CourtListener opinion 1061958

pension: court "the continuing authority and jurisdiction to make any additional orders necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to [§ 20-107.3]" (emphasis added)); Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) (permitting modification of a final decree's division of a pension plan "only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order" (emphasis added)). - 23 - earnings, gains and losses on her share from December 31, 2002 until the date of distribution. The division shall be by a QDRO. The


CourtListener opinion 1061958

401(k): f the current market value of [husband's] account." The trial court arrived at this nine percent figure by utilizing the "coverture fraction" that is typically applied to defined benefit plans. However, husband's Plan is not a defined benefit plan, but a defined contribution plan. As we have previously indicated, the coverture fraction is an inappropriate method to determine the marital share of a defined contribution plan. Mann v. Mann, 22 Va. App. 459, 465 n.6, 470 S.E.2d 605, 607 n.6 (1996) ("Applying [the coverture] fraction to a defined contribution plan could lead to incongruous results, and such an approach is not ge


CourtListener opinion 1062143

CourtListener opinion 1062143 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062143 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 1062143

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 1062143

QDRO: om his employment. One represented a plan for hourly employees paid for by the company. A second plan known as the Merck Employee Stock Purchase and Savings Plan consisted of contributions from husband. On September 3, 2009, husband objected to a proposed qualified domestic relations order from wife that would have divided husband's interest in the Stock Purchase and Savings Plan. Husband maintained that under the agreement wife should receive only a share of the hourly employees plan, without any share in the Stock Purchase and Savings Plan. In a May 21, 2010 letter opinion, the trial court held wife should receive a share in both plan


CourtListener opinion 1062143

retirement benefits: ner, on brief), for appellant. Nancy A. Frank (Nancy A. Frank, P.C., on brief), for appellee. I. INTRODUCTION James Allan Myers (husband) appeals a decision of the trial court granting his former spouse, Shelby Lynne Smith Myers (wife), a share in two retirement plans. 1 Husband argues a property settlement agreement (PSA) granted wife a share in only one of the plans. We affirm. II. BACKGROUND Given our resolution of this case, the relevant facts may be succinctly stated. Husband and wife separated on July 3, 2008. They entered into a PSA on July 25, 2008, that was prepared by husband's counsel. The PSA contain


CourtListener opinion 1062143

pension: (quoting Wilson v. Holyfield, 227 Va. 184, 187, 313 S.E.2d 396, 398 (1984)). We agree with the trial court that Hale controls the interpretation of the agreement in this case. 2 The property settlement agreement in Hale provided the husband had "a vested pension plan with his employer" and that the wife would receive half "of said pension plan provided to him through his employer." 42 Va. App. at 32, 590 S.E.2d at 68. Like this case, the husband argued the "pension plan with his employer" referred only to an employer-provided pension plan, not to a plan where the employee contributes, which the husband also pos


CourtListener opinion 1062143

domestic relations order: loyment. One represented a plan for hourly employees paid for by the company. A second plan known as the Merck Employee Stock Purchase and Savings Plan consisted of contributions from husband. On September 3, 2009, husband objected to a proposed qualified domestic relations order from wife that would have divided husband's interest in the Stock Purchase and Savings Plan. Husband maintained that under the agreement wife should receive only a share of the hourly employees plan, without any share in the Stock Purchase and Savings Plan. In a May 21, 2010 letter opinion, the trial court held wife should receive a share in both plan


CourtListener opinion 1062296

CourtListener opinion 1062296 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062296 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 1062296


CourtListener opinion 1062296

QDRO: olds Metals Retirement Plan and $3,000. One-half of the amount [husband] receives from the Reynolds Metals Retirement Plan will be transferred to [wife] by Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . . If, for any reason, this amount cannot be transferred by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, [husband] shall pay to [wife] $3,000 per month spousal support until further order of the Court. At the time of the divorce, husband was employed at Reynolds Metals earning $80,100 per year, and wife was unemployed. In May 2009, husband was notified that his position was being eliminated. At the time, he was earning approximately $100,000 per year


CourtListener opinion 1062296

retirement benefits: final decree stated that husband's spousal support obligation would be as follows: * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. the difference between one-half of the monthly amount he receives from the Reynolds Metals Retirement Plan and $3,000. One-half of the amount [husband] receives from the Reynolds Metals Retirement Plan will be transferred to [wife] by Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . . If, for any reason, this amount cannot be transferred by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, [husband] shall pay to [wife] $3,000 per month spousal support until further order of the


CourtListener opinion 1062296

401(k): examining the evidence and the income and expense statements, the trial court found that husband "voluntarily obligated himself on a mortgage for the second house," -3- and he had "substantial assets," including two houses and funds in a bank account and 401(K) plan. His first house had no mortgage. Meanwhile, wife owned a condominium and made monthly mortgage payments. She also had an annuity. After his termination from employment, husband had an additional expense for health insurance; however, the trial court found that husband's other expenses were "inflated" because they included his fiancée's expense


CourtListener opinion 1062296

domestic relations order: lication. the difference between one-half of the monthly amount he receives from the Reynolds Metals Retirement Plan and $3,000. One-half of the amount [husband] receives from the Reynolds Metals Retirement Plan will be transferred to [wife] by Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . . If, for any reason, this amount cannot be transferred by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, [husband] shall pay to [wife] $3,000 per month spousal support until further order of the Court. At the time of the divorce, husband was employed at Reynolds Metals earning $80,100 per year, and wife was unemployed. In May 2009, husband was notified


CourtListener opinion 1062363

CourtListener opinion 1062363 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062363 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 1062363


CourtListener opinion 1062363

QDRO: * v. Record No. 1204-10-4 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 2, 2010 MARINA A. HANEY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Jane Marum Roush, Judge (James Christopher Haney, pro se, on brief). No brief for appellee. James Christopher Haney (husband) appeals four qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) entered by the trial court. Husband argues that the trial court erred by entering the QDROs because they do not conform to the final decree of divorce. Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND The p


CourtListener opinion 1062363

retirement benefits: rily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND The parties married on July 29, 1992, separated on September 24, 2008, and divorced on December 10, 2009. The final decree of divorce divided equally the marital share of husband's retirement plans as follows: 4. IRA's: The following American Century IRA's held in husband's name are marital and shall be divided equally between the parties: IRA PLANS VALUE DATE OF HEARING * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. * * * * * * * Northeast Investors Trust – IRA $13,251.01 Northeast Investors Trust – Rot


CourtListener opinion 1062363

pension: ave the continuing authority and jurisdiction to make any additional orders necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to this section, including the authority to: * * * * * * * Modify any order . . . intended to affect or divide any pension, profit-sharing or deferred compensation plan or retirement benefits pursuant to the United States Internal Revenue Code or other applicable federal laws, only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order. Code §


