CourtListener opinion 11099190

pension: fer to them by the names they used in their declarations and correspondence below. No. 87370-9-I/2 agreement). The CR 2A agreement provided, with regard to the parties' respective pensions, 4. Pensions: The community interest in Husband's City of Seattle Pension shall be awarded 50% to husband and 50% to wife. Husband shall pay the cost of preparing a QDRO to effectuate this award. 5. The community interest in Wife's PERS II Pension shall be awarded 50% to wife and 50% to husband. Wife shall pay the cost of preparing a QDRO to effectuate this award. The CR 2A Agreement also provided, "Each party agrees and st


CourtListener opinion 11101067

CourtListener opinion 11101067 Extracted reporter citation: 522 P.3d 1236. Docket: 51857 IDAHO STATE BAR. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11101067 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 11101067

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 11101067

QDRO: 8, 2020, the district court granted Judy's summary judgment motion and entered a $90,633.83 judgment against Jeff; however, that amount was later amended to $106,468.25. On July 15, 2020, Judy filed a Motion for Entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to partially satisfy the judgment she had obtained against Jeff for unpaid spousal support. The funds sought by the QDRO were held in Jeff's retirement account managed by Rudd & Company, PLLC, a regional accounting firm. At that same time, roughly 65% of Jeff's wages were being garnished to pay the outstanding spousal support. On September 9, 2020, Jeff


CourtListener opinion 11101067

retirement benefits: ended to $106,468.25. On July 15, 2020, Judy filed a Motion for Entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to partially satisfy the judgment she had obtained against Jeff for unpaid spousal support. The funds sought by the QDRO were held in Jeff's retirement account managed by Rudd & Company, PLLC, a regional accounting firm. At that same time, roughly 65% of Jeff's wages were being garnished to pay the outstanding spousal support. On September 9, 2020, Jeff filed for bankruptcy, which stayed the pending civil case; however, the bankruptcy was subsequently dismissed on December 10, 2020. While Oleson did not represent


CourtListener opinion 11102129

CourtListener opinion 11102129 Extracted reporter citation: 444 P.3d 165. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102129 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 11102129


CourtListener opinion 11102129

QDRO: l Thomas Iozzo Jr., pro se, Round Rock, Texas, Appellant. Amanda M. Lancaster, Turnagain Law, LLC, Anchorage, for Appellee. Before: Maassen, Chief Justice, and Carney, Borghesan, Henderson, and Pate, Justices. INTRODUCTION The superior court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in a divorce action awarding a portion of the ex-husband's "disposable military retired pay" to the ex-wife upon his retirement. Seven years later the ex-husband retired, and the ex-wife began receiving her portion of his retirement pay. * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. The following year the ex-husband was approved for a form of milita


CourtListener opinion 11102129

retirement benefits: former spouse's share of retirement payments caused by a veteran's post-divorce waiver."). 23 Cf. Jones v. Jones, 505 P.3d 224, 233 (Alaska 2022) (upholding divorce agreement that "expressly provide[d] for indemnification in the event that [the ex- wife's] retirement benefits [were] affected by [the ex-husband's] receipt of disability pay"). 24 581 U.S. at 221. 25 10 U.S.C. § 1414 (2001); 10 U.S.C. § 1413a (2002); see also Guerrero v. Guerrero, 362 P.3d 432, 439 (Alaska 2015) ("[CRSC] allows veterans disabled in combat to receive compensation in lieu of retirement payments up to the amount waived to receive VA disability be


CourtListener opinion 11102129

domestic relations order: ozzo Jr., pro se, Round Rock, Texas, Appellant. Amanda M. Lancaster, Turnagain Law, LLC, Anchorage, for Appellee. Before: Maassen, Chief Justice, and Carney, Borghesan, Henderson, and Pate, Justices. INTRODUCTION The superior court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in a divorce action awarding a portion of the ex-husband's "disposable military retired pay" to the ex-wife upon his retirement. Seven years later the ex-husband retired, and the ex-wife began receiving her portion of his retirement pay. * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. The following year the ex-husband was approved for a form of milita


CourtListener opinion 11102146

CourtListener opinion 11102146 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102146 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 11102146


CourtListener opinion 11102146

retirement benefits: he time 1 The parties have two minor children, but custody is not at issue in this appeal. -2- 2066 of separation" and Amber's limited ability to work due to injuries and childcare needs further diminished the business's value. The court valued Amber's retirement account at $131,452.73. Finding credible Amber's testimony that she would need to liquidate the account in order to pay her attorney, the court also awarded her "the debt related to the tax consequences of cashing out" the account: ‑$44,693.92. The court found that Joe violated its initial domestic relations standing order when he failed to renew health insurance


CourtListener opinion 11102146

401(k): onsequences are not a permissible consideration when the superior court values and distributes property, it is within the court's discretion to account for a tax liability that appears inevitable. 17 In Dodson v. Dodson the superior court awarded one spouse's 401(k) plan to the other spouse in the course of divorce proceedings, but discounted the value of the plan to account for taxes the receiving spouse would have to pay to draw funds from the plan. 18 On appeal the other spouse, citing Oberhansly, argued that the court erred in its valuation by discounting the plan's value by this "hypothetical" tax consequence. 19


CourtListener opinion 11102146

domestic relations order: violate the order, the court could "order sanctions," including fines. The trial court has discretion to impose appropriate sanctions when a party violates a domestic relations standing order. 27 We see no error in the court's conclusion that Joe violated the domestic relations order in this case when he failed to add Amber to his new insurance policy. Nor do we see any error in the court's exercise of its discretion by requiring Joe to reimburse Amber for the medical costs she incurred as a result of his violation of the order. CONCLUSION We VACATE the superior court's property division and REMAND with instructions to value the marit


CourtListener opinion 11102146

valuation/division: and Pate, Justices. [Henderson, Justice, not participating.] INTRODUCTION A husband appeals various aspects of the superior court's property division as well as the court's determination that he violated a domestic relations standing order. We vacate the property division because the marital home was not valued correctly. However, we affirm the superior court's valuation of the remaining property at issue. We also affirm the court's finding that the husband violated the domestic relations standing order. * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Joseph Riggs III (Joe) and Amber Mason-Riggs married


CourtListener opinion 11102162

CourtListener opinion 11102162 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102162 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 11102162


CourtListener opinion 11102162

QDRO: deemed the asset associated with significant debt as Michael's separate property and "sole liability." 9 Michael used a year-end bonus to secretly purchase a home for himself while the divorce was pending, which violated the court's orders. -7- 2049 4. QDRO Following trial and the court's decision on record, the court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to Alaska Civil Rule 90.1(g).10 The order recognized Kathijo's right to receive $74,360.19 from Michael's 401(k) Savings Plan in lieu of an equalization payment. However, after Kathijo filed the present appeal, the court stayed enforcem


CourtListener opinion 11102162

401(k): ncluded testimony from six witnesses before it issued a decision on record in June 2022.7 It awarded Kathijo 60% of the value of the marital estate, mostly consisting of the cash she received from the sale of the marital home and from her portion of Michael's 401(k). It also declined to award Kathijo long-term spousal support or rehabilitative alimony, and noted our precedent supporting its award of cash in lieu of this support. 8 Relevant to this appeal, the parties presented evidence about, and the court decided, several additional property-related issues. 6 Although Kathijo argues the court erred by imposing Rul


CourtListener opinion 11102162

domestic relations order: ancel the insurance policy but merely divided the policy into two separate policies. Michael filed a cross-motion for attorney's fees pursuant to Alaska Civil Rule 11. 4 The court denied Kathijo's motion because it found Michael had not violated the standing domestic relations order. Instead Michael had "simply removed his own vehicle and the children's vehicles from the policy so that Ms. Jolin would not have to pay for them during the interim pendency of this case." The court also noted Kathijo's attorney "made no independent effort to investigate the claims before filing the motion as required by Alaska Civil Rule 11(b)."5 Since the


CourtListener opinion 11102162

valuation/division: ice, and Carney, Borghesan, Henderson, and Pate, Justices. INTRODUCTION Following divorce proceedings, one party appeals various aspects of the superior court's division of marital property. Observing no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm the court's property division order in all respects. * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Michael and Kathijo Jolin married in January 2003,1 after dating intermittently for several years. They raised four children together. Michael filed for divorce in September 2021.2 A. Interim Proceedings Between Michael's filing of his divorce complaint and the ti


CourtListener opinion 11102172

CourtListener opinion 11102172 Extracted reporter citation: 444 P.3d 180. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102172 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 11102172

