CourtListener opinion 1070670

pension: d ordered husband to pay COBRA payments to insure wife until she qualifies for Medicare, which is less than two years. The average cost of this coverage is $314.00 per month. The Court's Amended Opinion addressed the division of retirement income. Husband's pension was specifically held to be marital property, and the Court's Opinion adopted the husband's "Memorandum of Facts Regarding Plaintiff's Retirement Account" and awarded 15% of husband's benefit to the wife, which equals $234.85 per month. Our review of the Trial Court's finding of fact is de novo with a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence prepon


CourtListener opinion 1070670

valuation/division: rown v. Brown, 913 S.W.2d 163, 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994); Fisher v. Fisher, 648 S.W.2d 244, 246 (Tenn. 1983). It is appropriate to award one spouse the cash equivalent from their share of a business or real estate retained by the other spouse, to achieve an equitable distribution of property. Loyd v. Loyd, 860 S.W.2d 409, 412 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). Retirement benefits, including military retirement, are marital property and subject to the same consideration as other property for equitable division. They need not be mathematically -2- precise, but should reflect essential fairness in light of facts. Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d


CourtListener opinion 1070746

CourtListener opinion 1070746 Extracted case name: MICHAEL DANIEL FRY v. YURIKO SHINODA FRY. Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 823. Docket: M2000-02969-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1070746 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 1070746

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 1070746

QDRO: raph 9 of the decree provided: 9. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Wife is awarded one-half (½) of Mr. Fry's pension through the U.S. Navy that has vested during the term of the marriage. The parties will cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Counsel for Mother shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service rebuffed their first effort to establish the wife's right to a portion of the Navy pension. Because the government requires a provision in the decree that sets a specific amount or provides a formula by which a specific amount can be calcu


CourtListener opinion 1070746

retirement benefits: we interpret the original order, it awarded the wife one-half of the pension – but only of that portion that accrued during the marriage. The original order was in accordance with the general rule announced by the courts of this state that only the portion of retirement benefits that accrue during the marriage are marital property subject to division. See Cohen v. Cohen, 937 S.W.2d 823 (Tenn. 1996). Therefore, the change was substantive and not just clerical. -2- Rule 60, Tenn. R. Civ. P., allows courts to correct final judgments for clerical mistakes (60.01) or for a host of reasons appearing in 60.02: On motion and upon suc


CourtListener opinion 1070746

pension: eal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 99D-1613 Muriel Robinson, Judge No. M2000-02969-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 5, 2001 Pursuant to the wife's motion under Rule 60, Tenn. R. Civ. P., the trial court amended the division of the husband's Navy pension contained in an agreed order of divorce. We reverse the trial court's judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded BEN H. CANTRELL, P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM B. CAIN , J. and JOHN A. TURNBU LL, SP . J., joined. D. Scott Parsley, Nashville, Tennessee, for the


CourtListener opinion 1070746

domestic relations order: the decree provided: 9. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Wife is awarded one-half (½) of Mr. Fry's pension through the U.S. Navy that has vested during the term of the marriage. The parties will cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Counsel for Mother shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service rebuffed their first effort to establish the wife's right to a portion of the Navy pension. Because the government requires a provision in the decree that sets a specific amount or provides a formula by which a specific amount can be calcu


CourtListener opinion 1071373

CourtListener opinion 1071373 Extracted case name: EILEEN WILSON DUNLOY v. BRIAN EDWARD DUNLOY. Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 823. Docket: M2000-03103-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1071373 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 1071373


CourtListener opinion 1071373

QDRO: wo years of marriage. The Final Decree of Divorce incorporated a Marital Dissolution Agreement ("MDA") executed by the parties on April 28, 1994. This case involves the interpretation of the MDA concerning the distribution of certain retirement benefits and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). The MDA provides as pertinent to the issue before this Court: 34. Mr. Dunloy agrees that his account balance, as of April 29, 1994, with The Savings Plan of the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Vanguard Funds account #462-78- 1 M rs. Dunloy has since remarried becoming Mrs. Turowski but for convenience will be referred to as Mrs. Dunloy. 8754) sh


CourtListener opinion 1071373

retirement benefits: , that a benefit would be paid to them. And usually it's based on a formula, based on years of service, based on compensation to determine the amount that they would be paid at the time of retirement or separation of employment. The parties agree that the retirement plan at issue in paragraph 35 is a defined benefit plan and is vested. Further, the defined benefit plan at issue is back loaded, which means that the later years of employment receive extra weight in the formulation of the retiree's benefit. III. Valuation of Mr. Dunloy's Defined Benefit Plan The parties were able to reach agreement regarding paragraph 34 o


CourtListener opinion 1071373

pension: ge chosen by the parties means, specifically in regard to the "account balance" language appearing in paragraph 35 of the MDA and how that language affects the determination of Mrs. Dunloy's percentage of Mr. Dunloy's defined contribution plan. II. Types of Pension Plans Generally, there are two types of pension plans, a defined contribution plan and a defined benefit plan. Mrs. Dunloy's expert, Mr. Michael Guyton, testified as to the differences between the two types of pension plans: There are basically two types of tax-qualified pension plans. The one category is called defined contribution plans and the other


CourtListener opinion 1071373

401(k): value at retirement, shall be further effectuated through the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. About a year after the decree was entered, the parties entered into a QDRO with regard to the Savings Plan referred to in paragraph 34, which is a defined contribution plan, without difficulty, and the order was entered by the trial court. Problems, however, arose with regard to a QDRO for the Retirement Income Plan referenced in paragraph 35. After several years of unsuccessful negotiation, Mrs. Dunloy filed a Motion to Enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order with the trial court. Mr. Dunloy insisted upon a QDRO using


CourtListener opinion 1072378

CourtListener opinion 1072378 Extracted case name: DANIEL ED LOWE v. FAYTELLA D. LOWE. Extracted reporter citation: 932 S.W.2d 939. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1072378 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 1072378


CourtListener opinion 1072378

QDRO: ties' antenuptial agreement to be void "due to the fact the Wife did not enter into the agreement knowingly and did not have proper notice of the Husband's retirement account prior to entering the antenuptial agreement." The trial court subsequently entered a qualified domestic relations order, directing the administrator of Husband's retirement plan to pay benefits to Wife equaling 50% of Husband's retirement benefits accrued during the parties' marriage. Husband filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. This appeal followed. II. Standard of Review Our review of this non-jury case is de novo; however, the record comes to us accompani


CourtListener opinion 1072378

retirement benefits: olved a childless marriage of 5 1/2 years. Daniel Ed Lowe ("Husband") appeals, arguing that the trial court erred (1) in declaring the parties' antenuptial agreement void and (2) in granting Faytella D. Lowe ("Wife") half of the increase in value of Husband's retirement benefits accrued during the marriage. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; Case Remanded CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HOUSTON M. GODDARD , P.J., and D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., joined. John W. Cleveland, Sweetwater, Tennessee, for the appellant, Daniel Ed Lowe. Ashley


CourtListener opinion 1072378

pension: of these benefits was $225,906.80. There is no dispute that the retirement benefits that accrued during the marriage constitute marital property. See T.C.A. § 36-4-121(b)(1)(B) (1996) (defining "marital property" to include "the value of vested and unvested pension, vested and unvested stock option rights, retirement or other -3- fringe benefit rights relating to employment that accrued during the period of the marriage"). As marital property, Husband's retirement benefits were subject to an equitable division, even though Wife did not directly contribute to the increase in their value. See Cohen v. Cohen, 937 S.W.


