CourtListener opinion 4187493

retirement benefits: 2d at 850 (noting the factors to be considered in determining whether to award alimony and the amount). Here, where Craig had a pension to which he contributed with marital funds during the entirely of the parties' long marriage and Patricia was without a retirement account, it was equitable for the court to divide Craig's pension pursuant to the Benson formula. Cf. In re Marriage of Swenson, No. 05-2123, 2007 WL 601496, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2007) (finding it equitable not to divide the spouse's pension where the marriage was one of short duration—less than three years—and the spouse seeking the division of the pe


CourtListener opinion 4187493

pension: tricia—$200,890—is inequitable and should be reduced by $100,000. As part of his justification, he maintains the district court over-valued the marital home that was awarded to him. Additionally, Craig claims he should have been awarded the entirety of his pension. On cross-appeal, Patricia challenges the numbers the court used in the formula to determine her portion of Craig's pension. She asks that we otherwise affirm the decree and award her appellate attorney fees. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Patricia and Craig were married in 1988. They had two children during their marriage, who were both adults


CourtListener opinion 4187493

domestic relations order: receive a Benson share1 of Craig's pension. At the time of the decree, the court did not have before it how long Craig had been in the plan nor how many more years he intended to continue to work. The court simply set out the formula by which a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] shall be prepared and entered. . . . The denominator shall be the number of years Craig has been in this plan. The numerator shall be the number of years the parties were married. Patricia's share of any benefits to be paid will be one-half of the resulting percentage. Craig filed a motion to amend or enlarge. In it, he maintained "dividing th


CourtListener opinion 4187806

CourtListener opinion 4187806 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Bartley. Extracted reporter citation: 678 N.E.2d 423. Docket: 17A03-1612-DR-2719 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4187806 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 4187806

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 4187806

QDRO: e. [11] The trial court divided the marital estate equally by allocating the Waterloo residence to Husband and a series of cash payments and transfers to Wife. The division stipulated that Wife would receive cash payments of $7,302.90 and a transfer by Qualified Domestic Relations Order in the amount of $42,602.79. Husband now appeals. Discussion and Decision I. Property Division [12] Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4(a) provides that, in an action for dissolution of marriage, the court must divide the property of the parties, whether: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A03-1612-DR-2719 | July 20, 2017 Page 4 of 10


CourtListener opinion 4187806

retirement benefits: ts retained life estates in the property. Upon the death of his mother, which occurred during the marriage, Husband's contingent interest became a fee simple interest. [3] At the time of the dissolution, the marital estate assets also included a 401(k) retirement account; a savings plan; three vehicles; and three small bank accounts. Their liabilities included four credit card accounts in Wife's name, four medical bills incurred by Wife, and two utility bills incurred during the marriage and paid by Wife. [4] When the parties married, they lived in Wife's home in Ashley for approximately two years. Sometime in 2009


CourtListener opinion 4187806

401(k): his parents retained life estates in the property. Upon the death of his mother, which occurred during the marriage, Husband's contingent interest became a fee simple interest. [3] At the time of the dissolution, the marital estate assets also included a 401(k) retirement account; a savings plan; three vehicles; and three small bank accounts. Their liabilities included four credit card accounts in Wife's name, four medical bills incurred by Wife, and two utility bills incurred during the marriage and paid by Wife. [4] When the parties married, they lived in Wife's home in Ashley for approximately two ye


CourtListener opinion 4187806

domestic relations order: he trial court divided the marital estate equally by allocating the Waterloo residence to Husband and a series of cash payments and transfers to Wife. The division stipulated that Wife would receive cash payments of $7,302.90 and a transfer by Qualified Domestic Relations Order in the amount of $42,602.79. Husband now appeals. Discussion and Decision I. Property Division [12] Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4(a) provides that, in an action for dissolution of marriage, the court must divide the property of the parties, whether: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A03-1612-DR-2719 | July 20, 2017 Page 4 of 10


CourtListener opinion 4189186

CourtListener opinion 4189186 Extracted case name: DOWNHAM v. DOWNHAM. Extracted reporter citation: 680 P.2d 1217. Docket: 1 CA-CV 16-0164 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4189186 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 4189186


CourtListener opinion 4189186

QDRO: ance is governed by A.R.S. § 25-319 (2017), which requires a two- step analysis. See Thomas, 142 Ariz. at 390, 690 P.2d at 109. The superior court first must determine whether the evidence supports that the requesting spouse: 2 In contrast to the decree, the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), entered six months after the decree, states that if Husband predeceases Wife, "the survivor benefit already elected will commence" and prohibits Husband from revoking the "survivor benefit already elected." 3 Wife filed a motion to set aside/reconsider the decree, which the superior court denied. Wife did not timely appeal from that order. Accord


CourtListener opinion 4189186

domestic relations order: verned by A.R.S. § 25-319 (2017), which requires a two- step analysis. See Thomas, 142 Ariz. at 390, 690 P.2d at 109. The superior court first must determine whether the evidence supports that the requesting spouse: 2 In contrast to the decree, the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), entered six months after the decree, states that if Husband predeceases Wife, "the survivor benefit already elected will commence" and prohibits Husband from revoking the "survivor benefit already elected." 3 Wife filed a motion to set aside/reconsider the decree, which the superior court denied. Wife did not timely appeal from that order. Accord


CourtListener opinion 4189186

survivor benefits: James P. Beene joined. W I N T H R O P, Judge: ¶1 Sandy Downham ("Wife") appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to Ronald Downham ("Husband"). She argues the superior court abused its discretion by failing to award her spousal maintenance, military survivor benefits, and attorneys' fees. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand to the superior court. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The parties were married for twenty-four years and have no minor children. At the time of dissolution, Wife was unemployed and attending college. Husband worked part-time as a college instructor. He also received military retirem


CourtListener opinion 4189186

valuation/division: 984). ¶7 "[P]roperty division and spousal maintenance are two separate and distinct considerations at dissolution." Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 182, 713 P.2d 1234, 1240 (1986) (citing In re Marriage of Foster, 125 Ariz. 208, 608 P.2d 785 (App. 1980)). Property division is governed by A.R.S. § 25-318 (2017), which requires "a substantially equal distribution of community assets in the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary." Kelly v. Kelly, 198 Ariz. 307, 309, ¶ 7, 9 P.3d 1046, 1048 (2000). Spousal maintenance is governed by A.R.S. § 25-319 (2017), which requires a two- step analysis. See Thomas, 142 Ariz. at 390,


CourtListener opinion 4190614

CourtListener opinion 4190614 Extracted reporter citation: 322 P.3d 897. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4190614 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 4190614


CourtListener opinion 4190614

QDRO: , Law Offices of David Baranow, Anchorage, for Appellee. Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. CARNEY, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION Jean Kollander filed suit in 2012 to reopen a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered pursuant to her 1991 divorce. The superior court dismissed the suit based on laches and awarded full attorney's fees to her former husband, Daryl Kollander. Jean appealed. We affirmed the superior court's substantive decision but remanded for recalculation of attorney's fees in accordance with Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82. On remand the super


CourtListener opinion 4190614

retirement benefits: her in determining the attorney's fee award or in sanctioning Merrill under Rule 11. II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Daryl and Jean Kollander married in 1969 and divorced in 1991. The QDRO entered pursuant to their divorce granted each party a share of the other's retirement benefits. Daryl has been receiving monthly payments from Jean's pension since 2001. When Daryl retired in 2007 the federal Office of Personnel Management informed Jean that she would receive her share of Daryl's pension as a lump sum of $22,459.81, paid in monthly installments of $1,796.50. Jean received the final payment in 2008. In 2012 Jean moved to reopen the


CourtListener opinion 4190614

pension: Rule 11. II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Daryl and Jean Kollander married in 1969 and divorced in 1991. The QDRO entered pursuant to their divorce granted each party a share of the other's retirement benefits. Daryl has been receiving monthly payments from Jean's pension since 2001. When Daryl retired in 2007 the federal Office of Personnel Management informed Jean that she would receive her share of Daryl's pension as a lump sum of $22,459.81, paid in monthly installments of $1,796.50. Jean received the final payment in 2008. In 2012 Jean moved to reopen the QDRO and to hold Daryl in contempt for failing to pay her the ma


CourtListener opinion 4191180

CourtListener opinion 4191180 Extracted case name: K.A.R. v. T.G.L. Extracted reporter citation: 107 A.3d 770. Docket: 1443 WDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4191180 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 4191180


