court held Jeff in criminal contem


CourtListener opinion 9637458

domestic relations order: ), and Jeff, Jeff was required to pay Judy spousal support. Following several years of insufficient payments, Judy filed a lawsuit to seek enforcement of spousal support. During the proceedings, the district court orally granted Judy's request for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning Judy 100% of Jeff's 401k plan. After the court orally issued its order in open court, but before the district court signed a written order reflecting the oral ruling, Jeff withdrew all of the funds from the 401k. The district court ordered Jeff to return the funds and provide an accounting. When the accounting was not timely provided, the


CourtListener opinion 9693903

CourtListener opinion 9693903 Extracted case name: MR MICHAEL TODD KEENE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE DERWIN L. WEBB. Extracted reporter citation: 110 S.W.3d 336. Docket: 2021-CA-1493-MR MICHAEL TODD KEENE APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9693903 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 9693903


CourtListener opinion 9693903

QDRO: court concluded that James could have avoided these consequences by paying the judgments within the time frames provided in the judgments. Under the specific circumstances of this case, we disagree. The trial court faulted James for his failure to submit a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] QDRO by the February 25 deadline set out in the amended judgment. Although James failed to meet this deadline, it is clear from the record that James and his counsel made a good faith effort to do so. James submitted a QDRO to Kathleen's counsel, who responded that a QDRO would not be necessary. We agree with the trial court that James's submission of th


CourtListener opinion 9693903

retirement benefits: July 16 and 21, 2021,1 and on September 8, 2021, it entered an order in which it dissolved the marriage and ruled on the pending issues. The court assigned non-marital property, and it split the marital property (including the marital residence, vehicles, retirement accounts, three bonus/profit sharing payments, and personal property) and debts. It also addressed issues as to the withdrawal of funds from bank accounts, attorney fees, and the award of maintenance (the court awarded Jennifer $1,500.00 per month for three years). Michael moved the court to make additional findings pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Proced


CourtListener opinion 9693903

pension: wed $52,750.00 in equity in the marital residence. As such, he shall retain all but $21,939.00 of his TESPHE account. [Jennifer] shall be entitled to that amount as her share." In addition, Jennifer was awarded half of the marital portion of Michael's Ford pension. On this issue, Michael argues that the total value of the vehicles he was retaining ($23,500.00) should be offset from the total value of the marital residence, rather than just half of it. The court determined that Michael was owed $52,750.00 in equity in the marital residence, calculated as follows: $76,250.00 (Michael's one-half interest in the ma


CourtListener opinion 9693903

domestic relations order: luded that James could have avoided these consequences by paying the judgments within the time frames provided in the judgments. Under the specific circumstances of this case, we disagree. The trial court faulted James for his failure to submit a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] QDRO by the February 25 deadline set out in the amended judgment. Although James failed to meet this deadline, it is clear from the record that James and his counsel made a good faith effort to do so. James submitted a QDRO to Kathleen's counsel, who responded that a QDRO would not be necessary. We agree with the trial court that James's submission of th


CourtListener opinion 9838569

CourtListener opinion 9838569 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF PERLA OTERO. Docket: 1-21-1452 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9838569 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 9838569


CourtListener opinion 9838569

QDRO: , through November 12, 2021. The instant appeal was filed November 8, 2021 and was therefore timely. 9 No. 1-21-1452 ¶ 21 B. Finality ¶ 22 Luis argues that this court lacks jurisdiction, because the order being appealed is not a final order since a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is still pending in the court below, and the appeal was not filed as an interlocutory appeal. Luis also argues that the underlying order is not final, because Perla has not signed a quitclaim deed for the marital residence, as contemplated in the judgment for dissolution. However, he cites no legal precedent to support this argument, nor does


CourtListener opinion 9838569

retirement benefits: ntil terminated by order of the court, whichever shall first occur." ¶5 On February 14, 2020, at the age of 57, Luis retired from his job with the Chicago Police Department and on February 25, 2020, he filed a "Motion to Modify Maintenance and Commence Retirement Benefits." In the motion, Luis laid out his change in income due to his retirement, as well as his and Perla's imminent receipt of his retirement benefits. Luis continued paying maintenance until May 2020, when pension payments began, and thereafter he ceased payment without being granted leave of court to do so. ¶6 On July 2, 2020, Perla filed a petition fo