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 11102172

QDRO: n order once again distributing the couple's property in May 2017. Pertinent to this appeal, the court ordered Faris to remit to Taylor payments equivalent to his share of Faris's federal retirement benefit from the date of trial until the court could issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would allow the federal benefit administrator to remit the benefit instead of Faris. We refer to these ordered payments as pre-QDRO payments. Additionally the distribution included a $173,098 credit to Faris's share of the marital estate meant to offset Taylor's lost share of the federal retirement payments that Faris received between the couple


CourtListener opinion 11102172

retirement benefits: five-day divorce trial between December 2015 and May 2016, and issued an order once again distributing the couple's property in May 2017. Pertinent to this appeal, the court ordered Faris to remit to Taylor payments equivalent to his share of Faris's federal retirement benefit from the date of trial until the court could issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would allow the federal benefit administrator to remit the benefit instead of Faris. We refer to these ordered payments as pre-QDRO payments. Additionally the distribution included a $173,098 credit to Faris's share of the marital estate meant to offset Taylo


CourtListener opinion 11102172

pension: r over 40 years of marriage. The superior court divided the couple's property during divorce proceedings in 2017, and the wife then appealed. We affirmed the superior court in all but one respect, remanding for the court to conduct a new recapture analysis of pension payments received by the wife between the couple's separation and the 2017 trial. After the court conducted its recapture analysis and property distribution on remand the wife has once again appealed. She * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. challenges numerous points, but concedes she is not appealing the court's recent recapture analysis and cor


CourtListener opinion 11102172

domestic relations order: ce again distributing the couple's property in May 2017. Pertinent to this appeal, the court ordered Faris to remit to Taylor payments equivalent to his share of Faris's federal retirement benefit from the date of trial until the court could issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would allow the federal benefit administrator to remit the benefit instead of Faris. We refer to these ordered payments as pre-QDRO payments. Additionally the distribution included a $173,098 credit to Faris's share of the marital estate meant to offset Taylor's lost share of the federal retirement payments that Faris received between the couple


CourtListener opinion 11102220

CourtListener opinion 11102220 Extracted reporter citation: 158 P.3d 817. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102220 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 11102220


CourtListener opinion 11102220

QDRO: at day, but he still failed to respond. The clerk entered default on October 20. The court held a default hearing on November 17, 2020, and Pablo did not attend or appear. After the hearing, on November 30, 2020, Martha's attorney sent Pablo both the proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) dividing the couple's retirement accounts and the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dividing Martha and Pablo's property. Pablo still did not respond or attend the default divorce hearing. The court issued a divorce decree dissolving Pablo and Martha's marriage on December 2, 2020. It also incorporated the Findings of Fact and Conclu


CourtListener opinion 11102220

retirement benefits: on October 20. The court held a default hearing on November 17, 2020, and Pablo did not attend or appear. After the hearing, on November 30, 2020, Martha's attorney sent Pablo both the proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) dividing the couple's retirement accounts and the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dividing Martha and Pablo's property. Pablo still did not respond or attend the default divorce hearing. The court issued a divorce decree dissolving Pablo and Martha's marriage on December 2, 2020. It also incorporated the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and QDROs dividing Martha and Pablo's


CourtListener opinion 11102220

domestic relations order: t he still failed to respond. The clerk entered default on October 20. The court held a default hearing on November 17, 2020, and Pablo did not attend or appear. After the hearing, on November 30, 2020, Martha's attorney sent Pablo both the proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) dividing the couple's retirement accounts and the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dividing Martha and Pablo's property. Pablo still did not respond or attend the default divorce hearing. The court issued a divorce decree dissolving Pablo and Martha's marriage on December 2, 2020. It also incorporated the Findings of Fact and Conclu


CourtListener opinion 11102220

valuation/division: iled to respond to his wife's divorce complaint and summons for more than five months. The court entered default against the husband, dissolved the marriage, and divided the couple's property. The then-ex-husband retained an attorney and moved to overturn the property division, asserting that he had limited English proficiency and had not understood the divorce paperwork. He also claimed that the * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. property division was inequitable. After four days of evidentiary hearings, the court denied the ex-husband's motion to overturn the property division. The ex-husband appeals, contending th


CourtListener opinion 11102308

CourtListener opinion 11102308 Extracted reporter citation: 244 P.3d 1121. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102308 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 11102308


CourtListener opinion 11102308

QDRO: ording in which he described the agreement, provision by provision, and elicited the parties' oral consent to it. In sum, the parties agreed to the allocation of the residences, rental properties, chiropractic business, and other major assets. They agreed to "QDRO marital -2- 1901 portions of retirement [accounts plus] gains [and] losses."1 They divided their personal property as shown on a separate spreadsheet, and Greg agreed to make an equalization payment to Marie. When the parties next appeared in court they informed the judge that they disagreed about the settlement's terms, particularly the QDRO requiremen


CourtListener opinion 11102308

retirement benefits: roposed settlement agreement that the court adopted over the wife's objections. * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. The wife contends that the documents adopted by the court fail to reflect the parties' actual agreement on three issues: division of retirement accounts, allocation of personal property, and the date of separation. She also contends that she is entitled to attorney's fees for the husband's discovery violations; that the superior court erroneously failed to enforce an order requiring joint filing of one year's tax returns; and that the court abused its discretion by requiring her to share the cost of an acc


CourtListener opinion 11102308

alternate payee: ation, and that Greg continued to withhold discovery related to his assets. 1 A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is "any judgment, decree, or order" "made pursuant to a State domestic relations law" "which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to" a retirement plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B). -3- 1901 The court signed the divorce decree and Greg's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, incorporating Greg's version of the settlement agreement. A day later it signed an order requiring the parties to hire an


CourtListener opinion 11102308

domestic relations order: tion to use QDROs on all the retirement accounts, that Greg's property spreadsheet differed from the one used at mediation, that the decree had the wrong date of separation, and that Greg continued to withhold discovery related to his assets. 1 A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is "any judgment, decree, or order" "made pursuant to a State domestic relations law" "which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to" a retirement plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B). -3- 1901 The court signed the divorce decree and Greg's proposed find


CourtListener opinion 11102472

CourtListener opinion 11102472 Extracted reporter citation: 205 P.3d 342. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102472 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 11102472


CourtListener opinion 11102472

QDRO: J. Pickard, pro se, Wasilla, Appellee. Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Carney, Justices. I. INTRODUCTION An ex-husband appeals the superior court's denial of his objections to its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which distributed marital property pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement. Because the superior court failed to appropriately allocate the costs of maintaining survivor's benefits and life insurance after the husband is either terminated * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. from employment or retires, we remand for the appropriate a


CourtListener opinion 11102472

retirement benefits: marital years of [Donald's] retirement . . . due to the fact that this was ‘bought back' during the marriage using marital funds." The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law also defined the "marital share" as beginning on "the date of inception of [Donald's retirement plan] to the date of separation." Donald filed objections to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in October 2017.1 Cynthia filed a proposed QDRO for Donald's FERS pension and sent him a copy in November 2017. Less than a week later, the superior court signed the Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Decree of Divorce, and the 1 Although th


CourtListener opinion 11102472

pension: onclusion of the hearing after making several corrections during the hearing at the parties' request. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated that Cynthia would receive 50% of the marital share of Donald's Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) pension "with full survivor's benefits, and [life insurance]." The "marital share" was defined to include "the pre-marital years of [Donald's] retirement . . . due to the fact that this was ‘bought back' during the marriage using marital funds." The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law also defined the "marital share" as beginning on "the date of inception of [D


CourtListener opinion 11102472

domestic relations order: , pro se, Wasilla, Appellee. Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Carney, Justices. I. INTRODUCTION An ex-husband appeals the superior court's denial of his objections to its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which distributed marital property pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement. Because the superior court failed to appropriately allocate the costs of maintaining survivor's benefits and life insurance after the husband is either terminated * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. from employment or retires, we remand for the appropriate a


CourtListener opinion 11102504

CourtListener opinion 11102504 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102504 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 11102504

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 11102504

QDRO: or all expenses associated with his UPS lawsuits, and if he recovered any money as a result of them, he would retain all of the recovered sums. Regarding Douglas's UPS retirement accounts, the court stated that the marital portion would be divided equally by qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Finally the superior court considered Michelle's request for attorney's fees. It reasoned that Douglas's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was "unnecessary and vexatious." It found that his transfer of title to the Anchorage house, in violation of the court's order, was also vexatious. Because this conduct "clearly increased [Michelle's] at