CourtListener opinion 4191180

QDRO: ce decree, entered into an equitable distribution agreement which provided the wife with fifty percent of the marital portion of her ex-spouse's military and civil service pensions. The agreement resulted in a consent order which was later converted into a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). Although the husband did not sign the QDRO or attend the hearing on the matter, the court approved and entered the QDRO after the wife filed a motion for special relief. The husband later contested the entry of the QDRO, but the court denied relief. The husband appealed. On appeal, this Court remanded the matter since the trial court had em


CourtListener opinion 4191180

retirement benefits: 2. In 2009, following an annual physical and psychiatric consultation, Appellant was declared totally disabled and was required to resign from the high school teaching position he held at that time. In December 2011, Husband decided to forego his monthly retirement benefits in order to receive tax-exempt payments through the Combat Related Service Connected Disability ("CRSC") program. In order to do so, Husband waived his right to the entirety of his military retirement payments. In February 2012, as a result of Husband's decision to wholly waive his retirement benefits, the monthly payments to Wife ceased. On Februar


CourtListener opinion 4191180

pension: held before a hearing officer. The hearing officer found that the husband had waived his military retirement for an improper purpose and ordered him, in part, to pay the wife a lump sum for arrearages and $249 per month as alimony in lieu of his military pension. After the husband filed exceptions, the trial court held that alimony was not available as a remedy at that juncture, but nevertheless, granted the wife $249 per month in arrears owed from the military retirement payments. The husband again appealed to this Court. Of import here, the husband in Hayward argued on appeal that the trial court erred in d


CourtListener opinion 4191180

domestic relations order: entered into an equitable distribution agreement which provided the wife with fifty percent of the marital portion of her ex-spouse's military and civil service pensions. The agreement resulted in a consent order which was later converted into a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). Although the husband did not sign the QDRO or attend the hearing on the matter, the court approved and entered the QDRO after the wife filed a motion for special relief. The husband later contested the entry of the QDRO, but the court denied relief. The husband appealed. On appeal, this Court remanded the matter since the trial court had em


CourtListener opinion 4191876

CourtListener opinion 4191876 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ABBY HOEGER NABER AND WILLIAM MICHAEL NABER Upon the Petition of ABBY HOEGER. Extracted reporter citation: 824 N.W.2d 481. Docket: 16-1767. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4191876 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 4191876

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 4191876

QDRO: d between the 12 parties. In the event William is able to secure refinancing for the home, we award Abby an equalization payment of $13,169.06 from William. Abby has requested that any equalization payment be made by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) from retirement funds. William's brief does not address this QDRO issue. On our review of the assets and income of each party, it is clear that a judgment under either scenario would be an undue burden on the parties. We determine the equalization payment ultimately required be satisfied through a QDRO prepared by the payor and submitted to the payee f


CourtListener opinion 4192398

CourtListener opinion 4192398 Extracted reporter citation: 578 N.E.2d 371. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4192398 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 4192398

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 4192398

QDRO: her interest in Allen's pension and retirement benefits with John Hancock, PERF, and Valic for the coverture period, and for any appreciation in the value of her share of the accounts as of the effective date of the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 64A03-1608-DR-1954 | August 3, 2017 Page 2 of 11 [4] Paragraph 9(H) is the provision of the Agreed Dissolution Decree resolving the division of the pension and retirement benefits. [Judith] shall be sole owner of and retain her full interest in her pension with In-Pact. The parties were married on April 29,


CourtListener opinion 4192398

retirement benefits: he dissolution court's order granting D. Juatrice Edwards' "Motion to Vacate Hearing and Orders Restraining Assets." The court concluded that after the death of Allen O. Edwards, it no longer had jurisdiction over the disbursement of Allen's pension and retirement benefits, which it had previously ordered, and dismissed the temporary restraining order protecting assets, which it had entered. We reverse and remand. Issue [2] The dispositive issue presented in this appeal is whether the dissolution court, which had expressly retained jurisdiction, had jurisdiction over the disbursement of pension and retirement benef


CourtListener opinion 4192398

pension: peals from the dissolution court's order granting D. Juatrice Edwards' "Motion to Vacate Hearing and Orders Restraining Assets." The court concluded that after the death of Allen O. Edwards, it no longer had jurisdiction over the disbursement of Allen's pension and retirement benefits, which it had previously ordered, and dismissed the temporary restraining order protecting assets, which it had entered. We reverse and remand. Issue [2] The dispositive issue presented in this appeal is whether the dissolution court, which had expressly retained jurisdiction, had jurisdiction over the disbursement of pensi


CourtListener opinion 4192398

survivor benefits: ice, by counsel, filed a "Motion for Leave to Intervene and Enter Limited Appearance to Offer Suggestion of Death and to Vacate Hearing and Orders Restraining Assets." Id. at 51-56. Juatrice sought to intervene in the proceedings because she was Allen's surviving spouse and claimed an interest in some of the property encumbered by the trial court's restraining order. She further argued that any claim Judith had to property that had not been distributed during the four years since entry of the dissolution decree was now a claim against Allen's estate, as the dissolution court no longer had jurisdiction of the matt


CourtListener opinion 4193432

CourtListener opinion 4193432 Extracted reporter citation: 598 A.2d 31. Docket: 428 EDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4193432 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 4193432


CourtListener opinion 4193432

QDRO: he monthly benefits Husband received since the account entered pay status, and fifty percent of the marital value of past and future benefits. She also requested counsel fees and the costs associated with drafting the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO") needed to facilitate the future payment of her portion of the benefit. Husband filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer based upon the position that the formation of a constructive trust pursuant to § 3505(d) required, as a prerequisite, the filing of an inventory during the equitable distribution process, and, in the absence of that


CourtListener opinion 4193432

retirement benefits: ty settlement agreement, Husband failed to make a full disclosure of the pension benefit that he earned during the ____________________________________________ 2 Husband and Wife dedicate significant discussion in their briefs to whether the reference to "retirement accounts" in the property settlement agreement subsumed the pension benefit that Husband earned during the marriage. However, that issue is a diversion. Regardless of the semantics of whether a "pension benefit" equates to a "retirement account," the asset is subject to the recital's catch-all provision "all other assets . . . subject to equitable distribution[.]"


CourtListener opinion 4193432

pension: rt of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 1995-60876-E BEFORE: BOWES, OTT AND SOLANO, JJ. OPINION BY BOWES, J.: Filed August 4, 2017 Peter Y. Bennett ("Husband") appeals from the March 1, 2016 order imposing a constructive trust over a pension benefit that accrued during his marriage to Pamela A. Bennett ("Wife").1 We reverse. Husband and Wife married on January 29, 1972 and divorced approximately twenty-three-and-one-half years later. Two children were born of the marriage. In anticipation of the divorce, the parties executed a property settlement agreement to facilitate equitable distribu


CourtListener opinion 4193432

401(k): ife presented the expert testimony of John McGovern, C.P.A., who stated that the parties received a $29,000 retirement distribution from an unidentified account during 1992. Mr. McGovern was unable to specify whether the source of the distribution was an IRA, 401(k), vested pension, or a combination of retirement plans. The only meaningful information to flow from the witness was that, approximately three years prior to the parties' execution of the property settlement agreement, Husband and Wife both knew that some form of retirement income existed and withdrew at least a portion of it. -5- J-A24011-16 was $1100;


CourtListener opinion 4194978

CourtListener opinion 4194978 Extracted case name: TIMOTHY ALAN PORTICE v. ROSHAWNDA LYNN FOSTER PORTICE. Extracted reporter citation: 429 S.W.3d 562. Docket: to open accounts after the divorce. Tennessee. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4194978 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 4194978


CourtListener opinion 4194978

QDRO: recommended by the realtor to make the home marketable. . . . *** 9. That Wife shall receive one half (1/2) of the Husband's retirement existing at the time of the divorce. . . . The Husband shall provide the Wife the information necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to transfer funds into Wife's name. The Wife's attorney shall be responsible for preparation of the QDRO. In addition to the foregoing provisions, the final decree divided certain marital property and ordered Husband to pay Wife transitional alimony of $1,000 per month for 24 months. On June 6, 2016, Wife filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Husb


CourtListener opinion 4194978

retirement benefits: ormation necessary to prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) needed to transfer one-half of [Husband's] retirement existing at the time of divorce entry to [Wife]. . . . Moreover, [Husband] has not provided information on his separate 401-K retirement plan from his work that is personal property to be divided equally according to the Judgment. . . . *** 11. Since the divorce hearing in December, [Husband] has attempted to use [Wife's] social security number and Comcast account to obtain home security and cable television at the marital home. The trial court heard Wife's motion for contempt on July 7,