CourtListener opinion 1062363

domestic relations order: d No. 1204-10-4 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 2, 2010 MARINA A. HANEY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Jane Marum Roush, Judge (James Christopher Haney, pro se, on brief). No brief for appellee. James Christopher Haney (husband) appeals four qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) entered by the trial court. Husband argues that the trial court erred by entering the QDROs because they do not conform to the final decree of divorce. Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND The p


CourtListener opinion 1062530

CourtListener opinion 1062530 Docket: for entry of the appropriate QDROs. The parties the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062530 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 1062530


CourtListener opinion 1062530

QDRO: paration on June 1, 2003, through the date of the evidentiary hearing on March 15, 2007. The PSA also divided husband's pension from Philip Morris. The agreement specifically stated that "the marital share of Husband's pension shall be divided 50/50, by a QDRO, by applying a coverture fraction2 to the accrued benefit as of the date of separation [June 1, 2003] 1 The parties have two children. Only one child was under the age of eighteen when the parties endorsed the agreement. No child support issues are raised in this appeal. 2 "Coverture" is an archaic term referring to the condition of being a married wo


CourtListener opinion 1062530

retirement benefits: e's employment with that company (the denominator). 2 Brett R. Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property 149-63 (3rd ed. 2005). This fraction is then applied to the entire benefit at the time of the spouse's retirement to determine the marital portion of the retirement benefit. When, as here, the coverture fraction is applied to the accrued value in the pension plan as of the date of separation rather than as of the date of retirement, a slightly different coverture fraction is used – the numerator remains the same, but the denominator becomes the total time that the spouse worked for the company before the date of separation. Id


CourtListener opinion 1062530

pension: QDROs), as well as a final order resolving all outstanding issues. Husband appeals from these April 9, 2008 orders. He argues that the trial court erred 1) in the amount of husband's profit sharing plan that it awarded to wife, 2) in the amount of husband's pension plan that it awarded to wife, 3) in ordering husband to provide life insurance for wife, and 4) in awarding attorney's fees to wife and not awarding attorney's fees to husband. Upon review of the record, we find the trial court erred only in ordering, under the facts of this case, that husband provide life insurance to wife, and we remand the case for f


CourtListener opinion 1062530

survivor benefits: e of his retirement. When husband filled out his paperwork to begin the distribution of the pension, he marked a box on the forms indicating that he wanted Philip Morris to pay out his pension "as a single life annuity" rather than requesting any joint and survivor annuity or any payment to wife. Husband then began receiving the full pension amount of $4,951.71 per month, until Philip Morris froze his benefits pending the outcome of this case. Wife did not receive any of the pension funds, either directly from Philip Morris or from husband. The parties agree that the current payouts under the pension plan cannot be altere


CourtListener opinion 1062571

CourtListener opinion 1062571 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062571 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 1062571

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 1062571

QDRO: g at the date [husband] retired, May 31, 2005. She is further entitled to a continuation of the Survivor Benefit Annuity previously selected by [husband], which cost shall be paid from the gross proceeds of the retirement. (Emphasis added.) In the related qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered to effect division of husband's military retirement, the court provided that "[t]o the extent the Designated Agent is prohibited by law or regulation from paying the entire amount required by this order to [wife], [husband] shall personally pay any shortfall to [wife]." Husband objected to the trial court's "grant of retroactive military


CourtListener opinion 1062571

retirement benefits: ewis Lowery, Jr.; Rinehart, Lowery, Strentz & Butler, P.L.C., on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. Kent Cusack (husband) appeals from an equitable distribution award directing payment to Deborah Cusack (wife) of a portion of his military retirement benefits. On appeal, husband contends the court erred in directing that wife receive a portion of the marital share of those retirement benefits commencing on the date of husband's retirement, which occurred after the parties separated but almost a year before wife filed her bill of complaint for divorce and over two years prior to the equitable distribution ev


CourtListener opinion 1062571

pension: y law or regulation from paying wife the entire amount required by the court's order, husband was personally responsible for paying wife any shortfall. We reverse that portion of the final decree ordering that payments of wife's share of husband's military pension were to commence on May 31, 2005, but hold the trial court had authority to order husband responsible for any payments due but not payable directly from the pension. We deny wife's request for attorney's fees and costs on appeal, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND Husband entered the United States Army i


CourtListener opinion 1062571

domestic relations order: ate [husband] retired, May 31, 2005. She is further entitled to a continuation of the Survivor Benefit Annuity previously selected by [husband], which cost shall be paid from the gross proceeds of the retirement. (Emphasis added.) In the related qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered to effect division of husband's military retirement, the court provided that "[t]o the extent the Designated Agent is prohibited by law or regulation from paying the entire amount required by this order to [wife], [husband] shall personally pay any shortfall to [wife]." Husband objected to the trial court's "grant of retroactive military


CourtListener opinion 1062677

CourtListener opinion 1062677 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062677 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 1062677


CourtListener opinion 1062677

QDRO: t, in February 1997, the circuit court awarded wife a share of husband's pensions, including his pension with American Safety Razor (ASR). The circuit court's order provided that "Counsel for Defendant" – at that time, Ruple – "shall prepare" all necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). However, a QDRO for husband's ASR pension was never actually completed and entered until 2009, when it was finally done at wife's expense. By that time, wife had hired an attorney to research the status of the ASR pension QDRO and had hired a Certified Public Accountant to prepare it. Wife contends that Ruple is liable to her for these expenses


CourtListener opinion 1062677

pension: er, no relief was expressly sought from him below, and he did not file a brief on appeal to this Court as appellee. BACKGROUND The record below establishes that, in February 1997, the circuit court awarded wife a share of husband's pensions, including his pension with American Safety Razor (ASR). The circuit court's order provided that "Counsel for Defendant" – at that time, Ruple – "shall prepare" all necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). However, a QDRO for husband's ASR pension was never actually completed and entered until 2009, when it was finally done at wife's expense. By that time, wife h


CourtListener opinion 1062677

domestic relations order: uary 1997, the circuit court awarded wife a share of husband's pensions, including his pension with American Safety Razor (ASR). The circuit court's order provided that "Counsel for Defendant" – at that time, Ruple – "shall prepare" all necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). However, a QDRO for husband's ASR pension was never actually completed and entered until 2009, when it was finally done at wife's expense. By that time, wife had hired an attorney to research the status of the ASR pension QDRO and had hired a Certified Public Accountant to prepare it. Wife contends that Ruple is liable to her for these expenses


CourtListener opinion 1062677

valuation/division: tions alleging noncompliance with the circuit court's order entered in February 1997. See Steinberg, 21 Va. App. at 46, 461 S.E.2d at 423. In short, simply because Ruple was husband's counsel does not mean that she was in any way a party to the divorce and equitable distribution proceedings herself. In Nusbaum v. Berlin, 273 Va. 385, 641 S.E.2d 494 (2007), the Supreme Court of Virginia held: In the absence of authority granted by a statute, such as Code § 8.01-271.1, or a rule of court, such as Rule 4:12, . . . a trial -3- court's inherent power to supervise the conduct of attorneys practicing before it and to discipline