CourtListener opinion 11102504

retirement benefits: expenses stemming from the suits. The court assigned to Douglas "sole[] responsib[ility]" for all expenses associated with his UPS lawsuits, and if he recovered any money as a result of them, he would retain all of the recovered sums. Regarding Douglas's UPS retirement accounts, the court stated that the marital portion would be divided equally by qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Finally the superior court considered Michelle's request for attorney's fees. It reasoned that Douglas's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was "unnecessary and vexatious." It found that his transfer of title to the Anchorage house, in


CourtListener opinion 11102504

domestic relations order: 3. Sale of Anchorage house While the case was pending, in June 2015 Douglas transferred title of the Anchorage house to his adult son. This transfer was apparently done without Michelle's or the superior court's consent, in violation of the court's initial domestic relations order issued at the commencement of the action. After Michelle brought the transfer to the court's attention, the court issued an order nullifying the transfer and instructing that the Anchorage house be sold and all proceeds kept in a trust account pending trial.2 4. Property division trial and order Judge Olson's noncriminal caseload was administratively reas


CourtListener opinion 11102504

valuation/division: not participating.] I. INTRODUCTION The superior court divided the property of a couple during divorce proceedings. It also awarded the ex-wife $1,000 in attorney's fees on the basis that some of the ex-husband's litigation conduct was vexatious. After the property division order was issued, the ex-husband moved to recuse the superior court judge on the basis of * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. alleged bias and also challenged the process through which the case had been assigned to that judge. The ex-husband — now self-represented — appeals the denial of the recusal motion, contests the superior court's personal


CourtListener opinion 11102583

CourtListener opinion 11102583 Extracted reporter citation: 319 P.3d 219. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102583 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 11102583


CourtListener opinion 11102583

QDRO: Appellee. Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. This appeal follows Podems v. Podems,1 in which we remanded to the superior court a limited issue — finalizing the division of Michele's retirement account with a qualified domestic relations order matching the court's 50/50 property division and protecting Andrew's interest in light of Michele's loan taken against her retirement * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. 1 No. S-15242, 2014 WL 1421968 (Alaska Apr. 9, 2014). account.2 After remand the court ultimately, following some effort, obtained from Michele necessary documentation reflecti


CourtListener opinion 11102583

retirement benefits: pro se, Union, New Jersey, Appellee. Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. This appeal follows Podems v. Podems,1 in which we remanded to the superior court a limited issue — finalizing the division of Michele's retirement account with a qualified domestic relations order matching the court's 50/50 property division and protecting Andrew's interest in light of Michele's loan taken against her retirement * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. 1 No. S-15242, 2014 WL 1421968 (Alaska Apr. 9, 2014). account.2 After remand the court ultimately, following some effort, obtained fro


CourtListener opinion 11102583

domestic relations order: . Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. This appeal follows Podems v. Podems,1 in which we remanded to the superior court a limited issue — finalizing the division of Michele's retirement account with a qualified domestic relations order matching the court's 50/50 property division and protecting Andrew's interest in light of Michele's loan taken against her retirement * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. 1 No. S-15242, 2014 WL 1421968 (Alaska Apr. 9, 2014). account.2 After remand the court ultimately, following some effort, obtained from Michele necessary documentation reflecti


CourtListener opinion 11102583

valuation/division: , Bolger, and Carney, Justices. This appeal follows Podems v. Podems,1 in which we remanded to the superior court a limited issue — finalizing the division of Michele's retirement account with a qualified domestic relations order matching the court's 50/50 property division and protecting Andrew's interest in light of Michele's loan taken against her retirement * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. 1 No. S-15242, 2014 WL 1421968 (Alaska Apr. 9, 2014). account.2 After remand the court ultimately, following some effort, obtained from Michele necessary documentation reflecting the value of the three different component


CourtListener opinion 11102712

CourtListener opinion 11102712 Extracted case name: J.F.E. v. J.A.S. Extracted reporter citation: 56 P.3d 9. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102712 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 11102712


CourtListener opinion 11102712

QDRO: ation loan against her retirement account. Michele testified that she used the loan to pay her legal expenses and that she used some of it to repair the family home for sale. The court divided the retirement account 50/50 with the apparent expectation that a qualified domestic relations order would be submitted to effectuate the division. Although not entirely clear, we assume from the lack of findings and analysis to the contrary that the superior court determined Michele's post-separation loan was separate debt. We are unable to find a qualified domestic relations order in the record before us, and therefore are unable to determine whether the


CourtListener opinion 11102712

retirement benefits: ney's fees, and contends he should be placed in the same position. This assertion was not specifically raised in the superior court, and with one limited exception, we do not address it here. The exception is Michele's $25,000 post-separation loan against her retirement account. Michele testified that she used the loan to pay her legal expenses and that she used some of it to repair the family home for sale. The court divided the retirement account 50/50 with the apparent expectation that a qualified domestic relations order would be submitted to effectuate the division. Although not entirely clear, we assume from the lack of fin


CourtListener opinion 11102712

domestic relations order: against her retirement account. Michele testified that she used the loan to pay her legal expenses and that she used some of it to repair the family home for sale. The court divided the retirement account 50/50 with the apparent expectation that a qualified domestic relations order would be submitted to effectuate the division. Although not entirely clear, we assume from the lack of findings and analysis to the contrary that the superior court determined Michele's post-separation loan was separate debt. We are unable to find a qualified domestic relations order in the record before us, and therefore are unable to determine whether the


CourtListener opinion 11102737

CourtListener opinion 11102737 Extracted reporter citation: 240 P.3d 1225. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102737 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 11102737


CourtListener opinion 11102737

QDRO: tieff divorced in 1996. At the time Daniel owed a substantial child support arrearage and other obligations to Corriene, and the court offset these debts by awarding Corriene a significant portion of Daniel's pension in an otherwise 50/50 property division. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directed 88% of Daniel's pension to Corriene and 12% to Daniel. In a subsequent 1999 order the court stated that the QDRO could be adjusted if the child * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. support arrearage were satisfied before Daniel's retirement. In 2011, eight years after satisfying the child support arrearage, Daniel sought to modify t


CourtListener opinion 11102737

pension: I. INTRODUCTION Daniel Brown and Corriene Demientieff divorced in 1996. At the time Daniel owed a substantial child support arrearage and other obligations to Corriene, and the court offset these debts by awarding Corriene a significant portion of Daniel's pension in an otherwise 50/50 property division. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directed 88% of Daniel's pension to Corriene and 12% to Daniel. In a subsequent 1999 order the court stated that the QDRO could be adjusted if the child * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. support arrearage were satisfied before Daniel's retirement. In 2011, eight


CourtListener opinion 11102737

domestic relations order: rced in 1996. At the time Daniel owed a substantial child support arrearage and other obligations to Corriene, and the court offset these debts by awarding Corriene a significant portion of Daniel's pension in an otherwise 50/50 property division. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directed 88% of Daniel's pension to Corriene and 12% to Daniel. In a subsequent 1999 order the court stated that the QDRO could be adjusted if the child * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. support arrearage were satisfied before Daniel's retirement. In 2011, eight years after satisfying the child support arrearage, Daniel sought to modify t


CourtListener opinion 11102737

valuation/division: n and Corriene Demientieff divorced in 1996. At the time Daniel owed a substantial child support arrearage and other obligations to Corriene, and the court offset these debts by awarding Corriene a significant portion of Daniel's pension in an otherwise 50/50 property division. A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) directed 88% of Daniel's pension to Corriene and 12% to Daniel. In a subsequent 1999 order the court stated that the QDRO could be adjusted if the child * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. support arrearage were satisfied before Daniel's retirement. In 2011, eight years after satisfying the child suppor


CourtListener opinion 11102740

CourtListener opinion 11102740 Extracted reporter citation: 288 P.3d 1289. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11102740 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 11102740

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 11102740

QDRO: were represented by counsel during their divorce proceedings. Their divorce decree incorporated a property settlement agreement that addressed Deborah's account with the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), a marital asset then worth $15,278. Through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), the agreement gave Rudolph a fifty-percent ownership of the PERS monthly benefit. The divorce decree, along with the accompanying property settlement agreement and QDRO, was issued in March 1995. In November 2011 Deborah, through her guardians, filed a pro se petition to reopen the divorce case under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(5). In her petition and