CourtListener opinion 9838569

pension: things, that 1) Luis would pay Perla "modifiable and terminable permanent guideline maintenance" of $1,598 per month beginning May 1, 2019; and 2) Luis and Perla would each receive 50 percent of the payment from Luis' Policeman's Annuity & Benefit Fund Pension Plan with the City of Chicago. The MSA specified: "The Wife's maintenance is permanent maintenance but which is otherwise modifiable as to amount but not duration, upon the filing of a Motion for Modification and upon a material and substantial change in circumstances. The maintenance is also terminable upon the first of the following termination ev


CourtListener opinion 9838569

domestic relations order: h November 12, 2021. The instant appeal was filed November 8, 2021 and was therefore timely. 9 No. 1-21-1452 ¶ 21 B. Finality ¶ 22 Luis argues that this court lacks jurisdiction, because the order being appealed is not a final order since a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is still pending in the court below, and the appeal was not filed as an interlocutory appeal. Luis also argues that the underlying order is not final, because Perla has not signed a quitclaim deed for the marital residence, as contemplated in the judgment for dissolution. However, he cites no legal precedent to support this argument, nor does


CourtListener opinion 9839590

CourtListener opinion 9839590 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TODD ALLEX McCREEDY AND THERESA RENE McCREEDY Upon the Petition of TODD ALLEX. Extracted reporter citation: 476 N.W.2d 324. Docket: 22-0657. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9839590 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 9839590

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 9839590

QDRO: 83,485 between his award and Theresa's. To equalize the awards, we order Todd to pay Theresa $41,742.50. Because Todd does not have this amount in liquid assets, and a cash payment may be an undue burden on him, we direct Todd to make the payment through a qualified domestic relations order from his retirement funds. See In re Marriage of Naber, No. 16-1767, 2017 WL 3283315, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2017). Todd shall prepare the order and submit it to Theresa for her approval within ninety days from the date procedendo is issued. 14 D. Attorney fees Theresa requests $3500 in appellate attorney fees. Given the mixed results of the


CourtListener opinion 9839590

retirement benefits: ted value of $143,000 in the marital estate. The court did not do the same for the Mainstay account, the full value of which it set aside to Theresa. As for Theresa's business, the court adopted Todd's valuation of $27,544 and awarded it to Theresa. Todd's retirement accounts were divided equally between the parties, while Theresa received the full balance of an IRA in her name. The court awarded most of the parties' vehicles and equipment to Todd, including the Sebring, valued at $3000, and its debt of $2534. He was also ordered to pay the loan on the Jeep, which was $2581, although Theresa was awarded that vehicle and or


CourtListener opinion 9839590

domestic relations order: ween his award and Theresa's. To equalize the awards, we order Todd to pay Theresa $41,742.50. Because Todd does not have this amount in liquid assets, and a cash payment may be an undue burden on him, we direct Todd to make the payment through a qualified domestic relations order from his retirement funds. See In re Marriage of Naber, No. 16-1767, 2017 WL 3283315, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2017). Todd shall prepare the order and submit it to Theresa for her approval within ninety days from the date procedendo is issued. 14 D. Attorney fees Theresa requests $3500 in appellate attorney fees. Given the mixed results of the


CourtListener opinion 9839590

valuation/division: 006) (finding that the adjusted gross incomes from the parties' tax returns were "of little value in calculating child support" because of deductions, omissions of cash and barter payments, and the parties' ability to support a comfortable lifestyle). B. Property Division We start our review of the district court's property division with some familiar principles. Iowa is an equitable distribution state, meaning "our courts equitably divide all of the property owned by the parties at the time of divorce except inherited property and gifts received by one spouse." In re Marriage of Keener, 728 N.W.2d 188, 193 (Iowa 2007)


CourtListener opinion 9839649

CourtListener opinion 9839649 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9839649 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 9839649

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 9839649

domestic relations order: ate laws). Although NYPL § 70.15 (1-a) creates a time-traveling legal ﬁction of sorts, such legal ﬁctions are not new to this Court. See, e.g., Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. Nicholls, 788 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir. 2015) (upholding validity of nunc pro tunc Qualiﬁed Domestic Relations Orders entered after the death of the plan participant). Nor is such time-travel new for the BIA. See, e.g., Blake v. Carbone, 489 F.3d 88, 94 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting that BIA had allowed certain lawful permanent residents to seek a speciﬁc statutory waiver nunc pro tunc for over sixty years) (citing Edwards v. I.N.S., 393 F.3d 299, 308 (2d Cir. 2004) (explain


