CourtListener opinion 2679924

domestic relations order: e, e.g., 5 M.R.S. § 17105 (2013) (setting forth the duties of the executive director); McPhee, 2009 ME 100, ¶¶ 20-21, 980 A.2d 1257 (noting the limits of the executive director's authority in deciding matters pursuant to the statute relating to a qualified domestic relations order and the resulting limitation on the Board's review of that decision).14 13 Contrary to MPERS's implied contention, the fact that the three employees at issue in this appeal ultimately enrolled in MPERS in 2010, becoming "members" then, does not confer authority on the Board to decide the enrollment matters at issue here when that authority did not exist


CourtListener opinion 2680364

CourtListener opinion 2680364 Extracted reporter citation: 757 N.W.2d 50. Docket: 20130353. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2680364 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 2680364

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 2680364

QDRO: t is over $800,000? I don't want to be difficult, Mark, but I would just like to know how you figure that that is a fair trade. If we are going to try to get this settled, that retirement account has to be figured into the equation. Are you thinking of a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] which gives her one-half of his retirement? David Meier's attorney, who is now deceased, answered in a November 8, 2004 letter: It seems that the biggest misunderstanding is your assumption that David's retirement is over $800,000.00. I'm enclosing a copy of the statement that I sent you earlier. The figure of $


CourtListener opinion 2680364

retirement benefits: hael P. Hurly, P.O. Box 838, Devils Lake, N.D. 58301-0838, for defendant and appellant. Meier v. Meier No. 20130353 McEvers, Justice. [¶1] David Meier appeals from an amended divorce judgment awarding Gayla Meier a share of his Tier II railroad retirement benefits. We conclude the district court abused its discretion in granting Gayla Meier's N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the divorce judgment because, as a matter of law, the motion was not made within a reasonable time. We reverse the amended judgment. I [¶2] David and Gayla Meier divorced in January 2005 after 27 years of marriage. The part


CourtListener opinion 2680364

pension: ng for the railroad. The compensation under this retirement program has no cash value at this point. David cannot neither change, modify, or withdraw from this account until he reaches retirement age. When he retires, Gayla will receive one-half of the pension and therefore they will both get equal amounts. This again has no factor in the divorce. Please check the Railroad Retirement Board for the accuracy of my statements if you doubt them. I do remember that your uncle was a life long railroad employee and if he still lives, I know he can verify this statement. [¶3] Gayla Meier did not contact the Railroa


CourtListener opinion 2680364

domestic relations order: 00? I don't want to be difficult, Mark, but I would just like to know how you figure that that is a fair trade. If we are going to try to get this settled, that retirement account has to be figured into the equation. Are you thinking of a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] which gives her one-half of his retirement? David Meier's attorney, who is now deceased, answered in a November 8, 2004 letter: It seems that the biggest misunderstanding is your assumption that David's retirement is over $800,000.00. I'm enclosing a copy of the statement that I sent you earlier. The figure of $861,493.18 that you refer to is the


CourtListener opinion 2681071

CourtListener opinion 2681071 Extracted case name: ET AL. v. SOVEREIGN GRACE MINISTRIES. Extracted reporter citation: 446 U.S. 1. Docket: shall be treated as filed on the same day as. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2681071 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 2681071

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 2681071

QDRO: Jenkins, this Court dismissed an appeal as premature when the notice of appeal was filed after an oral ruling that ended with the following statement: "[c]ounsel shall prepare an appropriate declaratory judgment and, if necessary, an order in the nature of a QDRO." 112 Md. App. at 397. We explained that Rule 8-602(d) in its then present form did not apply when the oral ruling was not intended to be final at the time it was made. The Rule then stated: A notice of appeal from a ruling, decision, or order that would be appealable upon its entry on the docket, filed after the announcement of the ruling, decision, or


CourtListener opinion 2681113

CourtListener opinion 2681113 Extracted case name: ET AL. v. DOMINION COVE POINT LNG. Extracted reporter citation: 193 F.3d 818. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2681113 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 2681113


CourtListener opinion 2681113

QDRO: ssification of the DROP payments as pension before the Retirement System, the circuit court and, upon the grant of a bypass certiorari, the Court of Appeals. Id. at 645-47. Before the Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs argued that under the language of the qualified domestic relations orders, the DROP payments did not qualify as pension payments and therefore, the former wives were not entitled to any portion. Id. at 650. In support, they contended that the DROP program was not offered until years after their divorces, therefore the parties could not have intended for the payments to be considered as pensions. Id. at 651. The Court applied


CourtListener opinion 2681113

retirement benefits: , we shall discuss whether the 2005 Agreement was ambiguous. In Dennis v. Fire & Police Employees' Retirement System, 390 Md. 639, 642 (2006), the plaintiffs were two former police officers challenging the circuit court's finding that benefits from their retirement plan qualified as pension payments, thus entitling their former -9- spouses to a portion thereof. The plaintiffs became police officers in the 1960's and divorced their spouses in 1990 and 1993, respectively. Id. at 643-44. Each plaintiff's divorce decree required that the former wives were to receive 50% of any pension payments made to the plaintiffs. Id.


CourtListener opinion 2681113

pension: e 2005 Agreement was ambiguous. In Dennis v. Fire & Police Employees' Retirement System, 390 Md. 639, 642 (2006), the plaintiffs were two former police officers challenging the circuit court's finding that benefits from their retirement plan qualified as pension payments, thus entitling their former -9- spouses to a portion thereof. The plaintiffs became police officers in the 1960's and divorced their spouses in 1990 and 1993, respectively. Id. at 643-44. Each plaintiff's divorce decree required that the former wives were to receive 50% of any pension payments made to the plaintiffs. Id. In 1996, the plainti


CourtListener opinion 2681113

domestic relations order: n of the DROP payments as pension before the Retirement System, the circuit court and, upon the grant of a bypass certiorari, the Court of Appeals. Id. at 645-47. Before the Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs argued that under the language of the qualified domestic relations orders, the DROP payments did not qualify as pension payments and therefore, the former wives were not entitled to any portion. Id. at 650. In support, they contended that the DROP program was not offered until years after their divorces, therefore the parties could not have intended for the payments to be considered as pensions. Id. at 651. The Court applied


CourtListener opinion 2681162

CourtListener opinion 2681162 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Link. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2-13-1306 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2681162 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 2681162

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 2681162

domestic relations order: time, as equivalent to setting the amount of maintenance at zero until further order of court. Such an award is immediately enforceable and appealable. Id. ¶ 20 This court has long held that a trial court's "reservation" of jurisdiction over an issue in a domestic relations order does not necessarily indicate that the order is nonfinal. See In re Marriage of Wojcik, 362 Ill. App. 3d 144, 167-68 (2005) (discussing the "reserved-jurisdiction" approach to maintenance awards); In re Marriage of Marriott, 264 Ill. App. 3d 23, 41 (1994); In re Marriage of Bingham, 181 Ill. App. 3d 966, 971 (1989). Rather, trial courts often refer to "


CourtListener opinion 2681162

valuation/division: appropriate education, training, and employment; the standard of living established during the marriage; the duration of the marriage; the age and physical and emotional condition of each party; the tax - 22 - 2014 IL App (2d) 131306 consequences of the property division; any contribution and services by the recipient spouse to the other spouse; any valid agreement of the parties; and any other factor that the trial court expressly finds to be just and equitable. 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2012). A court is not limited to the enumerated factors in reaching an equitable determination, and no one factor is dispositive. In re


CourtListener opinion 2684566

CourtListener opinion 2684566 Extracted case name: NORA LYNNE VALENTINE v. JOEL ROBERT VALENTINE. Extracted reporter citation: 70 A.3d 13. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2684566 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 2684566

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 2684566

QDRO: ted that the defendant shall be responsible for 62 percent and the plaintiff for 38 percent of any such costs, pursuant to the child support guidelines. Moreover, the court ordered the parties to divide equally, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), any retirement accounts, 401 (K) plans, and pensions owned by the defendant, and to share equally the costs of the QDRO preparation. It also ordered the parties to share equally in any expenses associated with their minor children's extracurricular activities. Finally, the court ordered that the parties be solely responsible for any payments associated wi


CourtListener opinion 2684566

retirement benefits: e defendant shall be responsible for 62 percent and the plaintiff for 38 percent of any such costs, pursuant to the child support guidelines. Moreover, the court ordered the parties to divide equally, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), any retirement accounts, 401 (K) plans, and pensions owned by the defendant, and to share equally the costs of the QDRO preparation. It also ordered the parties to share equally in any expenses associated with their minor children's extracurricular activities. Finally, the court ordered that the parties be solely responsible for any payments associated with their respective motor