CourtListener opinion 1072378

ERISA: nefits that accrued during the marriage. Husband argues that the judgment of divorce is not a "qualified domestic relations order" within the meaning of the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d) (1999) ("ERISA"), and, so the argument goes, the award is invalid. Furthermore, he argues, the trial court erred in calculating the amount to which Wife is entitled. According to the Statement of the Evidence, Husband worked for Cleveland Utilities, and participated in its retirement plan from October 1, 1965, until November 7, 1969. Husband cashed out his retirement be


CourtListener opinion 10726178

CourtListener opinion 10726178 Extracted reporter citation: 708 F.3d 520. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10726178 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 10726178

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 10726178

QDRO: itioner, his former wife, sought to hold him in contempt of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QRDO") entered by the family court. Id. at 412. The family court declined to hold the respondent in contempt because the petitioner had not timely filed the QDRO.3 Id. The circuit court affirmed this ruling as a proper application of the doctrine of laches. Id. at 413. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which reversed the lower courts' decisions, finding an erroneous application of the doctrine of laches where neither court had made the requisite determinati


CourtListener opinion 10728965

CourtListener opinion 10728965 Extracted reporter citation: 588 F.3d 186. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10728965 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 10728965

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 10728965

QDRO: ust and shall allow the representatives of said Trust to make the appropriate changes therein so as to indicate [Alma Parsons] as the beneficiary of any interest of [Rodger Parsons] in said Trust." (Compl. ¶ 10.) The November 20, 1985 decree constitutes a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as to Mr. Parsons' retirement benefits. In 1995, ten years after the divorce decree was entered, Mr. Parsons applied for an Early Retirement Pension under the Plan in the form of a single life annuity with sixty guaranteed payments, which the Defendant granted. The Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff's consent to waiver before allowing Mr. Pa


CourtListener opinion 10728965

retirement benefits: e. The Plaintiff alleges that, as a married participant at that time, Mr. Parsons was automatically enrolled in the 50% Husband and Wife Pension. On November 20, 1985, the Plaintiff and Mr. Parsons divorced. The divorce decree granted Mr. Parsons "[a]ll retirement benefits to which he is presently entitled . . . as a result of past or present employment, with [Alma Parsons] to be named as the sole beneficiary and entitled to receive the aforesaid benefits in the event of the death of [Mr. Parsons]." (Compl. ¶ 8.) The divorce decree further stated, "a Certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall be sent to the Boilermaker-


CourtListener opinion 10728965

pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ALMA PARSONS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00132 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Document 11), the Defendant's Suggestions in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Document 12), the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Document 18), and the Defendan


CourtListener opinion 10728965

ERISA: smiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Document 20). For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the motion to dismiss should be denied. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The Plaintiff, Alma Parsons, brings this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq., alleging that the Defendant, acting as a sponsor, violated her interest in her former husband's pension plan. The Plaintiff's ex-husband, Rodger Parsons, was a participant of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust (Plan). Mr. Parsons became a participant in the Plan in 1966. Under Article VI of the Plan, the aut


CourtListener opinion 10729266

CourtListener opinion 10729266 Extracted reporter citation: 526 U.S. 541. Docket: of this Court. 13 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to se. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10729266 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 10729266


CourtListener opinion 10729266

QDRO: allow the representatives of said Trust to make the appropriate changes therein so as to indicate [Alma Parsons] as the beneficiary of any interest of [Rodger Parsons] in said Trust." (Id.) The parties agree that the November 20, 1985 decree constitutes a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as to Mr. Parsons' retirement benefits. In 1995, ten years after the divorce decree was entered, Mr. Parsons applied for an Early Retirement Pension under the Plan in the form of a single life annuity with sixty guaranteed payments, which the Defendant granted. On September 19, 1995, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff, requesting her to clarif


CourtListener opinion 10729266

retirement benefits: nsion in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity (QJSA) for the lifetime of the participant and the participant's surviving legal spouse. On November 20, 1985, the Plaintiff and Mr. Parsons divorced. The divorce decree granted Mr. Parsons "[a]ll retirement benefits to which he is presently entitled . . . as a result of past or present employment, with [Alma Parsons] to be named as the sole beneficiary and entitled to receive the aforesaid benefits in the event of the death of [Mr. Parsons]." (Document 29-3 at BNF 000541.) The divorce decree further stated, "a Certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall be sent to


CourtListener opinion 10729266

pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ALMA PARSONS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00132 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 27) and Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 29), Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Document 31) and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Administrativ


CourtListener opinion 10729266

ERISA: herein, the Court finds that the Defendant's motion should be denied, and that the Plaintiff's motion should be granted. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Plaintiff, Alma Parsons, brought this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq., alleging that the Defendant, acting as a sponsor, violated her interest in her former husband's pension plan. The Plaintiff's ex-husband, Rodger Parsons, was a participant of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust (Plan). Mr. Parsons became a vested participant in the Plan in 1976. Under Article VI of the Plan, t


CourtListener opinion 10730400

CourtListener opinion 10730400 Extracted reporter citation: 439 F.3d 198. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10730400 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 10730400

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


CourtListener opinion 10730400

QDRO: tiff's motions and GRANTS the Pension Board's motion. On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Injunction against the Pension Board, generally alleging that it was failing to give full faith and credit to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that gave her a right to a portion of Christopher Jackson's police pension. In her Complaint, Plaintiff requested the Court enjoin the Pension Board and direct that it pay her pursuant to the terms of the QDRO. The Pension Board was served a copy of the Complaint on December 3, 2021, and its Answer was due on December 24, 2021. As no Answer or respons


CourtListener opinion 10730400

pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION CAMELA JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-0570 HUNTINGTON POLICE PENSION BOARD and CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Camela Jackson's Motions for Default Judgment (ECF Nos. 7 & 9) and a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default by Defendant Huntington Police Pension Board (the Pension Board). ECF No. 17. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plainti


CourtListener opinion 10730596

CourtListener opinion 10730596 Extracted reporter citation: 545 U.S. 546. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10730596 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 10730596


CourtListener opinion 10730596

QDRO: F No. 36. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motions to Dismiss and DENIES AS MOOT both Defendants' and Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment. This case involves a dispute regarding the application of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to certain pension benefits earned by Defendant Christopher Jackson and disbursed by Defendant Huntington Police Pension Board (the Board). Initially, Plaintiff brought this action seeking injunctive relief against the Board and asked the Court to order the Board to make payments to her in the amount she believed she was entitled to receive. After heari


CourtListener opinion 10730596

pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION CAMELA JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-0570 HUNTINGTON POLICE PENSION BOARD and CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are Motions to Dismiss and Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendant Christopher Jackson and Defendant Huntington Police Pension Board (ECF Nos. 29, 31, 41, & 44) and a cross Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Camela Jackson. ECF No. 36. For t


CourtListener opinion 10731094

CourtListener opinion 10731094 Extracted reporter citation: 825 F.3d 206. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10731094 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 10731094

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 10731094

QDRO: ed to exhaust her administrative remedies, a prerequisite to her seeking judicial relief. (ECF No. 5 at 8 (citing Conner v. Elkem Metals Co., 5:06-cv-00217, 2008 WL 5122197, at *3 (S.D. W. Va. Dec. 5, 2008).) They also argue that Plaintiff does not have a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which is required to remain an AEP Plan beneficiary following a divorce. (Id. at 8–9.) The Court believes dismissal without prejudice is the better route. Plaintiff, no doubt, jumped the gun by filing suit before exhausting her administrative remedies. But that mistake does not prevent her from now going back, exhausting her administrative rem


CourtListener opinion 10731094

retirement benefits: ement, LLC's ("Empower") Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 4.) For the reasons more fully explained below, the motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Roger Allen Riley was an AEP employee. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2, ¶ 9.) While there, Roger participated in two AEP-sponsored retirement plans ("AEP Plans").1 (Id.) He designated his then-wife Plaintiff Sherry Ray Riley ("Plaintiff") as the beneficiary of each AEP Plan. (Id. at 2, ¶ 11.) The couple divorced sometime in 2021, or early 2022, (see id. at 2, ¶ ¶ 4, 8), and Roger passed away "several months" later on April 4, 2022, (id.). Although the two divorced some time 1 The complaint does n


CourtListener opinion 10731094

pension: as. Co., 404 F.3d 253, 258 (4th Cir. 2005) ("The term ‘State law' encompasses not only statutes but also common law causes of action, such as . . . claim[s] for breach of contract."). 3 An "employee benefit plan," for ERISA purposes, includes "an employee pension benefit plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1002(3). "[A]n employee pension benefit plan" is defined as "any plan, fund, or program which was . . . established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both," that "provides retirement income to employees." 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(A)(i). This covers the AEP Plans at issue here. 4 Plaintiff's state-