CourtListener opinion 9840173

CourtListener opinion 9840173 Docket: of shares. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9840173 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 9840173


CourtListener opinion 9840173

QDRO: re, appeals the August 24, 2021, order of the Circuit Court of Mercer County affirming the May 4, 2021, order of the Mercer County Family Court. The family court concluded that Respondent Joy Moore is entitled to entry of a qualified domestic relation order ("QDRO") for one-half of David Moore's employer tax-exempt Thrift and Investment Plan ("TIP") as of the date of separation, plus any passive appreciation on that share. The court also concluded that laches did not bar her claim. 1 Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21


CourtListener opinion 9840173

retirement benefits: iscretion or error in the court's conclusion that the TIP was subject to that division in the divorce decree at the time Mr. Moore made his later two withdrawals. See id. at 618, 775 S.E.2d at 499 (stating that because party's proportional marital interest in retirement benefits had been established by the divorce decree, party could seek 3 enforcement of her right to the percentage posthumously); Kinsinger v. Pethel, 234 W. Va. 463, 468, 766 S.E.2d 410, 415 (2014) (reversing application of laches based on delay in preparing QDRO and finding that underlying equitable distribution obligation contained in settlement agreement was


CourtListener opinion 9840173

pension: find no error or abuse of discretion in allocating the appreciation of the TIP because the divorce decree established this same division of the asset. See Syl. Pt. 5, Cross v. Cross, 178 W. Va. 563, 363 S.E.2d 449 (1987) (discussing methods of dividing vested pension rights not yet matured in equitable distribution of marital property and stating that one method is a court order requiring that non-working spouse share in the benefits on a proportional basis when they mature). 3 Petitioner also argues that the doctrine of laches applies to this matter and should bar respondent from arguing that she did not consent to M


CourtListener opinion 9840173

alternate payee: ings plan with Northfolk [sic] Southern Corporation which is a tax[-]exempt plan. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the Plaintiff Joy Hayes Moore is declared to be and is an owner of one-half of the balance of that plan and, therefore, is an alternate payee under that plan. No distribution may be made by Northfolk [sic] Southern Corporation to David Keith Moore or to Joy Hayes Moore without the joint consent of David Keith Moore and Joy Hayes Moore prior to David Keith Moore reaching the earliest retirement age under the plan. After David Keith Moore shall reach the earliest retirement age under the plan,


CourtListener opinion 9881491

CourtListener opinion 9881491 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Heroy. Extracted reporter citation: 89 N.E.3d 296. Docket: 4-23-0119 Carla Bender not precedent except. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9881491 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 9881491


CourtListener opinion 9881491

QDRO: February 2018, Douglas filed a counterpetition for dissolution. ¶6 In October 2019, the trial court granted the petitions. It ordered Douglas's pension and 401(k) retirement account to be divided equally as of the date of the dissolution. The parties filed qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) to achieve those divisions. The court further ordered Douglas to pay Deborah $3000 a month in "lifetime maintenance" based on Douglas's salary of approximately $130,000. It "acknowledged that [Douglas was] paying [approximately] $510 more than the statutory requirement or as the amount that would be set had the parties used the Illinois family


CourtListener opinion 9881491

retirement benefits: 54 years old and employed by County Financial. The parties' four children were all adults. In February 2018, Douglas filed a counterpetition for dissolution. ¶6 In October 2019, the trial court granted the petitions. It ordered Douglas's pension and 401(k) retirement account to be divided equally as of the date of the dissolution. The parties filed qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) to achieve those divisions. The court further ordered Douglas to pay Deborah $3000 a month in "lifetime maintenance" based on Douglas's salary of approximately $130,000. It "acknowledged that [Douglas was] paying [approximately] $510 mo


CourtListener opinion 9881491

pension: HOUSE, ) Honorable Respondent-Appellee. ) Holly J. Henze, ) Judge Presiding. PRESIDING JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Doherty and Knecht concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: Where respondent's retirement triggered pension distributions to petitioner, petitioner (1) has not shown the trial court abused its discretion when it terminated respondent's maintenance obligation upon his early retirement and (2) has not shown that the factual findings on which the court relied were against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶2 In October 2019, the trial court entered a judgme