CourtListener opinion 10626862

CourtListener opinion 10626862 Extracted reporter citation: 303 P.3d 214. Docket: 50446 CHRIS D. FARNSWORTH. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10626862 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 10626862


CourtListener opinion 10626862

QDRO: ates that withholdings and contributions will be governed by Idaho law applicable to PERSI. PERSI is a state-created retirement plan under I.C. § 59-1301, et seq., and PERSI accounts are an asset that can be 13 split between divorcing spouses pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. I.C. §§ 59-1317, -1319. The magistrate court evaluated all the evidence related to the PERSI Choice 401(k) plan and found that Chris's wages partially funded the account and Chris retained control over the funds in the account. The magistrate court further concluded that although penalties might exist for withdrawal, Chris could access the funds at any ti


CourtListener opinion 10626862

retirement benefits: ount, unbeknownst to Shawnee. Chris preserved this recording for two years prior to instituting divorce proceedings and introduced it as evidence of Shawnee's intent to transmute the EJJTROS account to community property. 2 Chris and Shawnee have additional retirement accounts and other assets. The division of the other accounts and assets is not at issue on appeal. 2 In 2012, the City of Idaho Falls (the City), Chris's employer, and the local firefighters' union negotiated a contract pursuant to federal law that allowed the City to opt out of contributing to Social Security on behalf of its firefighters. Instead of contributi


CourtListener opinion 10626862

pension: rity Act. Id. at 559, 82 P.3d at 841. The Supreme Court noted that the Tier I benefits were not divisible by a court upon divorce. Id. at 560, 82 P.3d at 842. The other component, commonly called Tier II benefits, is an additional annuity that, like a private pension plan, is tied to the earnings and career service. Id. at 559-60, 82 P.3d at 841-42. The Tier II benefit also had a component similar to divorced spouse's benefits under the Social Security Act. Id. The wife sought a portion of the Tier II benefits pursuant to the divorce. Id. Chris argues the Tier 1 benefits are equivalent to the firefighters having their


CourtListener opinion 10626862

401(k): iated a contract pursuant to federal law that allowed the City to opt out of contributing to Social Security on behalf of its firefighters. Instead of contributing to Social Security, the City would contribute an equivalent amount of money into a PERSI Choice 401(k) account. Each firefighter had to affirmatively elect and create a PERSI Choice 401(k) account. Once a firefighter created the account, the City would make mandatory deposits to the account. Once those deposits were made, each firefighter, including Chris, had the ability to move or withdraw the funds. After marriage, Chris moved into Shawnee's house on Nat


CourtListener opinion 1062747

CourtListener opinion 1062747 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1062747 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 1062747


CourtListener opinion 1062747

QDRO: be a non-taxable event incident to divorce. (Emphasis added.) Husband's attorney prepared the final decree, which did not provide the rate for determining the gains or losses. On January 28, 2008, the trial court entered a retirement benefits court order (QDRO), which stated in part: This Order shall apply to the Employee's Thrift Savings Plan account. There is hereby assigned to the Former Spouse, the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT DOLLARS [sic] and 50/100 DOLLARS ($152,538.50), from the Employee's Thrift Savings Plan account as of October 4, 2007, plus earnings and/or lo


CourtListener opinion 1062747

retirement benefits: ] Thrift Savings Plan which was stipulated to be one hundred fifty-two thousand five hundred thirty-eight dollars and fifty cents ($152,538.50), plus gains and minus losses on said sum from October 4, 2007 to the date on which such sum is transferred to a retirement account of [wife's] choosing. Such transfer shall be a non-taxable event incident to divorce. (Emphasis added.) Husband's attorney prepared the final decree, which did not provide the rate for determining the gains or losses. On January 28, 2008, the trial court entered a retirement benefits court order (QDRO), which stated in part: This Order shall apply t


CourtListener opinion 10631070

CourtListener opinion 10631070 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10631070 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 10631070

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 10631070

domestic relations order: of Cook County that mandates that Plaintiff's partitions should be paid to his former spouse. Plaintiff also objects to the Report and Recommendation claiming that this Court has authority to review a decision of the RRB. In summary, Plaintiff challenges a domestic relations order of the Circuit Court of Cook County regarding the distribution of his Railroad Retirement Act benefits to his ex-wife and/or seeks review of a decision by the Railroad Retirement Board to comply with the domestic relations order. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to preside over either of these matters. First, it is well established that "


CourtListener opinion 1063116

CourtListener opinion 1063116 Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1063116 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 1063116

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 1063116

QDRO: oner in Chancery's failure to recommend or address . . . [appellant's] survivor annuity benefit request" from husband's CSRS pension. Both parties request attorney's fees on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. 1 A COAP is similar to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), required by federal law to distribute a marital share of a party's federal pension. BACKGROUND On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to husband, the prevailing party below. Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 258, 578 S.E.2d 833, 835 (2003). So viewed, the record reflects that husband was employed by the United States g


CourtListener opinion 1063116

retirement benefits: fe "took care of [their] children, their school work, everything." Wife also worked outside the home throughout the marriage, operating a small beauty parlor. The parties owned a Southern Farm Bureau IRA Annuity issued to wife. Wife owned no other separate retirement plan or funds, but was eligible for Social Security Benefits. Husband's enrollment in CSRS precluded his eligibility for Social Security Benefits. Following the parties' separation, husband changed the beneficiary of his Federal Employee Group Life Insurance ("FEGLI") policy from wife to the parties' son. The trial court referred matters related to equitabl


CourtListener opinion 1063116

pension: Lawrence D. Diehl for appellant. R. Scott Pugh for appellee. Vicky Scott McGinniss ("wife") contends that the trial court erred in its award to her of her marital share of John L. McGinniss' ("husband") federal Civil Service Retirement System ("CSRS") pension benefits. Specifically, she argues that the trial court erred in entering its Court Order Acceptable for Processing ("COAP")1 limiting her marital share of husband's CSRS pension to a fixed amount calculated as if husband retired on the date of separation, July 10, 2001, rather than when he actually retired and became eligible to receive his pension; in


CourtListener opinion 1063116

domestic relations order: ancery's failure to recommend or address . . . [appellant's] survivor annuity benefit request" from husband's CSRS pension. Both parties request attorney's fees on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. 1 A COAP is similar to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), required by federal law to distribute a marital share of a party's federal pension. BACKGROUND On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to husband, the prevailing party below. Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 258, 578 S.E.2d 833, 835 (2003). So viewed, the record reflects that husband was employed by the United States g


CourtListener opinion 1063237

CourtListener opinion 1063237 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1063237 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 1063237