CourtListener opinion 10731094

ERISA: h plans, and that "Empower is the recordkeeper . . . only for the AEP 401(k) Plan." (ECF No. 5 at 2 n.1.) At this juncture, however, the Court must accept Plaintiff's factual allegations as true. King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 212 (4th Cir. 2016). 2 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (Id. at 1.) Because Plaintiff's claims are preempted, they argue, her complaint fails to state a claim and should therefore be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) The matter is ripe for adjudication. (ECF Nos. 5, 14, 16.) II. LEGAL STANDARD A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted tests the lega


CourtListener opinion 10732269

CourtListener opinion 10732269 Extracted reporter citation: 207 F.3d 1143. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10732269 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 10732269


CourtListener opinion 10732269

QDRO: action concerning the proceeds of a life insurance policy administered by the Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company ("Hartford Plan"). The district court held the Legal Separation Agreement ("LSA") between Kowalski and her deceased ex-husband was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The LSA provides that the decedent "shall carry and maintain a policy of life insurance in the amount of $800,000" and "name [Kowalski's minor son, E.K.] as sole beneficiary." Thus, in accordance with the LSA, the district court held E.K. had superior rights to the Hartford Pl


CourtListener opinion 10732269

pension: ust, among other requirements, "clearly specif[y]" "each plan to which such order applies." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C)(iv). We require only "substantial compliance" with ERISA's specificity requirements. Hamilton v. Wash. State Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. Pension Plan, 433 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2006) 2 23-3286 (citing Trs. of Dirs. Guild of Am.-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 420 (9th Cir. 2000)). The LSA substantially complies with the specificity requirements. The purpose of these requirements is to "spar[e] plan administrators the grief they experience" due to "uncertainty conce


CourtListener opinion 10732269

ERISA: Insurance Company ("Hartford Plan"). The district court held the Legal Separation Agreement ("LSA") between Kowalski and her deceased ex-husband was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The LSA provides that the decedent "shall carry and maintain a policy of life insurance in the amount of $800,000" and "name [Kowalski's minor son, E.K.] as sole beneficiary." Thus, in accordance with the LSA, the district court held E.K. had superior rights to the Hartford Plan proceeds over the decedent's girlfriend, Valois, who is the named benefi


CourtListener opinion 10732269

domestic relations order: cerning the proceeds of a life insurance policy administered by the Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company ("Hartford Plan"). The district court held the Legal Separation Agreement ("LSA") between Kowalski and her deceased ex-husband was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The LSA provides that the decedent "shall carry and maintain a policy of life insurance in the amount of $800,000" and "name [Kowalski's minor son, E.K.] as sole beneficiary." Thus, in accordance with the LSA, the district court held E.K. had superior rights to the Hartford Pl


CourtListener opinion 1073497

CourtListener opinion 1073497 Extracted case name: SESSION MONA ZAYYAT KOJA v. ABED SALAM KOJA A. Extracted reporter citation: 944 S.W.2d 379. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1073497 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 1073497

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 1073497

QDRO: ount shall all go to Dr. Koja. Mrs. Koja shall receive her personal checking account at First Tennessee Bank, account number 20-87888758. Mrs. Koja shall be awarded $50,000.00 of Dr. Koja's profit sharing plan, which shall be transferred by an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which should be prepared by her counsel. Dr. Koja shall also pay to Mrs. Koja as a further division of marital assets, a cash payment of $34,000.00. Dr. Koja shall pay to Mrs. Koja the sum of $3,000.00 per month as periodic alimony, which shall terminate upon her death or remarriage. That the Court has taken into consideration the potential cost fo


CourtListener opinion 1073497

domestic relations order: all go to Dr. Koja. Mrs. Koja shall receive her personal checking account at First Tennessee Bank, account number 20-87888758. Mrs. Koja shall be awarded $50,000.00 of Dr. Koja's profit sharing plan, which shall be transferred by an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which should be prepared by her counsel. Dr. Koja shall also pay to Mrs. Koja as a further division of marital assets, a cash payment of $34,000.00. Dr. Koja shall pay to Mrs. Koja the sum of $3,000.00 per month as periodic alimony, which shall terminate upon her death or remarriage. That the Court has taken into consideration the potential cost fo


CourtListener opinion 1073522

CourtListener opinion 1073522 Extracted case name: PHILLIPS v. THOMAS HICKMAN PHILLIPS. Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 815. Docket: M1999-00212-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1073522 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 1073522


CourtListener opinion 1073522

QDRO: ital property. We therefore modify the trial court's ruling to reflect that, in addition to the marital property that the court awarded Husband, Husband is also awarded a total of $75,000.00 from Wife's retirement accounts. On remand, the court should enter a qualified domestic relations order assigning this amount to Husband. Rehabilitative Alimony As stated above, the trial court ordered that Husband is obligated to pay rehabilitative alimony to Wife in the amount of $600.00 per month until December of 2000. Husband argues on appeal that, given Wife's education, employment history, and current income opportunities, an award of alimony is in


CourtListener opinion 1073522

retirement benefits: sonal $264.00 $264.00 $264.00 Bank Account Old Hickory Credit $291.09 $291.09 $291.09 Union Bank Account ½ of Tax Refund $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 1992 Toyota SR5 $9,100.00 $9,100.00 $9,100.00 4-Runner Husband's $124,329.69 $124,329.69 $124,329.69 Retirement Accounts Marital Debt Allocated to Husband Debt Amount of Debt First USA Waldenbooks Visa $6,000.00 First Union MasterCard $3,000.00 Discover Card $4,528.00 -2- Value of Marital Property Awarded to Husband: $138,464.42 Amount of Marital Debt Allocated to Husband: 13,528.00 Net Amount of Marital Estate Awarded to Husband: $124,936.421 Marital Property A


CourtListener opinion 1073522

pension: ee id. at 683 (citing Hawkins v. Hawkins, 883 S.W.2d 622, 625 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994); Loyd, 860 S.W.2d at 412). These factors are as follows: (A) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party, including income from pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other sources; (B) The relative education and training of each party, the ability and opportunity of each party to secure such education and training, and the necessity of a party to secure further education and training to improve such party's earning capacity to a reasonable level; (C) The duration of the


CourtListener opinion 1073522

domestic relations order: rty. We therefore modify the trial court's ruling to reflect that, in addition to the marital property that the court awarded Husband, Husband is also awarded a total of $75,000.00 from Wife's retirement accounts. On remand, the court should enter a qualified domestic relations order assigning this amount to Husband. Rehabilitative Alimony As stated above, the trial court ordered that Husband is obligated to pay rehabilitative alimony to Wife in the amount of $600.00 per month until December of 2000. Husband argues on appeal that, given Wife's education, employment history, and current income opportunities, an award of alimony is in


CourtListener opinion 10737117

CourtListener opinion 10737117 Extracted reporter citation: 359 P.3d 667. Docket: 20230742-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10737117 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 10737117

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 10737117

QDRO: . Specifically, the district court ordered, The parties will verify retirement/pension funds and equally share the marital portions of those funds (from September 1, 2012 through October 1, 2021). Each party will be responsible for the Orders (including Qualified Domestic Relations Orders and military division Orders) to obtain their interest in the other party's retirement. ¶4 Not long after the Decree was entered, Justin was retired from the military with a disability rating of 100% and nearly twenty-one years of service credited toward retirement. At that point, Justin began receiving two types of pay relevant to this case. First, Jus


CourtListener opinion 10737117

retirement benefits: ired from the military for permanent disability under Chapter 61. Id. at 434, 438. The wife argued that "CRDP is divisible upon divorce." Id. at 441 (cleaned up). ¶19 The court in Guerrero explained "CRDP does not change the nature of [a member's] Chapter 61 retirement benefit. [His] benefits come from two sources—Chapter 61 disability retirement and VA disability payments. Neither source is divisible upon 20230742-CA 7 2024 UT App 160 Chlarson v. Chlarson divorce." Id. Such is the case here. Justin receives Chapter 61 disability retirement and disability compensation. Neither is divisible. ¶20 The fact that § 1414 reference


CourtListener opinion 10737117

pension: At the time of trial, Justin was serving full time in the military, pending a possible disability retirement. ¶3 In the divorce decree (the Decree), the district court awarded Justin and Jacqueline equal shares of the "marital portions" of all retirement and pension funds. Specifically, the district court ordered, The parties will verify retirement/pension funds and equally share the marital portions of those funds (from September 1, 2012 through October 1, 2021). Each party will be responsible for the Orders (including Qualified Domestic Relations Orders and military division Orders) to obtain their interest in