CourtListener opinion 2684566

401(k): responsible for 62 percent and the plaintiff for 38 percent of any such costs, pursuant to the child support guidelines. Moreover, the court ordered the parties to divide equally, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), any retirement accounts, 401 (K) plans, and pensions owned by the defendant, and to share equally the costs of the QDRO preparation. It also ordered the parties to share equally in any expenses associated with their minor children's extracurricular activities. Finally, the court ordered that the parties be solely responsible for any payments associated with their respective motor vehicles,


CourtListener opinion 2684566

valuation/division: on the motion and its substance; and (2) improperly issued excessive financial orders.1 We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court. The trial court entered financial orders for child sup- port, alimony, and property division incident to its judg- ment dissolving the parties' marriage. The plaintiff later filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of those orders. The next day, the court granted in part the plaintiff's motion and entered additional financial orders without holding a hearing. The defendant subse- quently initiated this appeal challenging both the propri


CourtListener opinion 2684687

CourtListener opinion 2684687 Extracted case name: ANDREA MEKRUT v. MICHAEL SUITS. Extracted reporter citation: 935 A.2d 1021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2684687 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 2684687


CourtListener opinion 2684687

QDRO: ge. The defendant was ordered to pay weekly alimony in the amount of $550 until August 13, 2012, and thereafter $450 until August 13, 2019. Both parties were ordered to contribute to the cost of their daughter's college expenses and to the cost of preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) regarding the division of retirement funds. On September 6, 2011, the defendant's employment was terminated, whereupon he received a severance payment in the net amount of $106,528.32. Initially, he continued to pay his alimony obligation, but on Febru- ary 24, 2012, he ceased payments. At the same time, he spent more than $30,000 of his severance p


CourtListener opinion 2684687

domestic relations order: fendant was ordered to pay weekly alimony in the amount of $550 until August 13, 2012, and thereafter $450 until August 13, 2019. Both parties were ordered to contribute to the cost of their daughter's college expenses and to the cost of preparing a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) regarding the division of retirement funds. On September 6, 2011, the defendant's employment was terminated, whereupon he received a severance payment in the net amount of $106,528.32. Initially, he continued to pay his alimony obligation, but on Febru- ary 24, 2012, he ceased payments. At the same time, he spent more than $30,000 of his severance p


CourtListener opinion 2684763

CourtListener opinion 2684763 Extracted case name: J.M. v. HOBBS. Extracted reporter citation: 797 N.W.2d 227. Docket: S-13-616. 1. Constitutional Law: Statutes:. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2684763 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 2684763


CourtListener opinion 2684763

QDRO: pecial legis- lation and dismissed J.M.'s motion. 3. Scope of L.B. 916 The amendment to § 81-2032 is representative of the way that L.B. 916 amended anti-attachment statutes for all affected public employees' retirement plans. Subject to assignment under a qualified domestic relations order, an absolute exemp- tion from attachment of retirement assets still exists for most State Patrol officers under § 81-2032(1). But L.B. 916 created six exceptions by adding subsection (2) to the statute: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all annuities or benefits . . . shall not be subject to [any] process of law whatsoever and sha


CourtListener opinion 2684763

retirement benefits: 281 Neb. 539, 797 N.W.2d 227 (2011). 2 See, 2012 Neb. Laws, L.B. 916; § 81-2032 (Cum. Supp. 2012). Nebraska Advance Sheets 548 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS officers whose retirement assets are not subject to attachment because (1) the act does not apply to their retirement plans or (2) they pleaded no contest or were convicted of a serious crime that is not included in the act. We conclude that under the act's stated purpose of providing compensation to the vic- tims of serious crimes, no substantial difference exists between the favored groups of victims and employees and those victims and employees who do not receive the act's b


CourtListener opinion 2684763

pension: and a court awarded J.M. a civil judgment of $325,000. 1. J.M.'s First Appeal to This Court In J.M.'s first attempt to obtain an order in aid of execution, he alleged that Hobbs was a judgment debtor and, although incarcerated, was receiving a retirement pension from the State Patrol. Hobbs objected that under § 81-2032, his retirement assets were exempt from legal process. At that time, § 81-2032 provided that "[a]ll annuities or benefits which any person shall be entitled to receive under [the Nebraska State Patrol Retirement Act] shall not be subject to garnishment, attach- ment, levy, the operation of bankruptc


CourtListener opinion 2684763

domestic relations order: is- lation and dismissed J.M.'s motion. 3. Scope of L.B. 916 The amendment to § 81-2032 is representative of the way that L.B. 916 amended anti-attachment statutes for all affected public employees' retirement plans. Subject to assignment under a qualified domestic relations order, an absolute exemp- tion from attachment of retirement assets still exists for most State Patrol officers under § 81-2032(1). But L.B. 916 created six exceptions by adding subsection (2) to the statute: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all annuities or benefits . . . shall not be subject to [any] process of law whatsoever and sha


CourtListener opinion 2684890

CourtListener opinion 2684890 Extracted case name: JEAN MARIE BAILEY v. BILLIE CARSON BAILEY. Extracted reporter citation: 898 S.W.2d 177. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2684890 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 2684890


CourtListener opinion 2684890

QDRO: and child support.1 In his petition, he asserted that upon his retirement in June 2010, his income substantially decreased from $82,000-$95,000 down to $43,920 annually. He stated that he was paying out one half of his pension benefit ($1707.72) pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") entered on August 2, 2004. 1 The parties' daughter Tammy, 39 years old at the time of the petition, is disabled. Husband further asserted in his petition that Wife receives each month $1,000 from an annuity payout settlement from 2003 and approximately $2,250 from her job (she was unemployed at the time of the divorce). He contended that she no


CourtListener opinion 2684890

pension: e to terminate or modify spousal support and child support.1 In his petition, he asserted that upon his retirement in June 2010, his income substantially decreased from $82,000-$95,000 down to $43,920 annually. He stated that he was paying out one half of his pension benefit ($1707.72) pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") entered on August 2, 2004. 1 The parties' daughter Tammy, 39 years old at the time of the petition, is disabled. Husband further asserted in his petition that Wife receives each month $1,000 from an annuity payout settlement from 2003 and approximately $2,250 from her job (she


CourtListener opinion 2684890

domestic relations order: support.1 In his petition, he asserted that upon his retirement in June 2010, his income substantially decreased from $82,000-$95,000 down to $43,920 annually. He stated that he was paying out one half of his pension benefit ($1707.72) pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") entered on August 2, 2004. 1 The parties' daughter Tammy, 39 years old at the time of the petition, is disabled. Husband further asserted in his petition that Wife receives each month $1,000 from an annuity payout settlement from 2003 and approximately $2,250 from her job (she was unemployed at the time of the divorce). He contended that she no


CourtListener opinion 2687360

CourtListener opinion 2687360 Extracted case name: FRIDAY v. FRIDAY. HINES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2687360 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 2687360

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 2687360

QDRO: pecifically found that Husband was able to pay more than $179 per month, found him in wilful contempt for failure to pay child support, and ordered Husband to pay Wife $8,000 instanter in order to purge himself of the contempt and to submit to the court a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding Husband's retirement plan assets within 30 days of the entry of the order. 1. Husband contends that it was error for the trial court to impute income of $4,180 per month to him in addition to the $1,320 in monthly unemployment benefits he received. However, the trial court is empowered to impute income for willful or voluntary unemployment o


CourtListener opinion 2687360

retirement benefits: 07 (2) (485 SE2d 187) (1997), and there is no error in this regard. Burke, supra.3 4. Finally, in the final order addressing the contempt petition, the trial court directed Husband to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")4 in regard to his retirement accounts; Husband contends that this was 3 Although there is no abuse of discretion in the trial court's order as to Husband's responsibility to purge himself of contempt, we note that the order fails to account for payment of the remaining $4,915 of Husband's prior unpaid obligation. 4 A QDRO is a "domestic relations order . . . which creates or recognizes t


CourtListener opinion 2687360

alternate payee: 's responsibility to purge himself of contempt, we note that the order fails to account for payment of the remaining $4,915 of Husband's prior unpaid obligation. 4 A QDRO is a "domestic relations order . . . which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or 10 an impermissible modification of the original divorce decree. "‘While the trial court has broad discretion to determine whether the decree has been violated and has authority to interpret and clarify the decree, it does not have the power in a contempt proceeding to modify the