CourtListener opinion 9881491

401(k): s then 54 years old and employed by County Financial. The parties' four children were all adults. In February 2018, Douglas filed a counterpetition for dissolution. ¶6 In October 2019, the trial court granted the petitions. It ordered Douglas's pension and 401(k) retirement account to be divided equally as of the date of the dissolution. The parties filed qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) to achieve those divisions. The court further ordered Douglas to pay Deborah $3000 a month in "lifetime maintenance" based on Douglas's salary of approximately $130,000. It "acknowledged that [Douglas was] paying [appr


CourtListener opinion 9881645

CourtListener opinion 9881645 Extracted case name: WALKER v. WALKER. Docket: 1 CA-CV 23-0036 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9881645 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 9881645

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 9881645

QDRO: opinion, in which Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined. M c M U R D I E, Judge: ¶1 Stephanie Walker ("Wife") appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to Fred Walker ("Husband"). The decree directs the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and states that "no further matters remain pending." Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. ("Rule") 78(c). But the decree did not divide potential survivor benefits of a retirement account. Because the decree did not divide the potential survivor benefits, it did not resolve all issues and thus was not appropriately certified as appealable under Rule 78(c). As a re


CourtListener opinion 9881645

retirement benefits: ed Walker ("Husband"). The decree directs the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and states that "no further matters remain pending." Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. ("Rule") 78(c). But the decree did not divide potential survivor benefits of a retirement account. Because the decree did not divide the potential survivor benefits, it did not resolve all issues and thus was not appropriately certified as appealable under Rule 78(c). As a result, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction. At our discretion, however, we treat Wife's appeal as a special action and address Wife's claims. ¶2 On the merits, we grant relief t


CourtListener opinion 9881645

401(k): ted value increase as too high and awarded Husband $35,000 for his share of the community's equitable lien. The court also found that the checks written to Wife's family totaling $47,500 constituted marital waste and awarded Husband $23,750. ¶8 As for Wife's 401(k), the parties asked for it to be divided equitably. In the decree, the court awarded each party 50% of the community portion of Wife's 401(k), to be divided via a QDRO. The decree provided that "[t]o the extent there may be survivor benefits associated with any of the retirement accounts, the QDRO drafter shall be appointed as a Rule 72 Special Master to mak


CourtListener opinion 9881645

domestic relations order: in which Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined. M c M U R D I E, Judge: ¶1 Stephanie Walker ("Wife") appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to Fred Walker ("Husband"). The decree directs the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and states that "no further matters remain pending." Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. ("Rule") 78(c). But the decree did not divide potential survivor benefits of a retirement account. Because the decree did not divide the potential survivor benefits, it did not resolve all issues and thus was not appropriately certified as appealable under Rule 78(c). As a re


CourtListener opinion 9882431

CourtListener opinion 9882431 Extracted case name: M.A.M. v. A.P.H. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 29763 Appellee : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9882431 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 9882431

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 9882431

domestic relations order: ays, not her failure to prosecute. Mother asserted that there were no provisions in the ex parte protection order granting custody or suspending parenting time, denied forum shopping, and argued that McCue was distinguishable. She also pointed out that the domestic relations order was an ex parte order, not a final order, and argued that the children were entitled to a full hearing on whether they were in danger of domestic violence by Father, which was within the jurisdiction of the domestic relations court. {¶ 8} On August 5, 2022, the domestic relations court denied the motion to dismiss. The court noted that, since the fili


CourtListener opinion 9882876

CourtListener opinion 9882876 Extracted reporter citation: 450 N.E.2d 1140. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9882876 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 9882876


CourtListener opinion 9882876

QDRO: jection to the trial court's award of the spousal support overpayment to Ms. Dilley (due to his own actions throughout the term of his spousal support obligation), nor did he appeal the trial court's judgment. In addition, Mr. Dilley cannot attack previous QDRO orders since they are issues which have been previously raised and decided. See e.g., Dilley, 2017-Ohio-8439, at ¶ 20 (attempting to raise spousal support issues previously decided); Dilley, 2015-Ohio- 1872, at ¶ 12 (raising issues already decided that were either not appealed or affirmed on appeal); Dilley, 2017-Ohio-4046, at ¶ 11 (finding Mr. Dilley's