CourtListener opinion 4194978

domestic relations order: d by the realtor to make the home marketable. . . . *** 9. That Wife shall receive one half (1/2) of the Husband's retirement existing at the time of the divorce. . . . The Husband shall provide the Wife the information necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to transfer funds into Wife's name. The Wife's attorney shall be responsible for preparation of the QDRO. In addition to the foregoing provisions, the final decree divided certain marital property and ordered Husband to pay Wife transitional alimony of $1,000 per month for 24 months. On June 6, 2016, Wife filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Husb


CourtListener opinion 4196283

CourtListener opinion 4196283 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MICHELLE ANNE KRAKER AND LEONARD PAUL KRAKER Upon the Petition of MICHELLE ANNE. Extracted reporter citation: 737 N.W.2d 97. Docket: 16-1739. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4196283 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 4196283


CourtListener opinion 4196283

QDRO: he total number of years he contributes to the plan before retirement (currently unknown) times the amount of his monthly retirement benefits determined at the time of his retirement. Under the MFPRS rules, a marital property order is the equivalent of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See In re Marriage of Davis, 608 N.W.2d 766, 774 (Iowa 2000). We modify the decree to provide Leonard's pension should be divided pursuant to a marital property order, under Iowa Code section 411.13 (2015), in accordance with the Benson formula as outlined in this opinion and remand on this issue. We have considered the remaining arguments rais


CourtListener opinion 4196283

retirement benefits: ity benefits than he will. In addition, he states the court did not properly apply the formula found in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996), for dividing pension benefits. Michelle claims she is entitled to fifty percent of Leonard's retirement benefits. A division of pension benefits must be equitable. In re Marriage of O'Connor, 584 N.W.2d 575, 576-77 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). "Pensions in general are held to be marital assets, subject to division in dissolution cases." In re Marriage of Branstetter, 508 N.W.2d 638, 640 (Iowa 1993). One method of 5 dividing pension benefits is the present-value metho


CourtListener opinion 4196283

pension: 2 BOWER, Judge. Leonard Kraker appeals the property division and award of spousal support in the parties' dissolution decree, and Michelle Kraker cross-appeals on the issues of spousal support and attorney fees. We modify the decree to provide Leonard's pension should be divided pursuant to a marital property order in accordance with the Benson formula as outlined in this opinion and remand on this issue. On all other issues of property division, spousal support, and attorney fees, we affirm the dissolution decree entered by the district court. We do not award appellate attorney fees. I. Background Facts & P


CourtListener opinion 4196283

domestic relations order: umber of years he contributes to the plan before retirement (currently unknown) times the amount of his monthly retirement benefits determined at the time of his retirement. Under the MFPRS rules, a marital property order is the equivalent of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See In re Marriage of Davis, 608 N.W.2d 766, 774 (Iowa 2000). We modify the decree to provide Leonard's pension should be divided pursuant to a marital property order, under Iowa Code section 411.13 (2015), in accordance with the Benson formula as outlined in this opinion and remand on this issue. We have considered the remaining arguments rais


CourtListener opinion 4197551

CourtListener opinion 4197551 Docket: 333880 Kalamazoo Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4197551 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 4197551

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 4197551

QDRO: UBLISHED August 17, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 333880 Kalamazoo Circuit Court SHERRY SUE DORKO, LC No. 2004-005765-DM Defendant-Appellee. Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE and SWARTZLE, JJ. PER CURIAM. The parties disagree on whether a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is subject to a ten-year statute of limitations. Concluding that this case is controlled by a recently issued, binding decision of this Court, we hold that a QDRO is not subject to the statute of limitations and affirm. On August 3, 2005, the Kalamazoo Circuit Court entered a consent judgment of divorce dissolving the parties' 28-year marriage. The


CourtListener opinion 4197551

retirement benefits: t to the statute of limitations and affirm. On August 3, 2005, the Kalamazoo Circuit Court entered a consent judgment of divorce dissolving the parties' 28-year marriage. The consent judgment awarded defendant one half of the marital interest in plaintiff's retirement plan via a QDRO. Ten years and eight days later, defendant submitted a proposed QDRO to the trial court; several months later, defendant filed a revised proposed QDRO in January 2016. Plaintiff moved to set aside the revised proposed QDRO, arguing that it was time-barred under the ten-year statute of limitations set forth in MCL 600.5809(3) for enforcing a judgm


CourtListener opinion 4197551

domestic relations order: August 17, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 333880 Kalamazoo Circuit Court SHERRY SUE DORKO, LC No. 2004-005765-DM Defendant-Appellee. Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE and SWARTZLE, JJ. PER CURIAM. The parties disagree on whether a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is subject to a ten-year statute of limitations. Concluding that this case is controlled by a recently issued, binding decision of this Court, we hold that a QDRO is not subject to the statute of limitations and affirm. On August 3, 2005, the Kalamazoo Circuit Court entered a consent judgment of divorce dissolving the parties' 28-year marriage. The


CourtListener opinion 4197869

CourtListener opinion 4197869 Extracted reporter citation: 738 F.2d 968. Docket: for entry of an order dividing husband. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4197869 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 4197869


CourtListener opinion 4197869

QDRO: , 2013, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement ("the agreement") establishing, among other provisions, that "Wife shall receive one-half of the marital share of Husband's military retirement accounts/plans. Such division shall be done by QDRO, ADRO, or other required mechanism. The costs of preparing the paperwork shall be at Wife's expense." The agreement also addressed the costs of enforcement as follows: (a) Husband and Wife agree that any costs, including, but not limited to counsel fees . . . incurred by a party in the successful enforcement of any of the agreements, covenants, or oth


CourtListener opinion 4197869

retirement benefits: ffirm the court's ruling. I. BACKGROUND On December 30, 2013, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement ("the agreement") establishing, among other provisions, that "Wife shall receive one-half of the marital share of Husband's military retirement accounts/plans. Such division shall be done by QDRO, ADRO, or other required mechanism. The costs of preparing the paperwork shall be at Wife's expense." The agreement also addressed the costs of enforcement as follows: (a) Husband and Wife agree that any costs, including, but not limited to counsel fees . . . incurred by a party in the successful enforcement


CourtListener opinion 4197869

domestic relations order: p. LEXIS 29, at *14-16 (Feb. 2, 2016). We further ruled that the court did err by inserting certain injunctive provisions into the order. Id. at 1 The divorce decree provided that "[t]his matter is held on open docket for 180 days for entry of a qualified domestic relations order[] or similar orders for the purpose of dividing husband's military retirement accounts/plans as called for in the incorporated settlement agreement." -2- *11-13. We did not address the issue of attorney's fees because the court had not issued a final order resolving that matter. Id. at *19. On remand, the court entered an amended MQCO in accordance wit


CourtListener opinion 4198662

CourtListener opinion 4198662 Extracted reporter citation: 6 N.E.3d 471. Docket: 34A05-1607-DR-1692 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4198662 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 4198662


CourtListener opinion 4198662

QDRO: nd ordered Husband to make an equalizing payment to Wife in the amount of $61,156.50. Husband was ordered to pay Wife a lump sum of $20,000 from a Harris Bank account he was awarded in the decree, and the remainder of the judgment was to be paid via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) from Husband's Wells Fargo account. This appeal ensued. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. Discussion & Decision [1] The trial court in this case entered special findings of fact and conclusions thereon pursuant to Trial Rule 52(A). Our review of such findings and conclusions is two-tiered. In re Paternity of D.T., 6 N.E.3d 47


CourtListener opinion 4198662

pension: lving his marriage to Anita Gillespie (Wife). Husband raises the following issues on appeal: 1. Was the trial court's finding that Husband had retained the parties' joint tax refund clearly erroneous? 2. Did the trial court err in including Husband's pension in the marital estate? Wife cross-appeals and raises the following issue: 3. Did the trial court err in excluding Husband's Wells Fargo account from the marital estate? [2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions. Facts & Procedural History [3] Husband and Wife have been married twice. The first marriage took place in 19


CourtListener opinion 4198662

domestic relations order: Husband to make an equalizing payment to Wife in the amount of $61,156.50. Husband was ordered to pay Wife a lump sum of $20,000 from a Harris Bank account he was awarded in the decree, and the remainder of the judgment was to be paid via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) from Husband's Wells Fargo account. This appeal ensued. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. Discussion & Decision [1] The trial court in this case entered special findings of fact and conclusions thereon pursuant to Trial Rule 52(A). Our review of such findings and conclusions is two-tiered. In re Paternity of D.T., 6 N.E.3d 47


CourtListener opinion 4199614

CourtListener opinion 4199614 Extracted reporter citation: 749 N.W.2d 470. Docket: A-16-750. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4199614 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 4199614