CourtListener opinion 2687360

domestic relations order: y found that Husband was able to pay more than $179 per month, found him in wilful contempt for failure to pay child support, and ordered Husband to pay Wife $8,000 instanter in order to purge himself of the contempt and to submit to the court a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding Husband's retirement plan assets within 30 days of the entry of the order. 1. Husband contends that it was error for the trial court to impute income of $4,180 per month to him in addition to the $1,320 in monthly unemployment benefits he received. However, the trial court is empowered to impute income for willful or voluntary unemployment o


CourtListener opinion 2687610

CourtListener opinion 2687610 Extracted reporter citation: 549 N.W.2d 810. Docket: 13–0778. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2687610 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 2687610

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 2687610

QDRO: he Garrs' damages. The question posed to Dr. Melvin by the City's counsel, a counterfactual, goes to the core of the but-for causation test. See Faber, 731 N.W.2d at 11 (concluding that although an attorney negligently drafted an illegal stipulation in a qualified domestic relations order, the damages would have been the same if the attorney had drafted a legal stipulation); see also David W. Robertson, The Common Sense of Cause in Fact, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 1765, 1770 (1997) (explaining the but-for causation test requires "using the imagination to create a counterfactual 12 hypothesis"). In other words, Dr. Melvin's answers confirmed that


CourtListener opinion 2687610

domestic relations order: damages. The question posed to Dr. Melvin by the City's counsel, a counterfactual, goes to the core of the but-for causation test. See Faber, 731 N.W.2d at 11 (concluding that although an attorney negligently drafted an illegal stipulation in a qualified domestic relations order, the damages would have been the same if the attorney had drafted a legal stipulation); see also David W. Robertson, The Common Sense of Cause in Fact, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 1765, 1770 (1997) (explaining the but-for causation test requires "using the imagination to create a counterfactual 12 hypothesis"). In other words, Dr. Melvin's answers confirmed that


CourtListener opinion 2687685

CourtListener opinion 2687685 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANITA D. GHEE AND WILLIAM J. GHEE JR. Extracted reporter citation: 431 N.W.2d 773. Docket: 13-1780. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2687685 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 2687685


CourtListener opinion 2687685

QDRO: agreed one-half of the marital value would be $841 per month. William's one-quarter share is therefore $420.50 per month. "Because of certain anti- alienation restrictions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the federal tax code," a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) "must be filed for every pension division undertaken pursuant to a divorce." In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 648 (Iowa 2009). We modify the decree and order William to present to the district court a QDRO equal to twenty-five percent of the marital share of Anita's pension. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.


CourtListener opinion 2687685

pension: d by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. 2 BOWER, J. William Joseph Ghee Jr. appeals the decree of dissolution of marriage to Anita Diane Arnold, f/k/a Anita Diane Ghee. He claims the district should have awarded him one half of Anita's federal pension. We find the failure to award a portion of Anita's pension was not equitable and award William one-quarter of the pension. We affirm as modified and remand. I. Background Facts and Proceedings William married Anita on July 1, 1989. Anita filed for dissolution of marriage on February 21, 2013. The parties have no minor children. At the time of trial,


CourtListener opinion 2687685

ERISA: s pension. During trial, the parties agreed one-half of the marital value would be $841 per month. William's one-quarter share is therefore $420.50 per month. "Because of certain anti- alienation restrictions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the federal tax code," a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) "must be filed for every pension division undertaken pursuant to a divorce." In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 648 (Iowa 2009). We modify the decree and order William to present to the district court a QDRO equal to twenty-five percent of the marital share of Anita's pension


CourtListener opinion 2687685

domestic relations order: e-half of the marital value would be $841 per month. William's one-quarter share is therefore $420.50 per month. "Because of certain anti- alienation restrictions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the federal tax code," a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) "must be filed for every pension division undertaken pursuant to a divorce." In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644, 648 (Iowa 2009). We modify the decree and order William to present to the district court a QDRO equal to twenty-five percent of the marital share of Anita's pension. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.


CourtListener opinion 2687825

CourtListener opinion 2687825 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Jacobo. Extracted reporter citation: 526 N.W.2d 859. Docket: 13-1195. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2687825 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 2687825


CourtListener opinion 2687825

QDRO: ris challenges a finding of contempt. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Robert and Lauralei Harris dissolved their marriage after forty years. In pertinent part, the district court awarded Lauralei seventy-two percent of Robert's Edward Jones IRA. A qualified domestic relations order was entered, paving the way for funds to be transferred to Lauralei. Approximately one month after the order was filed, Lauralei applied to have Robert held in contempt for "refus[ing]" to sign and send a required form facilitating the transfer.1 Robert failed to appear at a scheduled hearing. His attorney did appear. The proceeding was not reported,


CourtListener opinion 2687825

retirement benefits: ontempt beyond a reasonable doubt based on Robert's failure to "execute any and all instruments necessary to transfer assets consistent with the Decree." The court stated Robert's failure to execute the document "frustrated the transfer of the Edward Jones retirement account." The court proceeded to divide the account between the parties. Robert filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which the supreme court granted. The case was transferred to this court for disposition. 1 Robert filed a similar application based on Lauralei's claimed failure to meet her alimony obligation. That application is not at issue here. 3 II


CourtListener opinion 2687825

domestic relations order: nges a finding of contempt. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Robert and Lauralei Harris dissolved their marriage after forty years. In pertinent part, the district court awarded Lauralei seventy-two percent of Robert's Edward Jones IRA. A qualified domestic relations order was entered, paving the way for funds to be transferred to Lauralei. Approximately one month after the order was filed, Lauralei applied to have Robert held in contempt for "refus[ing]" to sign and send a required form facilitating the transfer.1 Robert failed to appear at a scheduled hearing. His attorney did appear. The proceeding was not reported,


CourtListener opinion 2687978

CourtListener opinion 2687978 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JENNIFER M. CAMPBELL AND JOEL T. CAMPBELL Upon the Petition of JENNIFER M. Extracted reporter citation: 705 N.W.2d 312. Docket: 13-1383. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2687978 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 2687978

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 2687978

QDRO: tioner asserts these assets should be disregarded in evaluating the property division. Respondent asserts the present account values should be used in calculating the property division. At trial, neither party requested that these accounts be divided by a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order]. After entry of the decree, and in light of the Court's ruling on other issues, Petitioner requested by post-trial motion that her account be divided in order to reduce the amount of the property equalization judgment Petitioner will owe Respondent. I have granted that portion of the motion. Petitioner's retirement


CourtListener opinion 2687978

retirement benefits: resides with his mother, his sister and her fiancé, and their children. Jennifer has worked for the Integer Group throughout the marriage. She expects to earn $50,000 in 2013. Her benefit 3 package includes medical, health, and dental insurance, a 401(k) retirement account, short and long-term disability insurance, and life insurance. She now holds the position of senior account executive. After an internship Joel held a number of part-time jobs. He began to work at Wells Fargo in 2011 as a contract employee through the Palmer Group. He obtained full-time employment with Wells Fargo in December 2012. He anticipates earning $


CourtListener opinion 2687978

401(k): rently resides with his mother, his sister and her fiancé, and their children. Jennifer has worked for the Integer Group throughout the marriage. She expects to earn $50,000 in 2013. Her benefit 3 package includes medical, health, and dental insurance, a 401(k) retirement account, short and long-term disability insurance, and life insurance. She now holds the position of senior account executive. After an internship Joel held a number of part-time jobs. He began to work at Wells Fargo in 2011 as a contract employee through the Palmer Group. He obtained full-time employment with Wells Fargo in December 2012. He an


CourtListener opinion 2687978

domestic relations order: hese assets should be disregarded in evaluating the property division. Respondent asserts the present account values should be used in calculating the property division. At trial, neither party requested that these accounts be divided by a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order]. After entry of the decree, and in light of the Court's ruling on other issues, Petitioner requested by post-trial motion that her account be divided in order to reduce the amount of the property equalization judgment Petitioner will owe Respondent. I have granted that portion of the motion. Petitioner's retirement account will be divided equally effe


CourtListener opinion 2688238

CourtListener opinion 2688238 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Brown. Extracted reporter citation: 776 N.W.2d 644. Docket: 3-1113 / 13-0534. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2688238 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 2688238