CourtListener opinion 1063237

QDRO: IER COUNTY Jeffrey W. Parker, Judge Christopher W. Schinstock (Kyle F. Bartol; Gannon & Cottrell, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Catherine M. Bowers (Walker, Jones, Lawrence, Duggan & Savage, P.C., on brief), for appellee. The trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order defining the division of Frederick Eugene Recker, Jr.'s civil service pension. He maintains the trial court erred by not reducing the value of Peggy H. Recker's share by the cost of providing survivor benefits to his second wife. We hold the trial court correctly interpreted the final decree that divided the pension, and we affirm. The parties married


CourtListener opinion 1063237

retirement benefits: g the wife 50% of the husband's "gross retirement annuity benefits (prior to any deduction therefrom)." After the divorce but prior to his retirement, the husband remarried. The second wife received a survivor benefit as part of the husband's civil service retirement benefit that significantly * Judge Fitzpatrick participated in the hearing and decision of this case prior to the effective date of her retirement on March 31, 2006, and thereafter by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D). reduced his monthly benefit. It reduced the husband's monthly benefit, which he began to receive August 1, 2005, by 10% or $405. On


CourtListener opinion 1063237

pension: on briefs), for appellant. Catherine M. Bowers (Walker, Jones, Lawrence, Duggan & Savage, P.C., on brief), for appellee. The trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order defining the division of Frederick Eugene Recker, Jr.'s civil service pension. He maintains the trial court erred by not reducing the value of Peggy H. Recker's share by the cost of providing survivor benefits to his second wife. We hold the trial court correctly interpreted the final decree that divided the pension, and we affirm. The parties married August 1, 1970, separated August 1, 1994, and divorced December 18, 1996. The


CourtListener opinion 1063237

domestic relations order: Jeffrey W. Parker, Judge Christopher W. Schinstock (Kyle F. Bartol; Gannon & Cottrell, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Catherine M. Bowers (Walker, Jones, Lawrence, Duggan & Savage, P.C., on brief), for appellee. The trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order defining the division of Frederick Eugene Recker, Jr.'s civil service pension. He maintains the trial court erred by not reducing the value of Peggy H. Recker's share by the cost of providing survivor benefits to his second wife. We hold the trial court correctly interpreted the final decree that divided the pension, and we affirm. The parties married


CourtListener opinion 1063321

CourtListener opinion 1063321 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1063321 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 1063321


CourtListener opinion 1063321

QDRO: Carl Francis Irwin's monthly pension. The court held that husband was not liable to wife for one-half of the pension payments from April 2004, the date of the final decree, to October 2004, when wife began receiving one-half of the pension payments under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Husband contends that the court erred in denying him attorney's fees in connection with the dispute. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court. I. BACKGROUND The parties were married on June 26, 1965, and separated on October 23, 2002. Wife filed a bill of complaint for divorce in the Circ


CourtListener opinion 1063321

pension: Frankie C. Coyner (Law Offices of Frankie C. Coyner, on brief), for appellant. Linda Schorsch Jones (Poindexter & Schorsch, on brief), for appellee. Judith Anne Irwin appeals a trial court decision regarding the division of Carl Francis Irwin's monthly pension. The court held that husband was not liable to wife for one-half of the pension payments from April 2004, the date of the final decree, to October 2004, when wife began receiving one-half of the pension payments under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Husband contends that the court erred in denying him attorney's fees in connection with the


CourtListener opinion 1063321

domestic relations order: is Irwin's monthly pension. The court held that husband was not liable to wife for one-half of the pension payments from April 2004, the date of the final decree, to October 2004, when wife began receiving one-half of the pension payments under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Husband contends that the court erred in denying him attorney's fees in connection with the dispute. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court. I. BACKGROUND The parties were married on June 26, 1965, and separated on October 23, 2002. Wife filed a bill of complaint for divorce in the Circ


CourtListener opinion 1063321

valuation/division: of the legislative enactment of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) was "to protect the interests of pension recipients from the unintended consequences of improperly or incomplete drafted pension orders. . . ." Report of the Family Law Section of the Virginia State Bar on Equitable Distribution of Property in Divorce Proceedings, House Document No. 19, at 15-16 (1991). The statutory reservation permits "the court to revise its orders to comply with language required by federal law to effectuate the intended pension award, but not to substantively change the pension award itself." Id. The House document recognized that "the integrity and enforceabi


CourtListener opinion 1063366

CourtListener opinion 1063366 Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1063366 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 1063366


CourtListener opinion 1063366

QDRO: Y OF CHESAPEAKE V. Thomas Forehand, Jr., Judge Henry M. Schwan for appellant. Regina Amick (Catherine A. Nelson; Michael J. Woods, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Eric O. Turner, Sr., husband, on appeal contends the trial court erred in (1) entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) without any prior order granting wife an actual defined portion of his pension, (2) modifying the final decree in violation of Rule 1:1, and (3) recognizing/enforcing a pre-divorce oral agreement. Essentially, husband argues the trial court created substantive rights in the QDRO that were not awarded in the final decree. For the reasons stated, w


CourtListener opinion 1063366

retirement benefits: er is awarded a share of the plaintiff's pension based on fifteen (15) years of marriage contemporaneous with the employment by the plaintiff. The final decree was not appealed. Upon learning that husband had retired from his employment and was receiving retirement benefits, wife sought to enforce the provisions of the final decree of divorce. Wife filed a petition for a rule to show cause, along with a notice to enter a QDRO, to hold husband in contempt for not paying wife her share of husband's pension. -2- The court held a hearing on February 4, 2004, on the rule to show cause. Husband testified he retired November 1


CourtListener opinion 1063366

pension: on; Michael J. Woods, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Eric O. Turner, Sr., husband, on appeal contends the trial court erred in (1) entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) without any prior order granting wife an actual defined portion of his pension, (2) modifying the final decree in violation of Rule 1:1, and (3) recognizing/enforcing a pre-divorce oral agreement. Essentially, husband argues the trial court created substantive rights in the QDRO that were not awarded in the final decree. For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND The parties married on Novembe


CourtListener opinion 1063366

domestic relations order: PEAKE V. Thomas Forehand, Jr., Judge Henry M. Schwan for appellant. Regina Amick (Catherine A. Nelson; Michael J. Woods, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Eric O. Turner, Sr., husband, on appeal contends the trial court erred in (1) entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) without any prior order granting wife an actual defined portion of his pension, (2) modifying the final decree in violation of Rule 1:1, and (3) recognizing/enforcing a pre-divorce oral agreement. Essentially, husband argues the trial court created substantive rights in the QDRO that were not awarded in the final decree. For the reasons stated, w


CourtListener opinion 1064033

CourtListener opinion 1064033 Extracted case name: M.E.D. v. J.P.M. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1064033 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 1064033