CourtListener opinion 4199614

QDRO: s' marriage and dividing the marital estate. The court determined that the value of the home was $240,000. The court awarded Carol 50 percent of the pension benefits earned from contributions made during the marriage, and ordered Carol to prepare and submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the court within 30 days. It also ordered Robert to pay a property settlement to Carol in the amount of $87,921 to equalize the property division, and entered judgment against Robert for such amount. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Robert assigns that the trial court erred in (1) determining the value of the marital home, (2) awarding Carol 50 percent of his pens


CourtListener opinion 4199614

pension: home at -1- $250,000. The second appraisal was offered by Robert and it valued the marital home at $230,000. Carol's appraisal had been conducted in December 2015, and Robert's had been conducted in January 2016. There was also evidence presented about a pension Robert had through Central States Pension Fund. At the time of trial, Robert was receiving approximately $3,600 per month from the pension. He started receiving distributions from the pension when he retired in 2014. Robert began earning his pension prior to the marriage, but earned a majority of the pension during the marriage. Robert testified that the p


CourtListener opinion 4199614

domestic relations order: e and dividing the marital estate. The court determined that the value of the home was $240,000. The court awarded Carol 50 percent of the pension benefits earned from contributions made during the marriage, and ordered Carol to prepare and submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the court within 30 days. It also ordered Robert to pay a property settlement to Carol in the amount of $87,921 to equalize the property division, and entered judgment against Robert for such amount. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Robert assigns that the trial court erred in (1) determining the value of the marital home, (2) awarding Carol 50 percent of his pens


CourtListener opinion 4199614

valuation/division: earned from contributions made during the marriage, and ordered Carol to prepare and submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the court within 30 days. It also ordered Robert to pay a property settlement to Carol in the amount of $87,921 to equalize the property division, and entered judgment against Robert for such amount. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Robert assigns that the trial court erred in (1) determining the value of the marital home, (2) awarding Carol 50 percent of his pension earned during the marriage, and (3) ordering a property judgment against him and in favor of Carol in the amount of $87,921. STANDARD OF REVIEW


CourtListener opinion 4200274

CourtListener opinion 4200274 Extracted case name: WALTER R. HURT v. VERDENA JONES-HURT. Extracted reporter citation: 137 S. Ct. 1400. Docket: 24D02003910 REPORTED. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4200274 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 4200274

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 4200274

QDRO: eplacement, which is currently 10 percent disabling, is increased to 100 percent effective December 19, 2008. An evaluation of 30 percent is assigned from February 1, 2010[.] On October 26, 2011, Wife reopened the case and filed a Complaint for Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. One of the two orders she sought pertained to Husband's military pension, and would have provided that "any portion of the Service Member's Disposable Retired Pay that he waives in order to receive military disability retired pay . . . in lieu of Disposable Retired Pay shall be added back in, and any deficiency resulting from any such waiver that affe


CourtListener opinion 4200274

retirement benefits: two during the second. After his first injury, Husband received a ten percent disability rating that entitled him to a Wartime Disability Compensation award pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1110. He retired from the Army National Guard in 1998 and later applied for retirement benefits, which would kick in after he turned sixty years old. Husband and Wife married in 1972, and divorced on October 26, 2004, via a Judgment of Absolute Divorce issued by the circuit court. Among other things, the judgment awarded Wife alimony of $600 per month for three years and "one-third of the marital share of [Husband]'s pension from the United Sta


CourtListener opinion 4200274

pension: ________________ Opinion by Nazarian, J. _________________________ Filed: August 30, 2017 When Verdena Jones-Hurt ("Wife") and Walter Hurt ("Husband"), a veteran, divorced, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City included one-third of Husband's military pension in the marital property award it ordered in Wife's favor. Years after the divorce, Husband was reevaluated for a military service disability benefit and his disability rating increased, which made him eligible for more disability benefits and allowed him to waive a portion of his pension (which is taxable and may be considered marital property) in favor


CourtListener opinion 4200274

domestic relations order: , which is currently 10 percent disabling, is increased to 100 percent effective December 19, 2008. An evaluation of 30 percent is assigned from February 1, 2010[.] On October 26, 2011, Wife reopened the case and filed a Complaint for Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. One of the two orders she sought pertained to Husband's military pension, and would have provided that "any portion of the Service Member's Disposable Retired Pay that he waives in order to receive military disability retired pay . . . in lieu of Disposable Retired Pay shall be added back in, and any deficiency resulting from any such waiver that affe


CourtListener opinion 4200798

CourtListener opinion 4200798 Extracted case name: G.S. v. M.S. Extracted reporter citation: 895 N.E.2d 1215. Docket: 02A03-1612-DR-2724 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4200798 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 4200798


CourtListener opinion 4200798

QDRO: sure meaningful compliance with a dissolution decree. For example, in Cope v. Cope, 846 N.E.2d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), the parties executed a decree that provided wife would receive a portion of husband's military pension, in installments, through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) or other method approved by the military. The military refused to recognize the QDRO, and husband refused to make payments on his own. Wife sought to enforce the settlement agreement, and the trial court garnished husband's wages. A panel of this court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding the trial court acted appropriately because


CourtListener opinion 4200798

retirement benefits: he agreement purports to dispose of the parties' rights to all marital property, and the additional pension payments would appear to be marital property. See Ind. Code § 31-9-2-98 (1997) (marital property includes "a present right to withdraw pension or retirement benefits" and "the right to receive pension or retirement benefits . . . that are vested . . . but that are payable after the dissolution of marriage"). The agreement is ambiguous as to whether Joseph is entitled to a twenty-five percent share of the standalone payments. See Shepherd v. Tackett, 954 N.E.2d 477 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (divorce decree ambiguous


CourtListener opinion 4200798

pension: ent agreement. The trial court approved the agreement on January 14, 2005, and incorporated it into a decree dissolving the parties' marriage. Among other provisions, the agreement required Margie to pay Joseph twenty-five percent of her "gross monthly" pension payments from the State of Indiana's Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) and to disclose to Joseph on an annual basis the amount PERF paid her per month. Appellant's Appendix Vol. II, p. 23. [3] On February 27, 2015, Joseph filed a Verified Information for Contempt, Alternatively Breach of Contract. He amended the Verified Information on June


CourtListener opinion 4200798

domestic relations order: ngful compliance with a dissolution decree. For example, in Cope v. Cope, 846 N.E.2d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), the parties executed a decree that provided wife would receive a portion of husband's military pension, in installments, through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) or other method approved by the military. The military refused to recognize the QDRO, and husband refused to make payments on his own. Wife sought to enforce the settlement agreement, and the trial court garnished husband's wages. A panel of this court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding the trial court acted appropriately because


CourtListener opinion 4200883

CourtListener opinion 4200883 Extracted reporter citation: 669 A.2d 969. Docket: 835 WDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4200883 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 4200883


CourtListener opinion 4200883

QDRO: , in response to Wife's petition for ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S39007-17 special relief, requesting clarification of the family law master's 1997 report and recommendation and a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), dated June 14, 1999. The May 19, 2016 order outlined a payment plan for the $17,224.17 balance owed to Wife from Husband, relating to Wife's equitable share of Husband's military pension including an interest rate of 2.1% per year. We affirm. We begin by setting forth the trial court's recitation of the facts as stated in its opinion filed pu


CourtListener opinion 4200883

retirement benefits: ns, Page 11. -2- J-S39007-17 Subsequently, counsel for both parties submitted a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which was executed … on June 14, 1999. The QDRO stated as follows: (b) [Husband] shall withdraw $77,500.00 from his military retirement account. (c) [Husband] shall do so by paying no more than 50% of the present value of his monthly military retirement pension account. (d) Said payments shall continue until the sum total of $77,500.00 is paid to [Wife]. Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Tyler v. Tyler, 962 C.D. 1995 Dated June 14, 1999. The parties were divorced on January 5, 1999. On


CourtListener opinion 4200883

pension: 7 report and recommendation and a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), dated June 14, 1999. The May 19, 2016 order outlined a payment plan for the $17,224.17 balance owed to Wife from Husband, relating to Wife's equitable share of Husband's military pension including an interest rate of 2.1% per year. We affirm. We begin by setting forth the trial court's recitation of the facts as stated in its opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) in connection with Husband's appeal: As part of the parties' divorce, equitable distribution was made. The Family Law Master ("FLM") issued a Report and Recommendati


CourtListener opinion 4200883

domestic relations order: nse to Wife's petition for ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S39007-17 special relief, requesting clarification of the family law master's 1997 report and recommendation and a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), dated June 14, 1999. The May 19, 2016 order outlined a payment plan for the $17,224.17 balance owed to Wife from Husband, relating to Wife's equitable share of Husband's military pension including an interest rate of 2.1% per year. We affirm. We begin by setting forth the trial court's recitation of the facts as stated in its opinion filed pu