CourtListener opinion 2688238

QDRO: CKLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JAMES ALLEN HINCKLEY, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Myron L. Gookin, Judge. A divorced spouse contends a qualified domestic relations order entitles her to an amount specified in the order and not an amount that accounts for investment losses. AFFIRMED. Joseph W. Younker of Bradley & Riley, P.C., Iowa City, for appellant. Leslie D. Lamping of Lamping, Schlegel & Salazar, L.L.P., Washington, for appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ. 2 VAITHESWAR


CourtListener opinion 2688238

retirement benefits: in the order or an amount that accounted for investment losses. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Cindy and James Hinckley dissolved their marriage. The dissolution decree incorporated a stipulation under which Cindy was to receive $165,746 of Jim's retirement account, to be distributed pursuant to a QDRO. The QDRO was executed two months after the dissolution decree was filed, and funds were transmitted to Cindy five months after the decree was filed. In the interim, the account value plummeted from $342,139.55 to $220,916.33. Cindy only received $103,981.25. Cindy filed an application seeking a declaration of th


CourtListener opinion 2688238

alternate payee: 61,844.75. The district court concluded that the amount Cindy received "was proper and correct." Cindy appealed. II. Analysis Cindy contends the language governing this appeal appears in a section of the QDRO titled "amount of benefit to be paid to the alternate payee." 1 That section states Cindy's interest in the plan will be "$165,746 of [Jim's] Account Balance as of October 3, 2008" (the date the dissolution decree was filed) and the interest will "be subject to earnings and losses subsequent to October 3, 1 Cindy does not argue that the QDRO is inconsistent with the language of the dissolution decree. See In re


CourtListener opinion 2688238

domestic relations order: aintiff-Appellant, vs. JAMES ALLEN HINCKLEY, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Myron L. Gookin, Judge. A divorced spouse contends a qualified domestic relations order entitles her to an amount specified in the order and not an amount that accounts for investment losses. AFFIRMED. Joseph W. Younker of Bradley & Riley, P.C., Iowa City, for appellant. Leslie D. Lamping of Lamping, Schlegel & Salazar, L.L.P., Washington, for appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ. 2 VAITHESWAR


CourtListener opinion 2688415

CourtListener opinion 2688415 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Smith. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2-12-1245 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2688415 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 2688415


CourtListener opinion 2688415

QDRO: hall keep the SRIP as his sole property." ¶ 40 Paragraph 2 was the court's response to Ellen's motion to clarify how the benefit plans should be divided in light of the fact that John's SRIP account was not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Thus, the order addressed the benefit plans, i.e. the pensions and the SRIP account. It appears that, after awarding John his entire SRIP account, the court intended to maintain the 50/50 division of the benefit plans by awarding Ellen a corresponding amount from other assets, which the court can specify on remand. Regardless, the intended 50/50 divis


CourtListener opinion 2688415

retirement benefits: . On cross-appeal, Ellen argues that she is entitled to one-half of the unvested stock options and RSUs. John responds that the court awarded him the unvested stock options and RSUs in exchange for Ellen receiving a larger share of the defined contribution retirement plans. We agree with Ellen that the court abused its discretion in awarding John all of the unvested stock options and RSUs, because this award is unrelated to its distribution of the defined contribution retirement plans and potentially gives John a windfall. ¶3 The trial court initially ordered John to contribute $10,000 to Ellen's attorney fees, but it l


CourtListener opinion 2688415

pension: irement plans (benefit plans). In paragraph 2, the trial court stated, "[t]he value of John's SRIP [supplemental retirement income plan] account as of 6/28/12 shall be divided 50/50 by way of an additional/greater percentage award of either John's Allstate pension or Allstate 401(k) distribution to [Ellen]. John shall keep the SRIP as his sole property." ¶ 40 Paragraph 2 was the court's response to Ellen's motion to clarify how the benefit plans should be divided in light of the fact that John's SRIP account was not subject to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Thus, the order addressed the benefit plan


CourtListener opinion 2688415

401(k): ed stock units (RSUs). On cross-appeal, Ellen argues that she is entitled to one-half of the unvested stock options and RSUs. John responds that the court awarded him the unvested stock options and RSUs in exchange for Ellen receiving a larger share of the defined contribution retirement plans. We agree with Ellen that the court abused its discretion in awarding John all of the unvested stock options and RSUs, because this award is unrelated to its distribution of the defined contribution retirement plans and potentially gives John a windfall. ¶3 The trial court initially ordered John to contribute $10,000 to Ellen's attorney


CourtListener opinion 2688447

CourtListener opinion 2688447 Extracted case name: L ORI A. R OBINETTE v. L UANN H UNSECKER. Extracted reporter citation: 897 A.2d 810. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2688447 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 2688447


CourtListener opinion 2688447

QDRO: allows for an "alternate payee" to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant pursuant to a court order that satisfies various requirements set forth in the federal statute. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. at 32-36. Such a court order is called a "qualified domestic relations order" or "QDRO" in ERISA lingo. See 29 U.S.C. §1056(d)(3); 26 U.S.C. §414(p). ERISA's requirements broadly apply to most retirement plans and preempt contrary provisions of state law. 29 U.S.C. §1144(a). But not all retirement plans are regulated by ERISA. Notably, government-sponsored plans are specifically exempt from the federal statute. See 29 U.S.C. §


CourtListener opinion 2688447

retirement benefits: Law - Divorce - Property Settlement - Retirement and Death Benefits - Constructive Trust. A property settlement agreement in a divorce allocated to the wife a share of the future pension and death benefits of the husband, who was a participant in a government retirement plan exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). But that provision of the property settlement agreement was not formally communicated to the retirement plan and the husband later named his second wife as his beneficiary under the plan. Following the husband's death, the first wife sought a portion of the death benefits already pai


CourtListener opinion 2688447

pension: Lori A. Robinette v. Luann Hunsecker No. 90, September Term 2013 Family Law - Divorce - Property Settlement - Retirement and Death Benefits - Constructive Trust. A property settlement agreement in a divorce allocated to the wife a share of the future pension and death benefits of the husband, who was a participant in a government retirement plan exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). But that provision of the property settlement agreement was not formally communicated to the retirement plan and the husband later named his second wife as his beneficiary under the plan. Followi


CourtListener opinion 2688447

ERISA: Trust. A property settlement agreement in a divorce allocated to the wife a share of the future pension and death benefits of the husband, who was a participant in a government retirement plan exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). But that provision of the property settlement agreement was not formally communicated to the retirement plan and the husband later named his second wife as his beneficiary under the plan. Following the husband's death, the first wife sought a portion of the death benefits already paid, and to be paid in the future, to the second wife. The Circuit Court h


CourtListener opinion 2689442

CourtListener opinion 2689442 Extracted reporter citation: 400 N.E.2d 384. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2689442 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 2689442

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 2689442

QDRO: t's share of the home equity equaled approximately $22,750. Appellee also testified that under the divorce decree agreement, the parties' retirement accounts were to be valuated and the combined marital portions were "to be set-off by individual reciprocal QDRO's."3 {¶ 8} Appellee further explained how the parties later agreed that appellant would be entitled to only $15,000 from the home equity proceeds, as stated in the 2013 Memorandum Entry and Agreed Judgment Entry. According to appellee, appellant owed her money for payment of their children's medical bills, and he had taken $5,000 worth of personal prop


CourtListener opinion 2689442

retirement benefits: y Plaintiff forthwith; 2. That the parties shall set a closing as soon as practicable; 3. That the Defendant shall receive $15,000 from closing proceeds. Said sum is in satisfaction of the entire division of property; 4. That each party shall keep any retirement accounts in their names; 5. That all medical bills shall be deemed reimbursed through January 1, 2013; 6. That Plaintiff shall receive Quit Claim Deed and proceeds shall be payable from Plaintiff's counsel's trust account to Defendant and his counsel; 7. That counsel shall report to Court by June 15, 2013; 8. That Defendant shall cooperate in the finance


CourtListener opinion 2689442

pension: property rights was a one-half interest in the value of the equity in the real estate as determined by appraisal which would occur subsequent to the agreement. The other property right is an interest in the value of the property of the parties combined pension plans or retirement plans. This is both, these are both set forth very clearly in the transcript. And the Decree of Divorce refers to the agreement of the parties set forth on the record. So in December of 2010, this defendant had property rights established by the Decree in a potential QDRO and in the real estate. Then throughout an extremely litig


CourtListener opinion 2689556

CourtListener opinion 2689556 Extracted reporter citation: 351 N.E.2d 113. Docket: of motions with the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2689556 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 2689556