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 1064033

QDRO: plit equally between the parties." Id. at 290, 623 S.E.2d at 440. In April -5- 2004, the trial court entered a final decree incorporating the parties' agreement. Id. However, the wife did not start receiving her share of the pension payments until after a QDRO was approved and entered by the court in September 2004. Id. at 291, 623 S.E.2d at 440. The wife subsequently "asked the [trial] court to order [the] husband to pay her the accrued amount of one-half of the pension payments from the date of entry of the final decree," id., but the court denied the wife's request, id. at 292, 623 S.E.2d at 441. On appeal


CourtListener opinion 1064033

pension: 459 (1991))). In Irwin, following the wife's filing of a bill of complaint for divorce, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement in January 2004. 47 Va. App. at 290, 623 S.E.2d at 439-40. The parties' agreement provided that the husband's pension, which the husband was already receiving, would "be split equally between the parties." Id. at 290, 623 S.E.2d at 440. In April -5- 2004, the trial court entered a final decree incorporating the parties' agreement. Id. However, the wife did not start receiving her share of the pension payments until after a QDRO was approved and entered by the court i


CourtListener opinion 1064033

401(k): als from the final decree of divorce entered by the Circuit Court of Stafford County (trial court) on September 10, 2007. On appeal, husband contends the trial court erred in (1) awarding Pamela Joy Rosedale (wife) more than 50% of the present value of his 401(K) account, (2) awarding wife 65% of the overall value of the marital property, (3) classifying a sailboat titled in his name as marital property, (4) awarding wife permanent spousal support in the amount of $3,110 per month, and (5) failing to order the return of the cash bond he posted for his appeal to the trial court. For the reasons that follow, we aff


CourtListener opinion 1064033

valuation/division: anding of the disposition of this appeal. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The parties were married in July 1992. One child was born of the marriage in November 1992. On February 3, 2005, wife filed for divorce and requested, inter alia, that the court make an equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets and award her permanent spousal support. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on those issues on April 27 and May 25, 2007. The issue of child support was also before the trial court on husband's appeal from the juvenile and domestic relations district court. Following the presentation of evidence, the parties


CourtListener opinion 1064474

CourtListener opinion 1064474 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1064474 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 1064474


CourtListener opinion 1064474

QDRO: LLIAM COUNTY Leroy F. Millette, Jr., Judge Catherine S. Croft (Farrell & Croft, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Joyce M. Henry-Schargorodski (Gaughan & Schargorodski, on brief), for appellee. Rita Kathleen Bradley (wife) appeals the circuit court's Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered on February 9, 2001. On appeal, wife contends the trial court erred by (1) limiting the scope of the survivor benefits awarded to wife and (2) requiring that for purposes of calculating the marital shares of Roger Wayne Bradley's (husband) defined benefit retirement plan, the plan ended upon the merger with a successor defined benefit r


CourtListener opinion 1064474

retirement benefits: n February 9, 2001. On appeal, wife contends the trial court erred by (1) limiting the scope of the survivor benefits awarded to wife and (2) requiring that for purposes of calculating the marital shares of Roger Wayne Bradley's (husband) defined benefit retirement plan, the plan ended upon the merger with a successor defined benefit retirement plan. Wife asks that the QDRO be vacated. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm the trial court's order. On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire,


CourtListener opinion 1064474

domestic relations order: TY Leroy F. Millette, Jr., Judge Catherine S. Croft (Farrell & Croft, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Joyce M. Henry-Schargorodski (Gaughan & Schargorodski, on brief), for appellee. Rita Kathleen Bradley (wife) appeals the circuit court's Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered on February 9, 2001. On appeal, wife contends the trial court erred by (1) limiting the scope of the survivor benefits awarded to wife and (2) requiring that for purposes of calculating the marital shares of Roger Wayne Bradley's (husband) defined benefit retirement plan, the plan ended upon the merger with a successor defined benefit r


CourtListener opinion 1064474

survivor benefits: han & Schargorodski, on brief), for appellee. Rita Kathleen Bradley (wife) appeals the circuit court's Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered on February 9, 2001. On appeal, wife contends the trial court erred by (1) limiting the scope of the survivor benefits awarded to wife and (2) requiring that for purposes of calculating the marital shares of Roger Wayne Bradley's (husband) defined benefit retirement plan, the plan ended upon the merger with a successor defined benefit retirement plan. Wife asks that the QDRO be vacated. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm the trial court's order. On


CourtListener opinion 10645008

CourtListener opinion 10645008 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of Brown. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 31-4. No notice of. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10645008 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 10645008


CourtListener opinion 10645008

pension: nts and Gallant-Jones assert that: (1) claims against Judges Poncin and Clark are barred 7 The Court presumes that Brown's inclusion of an extra zero was a typo. See Compl. 96 ("Plaintiff is seeking not less than $ 2,300,0000.00 in the loss of her lifetime pension annuity . . . ."). by the statute of limitations, Judge Defendants Mot. Dismiss 4–5; (2) Rooker-Feldman deprives the Court of jurisdiction for the claims stemming from final state-court judgments, id. at 5–9; (3) Younger abstention deprives the Court of jurisdiction for the claims related to ongoing state- court proceedings, id. at 10–12; and (4) judicia


CourtListener opinion 10645008

alternate payee: n rem custody award or to undo a divorce decree"). Second, she requests "injunctive relief from the unconstitutional 40 ILCS 5/1-119" QILDRO entered in her case. Compl. 96. A QILDRO is "an Illinois court order that creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of a member's accrued benefits in a retirement system" that is "is issued pursuant to" 40 ILCS 5/1-119 "and Section 503(b)(2) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act." 40 ILCS 5/1-119(a)(6). It is not clear from the record what the QILDRO order in Brown's case says, but regardless, the Court cannot di


CourtListener opinion 10645008

domestic relations order: from presiding over her cases. Id. at 95. She also seeks relief from their orders, such as the sanctions restricting her filings and ordering her to pay attorneys' fees. She seeks further relief "from the unconstitutional 40 ILCS 5/1-119 Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order [("QILDRO")] of which not one Judge who presided over Plaintiff's case has taken the time to look into." Id. at 96. She asserts that the unconstitutionality of the QILDRO should be the basis of injunctive relief to prevent any judge from finalizing the Divorce Proceeding. She asks that the Court enter a default judgment for a permanent legal separation


CourtListener opinion 1064615

CourtListener opinion 1064615 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1064615 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 1064615

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 1064615

QDRO: n, Judge Emmet D. Alexander (Gates & Alexander, PLC, on brief), for appellant. (John H. Click, Jr.; Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is consistent with the final decree of divorce. We hold that it is not, and we reverse the order and remand for entry of a proper QDRO. I. On July 24, 2000, Mildred B. Baker was divorced from her husband, Charles H. Baker, by a final decree that affirmed, ratified, and incorporated their property settlement agreement. In pertinent part, the