CourtListener opinion 10737117

domestic relations order: ally, the district court ordered, The parties will verify retirement/pension funds and equally share the marital portions of those funds (from September 1, 2012 through October 1, 2021). Each party will be responsible for the Orders (including Qualified Domestic Relations Orders and military division Orders) to obtain their interest in the other party's retirement. ¶4 Not long after the Decree was entered, Justin was retired from the military with a disability rating of 100% and nearly twenty-one years of service credited toward retirement. At that point, Justin began receiving two types of pay relevant to this case. First, Jus


CourtListener opinion 10737620

CourtListener opinion 10737620 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10737620 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 10737620


CourtListener opinion 10737620

QDRO: , 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993). II. The Wife's Cross-Appeal A. Relevant Facts In the parties' divorce decree, the trial court ordered that the husband's defined contribution retirement accounts "shall be divided by a . . . Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as necessary such that[,] based on the values on the date of division[,] [the wife] is awarded 55% and [the husband] 45% of the balances in each account." (Emphasis added.) The court's subsequent December 5, 2013 order, entered in response to post-divorce motions filed after the time for a mandatory appeal of the parties' divorce decree had expired, provid


CourtListener opinion 10737620

retirement benefits: opinion is unnecessary in this case. The husband, James Drew, appeals, and the wife, Susan Drew, cross- appeals, a decision of the Circuit Court (Foley, J.) concerning the division of the husband's retirement assets, which consist of five defined contribution retirement accounts and two traditional pensions. The husband challenges the trial court's division of his traditional pensions, and the wife challenges its division of his defined contribution retirement accounts. The husband asserts that the trial court's division of his traditional pensions is erroneous because the trial court accepted apportionment orders drafted by an ac


CourtListener opinion 10737620

pension: orders. We affirm. I. The Husband's Appeal A. Relevant Facts The parties divorced in April 2013, after having been married for approximately 16 years. The parties' divorce decree provided that the husband's traditional pensions, which comprise a military pension from the United States Army and a civil service pension from the Internal Revenue Service, would be divided pursuant to the Hodgins formula. See Hodgins v. Hodgins, 126 N.H. 711, 716 (1985), superseded on other grounds by RSA 458:16-a, II (2004). The Hodgins formula is a default formula that applies when the nature of a retirement benefit makes it impossibl


CourtListener opinion 10737620

401(k): hat a formal written opinion is unnecessary in this case. The husband, James Drew, appeals, and the wife, Susan Drew, cross- appeals, a decision of the Circuit Court (Foley, J.) concerning the division of the husband's retirement assets, which consist of five defined contribution retirement accounts and two traditional pensions. The husband challenges the trial court's division of his traditional pensions, and the wife challenges its division of his defined contribution retirement accounts. The husband asserts that the trial court's division of his traditional pensions is erroneous because the trial court accepted apportionment orde


CourtListener opinion 10738069

CourtListener opinion 10738069 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10738069 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 10738069


CourtListener opinion 10738069

QDRO: an exhibit, a letter from the Department of Education that stated that it "does not offer federal funds to repay a portion of a loan or to repay a loan in someone else's name." The trial court found that the respondent "did not cooperate with, or sign the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)] documents as required in . . . Section 10 of the parties' February 10, 2011 Permanent Stipulations" (emphasis in original). However, the stipulation does not refer to the preparation or execution of QDROs. It was the April 9, 2012 order that directed the parties to "cooperate fully" in the preparation and execution of the QDROs, but directed the pe


CourtListener opinion 10738069

retirement benefits: nds that were the subject of the QDRO and the Court's Order, despite the fact that the Court's [April 9, 2012] Order . . . was clear and unambiguous." The April 9 order directed the respondent to withdraw the QDRO funds "within 10 days of the establishment of retirement accounts for him by the plan administrator and within five (5) days thereafter place these funds" with the petitioner's counsel as escrow agent. The respondent testified, and the petitioner did not contest his testimony at the hearing, that he received the first QDRO check on December 19, 2012, and the second QDRO check on January 14, 2013, and transferred the fund


CourtListener opinion 10738069

domestic relations order: t, a letter from the Department of Education that stated that it "does not offer federal funds to repay a portion of a loan or to repay a loan in someone else's name." The trial court found that the respondent "did not cooperate with, or sign the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)] documents as required in . . . Section 10 of the parties' February 10, 2011 Permanent Stipulations" (emphasis in original). However, the stipulation does not refer to the preparation or execution of QDROs. It was the April 9, 2012 order that directed the parties to "cooperate fully" in the preparation and execution of the QDROs, but directed the pe


CourtListener opinion 10739109

CourtListener opinion 10739109 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of DOMINIC and BIBIAN EHIRIM. DOMINIC EHIRIM. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10739109 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 10739109


CourtListener opinion 10739109

retirement benefits: erroneously determined the "start date" of his Gillmore payments to Bibian. We find no merit to this claim. 1. Legal Principles Under Gillmore, a nonmember spouse is entitled to the value of the nonmember's community interest in a member spouse's public retirement plan when the member 3 becomes eligible for retirement—that is, the nonmember is entitled to the amount the nonmember would have collected from the plan if the member retired when the member became eligible for retirement. (Gillmore, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 426.) If the member continues to work, the member must pay the nonmember the value of the nonmember's


CourtListener opinion 10739109

pension: tiary hearing on the RFO on September 28, 2021. The parties submitted on their pleadings and declarations, and the court took the matter under submission. On October 28, 2021, the court took the matter out of submission and reappointed Richard R. Muir, the pension expert who had prepared the parties' DRO, to provide responses to two questions: "Can the CalPERS pension plan with the State of California divide the interest of the parties into two separate accounts to reflect their respective community property interests?" and "If the CalPERS pension plan with the State of California can separate the parties' respe


CourtListener opinion 10739109

domestic relations order: Bibian filed a request for order (RFO), namely, a "Gillmore order" directing Dominic to pay Bibian her community interest in Dominic's retirement plan with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), along with attorney fees and costs. A "domestic relations order" (DRO) dividing the parties' 5 community property interests in Dominic's CalPERS plan was entered on Dec. 17, 2018. As of July 17, 2020, Dominic was eligible to retire but was still employed by his CalPERS-covered employer. Through her July 17, 2020 RFO, Bibian sought to enforce her rights under the DRO by obtaining immediate payment of her community


CourtListener opinion 10739109

valuation/division: ts holding in Gillmore, and the choices that the member and nonmember spouses have when the member becomes eligible for retirement: "In [Gillmore], we held that retirement benefits that an employee spouse earns during a marriage to a nonemployee spouse are community property. On dissolution of the marriage, such benefits are subject to equal division. When the employee spouse becomes eligible for retirement, he may choose to retire and receive benefits or to continue to work. That is to say, he may retire and thereby commence drawing from the stream of income that then begins to flow, with the result that the nonemployee sp


CourtListener opinion 10742931

CourtListener opinion 10742931 Extracted reporter citation: 559 N.E.2d 1292. Docket: WD-23-036 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10742931 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 10742931

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 10742931

QDRO: th Dist.). Also in 2020, appellant attempted to appeal the court's order on appellee's emergency motion to show cause relative to custody issues, which we dismissed for failure to comply with App.R. 3(A). In 2022, appellant appealed from the December 21, 2021 QDRO, arguing issues related to property division, ordered in the decree, which we addressed in Korfhage v. Fitzgerald, 2023-Ohio-744 (6th Dist.). The present appeal was filed in 2023. Most recently, appellant filed an appeal of the trial court's denial of his motion to find appellee in contempt in 2024, which we dismissed upon appellant's failure to timely file


CourtListener opinion 10742931

retirement benefits: rial court entered a temporary order, enjoining the parties from removing, transferring, encumbering, pledging, hypothecating, damaging, hiding, concealing, assigning, or disposing of any property without consent of court. The order specifically referenced retirement plans and enjoined the parties from liquidating or cashing in any retirement or pension plan. {¶ 3} After lengthy proceedings, the matter was tried to the court in 2019 and the trial court entered final judgment, granting divorce and dividing marital assets, on March 2, 2020, incorporating the decision of November 14, 2019, and adopting and incorporating a