CourtListener opinion 9882876

retirement benefits: Dilley filed for divorce, and the trial court entered a final decree of divorce on March 10, 2010. At the time of divorce, Mr. Dilley was 65 years of 2 Case No. 2023-G-0008 age. Pursuant to the divorce decree, each party was awarded 50% of Mr. Dilley's retirement benefits (the parties' only significant assets), which included: (1) a Shearson Pension already in pay status (defined benefit plan); a Citigroup 401(k) (defined contribution plan); (3) a stock option plan; and (4) a Citi Cash Balance Plan already in pay status (defined contribution plan). Mr. Dilley was also ordered to pay Ms. Dilley $2,000 in monthly spousal


CourtListener opinion 9882876

pension: of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas that found, pursuant to its November 18, 2022 judgment entry, he fulfilled his spousal support obligations and ordered the termination of the withholding/garnishment orders of his Social Security benefits and his pension and cash plans. The court issued amended Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") to Mr. Dilley's pension and cash plans upon the request from the plans' administrator for additional language to terminate the spousal support. {¶2} Mr. Dilley raises two assignments of error on appeal, contending the trial court committed prejudicial error (1) by app


CourtListener opinion 9882876

401(k): ase No. 2023-G-0008 age. Pursuant to the divorce decree, each party was awarded 50% of Mr. Dilley's retirement benefits (the parties' only significant assets), which included: (1) a Shearson Pension already in pay status (defined benefit plan); a Citigroup 401(k) (defined contribution plan); (3) a stock option plan; and (4) a Citi Cash Balance Plan already in pay status (defined contribution plan). Mr. Dilley was also ordered to pay Ms. Dilley $2,000 in monthly spousal support through the Geauga County Child Support Enforcement Agency ("CSEA"), for a period of eight years and eight months. {¶7} In July 2012, f


CourtListener opinion 9889252

CourtListener opinion 9889252 Extracted case name: F.D.I.C. v. F & A. Extracted reporter citation: 660 S.W.3d 98. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9889252 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 9889252


CourtListener opinion 9889252

QDRO: "as reflected on Exhibit A," except for the portion "awarded to [Diane] in this decree." Exhibit A is the same spreadsheet that was attached to the MSA. The decree also awards Diane an equalization judgment of $153,541.75. 2 The trial court later signed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in which it ordered the division of Bobby's UPS 401(k) account. The language in the QDRO is not consistent with the language in the decree. Where the decree awards Diane 50% of the account's "community interest" that accrued during the marriage, the QDRO awards her 50% of Bobby's "total vested account balance [that] accrued" during that same period.


CourtListener opinion 9889252

retirement benefits: is a species of post-divorce enforcement order. Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). It creates or recognizes an alternative right for the payee to receive benefits that are payable to a participant under a retirement plan. In re Marriage of Denning and Stokes, 651 S.W.3d 60, 63 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.). As with any post- divorce enforcement or clarification order, a QDRO may not amend, alter, or change the division of property that is made or approved in the decree of divorce. Id. (citing Quijano v. Quijano, 347 S.W.3d 345, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th


CourtListener opinion 9889252

401(k): award of attorney's fees. We affirm the trial court's clarification order, and we reverse and remand its attorney's fees determination for further consideration. I. Factual Background Prior to the parties' marriage on September 30, 2011, Bobby maintained a 401(k) account with his employer, United Parcel Service, which had a balance of $244,277.92. During their marriage, the parties largely stopped contributing to the 401(k) account—they contributed a total of only $33,000. Before their divorce was granted, the parties mediated their marital disputes, and they executed a mediated settlement agreement (MSA). The MSA


CourtListener opinion 9889252

domestic relations order: cted on Exhibit A," except for the portion "awarded to [Diane] in this decree." Exhibit A is the same spreadsheet that was attached to the MSA. The decree also awards Diane an equalization judgment of $153,541.75. 2 The trial court later signed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in which it ordered the division of Bobby's UPS 401(k) account. The language in the QDRO is not consistent with the language in the decree. Where the decree awards Diane 50% of the account's "community interest" that accrued during the marriage, the QDRO awards her 50% of Bobby's "total vested account balance [that] accrued" during that same period.