CourtListener opinion 1064615

domestic relations order: Emmet D. Alexander (Gates & Alexander, PLC, on brief), for appellant. (John H. Click, Jr.; Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is consistent with the final decree of divorce. We hold that it is not, and we reverse the order and remand for entry of a proper QDRO. I. On July 24, 2000, Mildred B. Baker was divorced from her husband, Charles H. Baker, by a final decree that affirmed, ratified, and incorporated their property settlement agreement. In pertinent part, the


CourtListener opinion 1064891

CourtListener opinion 1064891 Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1064891 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 1064891

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 1064891

QDRO: ve calculated the value of a single life annuity to have been $721.47. Using that figure, husband argued below that wife was entitled to no more than $360.74 from his monthly pension payments ($721.47 x 50%). -4- in the April 5, 2006 decree and entered a qualified domestic relations order consistent therewith on April 19, 2006. This appeal followed. II. RULE 1:1 AND CODE § 20-107.3(K)(4) On appeal, husband contends the trial court substantively modified the terms of the August 21, 1986 final decree of divorce more than twenty-one days after entry of the decree, in violation of Rule 1:1, when it awarded wife a share of his pension fr


CourtListener opinion 1064891

retirement benefits: stribution of the marital share of a pension. See Mosley v. Mosley, 19 Va. App. 192, 198, 450 S.E.2d 161, 165 (1994). In pertinent part, this code section provides: The court may direct payment of a percentage of the marital share of any pension . . . or retirement benefits, whether vested or nonvested, which constitutes marital property and whether payable in a lump sum or over a period of time. . . . However, the court shall only direct that payment be made as such benefits are payable. . . . "Marital share" means that portion of the total interest, the right to which was earned during the marriage and before the last


CourtListener opinion 1064891

pension: , for appellant. John S. Huntington for appellee. Dennis Lee Strausbaugh (husband) appeals from the trial court's April 5, 2006 decree awarding his former wife, Brenda Britt Strausbaugh, n/k/a Brenda Britt Monroe (wife), half of the marital share of his pension, pursuant to the terms of the parties' final decree of divorce. Husband contends that, in making that award, the trial judge erroneously (1) modified substantive terms of the divorce decree in violation of Rule 1:1, (2) used the statutory marital share formula rather than the actual value of the pension as of the date of the parties' separation to calcul


CourtListener opinion 1064891

domestic relations order: ted the value of a single life annuity to have been $721.47. Using that figure, husband argued below that wife was entitled to no more than $360.74 from his monthly pension payments ($721.47 x 50%). -4- in the April 5, 2006 decree and entered a qualified domestic relations order consistent therewith on April 19, 2006. This appeal followed. II. RULE 1:1 AND CODE § 20-107.3(K)(4) On appeal, husband contends the trial court substantively modified the terms of the August 21, 1986 final decree of divorce more than twenty-one days after entry of the decree, in violation of Rule 1:1, when it awarded wife a share of his pension fr


CourtListener opinion 10649934

CourtListener opinion 10649934 Extracted reporter citation: 396 F.3d 96. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10649934 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 10649934


CourtListener opinion 10649934

QDRO: od (July 6, 2014 through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court), including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject toa Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. On July 8, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlerrent and Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Case Contribution Awards. (ECF No. 126.) The Court held a Fairness Hear


CourtListener opinion 10649934

ERISA: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * In re MedStar ERISA Litigation CIV. NO. JKB-20-1984 * * * * x * x * x we x * MEMORANDUM Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Case Contribution Awards. (ECF No. 126.) Plaintiff asks that the Court: (1) approve the Proposed Settlement (ECF No. 121-1); (2) maintain certification


CourtListener opinion 10649934

401(k): at 9.) This reflects that Plaintiff took significant action to protect the interests of the Class, which justifies the approval of the $15,000 award. Further, the requested award is in line with—and indeed more modest than—that obtained in other ERISA and 401(k) litigation in this Circuit. See, e.g., Savani v. URS Pro. Sols. LLC, 121 F. Supp. 3d 564, 577 (D.S.C. 2015) (explaining that "[a] substantial incentive award is appropriate in this complex ERISA case given the benefits accruing to the entire class in part resulting from [the class representative's] efforts" and approving a $15,000 award); Kelly, 2020 WL


CourtListener opinion 10649934

alternate payee: the Plan at any time during the Class Period (July 6, 2014 through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court), including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject toa Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. On July 8, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlerrent and Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Case Contri


CourtListener opinion 10649957

CourtListener opinion 10649957 Extracted reporter citation: 396 F.3d 96. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10649957 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 10649957


CourtListener opinion 1065036

CourtListener opinion 1065036 Extracted case name: KAREN THOMPSON SCOGGINS v. LARRY BROWDER SCOGGINS. Extracted reporter citation: 60 S.W.3d 721. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065036 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 1065036


CourtListener opinion 1065036

QDRO: addressing the 401(k) further ordered that "Defendant shall not encumber, transfer, liquidate or dissipate the funds from this 401(k) plan until after the debt listed in paragraph 13 is paid and Plaintiff's interest in the [401(k)] is transferred to her by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order." The paragraph addressing the 401(k) further stated that if Plaintiff's interest in the 401(k) plan when added to other property granted to Plaintiff in the divorce did not equal the net marital estate received by Defendant in the divorce, then Defendant shall owe to Plaintiff "a sum of money equal to this difference . . . ." A separate paragraph of the Fi


CourtListener opinion 1065036

pension: to dismiss, the Trial Court held that "the bankruptcy discharged Defendant's obligation to pay the debts that are identified in the final judgment, but Defendant's bankruptcy did not discharge Defendant's obligation to transfer so much of his 401(k) plan and pension plan to Plaintiff that the Court may find to be the property of Plaintiff." The parties filed a joint statement of undisputed material facts. Among other things, the joint statement agreed that a notice of the Meeting of Creditors that listed January 16, 2001, as the deadline to file complaints with the bankruptcy court to determine the dischargeability o


CourtListener opinion 1065036

401(k): No. 98-0224 Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor FILED OCTOBER 23, 2003 No. E2002-02923-COA-R3-CV Karen Thompson Scoggins ("Plaintiff") and Larry Browder Scoggins ("Defendant") were divorced in 2000. The divorce judgment ordered Defendant to use funds from his 401(k) plan to pay off certain marital debts and then to convey the remainder of the 401(k) to Plaintiff. Defendant did not do this. Instead, Defendant filed for bankruptcy, listed Plaintiff as a creditor, and was granted a discharge in bankruptcy. Plaintiff filed a complaint in Chancery Court ("Trial Court") seeking to enforce the divorce judgment. Defendant clai


CourtListener opinion 1065036

domestic relations order: g the 401(k) further ordered that "Defendant shall not encumber, transfer, liquidate or dissipate the funds from this 401(k) plan until after the debt listed in paragraph 13 is paid and Plaintiff's interest in the [401(k)] is transferred to her by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order." The paragraph addressing the 401(k) further stated that if Plaintiff's interest in the 401(k) plan when added to other property granted to Plaintiff in the divorce did not equal the net marital estate received by Defendant in the divorce, then Defendant shall owe to Plaintiff "a sum of money equal to this difference . . . ." A separate paragraph of the Fi