CourtListener opinion 4200884

CourtListener opinion 4200884 Extracted case name: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ZANE M. TYLER. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 835 WDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4200884 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 4200884

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 4200884

QDRO: S, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 01, 2017 I join the majority's decision to affirm the order awarding Wife the $17,224.17 balance of the amount outlined in the June 1999 qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") pursuant to a payment plan. I write separately to clarify that, unless Husband and Wife expressly merged the * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S39007-17 QDRO into their January 1999 divorce decree, Husband's attempt to invoke § 3332 of the Domestic Relations Code as a bar to Wife's petition for relief is misplaced. Stated plai


CourtListener opinion 4200884

domestic relations order: EFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 01, 2017 I join the majority's decision to affirm the order awarding Wife the $17,224.17 balance of the amount outlined in the June 1999 qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") pursuant to a payment plan. I write separately to clarify that, unless Husband and Wife expressly merged the * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S39007-17 QDRO into their January 1999 divorce decree, Husband's attempt to invoke § 3332 of the Domestic Relations Code as a bar to Wife's petition for relief is misplaced. Stat


CourtListener opinion 4201793

CourtListener opinion 4201793 Extracted reporter citation: 663 A.2d 184. Docket: 190 MDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4201793 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 4201793

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 4201793

QDRO: 07, 2017 These are three consolidated appeals filed by Christopher Smith ("Husband"), pro se, from the orders entered on September 15, 2015 and December 29, 2016.1 The September 15, 2015 order entered a divorce decree and order of equitable distribution/qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), and the December 29, 2016 order granted Susan C. Smith's ("Wife") motion to compel Husband to sign Wife's proposed QDRO, and denied Husband's motion to compel Wife to sign the QDRO that he proposed. After our review, we quash the appeal at 191 MDA 2017, and affirm the appeals at 190 MDA 2017 and 192 MDA 2017.2 _______________________________


CourtListener opinion 4201793

pension: filed by each of the parties evidencing that each of the parties consents to the divorce." 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(c). -4- J-S41024-17 3. The marital property, excluding the joint TD Ameritrade stock account and Husband's [State Employee Retirement System] Pension [SERS], shall be divided 53% to Wife and 47% to Husband, with an offset for credits. **** 7. Within sixty (60) days of the date of the final decree, Husband shall pay to Wife the sum of $92,310.88 to effectuate equitable distribution of the [marital] assets. 8. Husband's existing SERS pension value shall be divided equally between the parties by


CourtListener opinion 4201793

domestic relations order: These are three consolidated appeals filed by Christopher Smith ("Husband"), pro se, from the orders entered on September 15, 2015 and December 29, 2016.1 The September 15, 2015 order entered a divorce decree and order of equitable distribution/qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), and the December 29, 2016 order granted Susan C. Smith's ("Wife") motion to compel Husband to sign Wife's proposed QDRO, and denied Husband's motion to compel Wife to sign the QDRO that he proposed. After our review, we quash the appeal at 191 MDA 2017, and affirm the appeals at 190 MDA 2017 and 192 MDA 2017.2 _______________________________


CourtListener opinion 4201793

survivor benefits: final decree, Husband shall pay to Wife the sum of $92,310.88 to effectuate equitable distribution of the [marital] assets. 8. Husband's existing SERS pension value shall be divided equally between the parties by way of a QDRO. Husband shall elect the survivor annuity option. QDRO preparation costs shall be divided between the parties. 9. The joint TD Ameritrade stock account shall be divided 53% to Husband and 47% to Wife based upon its current valuation at the time [] the final Divorce Decree is entered. 10. Wife's request for alimony is DENIED. Order, 9/15/15. On October 5, 2015, Husband filed a pro se no


CourtListener opinion 4201842

CourtListener opinion 4201842 Extracted reporter citation: 637 N.E.2d 914. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4201842 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 4201842


CourtListener opinion 4201842

QDRO: and all contributions thereto for 2012 that currently are earned (whenever such contributions are paid into the plan). The parties agreed this division would be made by a proper Qualified Domestic Relations Delaware County, Case No. 16 CAA 0043 3 Order ("QDRO"). The parties also agreed that Wife's share of the Ariel Corporation Profit Sharing Plan "shall include" gains and losses on a pro rata basis from the date that 2012 contributions are made until the QDRO is approved and implemented, or until the transfer of Wife's shares are completed. {¶6} In Section 11(D) of the agreed judgment entry, the parties ag


CourtListener opinion 4201842

retirement benefits: m (duration) of spousal support. {¶4} In Section 11(B) of the agreed judgment entry, the parties agreed Husband would take, free and clear of any claims by Wife, all rights, title, and interest in and to the Fidelity Investments/Ariel Corporation Employee Retirement Plan, a 401(K) plan. {¶5} Section 11(C) of agreed judgment entry deals with Husband's Ariel Corporation Profit Sharing Plan and provides that Wife shall be awarded and shall take, have, and own, free and clear of any claims by Husband, one half the balance of the Ariel Corporation Profit Sharing Plan in Husband's name. Further, that said balance of the Ari


CourtListener opinion 4201842

pension: d an appeal of the trial court's decision and argued: the trial court erred by modifying a division of martial assets after the court journalized a divorce Delaware County, Case No. 16 CAA 0043 5 decree; the trial court erred by attaching exempt funds in a pension account where the plan-participant spouse was not receiving distributions from the account; and the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees on appellee's motion for contempt. {¶14} In Bittner v. Bittner, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 15 CAF 03 0024, 2015-Ohio- 4707, we overruled appellant's assignments of error, finding: the trial court did not err in


CourtListener opinion 4201842

401(k): usal support. {¶4} In Section 11(B) of the agreed judgment entry, the parties agreed Husband would take, free and clear of any claims by Wife, all rights, title, and interest in and to the Fidelity Investments/Ariel Corporation Employee Retirement Plan, a 401(K) plan. {¶5} Section 11(C) of agreed judgment entry deals with Husband's Ariel Corporation Profit Sharing Plan and provides that Wife shall be awarded and shall take, have, and own, free and clear of any claims by Husband, one half the balance of the Ariel Corporation Profit Sharing Plan in Husband's name. Further, that said balance of the Ariel Corpora


CourtListener opinion 4203104

CourtListener opinion 4203104 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CAROL A. TINKER AND GEOFFRY A. TINKER Upon the Petition of CAROL A. TINKER. Extracted reporter citation: 810 N.W.2d 880. Docket: 17-0327. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4203104 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 4203104


CourtListener opinion 4203104

QDRO: evin D. Engels of Correll, Sheerer, Benson, Engels, Galles & Demro, PLC, Cedar Falls, for appellant. Carol A. Tinker, Waterloo, appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ. 2 MCDONALD, Judge. This case involves a challenge to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The QDRO at issue divided an account in the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pursuant to the decree dissolving the marriage of Geoffry and Carol Tinker. On appeal, Geoffry contends the QDRO impermissibly modified the dissolution decree in directing Geoffry to select a particular IPERS benefit option, designate Carol as the benef


CourtListener opinion 4203104

retirement benefits: to the dissolution of the parties' marriage were resolved by pretrial stipulation and other issues were resolved following trial to the district court. One of the issues resolved by pretrial stipulation was the division of Geoffry's and Carol's respective retirement accounts. With respect to Geoffry's IPERS account, the pretrial stipulation provided: The parties further agree that the proceeds of Geoffry's IPERS plan shall be divided pursuant to the Benson formula, with Carol receiving a fraction of Geoffry's IPERS plan equal to the following: 50% of the gross monthly or lump sum distribution payable to the member, mul


CourtListener opinion 4203104

domestic relations order: gels of Correll, Sheerer, Benson, Engels, Galles & Demro, PLC, Cedar Falls, for appellant. Carol A. Tinker, Waterloo, appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ. 2 MCDONALD, Judge. This case involves a challenge to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The QDRO at issue divided an account in the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pursuant to the decree dissolving the marriage of Geoffry and Carol Tinker. On appeal, Geoffry contends the QDRO impermissibly modified the dissolution decree in directing Geoffry to select a particular IPERS benefit option, designate Carol as the benef