CourtListener opinion 11102740

pension: Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Bolger, Justices. I. INTRODUCTION Rudolph and Deborah Isturis divorced 18 years ago. Their divorce decree incorporated a property settlement agreement that gave Rudolph fifty percent of Deborah's pension benefits, which he would receive in monthly payments. In 2011 Deborah, now suffering from serious mental disabilities and residing in an assisted-living facility, petitioned through her legal guardians to reopen the divorce proceeding under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(5), which allows for relief from judgment if, as relevant here, * Entered under Appellate R


CourtListener opinion 11102740

domestic relations order: sented by counsel during their divorce proceedings. Their divorce decree incorporated a property settlement agreement that addressed Deborah's account with the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), a marital asset then worth $15,278. Through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), the agreement gave Rudolph a fifty-percent ownership of the PERS monthly benefit. The divorce decree, along with the accompanying property settlement agreement and QDRO, was issued in March 1995. In November 2011 Deborah, through her guardians, filed a pro se petition to reopen the divorce case under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(5). In her petition and


CourtListener opinion 11102740

valuation/division: 2 P.3d 998, 1005 (Alaska 2011) ("Other than a Civil Rule 77(k) motion for reconsideration, which must be made within ten days of the court's order, an Alaska Civil Rule 60(b) motion provides the only available means for seeking relief from a final judgment of property division." (citing Lowe v. Lowe, 817 P.2d 453, 456 (Alaska 1991))). In her superior court briefing, Deborah explicitly waived claims under subsections (b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the rule. She waived claims under subsection (b)(6) by failing to raise them. -3- 1462 Civil Rule 60(b)(5) allows relief from a judgment when it is "no longer equitable that the judgmen


CourtListener opinion 11105234

CourtListener opinion 11105234 Extracted case name: LLC v. THF. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1094 MDA 2024. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11105234 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 11105234


CourtListener opinion 11105234

QDRO: 4. [The MSA did not merge with the divorce decree.] J-S07032-25 Under MSA Paragraph 10(a) (Retirement Accounts and Plans), the parties agreed that Husband would transfer $361,126 to Wife from his Ameritas IRA, via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Under MSA Paragraph 6 (Division of Personal Property), Wife agreed to give Husband all personalty remaining in the former marital residence except for 56 items listed on MSA Exhibit A, which were reserved for her. The MSA specified the manner in which Wife could go to the former marital residence to obtain those items including that the retrieval be


CourtListener opinion 11105234

retirement benefits: of settlement conferences culminating with one on February 29, 2024, at which the parties entered into the MSA.1 1 A Divorce Decree was entered on March 15, 2024. [The MSA did not merge with the divorce decree.] J-S07032-25 Under MSA Paragraph 10(a) (Retirement Accounts and Plans), the parties agreed that Husband would transfer $361,126 to Wife from his Ameritas IRA, via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Under MSA Paragraph 6 (Division of Personal Property), Wife agreed to give Husband all personalty remaining in the former marital residence except for 56 items listed on MSA Exhibit A, which were reserve


CourtListener opinion 11105234

domestic relations order: s entered on March 15, 2024. [The MSA did not merge with the divorce decree.] J-S07032-25 Under MSA Paragraph 10(a) (Retirement Accounts and Plans), the parties agreed that Husband would transfer $361,126 to Wife from his Ameritas IRA, via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Under MSA Paragraph 6 (Division of Personal Property), Wife agreed to give Husband all personalty remaining in the former marital residence except for 56 items listed on MSA Exhibit A, which were reserved for her. The MSA specified the manner in which Wife could go to the former marital residence to obtain those items including that the retrie


CourtListener opinion 11105234

valuation/division: married in 1979 and separated in December 2018. Wife initiated this divorce action in September 2022, which included a count seeking equitable distribution. In November 2022, Cindy Conley was appointed as the Divorce Hearing Officer (DHO) to address the equitable distribution claims. She held a number of settlement conferences culminating with one on February 29, 2024, at which the parties entered into the MSA.1 1 A Divorce Decree was entered on March 15, 2024. [The MSA did not merge with the divorce decree.] J-S07032-25 Under MSA Paragraph 10(a) (Retirement Accounts and Plans), the parties agreed that Husband would tr


CourtListener opinion 11112240

CourtListener opinion 11112240 Docket: 368917 Lenawee Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11112240 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 11112240


CourtListener opinion 11112240

QDRO: ions concerning the monthly payments are consistent with the monthly amount distributed from the marital portion of plaintiff's firefighter pension. Based on this, defendant argues the individuals in charge of preparing the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) will rely on the trial court's directive and only include the marital portion of the firefighter pension for purposes of division. As a result, defendant argues the trial court need not revisit this issue on remand. Although defendant's argument appears to be supported by the QDRO entered by the trial court, a portion of the judgment of divorce holds that


CourtListener opinion 11112240

retirement benefits: in the discretion of the circuit court." Boonstra v Boonstra, 209 Mich App 558, 563; 531 NW2d 777 (1995). Concerning plaintiff's retirement assets, the judgment of divorce stated: Plaintiff and defendant shall equally divide Plaintiff's City of Ypsilanti Retirement benefits and Plaintiff's police pension. Plaintiff is currently in "pay status" and has been since prior to the filing of the Complaint for Divorce. . . . The marital portion shall be determined to be the date of the marriage (12/08/1990) through the date of the filing of the Complaint for Divorce (02/14/2020). The effective date of division shall be December 1


CourtListener opinion 11112240

pension: buted to the acquisition, improvement, or accumulation of the property." See id. at 494-495 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff first challenges the trial court's decision relating to his pensions. There is no dispute that plaintiff received a pension from working in a police department from 1978 to 1982 as well as a pension for working as a Ypsilanti firefighter from 1987 to 2012. Nor is there any dispute that "pension benefits are assets to be considered part of the marital estate subject to distribution in the discretion of the circuit court." Boonstra v Boonstra, 209 Mich App 558, 563; 531 NW2d 777 (


CourtListener opinion 11112240

valuation/division: 533 (2010). B. ANALYSIS The purpose of a divorce judgment is to fix the property rights and interests of the parties. Westgate v Westgate, 291 Mich 18, 28; 288 NW 860 (1939). "The goal in distributing marital assets in a divorce proceeding is to reach an equitable distribution of property in light of all the circumstances." Gates v Gates, 256 Mich App 420, 423; 664 NW2d 231 (2003). "A division of property in a divorce action need not be equal, but it must be equitable." Jansen v Jansen, 205 Mich App 169, 171; 517 NW2d 275 (1994). When dividing property, the following factors are to be considered wherever they are relevant to


CourtListener opinion 11113719

CourtListener opinion 11113719 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of KELLEY and BRUCE. Extracted reporter citation: 79 Cal.App.5th 283. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11113719 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 11113719


CourtListener opinion 11113719

QDRO: d a response in which he stated: "As the Court knows, pursuant to the Judgment . . . , the Court ordered the parties to equally divide the Motorola 401(k) and the Principal Life IRA. I proposed . . . that we agree to hire Moon, Swartz, and Madden to prepare a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] and equally divide their engagement fee as ordered by the Court. . . . I have written both Plan Administrators. Principal Life has asked both parties to conduct follow up, which I intend to do. I only ask that [Widrin] cooperate with the finalization of the orders dividing the plans." Years later, after Powers began to


CourtListener opinion 11113719

retirement benefits: from $1,000 monthly to zero, permanently terminated jurisdiction over spousal support, and denied Powers's request for reimbursement for several years of spousal support "overpayment." And a June 26, 2024, order made certain directives for the division of two retirement accounts, held in Powers's name but agreed to be community property, and imposed monetary sanctions on Powers. In his opening brief, Powers makes 17 arguments challenging these three postjudgment orders. We will modify the July 3, 2023, order by striking the portion granting Widrin's request for $14,466 for media duplication and remand the matter for a new determi


CourtListener opinion 11113719

401(k): Report," identified by Powers as the Propertizer, is included in Powers's appendix. It includes the equalizing payment from Powers to Widrin in the amount of $185,476. Neither the tentative decision nor the statement of decision refer by name to the Motorola 401(k) account or the Principal Life IRA, both of which were retirement accounts in Powers's name and both of which are at issue in this appeal. Nor does the tentative decision or statement of decision address the parties' photo and video collection which is also at issue here. The 2015 Judgment The trial court entered its judgment in August 2015, incorporating


CourtListener opinion 11113719

domestic relations order: which he stated: "As the Court knows, pursuant to the Judgment . . . , the Court ordered the parties to equally divide the Motorola 401(k) and the Principal Life IRA. I proposed . . . that we agree to hire Moon, Swartz, and Madden to prepare a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] and equally divide their engagement fee as ordered by the Court. . . . I have written both Plan Administrators. Principal Life has asked both parties to conduct follow up, which I intend to do. I only ask that [Widrin] cooperate with the finalization of the orders dividing the plans." Years later, after Powers began to represent himself, Widrin's attorney