CourtListener opinion 2689556

QDRO: ," further identified in the settlement agreement as the "LTV Steel Pension of $3,954.13." No other pension was mentioned, although Moyer owned two other pension plans at the time of divorce. In the final divorce decree, neither party was ordered to file a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") effectuating the transfer of Moyer's interest in the LTV Steel Pension plan to Klik. The trial court, in the original 1993 entry, merely noted that a QDRO was issued with the final judgment entry, an inaccurate statement. 1 The settlement agreement indicated that a QDRO would "be prepared by agreement of the parties and incorporated into this f


CourtListener opinion 2689556

retirement benefits: nsion she believed was awarded to her in the divorce. {¶4} In June 2011, Klik filed a number of motions with the trial court, including a motion to show cause for noncompliance with a judgment entry, motion for attorney fees, motion to reduce to judgment retirement benefits improperly received, motion to issue a QDRO, motion to recharacterize pension benefits pursuant to decree of divorce, motion to vacate order of the court, and motion to quash.2 The magistrate held a single hearing, addressing each and every one of Klik's motions. {¶5} The trial court, on September 26, 2013, largely adopted the magistrate's ultimate d


CourtListener opinion 2689556

pension: defendant-appellee Samuel Moyer were divorced on June 15, 1993, pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement, incorporated into the final decree. As made pertinent by the current dispute, Klik was specifically awarded Moyer's interest in the "LTV Steel Pension," further identified in the settlement agreement as the "LTV Steel Pension of $3,954.13." No other pension was mentioned, although Moyer owned two other pension plans at the time of divorce. In the final divorce decree, neither party was ordered to file a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") effectuating the transfer of Moyer's interest in the LT


CourtListener opinion 2689556

401(k): ensions at the time of the parties' divorce, formally known as the "Pension Plan of Republic Steel Corporation, dated and effective as of March 1, 1950," and the "LTV Steel-USWA Pension Plan." It is undisputed that in 1993, the LTV Steel-USWA Pension was a defined contribution plan with a value of 1 The current trial court judge was not the judge at the time of the 1993 divorce. $3,954.13. Moyer contributed to the USWA plan after the 1993 divorce. Sometime in 2002, Moyer retired and began drawing benefits from his pension, by then called LTV Steel Hourly Pension Plan, which was an amalgamation of the LTV Steel-USWA and Rep


CourtListener opinion 2690138

CourtListener opinion 2690138 Extracted reporter citation: 791 N.E.2d 434. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2690138 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 2690138


CourtListener opinion 2690138

QDRO: fit. The trial court in that case included in the divorce decree the following language: "The defendant shall receive one-half of the coverture value of the plaintiff's unvested Teamsters pension if and when it becomes vested. This division shall be through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) prepared and signed at the time of the vesting."1 Wilson at ¶ 3. {¶ 13} Similarly, in Hoyt this court approved the division of a vested but unmatured pension benefit by the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, but rejected the claim that the trial court must always use the present vested value of a plan in reaching its division of property.


CourtListener opinion 2690138

retirement benefits: EL, APPELLANT, v. DANIEL, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Daniel v. Daniel, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1161.] Domestic relations—Divorce—Marital property—R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a)— Military retirement benefits—Unvested military retirement benefits earned during marriage are marital property subject to division—Present value need not be determined—Court may fashion order deferring distribution until benefits become payable. (No. 2012-2113—Submitted October 22, 2013—Decided March 26, 2014.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mercer County, No. 10-11-09, 20


CourtListener opinion 2690138

pension: entered into an agreement regarding custody of the three children, so their divorce trial related only to division of property and debt. {¶ 4} The matter was heard by a magistrate, who concluded that "Ohio law does not permit the court to divide a non-vested pension benefit." The plaintiff-wife objected to this finding, arguing that "since the Defendant is already contractually committed to remain in the military through vesting ‘age', the court should have divided one-half of his retirement benefits during the years of marriage." The plaintiff contended that the court erred in concluding that unvested military benefit


CourtListener opinion 2690138

domestic relations order: rial court in that case included in the divorce decree the following language: "The defendant shall receive one-half of the coverture value of the plaintiff's unvested Teamsters pension if and when it becomes vested. This division shall be through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) prepared and signed at the time of the vesting."1 Wilson at ¶ 3. {¶ 13} Similarly, in Hoyt this court approved the division of a vested but unmatured pension benefit by the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, but rejected the claim that the trial court must always use the present vested value of a plan in reaching its division of property.


CourtListener opinion 2690592

CourtListener opinion 2690592 Extracted case name: DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. MATLOCK. Extracted reporter citation: 726 N.E.2d 1006. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2690592 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 2690592


CourtListener opinion 2690592

QDRO: atlock committed professional misconduct by failing to obtain a written contingent-fee agreement and failing to respond to disciplinary investigative inquiries in one client matter, failing to complete and file forms for a qualified domestic-relations order ("QDRO") for another client, failing to communicate with both clients regarding their legal matters and failing to inform them that he did not maintain professional liability insurance, and commingling private funds and client funds and failing to document transactions for his client trust account. We agree that Matlock committed the professional misconduct found


CourtListener opinion 2690592

pension: pare and File QDRO {¶ 10} In 1993, Matlock represented Jeraldine Pettiford in a divorce case. In 2007, after the divorce case had concluded, it was discovered that Matlock had failed to file a QDRO entitling Pettiford to receive a portion of her ex-husband's pension and an annuity. Matlock was to have performed these services as part of his representation of Pettiford in the divorce. In 2007, Matlock demanded and received $450 from Pettiford to file the required QDRO forms with the court, her ex-husband's retirement system, and the company that had the annuity. Despite Matlock's multiple representations to Pettiford th


CourtListener opinion 2690626

CourtListener opinion 2690626 Extracted case name: DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DANN. Extracted reporter citation: 804 N.E.2d 428. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2690626 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 2690626

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 2690626

QDRO: as not assigned the appropriate weight to the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors and that a fully stayed suspension will adequately protect the public. For the reasons that follow, we 1. Dann had agreed to represent a client who sought to modify a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to permit him to make a lump-sum payment to his former wife in lieu of monthly withholdings from his pension benefits. Instead of moving to modify the QDRO, Dann moved the court to terminate a nonexistent spousal-support order. Following this mistake, the client terminated Dann's representation and filed a grievance against him. SUPREME COURT OF O


CourtListener opinion 2690626

pension: otect the public. For the reasons that follow, we 1. Dann had agreed to represent a client who sought to modify a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to permit him to make a lump-sum payment to his former wife in lieu of monthly withholdings from his pension benefits. Instead of moving to modify the QDRO, Dann moved the court to terminate a nonexistent spousal-support order. Following this mistake, the client terminated Dann's representation and filed a grievance against him. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO overrule Dann's objections and adopt the board's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction.


CourtListener opinion 2690626

domestic relations order: igned the appropriate weight to the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors and that a fully stayed suspension will adequately protect the public. For the reasons that follow, we 1. Dann had agreed to represent a client who sought to modify a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to permit him to make a lump-sum payment to his former wife in lieu of monthly withholdings from his pension benefits. Instead of moving to modify the QDRO, Dann moved the court to terminate a nonexistent spousal-support order. Following this mistake, the client terminated Dann's representation and filed a grievance against him. SUPREME COURT OF O


CourtListener opinion 2690720

CourtListener opinion 2690720 Extracted case name: DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FORD. Extracted reporter citation: 775 N.E.2d 818. Docket: did not show that a revised motion had been filed. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2690720 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 2690720


CourtListener opinion 2690720

QDRO: as to receive the jointly owned real property and that Justice was to receive approximately $90,000 from her ex-husband's stock ownership and pension plans. Pursuant to the agreed entry, Justice was to prepare and submit a qualified domestic-relations order ("QDRO") to effectuate the division of the stock ownership and pension plans. {¶ 6} Justice signed a quitclaim deed to transfer the real property to her ex-husband during the summer of 2007, but Ford did not forward the executed quitclaim deed to the ex-husband's counsel. Nor did he respond to counsel's multiple requests for the deed or his inquiries about the QD


CourtListener opinion 2690720

pension: magistrate's decision and agreed judgment entry, which was signed by the judge, specified that Justice's ex-husband was to receive the jointly owned real property and that Justice was to receive approximately $90,000 from her ex-husband's stock ownership and pension plans. Pursuant to the agreed entry, Justice was to prepare and submit a qualified domestic-relations order ("QDRO") to effectuate the division of the stock ownership and pension plans. {¶ 6} Justice signed a quitclaim deed to transfer the real property to her ex-husband during the summer of 2007, but Ford did not forward the executed quitclaim deed to the


CourtListener opinion 2691501

CourtListener opinion 2691501 Extracted reporter citation: 462 A.2d 1351. Docket: 363 EDA 2013. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2691501 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 2691501

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 2691501

QDRO: e trial court erred in failing to award [Husband] the full amount of counsel fees incurred. 6) The trial court erred in failing to provide any type of benefits while the action was pending. 7) The trial court erred in denying Husband a revision to the QDRO[2 could be paid to his special needs trust. -ii. Our scope and standard of review are well settled: Awards of alimony, counsel fees, and property distribution are within the sound discretion of the trial court and this court will not reverse, nor interfere with the determination of the trial court unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.