CourtListener opinion 4203104

valuation/division: Because the plain language of the decree addresses only the proper division of Geoffry's IPERS benefit and does not in any way limit or constrain Geoffry's ability to elect his IPERS benefit, the QDRO in this case was an impermissible modification of the property division or an impermissible serial final judgment. See In re Marriage of Thatcher, 864 N.W.2d 533, 538 (Iowa 2015) (considering whether bifurcated decree was a reviewable final judgment). We thus vacate the district court's order approving the proposed QDRO. We remand this matter for presentation and approval of a QDRO implementing the express terms of the dec


CourtListener opinion 4203235

CourtListener opinion 4203235 Extracted reporter citation: 249 S.W.3d 346. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4203235 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 4203235


CourtListener opinion 4203235

QDRO: marital dissolution agreement ("MDA") and a permanent parenting plan. Wife filed a petition with the Chancery Court for Williamson County on January 10, 2014, requesting that the court find Husband in civil contempt for the following: (1) failing to have a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") prepared for two retirement accounts in violation of paragraph 13 of the MDA; (2) failing to transfer custodianship of the their child's college education savings accounts ("UTMA accounts")1 to Wife in violation of paragraph 7 of the MDA; (3) failing to give Wife an accounting of a debt owed to the parties in violation of paragraph 8 of the MDA; (4


CourtListener opinion 4203235

retirement benefits: ing plan. Wife filed a petition with the Chancery Court for Williamson County on January 10, 2014, requesting that the court find Husband in civil contempt for the following: (1) failing to have a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") prepared for two retirement accounts in violation of paragraph 13 of the MDA; (2) failing to transfer custodianship of the their child's college education savings accounts ("UTMA accounts")1 to Wife in violation of paragraph 7 of the MDA; (3) failing to give Wife an accounting of a debt owed to the parties in violation of paragraph 8 of the MDA; (4) failing to transfer to Wife half of the non


CourtListener opinion 4203235

pension: the trial, the court found in favor of Wife on all issues. First, the trial court found Husband in civil contempt for violating paragraph 13 of the MDA, which provided that Wife would receive one-half of the funds in a T. Rowe Price account: 13. RETIREMENT/PENSION PLANS: Upon entry of Final Decree of Divorce, one-half of the funds and assets in the T. Rowe Price Roth IRA, account ending in #5830, styled in the name of Husband, shall be, and is hereby, transferred to Wife, and said one-half shall be divested out of Husband and vested absolutely in Wife. The court found that the T. Rowe Price account referenced


CourtListener opinion 4203235

domestic relations order: issolution agreement ("MDA") and a permanent parenting plan. Wife filed a petition with the Chancery Court for Williamson County on January 10, 2014, requesting that the court find Husband in civil contempt for the following: (1) failing to have a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") prepared for two retirement accounts in violation of paragraph 13 of the MDA; (2) failing to transfer custodianship of the their child's college education savings accounts ("UTMA accounts")1 to Wife in violation of paragraph 7 of the MDA; (3) failing to give Wife an accounting of a debt owed to the parties in violation of paragraph 8 of the MDA; (4


CourtListener opinion 4205501

CourtListener opinion 4205501 Extracted reporter citation: 874 A.2d 148. Docket: 1618 WDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4205501 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 4205501

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 4205501

QDRO: ndations of the Special Master. See, Opinion and Order dated May 6, 2014. No appeal was taken from the Court's determination of the exceptions and a divorce decree was entered on June 25, 2014. On July 17, 2014, this Court entered an Order approving the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] which provided for $15,669.50 to Wife in Equitable Distribution upon [Appellant's] retirement. At the time of entering the QDRO, [Appellant] indicated that his retirement was imminent. Since 2014, [Appellant] has delayed his retirement and stated to the Court that he intends to work six (6) more years. N.T., 10/7/2016, at 5. Trial Court Opinio


CourtListener opinion 4205501

retirement benefits: this timely appeal. Appellant presents six issues for our review: 1. Whether the trial court erred in invalidating the QDRO, therefore applying [sic] the Special Master recommendation of equitable distribution of the marital portion of the Appellant's retirement benefits be ordered and directed from financial resources knowing the Appellant had no such funds available to him outside the funds in his retirement plan, payable within 60 days after the entering of a divorce decree. -2- J-A12005-17 2. Whether the trial court erred in assessing the Appellant's consideration of retirement, but due to events which created


CourtListener opinion 4205501

pension: earing or in his brief – that the QDRO should remain in effect because of his "unforeseen financial hardship." Id. at 22. It is undisputed that pursuant to the court's May 6, 2014 order, Wife was awarded the $15,669.50 as her marital share of Appellant's pension, to be paid within 60 days. N.T., 10/7/16, at 2. Thereafter, the parties executed the QDRO with the understanding that Appellant would be retiring, and Wife agreed to wait until the fall of 2014 to receive the funds from Appellant's retirement. Id. at 3, 6. Appellant testified that he "did have intentions of retiring that year but . . . had to postpone


CourtListener opinion 4205501

domestic relations order: f the Special Master. See, Opinion and Order dated May 6, 2014. No appeal was taken from the Court's determination of the exceptions and a divorce decree was entered on June 25, 2014. On July 17, 2014, this Court entered an Order approving the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] which provided for $15,669.50 to Wife in Equitable Distribution upon [Appellant's] retirement. At the time of entering the QDRO, [Appellant] indicated that his retirement was imminent. Since 2014, [Appellant] has delayed his retirement and stated to the Court that he intends to work six (6) more years. N.T., 10/7/2016, at 5. Trial Court Opinio


CourtListener opinion 4206481

CourtListener opinion 4206481 Extracted case name: APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT v. ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT COUNTY OF SUMMIT. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 THE. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4206481 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 4206481


CourtListener opinion 4206481

retirement benefits: s was a writ (1) "giving effect to the Order of the Court of Common Pleas allowing [him] to change the beneficiary of his STRS plan;" and (2) "directing STRS to follow the terms of [R.C.] 3307.60(A)(3) and allow [him] to name a new beneficiary for his STRS retirement plan and return the plan to a single lifetime benefit equivalent." {¶5} STRS filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party and failure to state a claim. In the alternative, STRS moved to transfer the case to Franklin County. The trial court rejected STRS' motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party and the motion to


CourtListener opinion 4206481

pension: ouse, Ms. Maldonado, as his beneficiary in a joint and survivor annuity without reversion option. In February 2016, Mr. Daniels obtained a divorce and an order from the domestic relations court stating he "may change the beneficiary designation of his STRS pension pursuant to STRS plans, rules, and regulations." 2 {¶3} Mr. Daniels completed a change of beneficiary form and mailed it, along with the domestic relations order, to STRS requesting to change his beneficiary from his ex-spouse to his daughter. STRS denied his request to change the beneficiary because Mr. Daniels had selected "the Joint and Survivor An


CourtListener opinion 4206481

domestic relations order: nd an order from the domestic relations court stating he "may change the beneficiary designation of his STRS pension pursuant to STRS plans, rules, and regulations." 2 {¶3} Mr. Daniels completed a change of beneficiary form and mailed it, along with the domestic relations order, to STRS requesting to change his beneficiary from his ex-spouse to his daughter. STRS denied his request to change the beneficiary because Mr. Daniels had selected "the Joint and Survivor Annuity 15 year guaranteed one-half to beneficiary without reversion option." The denial letter explained that the plan he chose at the time of retirement did not per


CourtListener opinion 4206481

survivor benefits: em ("STRS") and Cecilia Maldonado. For the reasons set forth below, this Court affirms. I. {¶2} In January 2005, Mr. Daniels retired as a member of STRS. At that time, he was married and chose his spouse, Ms. Maldonado, as his beneficiary in a joint and survivor annuity without reversion option. In February 2016, Mr. Daniels obtained a divorce and an order from the domestic relations court stating he "may change the beneficiary designation of his STRS pension pursuant to STRS plans, rules, and regulations." 2 {¶3} Mr. Daniels completed a change of beneficiary form and mailed it, along with the domestic relations or


CourtListener opinion 4206676

CourtListener opinion 4206676 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RICHARD L. COOK AND SUSAN K. COOK Upon the Petition of RICHARD L. COOK. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 16-2078. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4206676 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 4206676


CourtListener opinion 4206676

QDRO: t aside Richard's inherited property to him and attempted to equally divide most of the couple's joint assets and the largest of the couple's liabilities. Richard's pension from his thirty-four years of employment with Sealed Air was divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) affording Susan "50% of the marital factor of 31/34."1 As for spousal support, the court ordered Richard to 1 The QDRO provided: 3 pay Susan $800.00 per month until "Susan dies, Richard dies or Susan remarries." Richard moved for enlarged findings and conclusions. The district court denied the motion and this appeal followed. II. Analysis