CourtListener opinion 11114585

CourtListener opinion 11114585 Extracted reporter citation: 108 A.3d 913. Docket: 993 MDA 2024. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11114585 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 11114585

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 11114585

QDRO: urt. **** 2.4 RETIREMENT BENEFITS/401(K)/IRA It is hereby agreed that Husband shall transfer to Wife the balance of his Mercy Partners Retirement Account [("Pension Plan" or "Plan")]. The parties shall execute a qualified domestic relations order (["]QDRO["]) to be prepared by counsel for Wife, and any other documentation necessary authorizing such to occur. **** The parties further acknowledge and agree they shall execute any documents . . . that may be required from time to time to accomplish the purpose of this paragraph. . . . 2.5 INVESTEMENTS/BANK ACCOUNTS It is agreed that Husband shall tran


CourtListener opinion 11114585

retirement benefits: ne 13, 2024 order as the final order for the purpose of this appeal. -2- J-S20016-25 in the Pennsylvania Divorce Code of 1980, as amended [("Divorce Code")],[2] to enforce any term of this agreement as though it had been an order of court. **** 2.4 RETIREMENT BENEFITS/401(K)/IRA It is hereby agreed that Husband shall transfer to Wife the balance of his Mercy Partners Retirement Account [("Pension Plan" or "Plan")]. The parties shall execute a qualified domestic relations order (["]QDRO["]) to be prepared by counsel for Wife, and any other documentation necessary authorizing such to occur. **** The parties furt


CourtListener opinion 11114585

pension: Divorce Code")],[2] to enforce any term of this agreement as though it had been an order of court. **** 2.4 RETIREMENT BENEFITS/401(K)/IRA It is hereby agreed that Husband shall transfer to Wife the balance of his Mercy Partners Retirement Account [("Pension Plan" or "Plan")]. The parties shall execute a qualified domestic relations order (["]QDRO["]) to be prepared by counsel for Wife, and any other documentation necessary authorizing such to occur. **** The parties further acknowledge and agree they shall execute any documents . . . that may be required from time to time to accomplish the purpose of


CourtListener opinion 11114585

401(k): the final order for the purpose of this appeal. -2- J-S20016-25 in the Pennsylvania Divorce Code of 1980, as amended [("Divorce Code")],[2] to enforce any term of this agreement as though it had been an order of court. **** 2.4 RETIREMENT BENEFITS/401(K)/IRA It is hereby agreed that Husband shall transfer to Wife the balance of his Mercy Partners Retirement Account [("Pension Plan" or "Plan")]. The parties shall execute a qualified domestic relations order (["]QDRO["]) to be prepared by counsel for Wife, and any other documentation necessary authorizing such to occur. **** The parties further ackn


CourtListener opinion 11115608

CourtListener opinion 11115608 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11115608 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 11115608


CourtListener opinion 11115608

QDRO: echtel, Esq. 2 During his employment, Husband obtained retirement accounts in the form of a Thrift Savings Plan ("TSP") and a Federal Employees Retirement Systems ("FERS") account. Many retirement accounts are distributed in equitable distribution through a Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO"), but federal accounts are distributed through a COAP. 1 There is an FBI TSP, which is the Respondent's [Husband's] through his employment. That is awarded to him, subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the Petitioner [Wife] awarding her one-half (1/2) of the amount allocated therein for the period of the marriage, which is March 1


CourtListener opinion 11115608

retirement benefits: 2008, and included the following directives regarding Husband's retirement account(s): 1 Husband is represented by James M. Cagle, Esq. Wife is represented by Alyson A. Dotson, Esq., and Michelle L. Bechtel, Esq. 2 During his employment, Husband obtained retirement accounts in the form of a Thrift Savings Plan ("TSP") and a Federal Employees Retirement Systems ("FERS") account. Many retirement accounts are distributed in equitable distribution through a Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO"), but federal accounts are distributed through a COAP. 1 There is an FBI TSP, which is the Respondent's [Husband's] through his


CourtListener opinion 11115608

pension: ys following the conclusion of the objection period. If objections are received, the court shall enter an order and findings no later than ten days after the receipt of the objections. 2 percent of Husband's annuities, a marital portion of any disability pension available, a cost- of-living adjustment, and survivor benefits, none of which were addressed in the parties' divorce order. On June 15, 2024, Husband filed objections to the COAP arguing that Wife allowed the marital home's foreclosure; his wages were garnished due to Wife's failure to pay her half of the mortgage payments; Wife had her nursing license susp


CourtListener opinion 11115608

401(k): act and conclusions of law which are summarized as follows: • Husband's FERS account was a defined benefit retirement4 plan with the monthly benefit determined based upon the highest three years of earnings. 4 There are two types of retirement accounts—defined contribution and defined benefit plans. A defined contribution plan provides benefits solely upon the monetary contributions to the plan by the employee and sometimes by the employer; these plans grow by active appreciation with each contribution and are simple to divide. A defined benefit plan provides benefits based on other criteria, such as years of employment, and


CourtListener opinion 11115616

CourtListener opinion 11115616 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11115616 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 11115616

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 11115616

QDRO: rther proceedings is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Mr. Burgess and Ms. Burgess were married in 1982 and divorced in 2004. As part of the divorce, the family court awarded Ms. Burgess a portion of Mr. Burgess' PERS annuity. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") was entered by the family court on June 25, 2004. By separate letters dated October 6, 2004, the Board informed petitioners that the QDRO had been received. PERS is governed by the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement Act (the "Act"). See W. Va. Code §§ 5-10-1 to -55. Mr. Burgess was employed by the West Virginia Department of Highways ("DOH


CourtListener opinion 11115616

domestic relations order: eedings is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Mr. Burgess and Ms. Burgess were married in 1982 and divorced in 2004. As part of the divorce, the family court awarded Ms. Burgess a portion of Mr. Burgess' PERS annuity. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") was entered by the family court on June 25, 2004. By separate letters dated October 6, 2004, the Board informed petitioners that the QDRO had been received. PERS is governed by the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement Act (the "Act"). See W. Va. Code §§ 5-10-1 to -55. Mr. Burgess was employed by the West Virginia Department of Highways ("DOH


CourtListener opinion 11116367

CourtListener opinion 11116367 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of IVONNE G. and ARMANDO E. NAVARRO. Extracted reporter citation: 66 Cal.App.5th 583. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11116367 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 11116367


CourtListener opinion 11116367

QDRO: he full amount of his California Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS) retirement account and $10,000 in attorney fees and costs. The court based its order on a finding that Ivonne breached her fiduciary duty to Armando by forging his signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).1 Proceeding in propria persona, Ivonne presents a variety of arguments on appeal that are unrelated to the challenged order and/or unsupported by legal authorities or citations to the appellate record. Insofar as she purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the challenged order, she has waived her argument by failing to set


CourtListener opinion 11116367

retirement benefits: ne F. Lopez for Respondent. I INTRODUCTION In this marital dissolution proceeding, Ivonne G. Navarro appeals a family court order awarding her ex-husband, Armando E. Navarro, the full amount of his California Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS) retirement account and $10,000 in attorney fees and costs. The court based its order on a finding that Ivonne breached her fiduciary duty to Armando by forging his signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).1 Proceeding in propria persona, Ivonne presents a variety of arguments on appeal that are unrelated to the challenged order and/or unsupported by legal au


CourtListener opinion 11116367

domestic relations order: mount of his California Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS) retirement account and $10,000 in attorney fees and costs. The court based its order on a finding that Ivonne breached her fiduciary duty to Armando by forging his signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).1 Proceeding in propria persona, Ivonne presents a variety of arguments on appeal that are unrelated to the challenged order and/or unsupported by legal authorities or citations to the appellate record. Insofar as she purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the challenged order, she has waived her argument by failing to set


CourtListener opinion 11116367

valuation/division: On August 12, 2020, Ivonne filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. On July 6, 2023, the family court entered a judgment dissolving the parties' marital status only. On October 25, 2023, the court held a one-day trial on reserved issues, including property division, spousal support, and attorney fees. On November 30, 2023, the court entered a judgment on the reserved issues: • The court found that Ivonne breached the fiduciary duty she owed to Armando by transferring half of the community's interest in the marital residence to a third party without Armando's consent. The court 1 We refer to the parties by their fir