CourtListener opinion 10654013

CourtListener opinion 10654013 Extracted reporter citation: 429 U.S. 97. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10654013 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 10654013

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 10654013

QDRO: enefits. After the divorce was finalized, Plaintiff claims her ex-husband relentlessly stalked and wiretapped her, allegedly with the assistance of AT&T, and she eventually moved to Texas "for her safety." (Doc. Nos. 1, 17.) In Texas, in 2017, she had two Qualified Domestic Relation Orders ("QDROs") drafted, which she presented to South Carolina state court Judge Wayne Creech for signature. (Id.) Judge Creech did not sign these QRDOs, a decision Plaintiff argues was made "in retaliation because the entire county was involved in fraud for profit schemes" to usurp a prior arbitration agreement and steal her assets. (Id.) These documents ar


CourtListener opinion 10654013

retirement benefits: divorced her husband, Michael Kimner ("ex-husband"), in 2011 after fourteen years of marriage. (Doc. No. 1-1.) Her ex-husband was ostensibly employed by Duke Energy Corporation ("Duke") for a length of time sufficient to create some stake in two Duke 401K retirement plans ("the Plans"), namely the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan ("RCBP") and the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan ("RSP"). (Doc. Nos. 12-3, 12-5.) The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") governs the Plans and their benefits. After the divorce was finalized, Plaintiff claims her ex-husband relentlessly stalked and wiretapped


CourtListener opinion 10654013

ERISA: eate some stake in two Duke 401K retirement plans ("the Plans"), namely the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan ("RCBP") and the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan ("RSP"). (Doc. Nos. 12-3, 12-5.) The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") governs the Plans and their benefits. After the divorce was finalized, Plaintiff claims her ex-husband relentlessly stalked and wiretapped her, allegedly with the assistance of AT&T, and she eventually moved to Texas "for her safety." (Doc. Nos. 1, 17.) In Texas, in 2017, she had two Qualified Domestic Relation Orders ("QDROs") drafted, which she pre


CourtListener opinion 10654013

401(k): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00369-FDW-DCK AUDREY KIMNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) DUKE ENERGY 401K AND RETIREMENT ) SAVINGS PLAN, ) ) Defendant. ) ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Duke Energy 401K and Retirement Savings Plan's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 12). This matter has been fully briefed, (Doc. Nos. 13, 15, 17), and is ripe for ruling. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Plain


CourtListener opinion 10654083

CourtListener opinion 10654083 Extracted reporter citation: 674 F.3d 369. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10654083 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 10654083

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 10654083

QDRO: No. 12.) As explained in the Court's Order, Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her through both the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan; Plaintiff failed to present a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order entitling her to any portion of the Plans in the first instance; and Plaintiff failed to show any duty owed by Defendants to Plaintiff for the status of the First Lawsuit, any breach of such duty, or any alleged damages that resulted from said breach. (Doc. No. 10, pp. 3–4.) Additionally, the Court's Order also explained Plaintiff failed to assert any a


CourtListener opinion 10654083

domestic relations order: As explained in the Court's Order, Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her through both the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan; Plaintiff failed to present a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order entitling her to any portion of the Plans in the first instance; and Plaintiff failed to show any duty owed by Defendants to Plaintiff for the status of the First Lawsuit, any breach of such duty, or any alleged damages that resulted from said breach. (Doc. No. 10, pp. 3–4.) Additionally, the Court's Order also explained Plaintiff failed to assert any a


CourtListener opinion 10654121

CourtListener opinion 10654121 Extracted case name: LLC v. NTE. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10654121 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 10654121


CourtListener opinion 10654121

QDRO: st of the QJSA awarded to Alternate Payee." (Id., p. 614.) In April 2013, Plaintiff and the Alternate Payee submitted the DRO to the Plan Administrator. The Plan Administrator provided a Determination Report stating the DRO "meets the requirements for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)" and the Plan "will distribute benefits to the [A]lternate [P]ayee in accordance with the order and Plan terms." (Id., p. 354–356.) EIDP announced, effective November 2018, any further accumulation of benefits would cease on account of significant corporate restructuring. (Id., p. 194–95.) As a result, despite still being employed, Plaintiff was


CourtListener opinion 10654121

retirement benefits: TES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00512-FDW-SCR DAVID GASPER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) EIDP, INC., f/k/a E.I. DUPONT DE ) NEMOURS AND COMPANY; ) CORTEVA, INC; THE PENSION AND ) RETIREMENT PLAN; and THE ) BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE ) COMMITTEE, ) ) Defendants. ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Report, (Doc. No. 30), Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 31), and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 29). These matters have been fully briefed, (Doc. Nos. 34,


CourtListener opinion 10654121

pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00512-FDW-SCR DAVID GASPER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) EIDP, INC., f/k/a E.I. DUPONT DE ) NEMOURS AND COMPANY; ) CORTEVA, INC; THE PENSION AND ) RETIREMENT PLAN; and THE ) BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE ) COMMITTEE, ) ) Defendants. ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Report, (Doc. No. 30), Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 31), and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 29). These matters have been fully br


CourtListener opinion 10654121

ERISA: and Company ("DuPont"); Corteva Inc.; the Pension and Retirement Plan; and the Benefit Plans Administrative Committee (collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiff brings three claims against Defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"): (1) denial of benefits claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (2) statutory penalties claim under 29 U.S.C. §1024(b)(4); and (3) attorneys' fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g). Plaintiff's claims arise out of his employment with EIDP, Inc. and alleged denial of benefits under the Pension and Retirement Plan ("Plan"). Plaintiff was an employee o


CourtListener opinion 10654158

CourtListener opinion 10654158 Extracted reporter citation: 674 F.3d 369. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10654158 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 10654158


CourtListener opinion 10654158

QDRO: (Doc. No. 22.) As explained in the Court's Order, Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her through both the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan, and failed to present a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order entitling her to any portion of the Plans in the first instance. (Doc. No. 20, pp. 6–11.) The Court believes Plaintiff intended to file her Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which provides relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. Relief under this rule constitutes "an extraordinary remedy that should not be awarded ex


CourtListener opinion 10654158

domestic relations order: 22.) As explained in the Court's Order, Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her through both the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and the Duke Energy Retirement Savings Plan, and failed to present a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order entitling her to any portion of the Plans in the first instance. (Doc. No. 20, pp. 6–11.) The Court believes Plaintiff intended to file her Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which provides relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. Relief under this rule constitutes "an extraordinary remedy that should not be awarded ex


CourtListener opinion 1065501

CourtListener opinion 1065501 Extracted reporter citation: 422 U.S. 806. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065501 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 1065501