CourtListener opinion 2691501

domestic relations order: dence. As a result, under the abuse of discretion standard, we do not usurp the trial court's duty as fact finder; rather, we carefully scrutinize each of the guidelines to ____________________________________________ 1 Alimony pendente lite. 2 Qualified Domestic Relations Order. -3- J-A02020-14 determine whether the lower court has abused its discretion. Ruth, supra. However, an abuse of discretion will be found by this court if the trial court failed to follow proper legal procedures or misapplied the law. Banks v. Banks, 275 Pa.Super. 439, 418 A.2d 1370 (1980). Braderman v. Braderman, 488 A.2d 613, 615-16 (Pa. Super. 1


CourtListener opinion 2691502

CourtListener opinion 2691502 Extracted reporter citation: 603 A.2d 641. Docket: 363 EDA 2013. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2691502 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 2691502


CourtListener opinion 2691502

QDRO: ceived nothing. Husband requested that he be awarded these missed payments in his The trial court denied this petition. In its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925, the trial court justifies this decision by stating that Husband delayed the preparation of a QDRO and the entry of the divorce decree, and that he 12/28/2012, at 15. T initial refusal to sign the QDRO while exceptions were pending cannot be deemed a meritless delaying tactic where, as here, the trial court granted those exceptions in part. Admittedly, Husband did not sign the QDRO immediately after his exceptions were resolved. However, APL was


CourtListener opinion 2691502

pension: Y 29, 2014 claims do not entitle him to relief, and that this case should be remanded for counsel fees. However, because I conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to award receive but did not, I respectfully dissent. It is well- pension funds accrued during marriage is marital property and subject to equitable distribution. Endy v. Endy, 603 A.2d 641, 643 (Pa. Super. 1992). Here, the parties and the trial ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A02020-14 pension. When the pension initially entered pay status, Wife receive


CourtListener opinion 2691502

valuation/division: be remanded for counsel fees. However, because I conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to award receive but did not, I respectfully dissent. It is well- pension funds accrued during marriage is marital property and subject to equitable distribution. Endy v. Endy, 603 A.2d 641, 643 (Pa. Super. 1992). Here, the parties and the trial ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A02020-14 pension. When the pension initially entered pay status, Wife received 100% of the marital portion of her pension, and Husband received nothing. Husband req


CourtListener opinion 2691749

CourtListener opinion 2691749 Extracted reporter citation: 886 N.E.2d 201. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2691749 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 2691749


CourtListener opinion 2691749

QDRO: ¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment granting a writ of prohibition (1) to prevent a domestic relations judge from taking any action inconsistent with the court of appeals' ability to affirm, modify, or reverse the judge's January 9, 2009 judgment entry and qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") in an underlying case and (2) to vacate the judge's amended QDRO that was issued while the appeal was pending. Because the judge's action was inconsistent with the court of appeals' authority to review the January 9 judgment and QDRO, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Facts Divorce Decree {¶ 2} In November 1986, appellee, Daniel J.


CourtListener opinion 2691749

retirement benefits: ions Order, or separate Judgment Entry, whichever is applicable, twenty- five percent (25%) of the accrued monthly benefit that the Defendant, Daniel J. Sullivan, was entitled to receive as of May 14, 1997, from Defendant, Daniel J. Sullivan's interest in his retirement plan with the Civil Service Retirement System, pursuant to the provision of the Spouse Equity Act of 1984." (Emphasis sic.) The court further ordered that Janet's "rights to designate a beneficiary, for survivor benefits, or other related rights under the above described plan, shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the plan." January 2009 Judgment Entr


CourtListener opinion 2691749

pension: retirement plan. Daniel, without notice, removed his retirement plan from the Civil Service Retirement System and transferred it to the District of Columbia Police Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement Plan. He retired in 2003 and began receiving all of the pension benefits without allocating anything to Janet pursuant to the divorce decree. {¶ 6} In July 2006, Janet filed motions for the approval of a QDRO, retroactive benefits, and attorney fees. On January 9, 2009, appellant, Judge Donald L. Ramsey, sitting by assignment in the domestic relations court, granted the motions and held that Janet was entitled to a mon


CourtListener opinion 2691749

ERISA: order was issued "pursuant to the domestic relations laws of the State of Ohio." In addition, the amended QDRO specified that the order was intended to be a QDRO "as that term is used in Section 206(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 [‘ERISA']," whereas ERISA was unmentioned in the original QDRO. Prohibition Case {¶ 12} Three weeks after Judge Ramsey issued the amended QDRO, on April 28, Daniel filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of prohibition to vacate the amended QDRO and to prevent the judge from taking any further action that interferes with or is inconsistent with the a


CourtListener opinion 2691791

CourtListener opinion 2691791 Extracted reporter citation: 878 N.E.2d 16. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2691791 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 2691791


CourtListener opinion 2691791

QDRO: Rothman, were married in 1973. In June 2002, the Rothmans separated; Kathleen subsequently filed for divorce. On June 19, 2007, the trial judge issued a judgment entry granting the divorce and ordering Kathleen to submit a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") within 30 days. When Kathleen did not submit a QDRO, Eric sought and received a 30-day extension to submit his own proposed QDRO, which he submitted on August 24, 2007. On November 13, 2007, the court issued a QDRO in the case. {¶ 3} On November 19, 2007, Eric Rothman filed a notice of appeal. The next day, this court released Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio


CourtListener opinion 2692868

CourtListener opinion 2692868 Extracted reporter citation: 661 N.E.2d 175. Docket: 2013-CA-30 Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2692868 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 2692868

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 2692868

QDRO: to the parties by their first names. 3 October 1, 1981. Glenn retired on September 30, 2004, over six years after his divorce from Karen became final. In 2009, Karen filed a motion for an order requiring Glenn to provide information for and to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding the division of his retirement benefits. Karen also filed a motion to modify the divorce decree. In 2010, Karen dismissed both of these motions. {¶ 4} However, on September 17, 2012, Karen filed a Military Qualifying Order (MQO), which stated, in part, that she was entitled to receive a coverture fraction interest in Glenn's gross retirement


CourtListener opinion 2692868

retirement benefits: 5 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee ............. WELBAUM, J. 2 {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Glenn Hulse, appeals from a decision and order of the Greene County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, clarifying the division of his military retirement benefits with his ex-wife, defendant-appellee, Karen Hulse. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Facts and Course of Proceedings {¶ 2} Glenn and Karen Hulse were married on May 28, 1984. On December 24, 1997, Glenn and Karen1 obtained a final decree of divorce in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relation


CourtListener opinion 2692868

pension: at "[p]ension or retirement benefits accumulated during the course of the marriage are marital assets subject to property division in a divorce action." (Citations omitted.) Erb v. Erb, 75 Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 661 N.E.2d 175 (1996). Regarding the division of pension or retirement benefits, "[t]he trial court must have the flexibility to make an equitable decision based upon the circumstances of the case, the status of the parties, the nature, terms, and conditions of the pension plan, and the reasonableness of the result." Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 180, 559 N.E.2d 1292 (1990). 6 {¶ 13} In Hoyt, the Supre


CourtListener opinion 2692868

domestic relations order: ties by their first names. 3 October 1, 1981. Glenn retired on September 30, 2004, over six years after his divorce from Karen became final. In 2009, Karen filed a motion for an order requiring Glenn to provide information for and to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding the division of his retirement benefits. Karen also filed a motion to modify the divorce decree. In 2010, Karen dismissed both of these motions. {¶ 4} However, on September 17, 2012, Karen filed a Military Qualifying Order (MQO), which stated, in part, that she was entitled to receive a coverture fraction interest in Glenn's gross retirement