CourtListener opinion 10742931

pension: cumbering, pledging, hypothecating, damaging, hiding, concealing, assigning, or disposing of any property without consent of court. The order specifically referenced retirement plans and enjoined the parties from liquidating or cashing in any retirement or pension plan. {¶ 3} After lengthy proceedings, the matter was tried to the court in 2019 and the trial court entered final judgment, granting divorce and dividing marital assets, on March 2, 2020, incorporating the decision of November 14, 2019, and adopting and incorporating appellee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Pertinent to this appeal, the fi


CourtListener opinion 10742931

ERISA: payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.'" Wilson v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 6, quoting Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), Section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(l), Title 29, U.S. Code and Section 414(p)(1)(A)(i), Title 26 U.S. Code. A QDRO implements the trial court's decision regarding the division of property incident to divorce. Id. at ¶ 7. The sole purpose of the QDRO "is to implement the terms of the divorce decree." Id. at ¶ 16. {¶ 29} As an order to execute the division of p


CourtListener opinion 10745149

CourtListener opinion 10745149 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10745149 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 10745149


CourtListener opinion 10745149

QDRO: an: an: ** BEFORE ECKERLE A JONES AND TAYLOR JUDGES TAYLOR JUDGE Chastity Ellison appeals ﬁom a July 25 2023 Order entered by the Kenton Circuit Court, Family Court Division (family court), setting aside, mmc pro tune, a Qualiﬁed Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered by the family court on January 1 1, 2023 ' For the reasons stated, we dismiss this appeal as being interlocutory The marriage of Chastity and Wayne Ellison was dissolved by decree entered by the Kenton Family Court on April 15, 2022 The parties had been married for slightly more than three years Under the Separation Agreement entered into by


CourtListener opinion 10745149

401(k): stity and Wayne Ellison was dissolved by decree entered by the Kenton Family Court on April 15, 2022 The parties had been married for slightly more than three years Under the Separation Agreement entered into by the parties, the marital interest of Wayne's 401K account would be divided equally pursuant to a QDRO that the parties would agree to tender to the court The family court entered the QDRO on January 1 1, 2023 Wayne believed that the marital interest of the 401K account was $75,903 30, plus any investment earnings However, the QDRO language apparently allowed a distribution to Chastity from Wayne's non


CourtListener opinion 10745149

domestic relations order: RDER DISMISSING ** an: an: an: ** BEFORE ECKERLE A JONES AND TAYLOR JUDGES TAYLOR JUDGE Chastity Ellison appeals ﬁom a July 25 2023 Order entered by the Kenton Circuit Court, Family Court Division (family court), setting aside, mmc pro tune, a Qualiﬁed Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered by the family court on January 1 1, 2023 ' For the reasons stated, we dismiss this appeal as being interlocutory The marriage of Chastity and Wayne Ellison was dissolved by decree entered by the Kenton Family Court on April 15, 2022 The parties had been married for slightly more than three years Under the Separation Agreement entered i


CourtListener opinion 10745938

CourtListener opinion 10745938 Extracted reporter citation: 167 A.3d 127. Docket: 1055 MDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10745938 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 10745938


CourtListener opinion 10745938

QDRO: were in excess of Husband's in the amount of $51,723.64, Wife was required to pay Husband one-half of the difference. -2- J-A07002-21 Following the Divorce Master's recommendation, the parties asked Jonathan Cramer of Conrad Siegel Inc. to prepare a qualified domestic relations order[ ("QDRO")] to effectuate the Divorce Master's decision regarding the pensions. When Mr. Cramer prepared a QDRO, he indicated that Wife's share should be paid to Husband's estate should Husband die first. Wife objected to this language. The parties resubmitted the issue to the Divorce Master, who vacated his initial report and solicited additional argu


CourtListener opinion 10745938

retirement benefits: ing benefits should Wife predecease him. Wife's monthly gross benefit as a result of her PSERS pension was $3,738.68. Wife began receiving Social Security benefits in the amount of $1,572 in 2016 when she reached sixty-two years of age. In addition to the retirement benefits, the parties' assets include a marital residence, vehicles, various bank accounts and personal property items. On January 15, 2016, Husband filed a Complaint in Divorce raising claims of divorce and equitable distribution. On January 18, 2019, Wife filed a motion for the appointment of a special master in divorce (hereafter Divorce Master). A Divorc


CourtListener opinion 10745938

pension: and mental health issues. Husband was fifty-five years old at the time of retirement earning approximately $55,000 annually. As a result of his retirement, Husband commenced benefits under his Public School Employment Retirement System (hereinafter PSERS) pension. The parties agreed that Husband would elect a single life annuity upon his retirement to provide him greater monthly benefit during ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A07002-21 his lifetime, understanding that Wife would not be entitled to any survivor benefits upon his death. Ac


CourtListener opinion 10745938

alternate payee: numerical form omitted). Wife filed exceptions, challenging the continuation of payments should Husband predecease her. The trial court disagreed and entered a final decree which, inter alia, provided that the QDRO include the following language: "If the Alternate Payee dies before the Member, the Alternate Payee's share of the Member's annuity payable to PSERS shall be paid to the Alternate Payee's estate for the Member's lifetime." Final Decree, 7/21/20, at 4. Wife filed a timely notice of appeal, and both Wife and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Wife presents the following question for our resolution


CourtListener opinion 10746042

CourtListener opinion 10746042 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 251 MDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10746042 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 10746042

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 10746042

domestic relations order: nts due to his criminal charges as well as his physical limitations. The court does appreciate that there are some criminal charges that raise concerns about safety and parenting and some ____________________________________________ 3 CYF Exhibit 10 is a domestic relations order finding Father to be the biological father of Child. -7- J-S17003-21 that do not. Mother's retail theft from many years ago does not. The ones that most concern the court are those involving sex, drugs and violence. Unfortunately, [F]ather's criminal charges involve all three. Therefore, his ongoing commitment to the requirements of probation are


CourtListener opinion 10746314

CourtListener opinion 10746314 Extracted reporter citation: 580 A.2d 369. Docket: 562 WDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10746314 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 10746314

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 10746314

QDRO: the [MSA] at issue is Paragraph 12, which is J-A11016-21 identified as "Retirement Plans."[1] Specifically, Paragraph 12 of the MSA provides that, in order to effectuate the division of Husband's pension, a qualified domestic relations order (hereafter "QDRO") was to be completed. Jonathan Cramer, an actuarial consultant at Conrad Siegel, completed a proposed QDRO that was forwarded to the parties' attorneys for review. Upon receipt, Husband raised objections to specific language of the proposed QDRO. As a result of the ongoing disagreement over the language, Wife filed the petition for special relief tha


CourtListener opinion 10746314

retirement benefits: 19 was executed by the parties. Said MSA was filed on July 29, 2019, and was incorporated in the divorce decree of the [trial court], which was filed the same date. The portion of the [MSA] at issue is Paragraph 12, which is J-A11016-21 identified as "Retirement Plans."[1] Specifically, Paragraph 12 of the MSA provides that, in order to effectuate the division of Husband's pension, a qualified domestic relations order (hereafter "QDRO") was to be completed. Jonathan Cramer, an actuarial consultant at Conrad Siegel, completed a proposed QDRO that was forwarded to the parties' attorneys for review. Upon receipt, Hus


CourtListener opinion 10746314

pension: al court], which was filed the same date. The portion of the [MSA] at issue is Paragraph 12, which is J-A11016-21 identified as "Retirement Plans."[1] Specifically, Paragraph 12 of the MSA provides that, in order to effectuate the division of Husband's pension, a qualified domestic relations order (hereafter "QDRO") was to be completed. Jonathan Cramer, an actuarial consultant at Conrad Siegel, completed a proposed QDRO that was forwarded to the parties' attorneys for review. Upon receipt, Husband raised objections to specific language of the proposed QDRO. As a result of the ongoing disagreement over the l


CourtListener opinion 10746314

domestic relations order: But you acknowledge, do you not, that the plan cannot pay to [Wife] money that—it's like a tier one and a tier two benefit; am I correct in that? [Mr. Cramer]: I mean if you're trying to fulfill a Social Security offset that has to be calculated in the domestic relations order. That wasn't in the settlement agreement, so we didn't make any calculations for that. (N.T. Hearing at 20-21) (emphasis added). Contrary to Husband's position, the court could not rewrite the MSA to add language requiring a Social Security set-off. See Sorace, supra. Moreover, the court correctly recognized that the case law relied on by Husband, i