CourtListener opinion 9890515

CourtListener opinion 9890515 Extracted case name: MR MICHAEL VINCENT LUSARDI APPELLANT APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JENNIFER R. DUSING. Extracted reporter citation: 617 S.W.2d 871. Docket: 2022-CA-1305-MR MICHAEL VINCENT LUSARDI APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9890515 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 9890515


CourtListener opinion 9890515

QDRO: and Conclusions of Law and Order ("2021 Distribution") to address numerous pending motions; only a few matters discussed in those motions are relevant here. First, the parties could not agree on the verbiage and dates for use in a retirement -4- account Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). The family court addressed the QDRO in part and reserved in part, ordering the parties to attempt to resolve the remaining QDRO issues through counsel or mediation, if necessary. Second, the family court noted an error made in the 2020 Distribution. The family court admitted that it "neglected, by mistake, to address a credit to [Michael] for


CourtListener opinion 9890515

domestic relations order: usions of Law and Order ("2021 Distribution") to address numerous pending motions; only a few matters discussed in those motions are relevant here. First, the parties could not agree on the verbiage and dates for use in a retirement -4- account Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). The family court addressed the QDRO in part and reserved in part, ordering the parties to attempt to resolve the remaining QDRO issues through counsel or mediation, if necessary. Second, the family court noted an error made in the 2020 Distribution. The family court admitted that it "neglected, by mistake, to address a credit to [Michael] for


CourtListener opinion 9890515

valuation/division: ber 1, 2022, Michael again filed a notice of appeal to this Court. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Michael appeals both the 2020 Distribution and the 2021 Distribution, challenging a finding of fact – the value of marital residence – and conclusions of law – the equitable distribution of marital residence sale proceeds. The 2021 -7- Distribution addressed open matters in the dissolution litigation, but also acted as a denial of Michael's CR 60.021 motion. Findings of fact are reviewed pursuant to CR 52.01 which provides that "[f]indings of fact, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous[.]" A finding of fact is not clearly


CourtListener opinion 9892079

CourtListener opinion 9892079 Extracted case name: MR MICHAEL DWAYNE GREGORY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM WHITLEY CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE PAUL K. WINCHESTER. Extracted reporter citation: 295 S.W.3d 850. Docket: 2022-CA-1522-MR MICHAEL DWAYNE GREGORY APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9892079 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 9892079

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 9892079

QDRO: pellee Brenda Logan ("Brenda") were married in 1988, and on October 26, 2000, the Whitley Circuit Court entered the Decree of Dissolution ending their marriage. The Decree of Dissolution, in pertinent part, read [Michael and Brenda] further agreed that a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relation Order] would be entered awarding Brenda one-half (1/2) of the value of all of Michael's pensions, retirement plans or thrift plans with FCI [Federal Correctional Institution] valued as of the date of entry of the Decree of Dissolution herein. In 2001, pursuant to the Decree of Dissolution, Brenda tendered two Court Order


CourtListener opinion 9892079

retirement benefits: tion ending their marriage. The Decree of Dissolution, in pertinent part, read [Michael and Brenda] further agreed that a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relation Order] would be entered awarding Brenda one-half (1/2) of the value of all of Michael's pensions, retirement plans or thrift plans with FCI [Federal Correctional Institution] valued as of the date of entry of the Decree of Dissolution herein. In 2001, pursuant to the Decree of Dissolution, Brenda tendered two Court Orders Acceptable for Processing ("COAP")1 that were subsequently entered by the court on November 13, 2001: the "2001 Pension COAP" and the "2001 TS


CourtListener opinion 9892079

pension: HIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND COMBS, JUDGES. CETRULO, JUDGE: Appellant Michael Dwayne Gregory ("Michael") appeals the Whitley Circuit Court orders denying his motions to amend post-dissolution orders modifying the portion of a divorce decree that distributed his pension. Finding no error or abuse, we affirm. I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND Michael and Appellee Brenda Logan ("Brenda") were married in 1988, and on October 26, 2000, the Whitley Circuit Court entered the Decree of Dissolution ending their marriage. The Decree of Dissolution, in pertinent part, read [Michael and Brenda] further agreed that a QDRO [Qualified D


CourtListener opinion 9892079

survivor benefits: ly entered by the court on November 13, 2001: the "2001 Pension COAP" and the "2001 TSP COAP." The TSP is not in dispute; Michael's Federal Employees Retirement System ("FERS") pension2 is the source of this appeal. The 2001 Pension COAP awarded Brenda a surviving spouse annuity and stated, "This Order assigns to [Brenda] Fifty Percent (50%) of [Michael's] 1 Although the Decree of Dissolution refers to a QDRO, the orders in question are actually titled COAPs, but here, for our purposes, the title discrepancy is a difference without a distinction. 2 A pension is a defined-benefit plan "in which an employer commits to pay