CourtListener opinion 11116418

CourtListener opinion 11116418 Extracted reporter citation: 849 N.E.2d 773. Docket: 24A-DN-580. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11116418 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 11116418

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 11116418

QDRO: [Wife] $5,600 in pension back pay. He's going to repay that all to her in 12 months, and moving forward from today, which is the date of the decree, the pension will be divided 50/50, evenly, between the two of them. And [Wife's counsel] will prepare the QDRO for DFAS and submit it, and we would just like a minute entry – or [Wife's counsel] and I will submit an agreed to entry for today that will not require clients' signatures – it will just be an agreed to entry. Id. at 65. Wife's counsel stated: I think that covers everything. I think that [Husband] has also determined that he'll just make even paymen


CourtListener opinion 11116418

pension: 580 | August 7, 2024 Page 1 of 15 Brown, Judge. [1] Dalton E. Griffith ("Husband") appeals from the trial court's decree of dissolution and claims the court erred in denying his request to repudiate his settlement agreement regarding the division of his pension. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] Husband and Dawn M. Griffith ("Wife") were married in 1998. In 2019, Wife filed a petition to dissolve the marriage. The parties participated in mediation in April 2022 which resulted in an agreement resolving all matters except for the division of Husband's military pension. On August 21, 2023, the cour


CourtListener opinion 11117065

CourtListener opinion 11117065 Extracted reporter citation: 189 P.3d 1056. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11117065 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 11117065


CourtListener opinion 11117065

QDRO: tation Jennifer Sandvik and Ian Frazier married in 1999 and separated in 2020. In 2022 the parties reached a settlement agreement. They agreed that the marital portion of Frazier's Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) Pension Plan would be divided equally by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with 50% survivorship to Sandvik.1 After reaching this agreement, the parties began working with the ARRC retirement plan administrators to fashion a suitable QDRO. This is where problems arose, because the plan's terms could not accommodate the parties' agreement as it related to the survivor benefits. The plan only allowed for three survivor-bene


CourtListener opinion 11117065

retirement benefits: the marital portion of Frazier's Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) Pension Plan would be divided equally by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with 50% survivorship to Sandvik.1 After reaching this agreement, the parties began working with the ARRC retirement plan administrators to fashion a suitable QDRO. This is where problems arose, because the plan's terms could not accommodate the parties' agreement as it related to the survivor benefits. The plan only allowed for three survivor-benefits options. The first was to name no survivor beneficiary. Neither party wanted this. The second was to treat Sandvik as Frazier


CourtListener opinion 11117065

pension: nchorage, for Appellee Ian Frazier. Before: Carney, Borghesan, Henderson, and Pate, Justices [Maassen, Chief Justice, not participating]. HENDERSON, Justice. INTRODUCTION Divorcing spouses agreed to equally divide the marital portion of the husband's pension plan and the associated survivor benefits. But the plan's terms prevented the parties from dividing the survivor benefits as they had agreed. The parties thereafter submitted the issue to the superior court. The husband offered to purchase life insurance in the event that the court selected an option under the plan that had the potential to divest the wife


CourtListener opinion 11117065

alternate payee: agreed to divide the marital portion of the plan equally 2 This interest would be "a share of each monthly preretirement death benefit payment, determined by multiplying the monthly payment by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of months the Alternate Payee was married to the Participant during which the Participant accrued service credit and the denominator of which is the number of months of credited service accrued by the Participant at death." -3- 7782 by QDRO "with a 50% survivorship to [Sandvik]." Both parties also recognized that this was not possible under the terms of the plan. Frazier maintained


CourtListener opinion 11120317

CourtListener opinion 11120317 Extracted reporter citation: 556 U.S. 662. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11120317 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 11120317


CourtListener opinion 11120317

QDRO: 4th 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2023). The Court also considers the annuity contracts, which are not 27 attached to the FAC, under the incorporation by reference doctrine. See Louisiana Mun. Police 1 Moffat's Divorce From Taka, Marriage to Nilsen, and Issuance of "QDRO" 2 Moffat and Taka divorced in 1999. See FAC ¶ 34. They entered into a court-approved 3 Marital Settlement Agreement under which Taka waived all rights to the TIAA-CREF annuities. 4 See id. ¶¶ 34-35. 5 Moffat and Nilsen married in 2003. See FAC ¶ 37. Moffat asked TIAA-CREF about 6 removing Taka as the second annuitant on his annuity contracts, and TIAA


CourtListener opinion 11120317

retirement benefits: AMEND. 7 I. BACKGROUND3 8 Moffat's Employment at Stanford University and Issuance of Annuity Contracts 9 Moffat was an employee of Stanford University from approximately 1966 through 1993. 10 See FAC ¶ 23. He was a participant in the Stanford Contributory Retirement Plan ("Plan"), which 11 is a retirement plan within the meaning of ERISA. See id. ¶¶ 21, 23. TIAA-CREF offers services 12 to non-profit institutions, including advising and managing employee pension, retirement, savings, 13 and investment plans. See id. ¶ 26. Stanford utilized those services, and its Plan was funded by 14 annuity contracts sold by TIAA-CREF.


CourtListener opinion 11120317

pension: ¶ 23. He was a participant in the Stanford Contributory Retirement Plan ("Plan"), which 11 is a retirement plan within the meaning of ERISA. See id. ¶¶ 21, 23. TIAA-CREF offers services 12 to non-profit institutions, including advising and managing employee pension, retirement, savings, 13 and investment plans. See id. ¶ 26. Stanford utilized those services, and its Plan was funded by 14 annuity contracts sold by TIAA-CREF. See id. ¶¶ 28-29. In connection with his employment at 15 Stanford and participation in the Plan, Moffat obtained two annuity contracts, one with TIAA and 16 the other with CREF. See id. ¶ 30.


CourtListener opinion 11120317

ERISA: ance of Annuity Contracts 9 Moffat was an employee of Stanford University from approximately 1966 through 1993. 10 See FAC ¶ 23. He was a participant in the Stanford Contributory Retirement Plan ("Plan"), which 11 is a retirement plan within the meaning of ERISA. See id. ¶¶ 21, 23. TIAA-CREF offers services 12 to non-profit institutions, including advising and managing employee pension, retirement, savings, 13 and investment plans. See id. ¶ 26. Stanford utilized those services, and its Plan was funded by 14 annuity contracts sold by TIAA-CREF. See id. ¶¶ 28-29. In connection with his employment at 15 Stanford


CourtListener opinion 11124146

CourtListener opinion 11124146 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Johns. Docket: 4-24-1115 This Order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11124146 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 11124146


CourtListener opinion 11124146

QDRO: itioner's 1969 Ford Mustang was marital property but properly found respondent's 1970 Chevrolet Blazer was marital property; (2) abused its discretion with respect to its maintenance decision; (3) properly divided the parties' pensions equally subject to a qualified domestic relations order; (4) did not err when it granted petitioner's motion to reconsider the denial of her request for retroactive maintenance; and (5) properly denied respondent's request for attorney fees associated with his petition for rule to show cause. ¶2 Petitioner, Samantha M. Schonert, n/k/a Samantha Thorne, and respondent, Scott A. Schonert, appeal and cross-ap


CourtListener opinion 11124146

retirement benefits: e. In December 2022, the parties reached an agreement, which allocated certain assets and debts and resolved most financial matters pertaining to the dissolution. As part of this agreement, both Samantha and Scott agreed to keep their respective individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and 401(k) accounts through Caterpillar. In August 2023, the trial court entered a parenting plan with respect to T.S., which designated Samantha as the majority parent and divided parenting time between the parties. The court also entered an order directing the parties to exchange certain personal property items within seven days of August 23,


CourtListener opinion 11124146

pension: ¶8 On November 6, 2023, and November 28, 2023, the trial court conducted a bench trial on the remaining issues in the case, including the allocation of four vehicles (two 1970 Chevrolet Blazers, a 1969 Ford Mustang, and a 1992 Ford Mustang) and the parties' pension plans and whether Samantha was entitled to retroactive child support and maintenance. We note that during trial, the parties agreed to sell one of the Blazers (the "project" Blazer) to Samantha's father, Tom Wick. Accordingly, only one of the Blazers is the subject of this appeal. At the outset of the hearing, Scott's counsel expressed the position that