CourtListener opinion 10746599

CourtListener opinion 10746599 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 835 EDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10746599 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 10746599


CourtListener opinion 10746599

retirement benefits: 475.00, representing the stipulated value of the trusts plus interest. The trial court determined Husband owed Wife $9,292,283.00, to be paid in 60 days with (1) $3,292,283.00 coming from Husband's AXA Account; (2) $3,292,283.00 transferred from Husband's retirement account into a retirement account for Wife's benefit via a qualified -5- J-A01039-21 domestic relations order; and (3) $3,292,283.00 in a cash payment to Wife. Finally, the trial court awarded Wife 30% of the parties' business-related assets, which amounted to $2,126,101.00. As many of the business-related assets were not liquid, the trial court ordered Husb


CourtListener opinion 10746599

domestic relations order: usband owed Wife $9,292,283.00, to be paid in 60 days with (1) $3,292,283.00 coming from Husband's AXA Account; (2) $3,292,283.00 transferred from Husband's retirement account into a retirement account for Wife's benefit via a qualified -5- J-A01039-21 domestic relations order; and (3) $3,292,283.00 in a cash payment to Wife. Finally, the trial court awarded Wife 30% of the parties' business-related assets, which amounted to $2,126,101.00. As many of the business-related assets were not liquid, the trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife $17,717.00 in 120 equal monthly installments along with three percent interest. Wife ag


CourtListener opinion 10746599

valuation/division: D SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 Appellant, Timothy Mohen, ("Husband") appeals from the February 3, 2020 order, which amended a January 8, 2020 order and decree that both dissolved the marriage between Husband and Appellee, Christine Mohen, ("Wife") and provided for equitable distribution of their assets. For the following reasons, we affirm, in part, and vacate, in part. Specifically, we vacate the portion of the January 8, 2020 order that erroneously charges Husband with $4,360,158.00 in unaccrued interest on marital assets Husband fraudulently dissipated from the marital estate. Because this disposition of an issue raised on appeal a


CourtListener opinion 10746719

CourtListener opinion 10746719 Extracted reporter citation: 799 A.2d 812. Docket: 1203 EDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10746719 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 10746719


CourtListener opinion 10746719

QDRO: a hearing on September 17, 2017, and filed a report on August 21, 2018. The trial court entered a preliminary order and decree implementing the report on August 21, 2018. On December 27, 2018, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") regarding Appellee's pension from the Whitehall Township Police Pension Fund and Trust (the "Trust"). Under the QDRO Appellant would ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A04004-21 receive survivor benefits under the pension if Appellee predeceased her. The Trust rejected the QDRO in pa


CourtListener opinion 10746719

pension: 2017, and filed a report on August 21, 2018. The trial court entered a preliminary order and decree implementing the report on August 21, 2018. On December 27, 2018, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") regarding Appellee's pension from the Whitehall Township Police Pension Fund and Trust (the "Trust"). Under the QDRO Appellant would ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A04004-21 receive survivor benefits under the pension if Appellee predeceased her. The Trust rejected the QDRO in part, stating that Appellant, as


CourtListener opinion 10746719

survivor benefits: ) regarding Appellee's pension from the Whitehall Township Police Pension Fund and Trust (the "Trust"). Under the QDRO Appellant would ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A04004-21 receive survivor benefits under the pension if Appellee predeceased her. The Trust rejected the QDRO in part, stating that Appellant, as a former spouse, is ineligible for survivorship benefits under Appellee's pension.1 In specific: Paragraph 9 of the original Pension QDRO provided that Appellant was entitled to a portion of the survivor benefit payable under the Police Pens


CourtListener opinion 10746719

valuation/division: -1102 BEFORE: STABILE, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* OPINION BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 06, 2021 Appellant, Theresa Cuth, appeals from the May 1, 2020 decree of divorce. We affirm. On August 13, 2015, Appellant filed a complaint for divorce and equitable distribution against Appellee, Brian A. Cuth, after twenty-two years of marriage. An appointed Master conducted a hearing on September 17, 2017, and filed a report on August 21, 2018. The trial court entered a preliminary order and decree implementing the report on August 21, 2018. On December 27, 2018, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (


CourtListener opinion 10746999

CourtListener opinion 10746999 Extracted reporter citation: 916 A.2d 1128. Docket: 209 MDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10746999 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 10746999


CourtListener opinion 10746999

QDRO: dived 60% to Wife and 40% to Husband. 2. The marital portions of the 401(k) and Pension of Husband at Carpenter Technology shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order with Wife receiving 60% of the marital portion and Husband receiving 40%. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be arranged by Husband and the cost shall be equally divided by the parties. 3. The 2013 Jeep Wrangler shall be the sole and exclusive property of Wife subject to the loan balance of about $15,000.00. The loan shall be the sole responsibility of Wife, who shall indemnify and hold Husband harmless from any and all liability concerning the loan.


CourtListener opinion 10746999

pension: hereinafter set forth. Alternatively, if the home is foreclosed upon, any deficiency shall be paid 60% by Husband and 40% by Wife. If there are any net proceeds, they shall be dived 60% to Wife and 40% to Husband. 2. The marital portions of the 401(k) and Pension of Husband at Carpenter Technology shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order with Wife receiving 60% of the marital portion and Husband receiving 40%. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be arranged by Husband and the cost shall be equally divided by the parties. 3. The 2013 Jeep Wrangler shall be the sole and exclusive property


CourtListener opinion 10746999

401(k): f debts as hereinafter set forth. Alternatively, if the home is foreclosed upon, any deficiency shall be paid 60% by Husband and 40% by Wife. If there are any net proceeds, they shall be dived 60% to Wife and 40% to Husband. 2. The marital portions of the 401(k) and Pension of Husband at Carpenter Technology shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order with Wife receiving 60% of the marital portion and Husband receiving 40%. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be arranged by Husband and the cost shall be equally divided by the parties. 3. The 2013 Jeep Wrangler shall be the sole and exclusi


CourtListener opinion 10746999

domestic relations order: to Wife and 40% to Husband. 2. The marital portions of the 401(k) and Pension of Husband at Carpenter Technology shall be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order with Wife receiving 60% of the marital portion and Husband receiving 40%. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be arranged by Husband and the cost shall be equally divided by the parties. 3. The 2013 Jeep Wrangler shall be the sole and exclusive property of Wife subject to the loan balance of about $15,000.00. The loan shall be the sole responsibility of Wife, who shall indemnify and hold Husband harmless from any and all liability concerning the loan.


CourtListener opinion 1074970

CourtListener opinion 1074970 Extracted reporter citation: 565 S.W.2d 876. Docket: 16910-C. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1074970 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 1074970

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 1074970

QDRO: ac 6000. Each party shall be responsible for any debt associated with such vehicle. 6. That the parties shall equally divide Husband's 401K Alley-Cassetty Coal Co. in the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX ($8,626.00) DOLLARS. Further, that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be submitted to effect this transaction. 7. That the parties shall equally divide the parties' joint Savings Account in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS, payable within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Order. 8. That the Husband shall be responsible for the arrearages on alimony and the household bills in the amount of ONE THOU


CourtListener opinion 1074970

401(k): Chevy Pickup Truck, his Camaro, the 1984 Tempo, the farm tractor and the dune buggy. Wife shall be awarded the 1985 Pontiac 6000. Each party shall be responsible for any debt associated with such vehicle. 6. That the parties shall equally divide Husband's 401K Alley-Cassetty Coal Co. in the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX ($8,626.00) DOLLARS. Further, that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be submitted to effect this transaction. 7. That the parties shall equally divide the parties' joint Savings Account in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS, payable within ninety (90) da


CourtListener opinion 1074970

domestic relations order: ach party shall be responsible for any debt associated with such vehicle. 6. That the parties shall equally divide Husband's 401K Alley-Cassetty Coal Co. in the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX ($8,626.00) DOLLARS. Further, that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be submitted to effect this transaction. 7. That the parties shall equally divide the parties' joint Savings Account in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS, payable within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Order. 8. That the Husband shall be responsible for the arrearages on alimony and the household bills in the amount of ONE THOU