CourtListener opinion 4206676

pension: RD L. COOK, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning SUSAN K. COOK, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Kevin McKeever, Judge. Richard Cook appeals the pension and spousal support provisions of a decree of dissolution of marriage. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Michael K. Lang of Knuth Law Office, Anamosa, for appellant. Karen A. Volz of Ackley, Kopecky & Kingery, Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ. 2 VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge. Richard and Susan Cook marri


CourtListener opinion 4206676

alternate payee: Id. at 255. "[T]his percentage is based on the number of years the employee accrued benefits under the plan during the parties' marriage in relation to the total years of benefits accrued at maturity." Id. The formula is as follows: This Order assigns to Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of 50% of the marital portion of the Participant's Accrued Benefit under the Plan as of the Participant's benefit commencement date, or the Alternate Payee's benefit commencement date, if earlier. The Marital portion shall be determined by multiplying the Participant's accrued benefit by a Coverture Fraction


CourtListener opinion 4206676

domestic relations order: ichard's inherited property to him and attempted to equally divide most of the couple's joint assets and the largest of the couple's liabilities. Richard's pension from his thirty-four years of employment with Sealed Air was divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) affording Susan "50% of the marital factor of 31/34."1 As for spousal support, the court ordered Richard to 1 The QDRO provided: 3 pay Susan $800.00 per month until "Susan dies, Richard dies or Susan remarries." Richard moved for enlarged findings and conclusions. The district court denied the motion and this appeal followed. II. Analysis


CourtListener opinion 4207112

CourtListener opinion 4207112 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Davis. Extracted reporter citation: 987 N.E.2d 1130. Docket: 06A01-1701-DR-52 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4207112 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 4207112


CourtListener opinion 4207112

QDRO: ds [Wife]'s attorneys' fees. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The parties' marriage is hereby DISSOLVED; 2. The parties' marital estate is DIVIDED as the Balance Sheet hereinabove provided with [Husband]'s Counsel preparing qualified domestic relations orders in instances where pension and 401k accounts in [Wife]'s name have been set off to [Husband]; 3. [Wife] SHALL quitclaim her interest in 8302 Anne Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana to [Husband], deliver the keys and vacate the premises in a broom clean condition on or before February 28, 2017 giving notice to [Husband] seven days in advance if she moves


CourtListener opinion 4207112

pension: ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The parties' marriage is hereby DISSOLVED; 2. The parties' marital estate is DIVIDED as the Balance Sheet hereinabove provided with [Husband]'s Counsel preparing qualified domestic relations orders in instances where pension and 401k accounts in [Wife]'s name have been set off to [Husband]; 3. [Wife] SHALL quitclaim her interest in 8302 Anne Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana to [Husband], deliver the keys and vacate the premises in a broom clean condition on or before February 28, 2017 giving notice to [Husband] seven days in advance if she moves out earlier; 4. [Husband]


CourtListener opinion 4207112

401(k): DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The parties' marriage is hereby DISSOLVED; 2. The parties' marital estate is DIVIDED as the Balance Sheet hereinabove provided with [Husband]'s Counsel preparing qualified domestic relations orders in instances where pension and 401k accounts in [Wife]'s name have been set off to [Husband]; 3. [Wife] SHALL quitclaim her interest in 8302 Anne Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana to [Husband], deliver the keys and vacate the premises in a broom clean condition on or before February 28, 2017 giving notice to [Husband] seven days in advance if she moves out earlier; 4. [Husband] SHALL refi


CourtListener opinion 4207112

domestic relations order: s attorneys' fees. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The parties' marriage is hereby DISSOLVED; 2. The parties' marital estate is DIVIDED as the Balance Sheet hereinabove provided with [Husband]'s Counsel preparing qualified domestic relations orders in instances where pension and 401k accounts in [Wife]'s name have been set off to [Husband]; 3. [Wife] SHALL quitclaim her interest in 8302 Anne Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana to [Husband], deliver the keys and vacate the premises in a broom clean condition on or before February 28, 2017 giving notice to [Husband] seven days in advance if she moves


CourtListener opinion 4211612

CourtListener opinion 4211612 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4211612 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 4211612

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 4211612

QDRO: eals the order of the Circuit Court of Wood County, entered July 14, 2016, affirming a March 30, 2016, order of the Family Court of Wood County. In its March 30, 2016, order, the family court denied petitioner's motion to amend the parties' February 28, 2001, qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") on the ground that he requested the retroactive application of W.Va. C.S.R. § 162-1-7.2.a, which sets forth the current method for calculating a former spouse's share of a member/retirant's pension. Respondent Sarah Jarvis, by counsel Richard A. Bush, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. Petitioner filed a reply. The Court ha


CourtListener opinion 4211612

retirement benefits: a Public Employees Retirement System, 235 W.Va. 602, 606 n.3, (Continued . . .) 1 pursuant to W.Va. C.S.R. § 162-1-6.2.1 (2000), which provided as follows: In cases of divorce or legal separation whereby the member's or retirant's interest in his or her retirement account is subject to division pursuant to domestic relations law, that portion of the member's or retirant's retirement account which is subject to division by the Court shall be determined by the Board by using the following formula, but only after the benefits are available to the member or retirant: a former spouse's interest shall be computed by the Board


CourtListener opinion 4211612

pension: rties' February 28, 2001, qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") on the ground that he requested the retroactive application of W.Va. C.S.R. § 162-1-7.2.a, which sets forth the current method for calculating a former spouse's share of a member/retirant's pension. Respondent Sarah Jarvis, by counsel Richard A. Bush, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. Petitioner filed a reply. The Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon considera


CourtListener opinion 4211612

alternate payee: action, the numerator being the number of years of contributing service incurred during the marriage, and the denominator being the total number 775 S.E.2d 483, 487 n.3 (2015), we found that a QDRO is a "domestic relations order that recognizes existence of alternate payee's right to all or portion of benefits payable under pension plan." 2 In Chico Dairy Co., Store No. 22 v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, 181 W.Va. 238, 243, 382 S.E.2d 75, 80 (1989), we found that, pursuant to the rulemaking article of the State Administrative Procedures Act, West Virginia Code §§ 29A-3-1 to 29A-3-20, legislative rules require the


CourtListener opinion 4211634

CourtListener opinion 4211634 Extracted reporter citation: 62 N.E.3d 1212. Docket: 52A05-1701-DR-203 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4211634 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 4211634

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 4211634

QDRO: arrears for the non-payment of overtime earnings between 2001 and 2004 in the sum of $10,617.76, plus orthodontic work for the children in the sum of $1,878.67, for a total of $12,496.43. Father satisfied the total amount due by transferring said funds by QDRO on November 22, 2004. 5. On February 4, 2010, the court entered two judgments against Father. The first judgment was for $13,428.03. The second judgment was for $8,365.11, for a total of $21,793.14. Father satisfied the second judgment in the sum of $8,365.11 on 1/18/11 by paying $8,400 as evidenced by the child support payment history introduced in


CourtListener opinion 4212355

CourtListener opinion 4212355 Extracted reporter citation: 700 N.W.2d 684. Docket: 20170085. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4212355 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 4212355


CourtListener opinion 4212355

QDRO: at an order-to-show-cause hearing on November 16, 2015. [¶5] Prior to the hearing on the order to show cause, a proposed Order on Military Retirement Pay addressing allocation of Ronald Berry's military retirement was prepared; the order was drafted as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). During the hearing held on November 16, 2015, Phyllis Berry requested that the district court sign the Order on Military Retirement Pay and include within the order a statement that the court was retaining jurisdiction over the allocation of Ronald Berry's military retirement benefits. The court thereafter included a handwritten modification on th


CourtListener opinion 4212355

retirement benefits: o. 20170085 Jensen, Justice. [¶1] Phyllis Berry appealed from a corrected judgment revising the parties' original divorce judgment. Because Phyllis Berry requested the district court retain jurisdiction over the allocation of Ronald Berry's military retirement benefits and the court effectively denied her request for attorney fees, we affirm. I [¶2] Phyllis Berry and Ronald Berry were divorced in a judgment entered on January 24, 2008. Following entry of the judgment, Phyllis Berry requested the district court reconsider its allocation of Ronald Berry's military retirement benefits. The court entered an order de


CourtListener opinion 4212355

domestic relations order: er-to-show-cause hearing on November 16, 2015. [¶5] Prior to the hearing on the order to show cause, a proposed Order on Military Retirement Pay addressing allocation of Ronald Berry's military retirement was prepared; the order was drafted as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). During the hearing held on November 16, 2015, Phyllis Berry requested that the district court sign the Order on Military Retirement Pay and include within the order a statement that the court was retaining jurisdiction over the allocation of Ronald Berry's military retirement benefits. The court thereafter included a handwritten modification on th