CourtListener opinion 11124146

401(k): es reached an agreement, which allocated certain assets and debts and resolved most financial matters pertaining to the dissolution. As part of this agreement, both Samantha and Scott agreed to keep their respective individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and 401(k) accounts through Caterpillar. In August 2023, the trial court entered a parenting plan with respect to T.S., which designated Samantha as the majority parent and divided parenting time between the parties. The court also entered an order directing the parties to exchange certain personal property items within seven days of August 23, 2023. Specifically,


CourtListener opinion 11124207

CourtListener opinion 11124207 Extracted reporter citation: 624 S.W.3d 199. Docket: 07-25-00006-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11124207 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 11124207

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 11124207

QDRO: ring. The trial court found, as the arbitrator did, that Dirk violated the PMA thereby triggering the forfeiture provision. Following the final hearing but prior to entry of the final decree, Dirk filed his Objection to Entry of Final Decree of Divorce and Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, again asserting the arbitrator's findings and award were incomplete. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW A trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award is reviewed de novo. Aerotek, Inc. v. Boyd, 624 S.W.3d 199, 204, n.19 (Tex. 2021). Whether an arbitrator exceeded his powers under an arbitration agreement is a question of law. Barton v. Fa


CourtListener opinion 11124207

retirement benefits: etermination of ownership of assets in the event the marriage is dissolved by judicial act or death. As relevant here, the PMA provides as follows: • Dirk will receive all interest in the marital home; • Dirk will receive one hundred percent of his State retirement plan; • JoAl will pay the outstanding mortgage on the marital home and the home equity loan associated with the home; 2 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001. Should a conflict exist between precedent


CourtListener opinion 11124207

401(k): hours after" signing the PMA. A violation of the non-disclosure provision triggered forfeiture as follows: • his entire interest in the marital home with both parties becoming joint owners of an undivided one-half interest; • his entire interest in any 401k with the funds being awarded to JoAl as liquidated damages; and • his entire interest in his State retirement plan with JoAl receiving fifty percent of those benefits. Any violation by Dirk would also result in certain provisions of the PMA pertaining to JoAl's financial obligations regarding the marital home becoming null and void. The PMA provided


CourtListener opinion 11124207

domestic relations order: trial court found, as the arbitrator did, that Dirk violated the PMA thereby triggering the forfeiture provision. Following the final hearing but prior to entry of the final decree, Dirk filed his Objection to Entry of Final Decree of Divorce and Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, again asserting the arbitrator's findings and award were incomplete. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW A trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award is reviewed de novo. Aerotek, Inc. v. Boyd, 624 S.W.3d 199, 204, n.19 (Tex. 2021). Whether an arbitrator exceeded his powers under an arbitration agreement is a question of law. Barton v. Fa


CourtListener opinion 11124586

CourtListener opinion 11124586 Extracted case name: E.A.K.M. v. M.A.M. Extracted reporter citation: 417 U.S. 156. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11124586 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 11124586

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 11124586

QDRO: 3107.07 that the consent to an adoption of a party described in R.C. 3107.06 is not required is a final appealable order."); Wilson v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-6056, syllabus ("A divorce decree that provides for the issuance of a qualified domestic relations order (‘QDRO') is a final, appealable order, even before the QDRO is issued."); Walburn v. Dunlap, 2009-Ohio-1221, syllabus ("An order that declares that an insured is entitled to coverage but does not address damages is not a final order as defined in R.C. 2505.02(B)(2), because the order does not affect a substantial right even though made in a special proceeding.").


CourtListener opinion 11125657

CourtListener opinion 11125657 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11125657 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 11125657


CourtListener opinion 11125657

domestic relations order: plies to federal-question cases in the same manner that it applies to diversity cases, Alexander, 804 F.3d at 1205, it has nonetheless applied the exception in federal- question cases where, as here, a plaintiff "couch[es]" claims challenging state-court domestic relations orders as "constitutional violations." Flottman, 2025 WL 609487, at *3 (holding that the domestic relations exception barred federal court review of constitutional claims that sought "to modify or nullify state-court domestic-relations orders on their merits"). See also Greenberg v. Slatery, No. 22-5886, 2023 WL 2771640, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2023) (holdi


CourtListener opinion 11127632

CourtListener opinion 11127632 Extracted reporter citation: 664 N.W.2d 641. Docket: 2023AP1967 Cir. Ct. No. 2017FA1317 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11127632 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 11127632


CourtListener opinion 11127632

QDRO: PER CURIAM. Salvador Lezama appeals from the order imposing a constructive trust pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 767.127(5) (2023-24)1 in favor of his former wife, Lorena Lezama, over his pension that accrued during the marriage, and ordering the parties to obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to equally divide their interests. Salvador argues that Lorena's motion was untimely and the circuit court erred when it granted post-judgment relief. We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in this matter. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Salvador and Lorena filed a joint petition for divorce with minor children in


CourtListener opinion 11127632

retirement benefits: onsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version. As the parties have the same last name, we refer to them by their first names. The Honorable Michael J. Dwyer presided over the Lezamas' divorce. We refer to 2 Judge Dwyer as the trial court. 2 No. 2023AP1967 retirement accounts, a category that had originally been listed as "none" in Lorena's financial disclosure. ¶4 In the divorce judgment, findings of fact, and conclusions of law from February 2018, the trial court found Salvador in default for having actual notice of the proceedings, refusing to participate, and failing to appear. Relevant to the issue of retirement accounts


CourtListener opinion 11127632

pension: limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3). No. 2023AP1967 ¶1 PER CURIAM. Salvador Lezama appeals from the order imposing a constructive trust pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 767.127(5) (2023-24)1 in favor of his former wife, Lorena Lezama, over his pension that accrued during the marriage, and ordering the parties to obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to equally divide their interests. Salvador argues that Lorena's motion was untimely and the circuit court erred when it granted post-judgment relief. We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in this matter.


CourtListener opinion 11127632

domestic relations order: . Salvador Lezama appeals from the order imposing a constructive trust pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 767.127(5) (2023-24)1 in favor of his former wife, Lorena Lezama, over his pension that accrued during the marriage, and ordering the parties to obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to equally divide their interests. Salvador argues that Lorena's motion was untimely and the circuit court erred when it granted post-judgment relief. We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in this matter. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Salvador and Lorena filed a joint petition for divorce with minor children in


CourtListener opinion 11127690

CourtListener opinion 11127690 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Price. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11127690 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 11127690


CourtListener opinion 11127690

QDRO: LEEN'S work-related benefit plans as of the effective date of this Agreement. This division and distribution of the marital portion of the value, rights, benefits and interest in each such plan shall be pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"); and, the entry of this QDRO shall be done in connection with this marital settlement agreement and the entry of a Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (divorce decree) which incorporates this written marital settlement agreement." As of the time of the execution of the agreement, Kathleen was employed by Elmhurst Memorial Hospital (Elmhurst) and w


CourtListener opinion 11127690

retirement benefits: its that had accrued under the Pension Plan as of December 22, 2003. No QDRO was entered regarding Kathleen's savings account. ¶7 On September 21, 2022, Gary filed a petition in which he sought an accounting of "all monies" that had accrued in Kathleen's retirement accounts since the dissolution judgment, as well as entry of QDROs (petition). The court scheduled the petition for an evidentiary hearing. ¶8 B. Evidentiary Hearing 2 ¶9 Hearing on the petition occurred on July 1, 2024. Throughout the hearing, the court heard testimony from both parties, as well as from Edward John Graham, a certified public accountant. ¶


CourtListener opinion 11127690

pension: Marriage (divorce decree) which incorporates this written marital settlement agreement." As of the time of the execution of the agreement, Kathleen was employed by Elmhurst Memorial Hospital (Elmhurst) and was enrolled in the Elmhurst Memorial Hospital Pension Plan (Pension Plan). She also had a separate retirement savings account through Elmhurst (savings account). ¶6 On October 14, 2009, the court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that assigned Gary 50% of the benefits that had accrued under the Pension Plan as of December 22, 2003. No QDRO was entered regarding Kathleen's savings accou


CourtListener opinion 11127690

domestic relations order: urst Memorial Hospital (Elmhurst) and was enrolled in the Elmhurst Memorial Hospital Pension Plan (Pension Plan). She also had a separate retirement savings account through Elmhurst (savings account). ¶6 On October 14, 2009, the court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that assigned Gary 50% of the benefits that had accrued under the Pension Plan as of December 22, 2003. No QDRO was entered regarding Kathleen's savings account. ¶7 On September 21, 2022, Gary filed a petition in which he sought an accounting of "all monies" that had accrued in Kathleen's retirement accounts since the dissolution judgment, as


CourtListener opinion 11131696

CourtListener opinion 11131696 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11131696 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 11131696