CourtListener opinion 10751393

CourtListener opinion 10751393 Extracted case name: COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. RYAN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10751393 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 10751393


CourtListener opinion 10751393

QDRO: 20} In Bulson, a client retained Bulson to represent her in a domestic- relations case. Bulson at ¶ 7. After the domestic-relations court entered an agreed judgment entry in January 2013, Bulson was tasked with preparing a qualified domestic-relations order ("QDRO") to transfer a portion of his client's former husband's 401(k) account to his client. Id. Bulson "did not take the necessary actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding [the client's] frequent inquiries and attempts to call him." Id. at ¶ 8. {¶ 21} We concluded that Bulson's misconduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a


CourtListener opinion 10751393

retirement benefits: arranted an actual suspension because he had previously received a fully stayed suspension in a prior disciplinary case. Id. at ¶ 17. {¶ 22} In Arkow, 2022-Ohio-3209, a client paid the attorney in November 2019 to obtain a QDRO to divide her former husband's retirement account. Id. at ¶ 5. Arkow falsely assured the client that he had submitted her information to a company that would prepare the QDRO and was waiting for it to be processed, 8 January Term, 2024 delaying the matter for over a year. Id. at ¶ 6-7. Eventually, the client informed Arkow that she was going to file a grievance against him, after which Arkow attempted


CourtListener opinion 10751393

401(k): domestic- relations case. Bulson at ¶ 7. After the domestic-relations court entered an agreed judgment entry in January 2013, Bulson was tasked with preparing a qualified domestic-relations order ("QDRO") to transfer a portion of his client's former husband's 401(k) account to his client. Id. Bulson "did not take the necessary actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding [the client's] frequent inquiries and attempts to call him." Id. at ¶ 8. {¶ 21} We concluded that Bulson's misconduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as pra


CourtListener opinion 10751393

valuation/division: o Ryan's securing a divorce decree for Smith and did not include postdecree work, such as orders to divide marital property. {¶ 6} On October 13, 2017, the domestic-relations court issued the divorce decree. In the decree, the court awarded Smith half of the marital portion of her former husband's interest in his Ohio Public Employees Retirement ("OPERS") account. However, Smith could not access her share of that account until the domestic-relations court entered a division of property order ("DOPO") in the divorce action. {¶ 7} On September 5, 2018, Smith sent a text message to Ryan requesting that she finalize the DOPO. Rya


CourtListener opinion 1075230

CourtListener opinion 1075230 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1075230 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 1075230


CourtListener opinion 1075230

retirement benefits: to the DCI Credits: 4 Q. All right. Now, you do understand, though, in the deferred compensation that truly is not paid out until he does retire or is disabled? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Are you willing to wait until those events happened just like a normal retirement plan? A. Yes, I am. Q. Are you asking him to pay you that at this time? A. No. Similarly, during cross-examination by Husband's attorney, Wife testified as follows: Q. In your request for half of the $90,000 approximately in the agent's incentive credit plan, you realize that there's no place to get that money from him until he draws it? .... A. Are yo


CourtListener opinion 1075230

401(k): parties agreed to a division of personal marital property whereby Husband received personal property with a total value of $8,590, and Wife received personal property with an total value of $6,867.00. Husband had an IRA with a $37,174 value, and Wife had a 401k plan through her employment at Behavior Technology valued at $1,640. Additionally, Husband had a life insurance policy in the face amount of $123,940 with a present cash surrender value of $11,819. He also had a term life insurance policy in the face amount of $20,000, though this term policy had no cash value. Wife had a life insurance policy in the fa


CourtListener opinion 1075230

domestic relations order: f $1,880 to Husband at the time when Husband furnishes Wife the new vehicle referred to above; 5. "[t]hat Wife's 401k Plan, having a value of $1,640, be awarded to her"; 6. that Husband's $37,174 IRA "be divided equally between the parties via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order"; 7. that a credit union account, having an approximate value of $1,500, be awarded to Wife; and 8. that Husband "assign one-half the value of his Extended Earnings Benefit with Nationwide and one-half the value of the DCIC Deferred Compensation Plan with Nationwide to [Wife], said value to be determined at the time of draw-down or at the time [Husban


CourtListener opinion 10752773

CourtListener opinion 10752773 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 24CA012069 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10752773 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 10752773


CourtListener opinion 10752773

QDRO: nt addresses Husband's pension ("the Pension"). Husband agreed in section five that, when he retires, Wife is entitled to one-half of the Pension for the years the parties were married. Husband and Wife agreed to have a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") prepared to reflect this agreement. 2 {¶4} Section six of the separation agreement addresses spousal support and is at issue in this appeal. Husband agreed in this section to pay Wife $2,300 per month in spousal support, commencing in January 2019, "until [he] receives his pension." Section six states in relevant part: Husband agrees to pay Wife, a


CourtListener opinion 10752773

pension: Witten ("Wife") and Thomas G. Witten ("Husband") married at common law in 1982 and divorced in 2018. The divorce decree approved and incorporated the parties' separation agreement. {¶3} Section five of the parties' separation agreement addresses Husband's pension ("the Pension"). Husband agreed in section five that, when he retires, Wife is entitled to one-half of the Pension for the years the parties were married. Husband and Wife agreed to have a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") prepared to reflect this agreement. 2 {¶4} Section six of the separation agreement addresses spousal support and is at i


CourtListener opinion 10752773

domestic relations order: parties' separation agreement addresses Husband's pension ("the Pension"). Husband agreed in section five that, when he retires, Wife is entitled to one-half of the Pension for the years the parties were married. Husband and Wife agreed to have a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") prepared to reflect this agreement. 2 {¶4} Section six of the separation agreement addresses spousal support and is at issue in this appeal. Husband agreed in this section to pay Wife $2,300 per month in spousal support, commencing in January 2019, "until [he] receives his pension." Section six states in relevant part: Husband agrees to pay


CourtListener opinion 10753069

CourtListener opinion 10753069 Extracted reporter citation: 651 F.3d 715. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10753069 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 10753069

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 10753069

QDRO: id prejudice to a party or promote judicial economy. Only one of these criteria— avoidance of prejudice or judicial economy—need be met before a court can order separation. Next, the court must be satisfied that the decision to meet the standards of a "qualified domestic relations order[,]" as discussed in Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Wheaton, 42 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 1994). (See ECF 4-5). 6 Good cause is also met for this amendment to the pleadings under Rule 16(b) for the same reason expressed supra in footnote 2. Further, the Court notes that none of the cautionary harms associated with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) are applica


CourtListener opinion 10753069

ERISA: s a motion by Defendant Sun Life Assurance of Canada ("Sun Life") seeking to join a new party to this matter and bifurcate claims into separate trials. (ECF 36). On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff Hien Tran filed this suit, claiming relief against Sun Life for an ERISA benefit regarding her now deceased husband, or in the alternative, breach of fiduciary duty by Defendants Veolia Utility Resources LLC and Lincoln Life Assurance Company of Boston. (ECF 1). Sun Life has since received a competing claim1 for the ERISA benefit from the decedent's former wife, Sally Ann Lombardo, causing Sun Life to request that Lombardo b


CourtListener opinion 10753069

domestic relations order: dice to a party or promote judicial economy. Only one of these criteria— avoidance of prejudice or judicial economy—need be met before a court can order separation. Next, the court must be satisfied that the decision to meet the standards of a "qualified domestic relations order[,]" as discussed in Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Wheaton, 42 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 1994). (See ECF 4-5). 6 Good cause is also met for this amendment to the pleadings under Rule 16(b) for the same reason expressed supra in footnote 2. Further, the Court notes that none of the cautionary harms associated with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) are applica


CourtListener opinion 10754408

CourtListener opinion 10754408 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JEFFERY ALAN MAU AND ANN MARIE MAU Upon the Petition of JEFFERY ALAN MAU. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 24-0100. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10754408 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 10754408


CourtListener opinion 10754408

QDRO: to show cause relating to sale of the marital home and a dispute over costs, the lawyering grew contentious, and the court found Ann Marie in contempt. Ann Marie then filed a motion for court involvement relating to the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that was the subject of a previous appeal and petitioned to modify the decree such that she had sole legal custody of the minor child. Jeff counterclaimed seeking sole legal custody and physical care for himself. As the district court put it, "[b]oth parents [took] an all-or-nothing approach." 3 Discovery disputes followed, and the court denied a mot