CourtListener opinion 9892101

CourtListener opinion 9892101 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Frisz. Docket: 1-23-0505 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9892101 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 9892101


CourtListener opinion 9892101

QDRO: I. ¶3 In this current appeal, as he did in Frisz I, Keith contends that, when the circuit court determined that his thrift savings plan administrator did not overpay Marilyn, it erroneously interpreted the parties' marital settlement agreement and its own qualified domestic relations order contrary to the plain language of both and the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 2020)). However, we again lack jurisdiction to entertain the merits of this appeal and for the reasons that follow, we dismiss it. ¶4 I. BACKGROUND ¶5 We will repeat from our prior order in Frisz I the facts necessary for


CourtListener opinion 9892101

retirement benefits: age of Frisz, 2023 IL App (1st) 220530-U. ¶6 In April 2020, the circuit court entered a judgment for a dissolution of marriage that incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement, which set forth how to divide Keith's thrift savings plan account, a retirement plan for federal employees. Thereafter, in July 2020, the circuit court entered an agreed qualified domestic relations order to implement the parties' agreement on the thrift savings plan account. On January 26, 2021, according to a correspondence from Keith's plan administrator, $192,873.65 was transferred from Keith's thrift savings plan to Marilyn. -2-


CourtListener opinion 9892101

domestic relations order: this current appeal, as he did in Frisz I, Keith contends that, when the circuit court determined that his thrift savings plan administrator did not overpay Marilyn, it erroneously interpreted the parties' marital settlement agreement and its own qualified domestic relations order contrary to the plain language of both and the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 2020)). However, we again lack jurisdiction to entertain the merits of this appeal and for the reasons that follow, we dismiss it. ¶4 I. BACKGROUND ¶5 We will repeat from our prior order in Frisz I the facts necessary for


CourtListener opinion 9894541

CourtListener opinion 9894541 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9894541 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 9894541


CourtListener opinion 9894541

QDRO: t of this appeal, and it stated as follows: [Mr. Moore] is currently drawing an annuity from FERS. Any portion of [Mr. Moore's] FERS that is for a disability of [Mr. Moore] is the separate property of [Mr. Moore]. [Ms. Moore] shall be entitled to submit a QDRO or a COAP to the Office of Personnel Management to divide any portion of [Mr. Moore's] FERS that is not related to a disability of [Mr. Moore], but rather is a retirement plan. [Mr. Moore] shall be required to advise [Ms. Moore] if and when his FERS becomes a retirement plan. The family court incorporated the parties' Agreement into a decree of separa


CourtListener opinion 9894541

retirement benefits: 97 through October 2004, for a total of seven years and two months. Due to a work-related back injury, Mr. Moore's employment ended, and he was awarded monthly disability benefits, payable by the Office of Personnel Management. His disability benefits are not retirement benefits; however, when he reaches retirement age, the disability benefits could convert to retirement benefits. During his employment with the U.S. Postal Service, Mr. Moore paid to have his time from the military credited toward his time with the U. S. Postal Service to increase his pay and benefits. After paying for his credit, Mr. Moore's total years of service


CourtListener opinion 9894541

pension: OPM"), not FUSFSPA. Additionally, in the present 2 In Smith, 190 W. Va. at 402, 438 S.E.2d at 582, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that the ex-spouse was entitled to be designated as the survivorship beneficiary for her spouse's military pension, which was administered through the Federal Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act ("FUSFSPA"), 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (1983). 3 case, Mr. Moore is currently ineligible for a survivorship annuity because he has not completed ten years of creditable civil service, as required by the OPM.3 Ms. Moore is requesting a benefit that is yet to exist and may ne


CourtListener opinion 9894541

survivor benefits: in the draft COAP as being inconsistent with the parties' Agreement and paid to have his own draft COAP prepared. Specifically, Mr. Moore objected to section five, paragraph one, which stated, "The Former Spouse is also found to be entitled to a former spouse survivor annuity should the Employee predecease the Former Spouse." He further objected to wording contained in section six, paragraph three which made reference to a survivorship annuity. Mr. Moore also objected to section seven of Ms. Moore's draft COAP which stated, "The Former Spouse shall begin receiving her share of the Employee Annuity benefits as soon as administra