CourtListener opinion 2692947

CourtListener opinion 2692947 Extracted reporter citation: 903 N.E.2d 343. Docket: does not indicate that Neelima initially filed a mo. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2692947 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 2692947


CourtListener opinion 2692947

QDRO: ordered Madhav to transfer half of the balances in the E*Trade account and the Interactive Brokers account to Neelima. The court ordered the parties to retain their own checking and savings accounts in their own names. The court ordered Madhav to cause two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to be filed so that Neelima receives one half of his 401(k) benefits in his plans through SEI-Services and through Siemens Savings Plan. Neelima was allowed to keep all of the money in her 401(k) plan. The court ordered the parties to retain the household goods, furniture, furnishings and equipment currently in their possession. {¶ 58} We note that t


CourtListener opinion 2692947

retirement benefits: rtgage. Madhav stated that he has investment accounts at E*Trade and Interactive Brokers that he is willing to divide equally. Madhav stated that he has two 401(k) plans, one through SEI Services and one through Siemens Savings Plan, with a total of vested retirement benefits of approximately $190,000.00, which he is willing to divide equally pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. He stated that he is willing for Neelima to retain her IRA account with a balance of $5,000.00. Madhav requested that he and Neelima retain the property and household goods currently in each of their possessions. Madhav requested that t


CourtListener opinion 2692947

401(k): equity in the marital residence in Springboro. He stated that Neelima is not a co-obligor on the mortgage. Madhav stated that he has investment accounts at E*Trade and Interactive Brokers that he is willing to divide equally. Madhav stated that he has two 401(k) plans, one through SEI Services and one through Siemens Savings Plan, with a total of vested retirement benefits of approximately $190,000.00, which he is willing to divide equally pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. He stated that he is willing for Neelima to retain her IRA account with a balance of $5,000.00. Madhav requested that he and


CourtListener opinion 2692947

domestic relations order: dhav to transfer half of the balances in the E*Trade account and the Interactive Brokers account to Neelima. The court ordered the parties to retain their own checking and savings accounts in their own names. The court ordered Madhav to cause two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to be filed so that Neelima receives one half of his 401(k) benefits in his plans through SEI-Services and through Siemens Savings Plan. Neelima was allowed to keep all of the money in her 401(k) plan. The court ordered the parties to retain the household goods, furniture, furnishings and equipment currently in their possession. {¶ 58} We note that t


CourtListener opinion 2693011

CourtListener opinion 2693011 Extracted reporter citation: 632 N.E.2d 916. Docket: 2013-CA-2 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2693011 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 2693011


CourtListener opinion 2693011

QDRO: , 130 West Second Street, Suite 2150, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant, Anthony L. Printz, Deceased ............. HALL, J., {¶ 1} Anthony Printz appeals the trial court's order that he sign a Qualified Domestic 2 Relations Order (QDRO) that gives his former wife, Karen Printz, a joint interest in his pension benefits. Anthony contends that their decree of divorce gives her only a survivorship interest. In light of the evidence, the court's interpretation of the decree's language is reasonable. We affirm.1 FACTS {¶ 2} In 1986, Karen filed a complaint for divorce. A referee was appo


CourtListener opinion 2693011

pension: Defendant-Appellant, Anthony L. Printz, Deceased ............. HALL, J., {¶ 1} Anthony Printz appeals the trial court's order that he sign a Qualified Domestic 2 Relations Order (QDRO) that gives his former wife, Karen Printz, a joint interest in his pension benefits. Anthony contends that their decree of divorce gives her only a survivorship interest. In light of the evidence, the court's interpretation of the decree's language is reasonable. We affirm.1 FACTS {¶ 2} In 1986, Karen filed a complaint for divorce. A referee was appointed who filed a report and recommendation. In the report, the referee fo


CourtListener opinion 2693011

valuation/division: (Aug. 19, 1987 Judgment Entry, 2). {¶ 3} In September 1987, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce. Alimony, the decree says, was the only unresolved issue between the parties. "[T]he parties have entered into certain oral agreements regarding property division, which are hereinafter set forth in writing." (Sept. 28, 1987 Judgment Entry-Final Decree of Divorce, 1). The court stated their agreement regarding Anthony's pension benefits this way: 5. Defendant shall designate Plaintiff as survivorship beneficiary on Defendant's existing Pension Plan through his employer, Sheller-Globe Corporation, for an amoun


CourtListener opinion 2693050

CourtListener opinion 2693050 Extracted reporter citation: 450 N.E.2d 1140. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2693050 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 2693050


CourtListener opinion 2693050

QDRO: 7, that Ms. Ulery's income had increased since the divorce, and that the court should reconsider the property division "due to the parties['] current financial situations." {¶ 7} While Mr. Ulery's motion was pending, Ms. Ulery filed a motion requesting a qualified domestic relations order to facilitate some aspects of the property division set forth in the divorce decree, which had been delayed by various legal proceedings since the time of the divorce. Mr. Ulery's request that the trial court revisit the property settlement seems to have been based, in part, on the fact that all of the assets had not yet been distributed. The trial cour


CourtListener opinion 2693050

retirement benefits: ter income than that which he currently realizes. [Cite as Ulery v. Ulery, 2013-Ohio-4951.] It is also significant to note that Mr. Ulery has, at his disposal, signifincant assets appearing in the form of stock, bank accounts, investment accounts, and retirement accounts. Specifically, Mr. Ulery testified that he has stock with Bob Evans with an approximate fair market value of $11,000.00; stock with Huntington Bank with an approximate value of $14,000.00; stock with Boston Capital which was a $12,000.00 initial investment and the current fair market value being unknown. He also has a checking account at Huntingt


CourtListener opinion 2693050

domestic relations order: s. Ulery's income had increased since the divorce, and that the court should reconsider the property division "due to the parties['] current financial situations." {¶ 7} While Mr. Ulery's motion was pending, Ms. Ulery filed a motion requesting a qualified domestic relations order to facilitate some aspects of the property division set forth in the divorce decree, which had been delayed by various legal proceedings since the time of the divorce. Mr. Ulery's request that the trial court revisit the property settlement seems to have been based, in part, on the fact that all of the assets had not yet been distributed. The trial cour


CourtListener opinion 2693050

valuation/division: imputation of income in awarding child support, rather than spousal support, but it incorporated this finding into its discussion of spousal support. In his motion for modification, Mr. Ulery compares his post-incarceration income to the imputed income. 3 property division. We affirmed the trial court's judgment. Ulery v. Ulery, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2009-CA-12, 2011-Ohio-5211. {¶ 6} In early 2012, Mr. Ulery was released from prison and filed a motion in the trial court for "modification of spousal support and accompanying property division." Mr. Ulery argued that he had not made the income imputed to him ($98,819) since 20


CourtListener opinion 2693473

CourtListener opinion 2693473 Extracted reporter citation: 905 N.E.2d 172. Docket: 25333 Plaintiff-Appellant : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2693473 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 2693473

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 2693473

QDRO: which is the retirement benefits of the parties). {¶ 24} In this case, Mr. Papp was awarded his retirement account free and clear of any claims from Ms. Papp. Ms. Papp was not given any interest in the pension plan by any means, including by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Mr. Papp now receives a substantial income from that retirement account, and that income is properly considered when determining the appropriateness and amount of spousal support. See, Templeton v. Templeton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18860, 2001 WL 1173340, * 2 (Oct. 5, 2001). {¶ 25} Mr. Papp's Second Assignment of Error is overruled. V. Conclusion


CourtListener opinion 2693473

retirement benefits: ng the motion to terminate, because it erred in finding no change in 2 circumstances. He further contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to recognize that a continued award of spousal support – when his only income consists of his retirement benefits – is precluded by the provision in the divorce decree for the division of property, which awarded him his retirement plan "free and clear" of any claims by Ms. Papp. {¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court erred in holding that the only changes in circumstance that could be a basis for terminating spousal support are the death or remarriage of the obli


CourtListener opinion 2693473

pension: ed. The court increased Mr. Papp's monthly support obligation to $775. In April, 2011, Mr. Papp moved to terminate his spousal support obligation. Mr. Papp argued that he had retired effective January 1, 2011, and was receiving retirement benefits from his pension plan. He noted that the retirement benefits are his only source of income. He also noted that the divorce decree awarded him his interest in his retirement account free and clear of any claims from Ms. Papp. He argued that payment of spousal support constitutes an improper claim by Ms. Papp upon his retirement account, and that Ms. Papp was not entitled