CourtListener opinion 10754408

retirement benefits: itions for modification. On appeal, Jeff raises four issues—concerning legal custody and physical care of a minor child, the admissibility of certain evidence (including pre-decree conduct), division of assets after sale of the home, and division of Jeff's retirement accounts. Ann Marie resists each of Jeff's arguments and requests appellate attorney fees. On our review, we affirm and order Jeff to pay Ann Marie $15,647.50 in fees. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Jeff and Ann Marie divorced by stipulation in February 2020. They agreed to joint legal custody and Anne Marie having physical care of their then-six-year-o


CourtListener opinion 10754408

pension: r their ages. As a result, the specific QDRO that we ordered be approved did not implement the Benson formula; the inputs were wrong, so the outputs were too. Under Benson, the numerator is the [number of years of marriage while also participating in the pension plan] while Jeff's proposed QDRO has the numerator as solely [the number of years of marriage]. See 545 N.W.2d at 255. The denominator is the number of years the account existed in total. Id. Jeff's proposed QDRO used a single age—the oldest account—in its calculations, even though the funds at issue consist of multiple accounts with differing ages. Lon


CourtListener opinion 10754408

401(k): for defined-benefit plans (like [federal and state government] pensions)." In re Marriage of Bolger, No. 22-1201, 2023 WL 7378490, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2023) (citing Benson, 545 N.W.2d at 256 n.1 ("[I]t may be more appropriate to divide and distribute defined contribution plans under the present-value method.")). 16 percentages at the request of the custodian, ruled that, including the offsets, Ann Marie would receive 62.53% of the total retirement assets and Jeff 37.47%. Jeff asserts on appeal that the Ameriprise fund should be divided such that he receives 58% and Ann Marie 42%—based on a third set of calculations. Bu


CourtListener opinion 1075459

CourtListener opinion 1075459 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1075459 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 1075459

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 1075459

domestic relations order: James W. Haley, Jr., Judge (Sandra C. Graves; Rinehart & Strentz, on briefs), for appellant. (Owaiian M. Jones, on brief), for appellee. George A. Langhorne appeals the decision of the circuit judge denying his Motion for Entry of an Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order. He contends that the trial judge's ruling did not comport with the formula in the final decree of divorce or the recommendations of the commissioner in chancery. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the trial judge's decision. See Rule 5A:27. The record o


CourtListener opinion 10755277

CourtListener opinion 10755277 Extracted case name: STALLINGS v. STALLINGS. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 24-0237 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10755277 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 10755277


CourtListener opinion 10755277

retirement benefits: Wife petitioned for legal separation in August 2021. Husband moved to convert the separation petition to a dissolution proceeding in December 2022. ¶3 During the marriage, Husband worked for the City of Tempe. As part of his compensation, Husband received a retirement benefit called a PEHP, a tax-free trust account that pays for qualified health care expenses incurred by the employee, spouse, and qualified dependents after retirement. See generally I.R.C. § 501(c)(9) (recognizing voluntary employees' beneficiary associations as tax exempt organizations). ¶4 The parties agreed that the PEHP could not be liquidated or divided by


CourtListener opinion 10755277

domestic relations order: employee, spouse, and qualified dependents after retirement. See generally I.R.C. § 501(c)(9) (recognizing voluntary employees' beneficiary associations as tax exempt organizations). ¶4 The parties agreed that the PEHP could not be liquidated or divided by a domestic relations order. According to Wife's expert, the community portion of the PEHP was $94,931.60. Husband argued that the PEHP was not a community asset because community funds were not paid into it and that the court could not allocate it. The court found the PEHP was community property and the community's interest was $94,931.50. The court ordered Husband to pay half that a


CourtListener opinion 10755277

valuation/division: ns order. According to Wife's expert, the community portion of the PEHP was $94,931.60. Husband argued that the PEHP was not a community asset because community funds were not paid into it and that the court could not allocate it. The court found the PEHP was community property and the community's interest was $94,931.50. The court ordered Husband to pay half that amount to Wife. ¶5 In 2005, the parties sold their marital home. According to Wife, they then moved into and planned to purchase a home Husband's parents owned. Husband told Wife he used $20,000 in sale proceeds from their marital home as a down payment to his parents,


CourtListener opinion 10757622

CourtListener opinion 10757622 Extracted reporter citation: 650 F. Supp. 3d 259. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10757622 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 10757622

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


CourtListener opinion 10757622

QDRO: 68). Critically, the FAC alleges that these services are oﬀered by all recordkeepers in this class for one price, typically a per capita price, "regardless of the services chosen or utilized by the plan." App'x 106 (FAC ¶ 69). "Ancillary services," like "QDRO's, participant loans, and self-directed brokerage accounts are normally charged to only participants using those ancillary services." Id. Moreover, "[a]lthough the 401(k) participant servicing can vary slightly in the various service levels, the actual cost to a large record keeper with a very robust participant servicing system remains almost constant


CourtListener opinion 10757622

retirement benefits: similarly situated, JONI WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, JENNY MARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, -v.- DELOITTE LLP, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DELOITTE LLP, THE RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF DELOITTE LLP, JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants-Appellees. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Before: LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, NARDINI, and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. Participants in Deloitte LLP's defined-contribution, 401(k) retirement plan brought a putative class action against plan fiduciaries, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violat


CourtListener opinion 10757622

pension: ore "give due regard to the range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make based on her experience and expertise." Id. It is not "necessarily sufficient to show that better investment opportunities were available at the time of the relevant decisions." Pension Ben. 6Plaintiffs' claim of excessive fees constitutes an imprudent investment claim. See Young v. Gen. Motors Inv. Mgmt. Corp., 325 Fed. App'x 31, 33 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). 10 Guar. Corp. ex rel. St. Vincent Catholic Med. Centers Ret. Plan v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 712 F.3d 705, 718 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.


CourtListener opinion 10757622

ERISA: nd ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. Participants in Deloitte LLP's defined-contribution, 401(k) retirement plan brought a putative class action against plan fiduciaries, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Koeltl, J.) dismissed the action and subsequently denied Plaintiffs' motion for 1 leave to file an amended complaint on futility grounds. We conclude that the district court did not err in concluding that Plaintiffs failed plausibly to allege that the Plan's administrative and reco


CourtListener opinion 1076169

CourtListener opinion 1076169 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1076169 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 1076169

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 1076169

QDRO: OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE William N. Alexander, II, Judge Robert P. Dwoskin for appellant. Stacey W. Moreau (Williams, Stilwell, Morrison, Williams and Light, on brief), for appellee. Glenn Wisdom (husband) appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), interpreting his divorce decree to create a property right in his military retirement pension in favor of Faith Wisdom (Hyler) (wife). Husband contends on appeal that 1) the QDRO effected a substantive change to the decree, which is barred by Rule 1:1 and 2) even if it wasn't a substantive change, 1 the tri


CourtListener opinion 1076169

pension: on, Williams and Light, on brief), for appellee. Glenn Wisdom (husband) appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), interpreting his divorce decree to create a property right in his military retirement pension in favor of Faith Wisdom (Hyler) (wife). Husband contends on appeal that 1) the QDRO effected a substantive change to the decree, which is barred by Rule 1:1 and 2) even if it wasn't a substantive change, 1 the trial court's interpretation of the decree is plainly wrong. Because we find that the QDRO was not a substantive change and the trial court's


CourtListener opinion 10762979

CourtListener opinion 10762979 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Preston. Extracted reporter citation: 15 N.E.3d 108. Docket: 24A-DN-716. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10762979 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 10762979


CourtListener opinion 10762979

QDRO: marriage on November 21, 2008. Husband's prior marriage was 30 years in duration and encompassed almost the entire time of Husband's membership in the Carpenters Union which began in 1976. This Court granted Husband's prior wife a 20% Separate Interest by Qualified Domestic Relations Order in this Carpenters Union Pension.… The parties enjoyed the benefit of Husband's receipt of his Carpenters Union Pension monthly benefit which he began receiving in August 2010. For 12 years of the marriage, this pension benefit helped Husband contribute to the family's finances until he filed this dissolution of marriage action in December 2022. A