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 11131696

QDRO: ecame a Matheson employee around the time the divorce decree was entered, after Matheson purchased Valley National Gasses. (Doc. No. 10 at 2). The separation and property agreement also called for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO").1 (Doc. No. 1-2 at 29-30). The QDRO required that Ulmes' portion of Toland's 401(k) account be "segregated and separately maintained" from Toland's account and for Ulmes' benefit. (Doc. No. 10 at 2). Ulmes alleges this did not occur, "despite Matheson Tri-Gas receiving notice of the [QDRO]." (Id.). Ulmes asserts that, in failing to segregate the accou


CourtListener opinion 11131696

retirement benefits: ed this litigation against Defendants Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc., and Ronald M. Toland, in the Allen County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, asserting tort claims against both Defendants arising out of an alleged failure to provide Ulmes with a portion of Toland's retirement account as required by a divorce decree entered concerning Ulmes and Toland. (Doc. No. 1-2). Matheson timely removed the case to this court. (Doc. No. 1). After some initial motion practice, I granted Ulmes' motion for leave to amend her complaint, (Doc. No. 9), and Ulmes filed her first amended complaint, asserting negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claim


CourtListener opinion 11131696

ERISA: leges this did not occur, "despite Matheson Tri-Gas receiving notice of the [QDRO]." (Id.). Ulmes asserts that, in failing to segregate the account, Matheson was negligent (Count I) or violated its duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") (Count III). (Id. at 2-4). She also asserts Toland was unjustly enriched because he retained the funds Ulmes was entitled to pursuant to the QDRO (Count II). (Id. at 3). III. STANDARD Rule 12 provides for the dismissal of a lawsuit for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A court must accept as true


CourtListener opinion 11131696

401(k): vorced in 2010. (Id. at 13-14). During the domestic relations proceedings, Ulmes and Toland entered into a separation and property agreement. (Id. at 27-33). In pertinent part, that agreement dictated that Ulmes would receive 33.5% of the value of Toland's 401(k) portfolio with his then-employer, Valley National Gasses WV LLC. (Id. at 29-30). Toland became a Matheson employee around the time the divorce decree was entered, after Matheson purchased Valley National Gasses. (Doc. No. 10 at 2). The separation and property agreement also called for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO").1


CourtListener opinion 11132773

CourtListener opinion 11132773 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANGELA BETH MILLER-VERDUYN AND JEREMY MILLER-VERDUYN Upon the Petition of ANGELA. Extracted reporter citation: 874 N.W.2d 103. Docket: 24-1256. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11132773 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 11132773


CourtListener opinion 11132773

QDRO: ch he was ordered to do so. Specifically, he argues that the district court should have determined the marital portion of the John Deere Tax-Deferred Savings Plan (TDSP) and deducted it from the lump sum amount and transferred said portion to Angela via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In addition, he contends the amount and manner in which the district court structured the lump sum property settlement did not take into consideration his financial circumstances. Because we believe use of a QDRO in dividing the John Deere TDSP is equitably required, we modify the property equalization provisions of the divorce decree and remand


CourtListener opinion 11132773

retirement benefits: . Angela used some of the inherited monies to contribute to septic system improvements and made other contributions to the care and maintenance of the Dunkerton property. The parties had no significant marital assets apart from the residence and Jeremy's retirement account. Each retained their personal property following the dissolution. On June 5, 2024, the district court entered its decree, awarding Jeremy full ownership of the marital home and the entirety of his retirement account, with the obligation to repay the outstanding TDSP loan. To achieve an equitable division of property, the court ordered Jeremy to pay Ange


CourtListener opinion 11132773

pension: e of the children. h. The amount and duration of an order granting support payments to either party pursuant to section 598.21A and whether the property division should be in lieu of such payments. i. Other economic circumstances of each party, including pension benefits, vested or unvested. Future interests may be considered, but expectancies or interests arising from inherited or gifted property created under a will or other instrument under which the trustee, trustor, trust protector, or owner has the power to remove the party in question as a beneficiary, shall not be considered. j. The tax consequences to


CourtListener opinion 11132773

domestic relations order: ordered to do so. Specifically, he argues that the district court should have determined the marital portion of the John Deere Tax-Deferred Savings Plan (TDSP) and deducted it from the lump sum amount and transferred said portion to Angela via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In addition, he contends the amount and manner in which the district court structured the lump sum property settlement did not take into consideration his financial circumstances. Because we believe use of a QDRO in dividing the John Deere TDSP is equitably required, we modify the property equalization provisions of the divorce decree and remand


CourtListener opinion 11133981

CourtListener opinion 11133981 Extracted reporter citation: 555 U.S. 7. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11133981 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 11133981


CourtListener opinion 11133981

QDRO: ted as the beneficiary of her father's ERISA plan. Id. at 8; Dkt. No. 20 at 12 20. The letter also informed Ms. Boyd that, as she was not "a party to the divorce" between her 13 father and his former wife, "nor w[as she] named as an ‘alternate payee' in the QDRO [(qualified 14 domestic relations order)]," she "ha[d] no beneficial interest in its terms or its administration by 15 the Plan." Dkt. No. 20 at 20. Yet Ms. Boyd waited until late June of this year to file suit. Dkt. No. 16 1. Subsequently, she did not respond to a July 1, 2025 order to show cause why her motion to 17 proceed in forma pauperis should n


CourtListener opinion 11133981

retirement benefits: that she discovered the 8 defendants' alleged violations in 2024 or earlier. Dkt. No. 19 at 7–8. If that were not enough, in 9 March 2025, counsel for Defendant Locals 302 and 612 International Union of Operating 10 Engineers-Construction Industry Employer Retirement Plan sent Ms. Boyd a letter informing her 11 that she was not designated as the beneficiary of her father's ERISA plan. Id. at 8; Dkt. No. 20 at 12 20. The letter also informed Ms. Boyd that, as she was not "a party to the divorce" between her 13 father and his former wife, "nor w[as she] named as an ‘alternate payee' in the QDRO [(qualified 14 domestic rela


CourtListener opinion 11133981

ERISA: No. 21. None of the Defendants have yet appeared in this case or responded to the motion. Ms. 19 Boyd, who is proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"), Dkt. No. 12, requests that this Court 20 "immediately enjoin Defendants from gagging or withholding" her "ERISA plan benefits and 21 Related accounts" as well as "compel the release of all withheld accounts and assets," Dkt. No. 21 22 at 1–2. 23 24 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 empowers the court to issue a temporary restraining 2 order ("TRO"). Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Like a preliminary injunction, a TRO is "an extraordinary 3 remedy never awarded a


CourtListener opinion 11133981

alternate payee: that she was not designated as the beneficiary of her father's ERISA plan. Id. at 8; Dkt. No. 20 at 12 20. The letter also informed Ms. Boyd that, as she was not "a party to the divorce" between her 13 father and his former wife, "nor w[as she] named as an ‘alternate payee' in the QDRO [(qualified 14 domestic relations order)]," she "ha[d] no beneficial interest in its terms or its administration by 15 the Plan." Dkt. No. 20 at 20. Yet Ms. Boyd waited until late June of this year to file suit. Dkt. No. 16 1. Subsequently, she did not respond to a July 1, 2025 order to show cause why her motion to 17 proceed in forma paup


CourtListener opinion 11134084

CourtListener opinion 11134084 Extracted reporter citation: 881 S.W.2d 279. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11134084 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 11134084


CourtListener opinion 11134084

QDRO: ict Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 324-695469-21 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Renee Yvonne Burgin (now Young) (Wife),1 acting pro se, appeals from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)2 that was signed at the request of appellee Jimmy Wayne Burgin, Jr. (Husband) to effectuate the property division set forth in the trial court's Agreed Final Decree of Divorce. Raising a myriad of issues,3 Wife contends that the trial court (1) violated her due process rights; (2) exhibited judicial bias; and (3) abused its discretion by signing


CourtListener opinion 11134084

retirement benefits: issues by inadequate briefing). 2 II. BACKGROUND Husband and Wife were divorced in April 2022. Under the terms of the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce, which was based on a mediated settlement agreement (MSA), Husband was awarded all but $1,000 of Wife's retirement benefits in the Lockheed Martin Corporation Salaried Savings Plan as of November 18, 2021. The decree contemplated that the trial court would sign a QDRO to effectuate this award. In December 2023, Husband filed a petition for the entry of a QDRO as contemplated by the decree. In August 2024, Wife filed a response in which she asserted that "[t]he QDRO was r