CourtListener opinion 2693473

domestic relations order: the retirement benefits of the parties). {¶ 24} In this case, Mr. Papp was awarded his retirement account free and clear of any claims from Ms. Papp. Ms. Papp was not given any interest in the pension plan by any means, including by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Mr. Papp now receives a substantial income from that retirement account, and that income is properly considered when determining the appropriateness and amount of spousal support. See, Templeton v. Templeton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18860, 2001 WL 1173340, * 2 (Oct. 5, 2001). {¶ 25} Mr. Papp's Second Assignment of Error is overruled. V. Conclusion


CourtListener opinion 2693677

CourtListener opinion 2693677 Extracted reporter citation: 912 N.E.2d 1170. Docket: 2012-CA-5 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2693677 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 2693677


CourtListener opinion 2693677

QDRO: the first of these agreed judgment entries, Ms. Dickinson was awarded 39 shares of Honeywell stock, valued at $1,735.80. In the same entry, Ms. Dickinson was awarded the sum of $5,542.82 from Mr. Dickinson's Ohio Deferred Compensation account by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The entry left a balance of $7,278.62 in Mr. Dickinson's Deferred Compensation account. {¶ 4} In the second agreed judgment entry of the same date, the parties agreed that "they have the following determinate marital debts: A. Bank of America $11,161.69; B. Department of Transportation Credit Union $5,028.00." A third entry noted that "it would be equ


CourtListener opinion 2693677

retirement benefits: some point, Mr. Dickinson refinanced the mortgage on the marital residence, which he retained. Ms. Dickinson received the sum of $20,668.50 as her share of the equity accrued in 3 the residence. {¶ 6} The matters of spousal support, debt allocation and retirement benefits allocation were tried before the court. In its Judgment Order and Decree of Divorce, the trial court declined to award spousal support to either party. The trial court also ordered Ms. Dickinson to be solely responsible for the debt of $11,161 owed to Bank of America. Finally, the trial court awarded Ms. Dickinson one-half of Mr. Dickinson's retirement


CourtListener opinion 2693677

domestic relations order: of these agreed judgment entries, Ms. Dickinson was awarded 39 shares of Honeywell stock, valued at $1,735.80. In the same entry, Ms. Dickinson was awarded the sum of $5,542.82 from Mr. Dickinson's Ohio Deferred Compensation account by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The entry left a balance of $7,278.62 in Mr. Dickinson's Deferred Compensation account. {¶ 4} In the second agreed judgment entry of the same date, the parties agreed that "they have the following determinate marital debts: A. Bank of America $11,161.69; B. Department of Transportation Credit Union $5,028.00." A third entry noted that "it would be equ


CourtListener opinion 2693677

valuation/division: walking long distances. [Mr. Dickinson] is in good health for the most part. *** [Ms.] Dickinson has no retirement plan. [Mr.] Dickinson is enrolled in PERS through his employer, the State of Ohio. [Ms.] Dickinson will receive one-half (1/2) of the marital portion of [Mr. Dickinson's] retirement. *** The parties were married for 13 years and 4 months at the time this case was heard. *** 6 The parties established a modest standard of living. They owned their own house, have motor vehicles, and took vacations. *** [Mr.] Dickinson received the marital residence by prior agreement. He refinanced the p


CourtListener opinion 2693686

CourtListener opinion 2693686 Extracted reporter citation: 878 N.E.2d 16. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2693686 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 2693686


CourtListener opinion 2693686

QDRO: f-Appellee Anthony E. Kohler, Atty. Reg. No. 0032826, 210 North Fountain Avenue, Springfield, Ohio 45504 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ......... GRADY, P.J.: {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a final order of the domestic relations court that modified a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") the court previously entered, on a finding that the QDRO was inconsistent with the underlying decree of dissolution, and that ordered a new and different division and distribution of pension retirement benefits. [Cite as Pearl v. Pearl, 2012-Ohio-4752.] {¶ 2} Barbara J. Pearl and Benny J. Pearl were married in 1981. On June 9, 2003, their marr


CourtListener opinion 2693686

retirement benefits: court that modified a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") the court previously entered, on a finding that the QDRO was inconsistent with the underlying decree of dissolution, and that ordered a new and different division and distribution of pension retirement benefits. [Cite as Pearl v. Pearl, 2012-Ohio-4752.] {¶ 2} Barbara J. Pearl and Benny J. Pearl were married in 1981. On June 9, 2003, their marriage was terminated by a decree of dissolution. [Dkt. 3}. The decree incorporated the parties' separation agreement. [Dkt. 2]. The separation agreement provides: The husband has a 401(k) through his place of employment


CourtListener opinion 2693686

pension: lations court that modified a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") the court previously entered, on a finding that the QDRO was inconsistent with the underlying decree of dissolution, and that ordered a new and different division and distribution of pension retirement benefits. [Cite as Pearl v. Pearl, 2012-Ohio-4752.] {¶ 2} Barbara J. Pearl and Benny J. Pearl were married in 1981. On June 9, 2003, their marriage was terminated by a decree of dissolution. [Dkt. 3}. The decree incorporated the parties' separation agreement. [Dkt. 2]. The separation agreement provides: The husband has a 401(k) through his


CourtListener opinion 2693686

401(k): . Pearl and Benny J. Pearl were married in 1981. On June 9, 2003, their marriage was terminated by a decree of dissolution. [Dkt. 3}. The decree incorporated the parties' separation agreement. [Dkt. 2]. The separation agreement provides: The husband has a 401(k) through his place of employment, International Harvester, with an approximate value of $45,000. The wife shall receive one-half of the 401(k) and one-half of the husband's pension benefits for 21 of the husband's 40 years of employment at IH by QDRO fashioned by her attorney and approved by the company. {¶ 3} Benny1 was not represented by counsel


CourtListener opinion 2693885

CourtListener opinion 2693885 Extracted reporter citation: 351 N.E.2d 113. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2693885 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 2693885


CourtListener opinion 2693885

QDRO: the date of the final hearing herein; divided by the total years of eligibility at the time of defendant's retirement; multiplied by one-half of the total monthly benefit payable at the time of retirement. Mrs. Hawkins's attorney was ordered to draft a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to effectuate the division of the pension plan in accordance with the divorce decree. The QDRO was filed several years later, in December 2009. {¶ 5} In January 2011, Mr. Hawkins filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, in which he argued that the final decree of divorce did not "accurately reflect the agreement of the parties" a


CourtListener opinion 2693885

retirement benefits: rious defense to the judgment. Argument {¶ 7} Mr. Hawkins raises one assignment of error on appeal, which states: The trial court erred by failing to grant relief pursuant to Civil Rule 60B to correct an improper method of calculating plaintiff's 4 retirement benefits which resulted from an improper recitation in the divorce decree and subsequent QDRO which fails to reflect the agreement set forth in the record at the final hearing in this mater and which continues to provide an award of retirement benefits to plaintiff which is excessive and which deprives plaintiff of his equitable retirement benefits. {¶


CourtListener opinion 2693885

pension: ark County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which overruled his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. The judgment at issue was his decree of divorce from Karen Hawkins, particularly the portion related to the distribution of his pension fund. {¶ 2} Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Mr. Hawkins's motion for relief from judgment was untimely and failed to raise a meritorious defense, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 3} Phillip and Karen Hawkins were married in 1978 and agreed to the terms of their


CourtListener opinion 2693885

domestic relations order: f the final hearing herein; divided by the total years of eligibility at the time of defendant's retirement; multiplied by one-half of the total monthly benefit payable at the time of retirement. Mrs. Hawkins's attorney was ordered to draft a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to effectuate the division of the pension plan in accordance with the divorce decree. The QDRO was filed several years later, in December 2009. {¶ 5} In January 2011, Mr. Hawkins filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, in which he argued that the final decree of divorce did not "accurately reflect the agreement of the parties" a


CourtListener opinion 2694029

CourtListener opinion 2694029 Extracted reporter citation: 615 N.E.2d 332. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2694029 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 2694029

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 2694029

QDRO: ntiff, all documents necessary to effectuate his award in her military retirement benefits and it is ORDERED that each of the parties shall have an affirmative duty to sign all documents necessary to effectuate the foregoing. {¶ 4} A MQCO is a form of qualified domestic relations order required by the uniformed military services in order to effectuate a judicial division of rights in a military pension retirement plan. After the divorce decree was filed, Daniel submitted a proposed MQCO to the court. Paragraph six of that proposed MQCO indicated that Daniel was to 4 receive "an amount equal to 50 percent (50%) of the marital portion