CourtListener opinion 4212355

valuation/division: sfy the requirements under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60 for modification of the judgment. [¶8] A district court does not have continuing jurisdiction over a final property distribution. Ebach v. Ebach , 2005 ND 123, ¶ 16, 700 N.W.2d 684. Modification of a final property division in a divorce may be modified in the same manner and on the same grounds as other judgments including a motion pursuant to N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. Kopp v. Kopp , 2001 ND 41, ¶ 6, 622 N.W.2d 726; N.D.R.Civ.P. 60 (Rule 60). [¶9] The district court properly denied Ronald Berry's initial request to modify the allocation of his military retirement benefits aft


CourtListener opinion 4213885

CourtListener opinion 4213885 Extracted reporter citation: 823 F.3d 537. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4213885 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 4213885


CourtListener opinion 4213885

QDRO: maintains and which Fidelity services. Fidelity began sending Stephens monthly benefit checks in 2009. But rather than cash the checks, Stephens returned the unopened envelopes to Fidelity. Apparently Stephens believed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered in his Utah divorce case rendered him liable for any amounts intended for his ex-wife (who was awarded a portion of the benefits) but accidently mailed to him. This went on until late 2014, when Fidelity sent Stephens a check for $152,890.38, representing a lump-sum payment for all benefits due up to that point. Fidelity filed a corresponding 1


CourtListener opinion 4213885

retirement benefits: ______ Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Kenton Stephens sued Alliant Techsystems Corporation and Fidelity Investments Institutional Operational Company over a dispute related to the distribution of his retirement benefits. Stephens appeals the district court's order overruling his objections to various rulings by the magistrate judge, granting * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The c


CourtListener opinion 4213885

ERISA: hat Stephens raised three claims in his complaint: (1) a claim for declaratory judgment that the 1099-R form the defendants filed with the IRS was void, (2) a fraud claim, and (3) a claim the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over Stephens' declaratory judgment claim, that he failed to allege or submit evidence showing the elements of fraud were met, and that Stephens provided no legal or factual support for his suggestion that the defendants violated ERISA. We agree with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction to void the


CourtListener opinion 4214151

CourtListener opinion 4214151 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: reflects no further action in the case until the en. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4214151 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 4214151

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 4214151

QDRO: arded Husband 50% of the value of "Wife's DRBA pension and ING account up to September 21, 2013, the date of separation...." The Family Court instructed Husband to retain a lawyer for the purpose of drafting the necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), implementing the substance of the court's ruling, and to file the QDRO with the court by March 1, 2016. The Family Court also directed the parties to provide additional information by February 1, 2016 regarding post-separation deposits and withdrawals from the parties' joint bank account, which the court would use to determine how to divide their tax li


CourtListener opinion 4214151

retirement benefits: s and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (l) The appellant, Damon Yancey ("Husband"), filed this appeal from an order of the Family Court, dated October 14, 2016, vacating its earlier order awarding Husband a 50% interest in one of his ex-Wife's retirement plans. Husband's sole argument on appeal is that the Family Court abused its discretion by vacating its previous order Without providing any reasons. After our review of the record, Which is unclear and incomplete, especially With respect to Wife's retirement accounts, We conclude that the judgment of the Family Court is not 1 The Court previously assigned pse


CourtListener opinion 4214151

pension: mployed, and had no retirement accounts. Wife Was 33-years-old, had been employed by the Delaware River and Bay Authority ("DRBA") since 2006, and participated in two employer-sponsored retirement plans. Wife loosely referred to her retirement accounts as the pension plan and the ING account. Although no documentation regarding either plan Was entered into evidence, Wife's disclosure in the Rule l6(c) Financial Report appears to demonstrate that she has an interest in the "DRBA Pension Plan" and employer-approved 401(a) (retirement) and 457(b) (deferred compensation) accounts. (4) lt bears noting that the absence of


CourtListener opinion 4214151

401(k): Court on July 7, 2016. The only apparent difference between the original QDRO and the amended QDRO is the name of the retirement plan, which was changed from the "Delaware River and Bay Authority 401(a) Plan" to "the Delaware River and Bay Authority Employees Defined Contribution Plan." (13) On July 13, 2016, the Family Court entered a second property division order ("the Second Property Division Order"). The Second Property Division Order refers to the First Property Division Order as a "Pre-Trial Order." In relevant part, the Second Property Division Order states that Wife was not entitled to any reimbursement for money that she d


CourtListener opinion 4214976

CourtListener opinion 4214976 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4214976 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 4214976


CourtListener opinion 4214976

retirement benefits: ef Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION In 1989, the then unmarried John Breckenridge Gibson, Jr., began working for the University of Texas at Dallas and designated his sister, Beverly Ward, as the beneficiary of any and all death benefits payable from his retirement plan with the Teachers' Retirement System of Texas (TRS). Though, in 2003, Gibson married Mildred Diane Fox-Gibson, he never changed his TRS beneficiary designation. In 2011, Gibson died intestate. Fox-Gibson was appointed the administrator of Gibson's estate and later filed this action1 in the administration proceeding in her representative capacity seekin


CourtListener opinion 4214976

ERISA: the time of the designation of Beverly Gibson, aka Beverly Ward, as the plan beneficiary, no spousal consent was required for the designation. Tex. Admin. Code § 73.29(a) (l ). 6. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. Chap. 18 )("ERISA") does not apply to state governmental employee benefit plans per 29 U.S.C. Chap. 18 §§ 1002(32), 1003. 7. The TRS Plan is, by definition, a state governmental employee benefit plan. Ibid. 8. Because ERISA does not apply to the TRS Death Benefits, there is no requirement that any of the TRS Death Benefits be payable to the Surviving Spouse of the Ben


CourtListener opinion 4214976

alternate payee: APP. P. 41.3. 3 On January 16, 2014, an initial hearing was held on the application. At the hearing, Fox-Gibson testified that she was married to Gibson on September 26, 2003, and that he passed away on September 26, 2011. She also testified that she is the alternate payee and that the community interest was any deposits and interest made into the account after the date of their marriage. Fox-Gibson also entered into evidence certain business records concerning Gibson's TRS plan account. Ward stated that she was the named beneficiary and that Gibson left all of the benefits to her, but she also asked that Fox-Gibson be awarde


CourtListener opinion 4214976

domestic relations order: eath, any death benefits payable by reason of the death of Gibson (TRS Death Benefits) became payable to his named beneficiary, . . . Ward. 12. Because the TRS Death Benefits are payable pursuant to the TRS Plan to the named beneficiary under the plan, no domestic relations order regarding the payment of plan benefits was 4 entered judgment that Ward, as the named payable-on-death beneficiary under the TRS plan, was to be paid all of the plan benefits. On appeal, Fox-Gibson complains that the probate court erred in failing to strike Ward's allegedly late-filed petition for declaratory judgment, in its conclusion of law that th


CourtListener opinion 4216296

CourtListener opinion 4216296 Extracted case name: CLEARY v. CORDERO. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4216296 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 4216296


CourtListener opinion 4216296

QDRO: benefits to himself and the parties' two children. ¶4 The parties reached an agreement regarding joint legal decision-making and parenting time pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 69. They also agreed to divide Father's retirement benefits via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), with Father paying Mother $630 per month until the QDRO was entered. The parties agreed they would have no telephonic or face-to-face contact with one another except for emergencies and that Father and Safsten would "have no contact whatsoever with each other." ¶5 The parties litigated the issues of spousal maintenance and child support at trial.


CourtListener opinion 4216296

retirement benefits: signed a portion of those benefits to himself and the parties' two children. ¶4 The parties reached an agreement regarding joint legal decision-making and parenting time pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 69. They also agreed to divide Father's retirement benefits via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), with Father paying Mother $630 per month until the QDRO was entered. The parties agreed they would have no telephonic or face-to-face contact with one another except for emergencies and that Father and Safsten would "have no contact whatsoever with each other." ¶5 The parties litigated the issues of spous


CourtListener opinion 4216296

domestic relations order: o himself and the parties' two children. ¶4 The parties reached an agreement regarding joint legal decision-making and parenting time pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 69. They also agreed to divide Father's retirement benefits via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), with Father paying Mother $630 per month until the QDRO was entered. The parties agreed they would have no telephonic or face-to-face contact with one another except for emergencies and that Father and Safsten would "have no contact whatsoever with each other." ¶5 The parties litigated the issues of spousal maintenance and child support at trial.


CourtListener opinion 4216432

CourtListener opinion 4216432 Extracted reporter citation: 830 F.3d 1195. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4216432 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 4216432