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 1065501

QDRO: 6 JOYCE WRIGHT BLYTHE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge Paul M. Blythe, pro se. Donald E. Gulledge (Gordon, Dodson, Gordon & Rowlett, on brief), for appellee. Appellant Paul Marvin Blythe ("husband") appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), awarding Joyce Wright Blythe ("wife") the gains earned on the portion of husband's retirement account distributed to her in the couple's divorce decree. On appeal, husband argues that the trial court erred by (1) granting wife's "motion for gains and/or losses"; (2) "changing the allocation of a marital


CourtListener opinion 1065501

retirement benefits: & Rowlett, on brief), for appellee. Appellant Paul Marvin Blythe ("husband") appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), awarding Joyce Wright Blythe ("wife") the gains earned on the portion of husband's retirement account distributed to her in the couple's divorce decree. On appeal, husband argues that the trial court erred by (1) granting wife's "motion for gains and/or losses"; (2) "changing the allocation of a marital asset that was incorporated into the final divorce decree"; (3) "disavowing" Rule 1:1; (4) "allowing the [wife's] attorney to set the gains" for the QDR


CourtListener opinion 1065501

domestic relations order: IGHT BLYTHE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge Paul M. Blythe, pro se. Donald E. Gulledge (Gordon, Dodson, Gordon & Rowlett, on brief), for appellee. Appellant Paul Marvin Blythe ("husband") appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), awarding Joyce Wright Blythe ("wife") the gains earned on the portion of husband's retirement account distributed to her in the couple's divorce decree. On appeal, husband argues that the trial court erred by (1) granting wife's "motion for gains and/or losses"; (2) "changing the allocation of a marital


CourtListener opinion 10655957

CourtListener opinion 10655957 Extracted reporter citation: 641 F.3d 560. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10655957 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 10655957


CourtListener opinion 10655957

QDRO: The Pension Plan is covered by and subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). (Ud. J 8.) In 1999, Defendant and Ms. Irizarry divorced. (/d. § 10.) As part of their divorce, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to divide their assets. 7d.) The QDRO entitled Ms. Irizarry to 50% of "a fraction of [Defendant's] retirement benefit, with the numerator . . . being the number of months of credited service during the marriage, and the denominator . . . being the total months of service credited to [Defendant] under the Pension Plan at the time of his retireme


CourtListener opinion 10655957

retirement benefits: zarry divorced. (/d. § 10.) As part of their divorce, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to divide their assets. 7d.) The QDRO entitled Ms. Irizarry to 50% of "a fraction of [Defendant's] retirement benefit, with the numerator . . . being the number of months of credited service during the marriage, and the denominator . . . being the total months of service credited to [Defendant] under the Pension Plan at the time of his retirement." Ud. J 15.) The QDRO also designated Ms. Irizarry as Defendant's "surviving spouse for purposes of a Qualified Joint and S


CourtListener opinion 10655957

pension: tatement of Facts Defendant was formerly employed by Verizon Communications Inc. ("Verizon") and its predecessor, Bell Atlantic Corporation ("Bell Atlantic") until 2010. (Am. Compl. ¥§ 7, 17, ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff is a fiduciary of the Verizon Management Pension Plan (the "Plan" or "Pension Plan").' (/d. 13.) During Defendant's employment, he participated in Bell Atlantic's pension plan, which eventually became the current Plan. (/d. { 7.) The Pension Plan is covered by and subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). (Ud. J 8.) In 1999, Defendant and Ms. Irizarry divorced. (/d. § 10.) As


CourtListener opinion 10655957

ERISA: or "Pension Plan").' (/d. 13.) During Defendant's employment, he participated in Bell Atlantic's pension plan, which eventually became the current Plan. (/d. { 7.) The Pension Plan is covered by and subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). (Ud. J 8.) In 1999, Defendant and Ms. Irizarry divorced. (/d. § 10.) As part of their divorce, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to divide their assets. 7d.) The QDRO entitled Ms. Irizarry to 50% of "a fraction of [Defendant's] retirement benefit, with the numerator . . . being th


CourtListener opinion 10656657

CourtListener opinion 10656657 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: indicating the date upon which it was mailed to Pla. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10656657 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 10656657


CourtListener opinion 10656657

ERISA: s in the Complaint are varied and wide- reaching and concern the allegedly unlawful conduct of others. Plaintiff demands $2.13 million that Defendant and other unnamed parties allegedly owe him for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), attorney malpractice, conspiracy to defraud, failure to respond to a subpoena, commingling of monies, grand larceny, and obstruction of justice.1 See ECF No. 1, Complaint ("Compl.") at 8-14.2 As best the Court can discern, Plaintiff alleges that in 2011, Defendant improperly released $700,000 from Plaintiff's ex-wife's retirement fund to her without


CourtListener opinion 10656657

domestic relations order: intiff alleges that in 2011, Defendant improperly released $700,000 from Plaintiff's ex-wife's retirement fund to her without notice to Plaintiff. See id. at 5- 6, 10. Plaintiff claims that he was entitled to some of the money in the fund under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. See id. at 5. Plaintiff further alleges that the release of these funds violated ERISA, but he does not specify which section of the statute. See id. Many of the factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint involve Plaintiff's ex-wife, Plaintiff's past attorneys, and various judges who handled related matters. See id. at 7 (alleging that "the actions of


CourtListener opinion 1065765

CourtListener opinion 1065765 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. NCP. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065765 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 1065765


CourtListener opinion 1065765

QDRO: prior to March 1, 2002, as adjusted by passive gains or losses after the date of separation until the date of rollover/transfer. (Emphasis added). On March 12, 2004, wife's counsel prepared, husband's counsel endorsed as "seen," and the court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which incorporated the language from paragraph 10(a) of the Agreement. A dispute arose as to whether wife's agreed share was 50% of husband's contributions to the retirement plan, or 50% of the contributions, plus the growth of those contributions, that is, 50% of the value of the retirement plan assets upon the date of separation. The plan adm


CourtListener opinion 1065765

retirement benefits: unsel endorsed as "seen," and the court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which incorporated the language from paragraph 10(a) of the Agreement. A dispute arose as to whether wife's agreed share was 50% of husband's contributions to the retirement plan, or 50% of the contributions, plus the growth of those contributions, that is, 50% of the value of the retirement plan assets upon the date of separation. The plan administrator, at the urgings of the respective parties, adopted both interpretations at different times. Accordingly, husband filed a motion for entry of a decree "setting forth the proper


CourtListener opinion 1065765

pension: ccordingly, complied with Rule 1:4(d). As to wife's second motion, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). That section gives jurisdiction for a trial court to "[m]odify any order . . . intended to affect or divide any pension, profit-sharing or deferred compensation plan or retirement benefits . . . to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order." Wife contends that the trial court's interpretation of the Agreement altered the contract between the parties, constituting an overreaching of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). In support, wife cites Ha


CourtListener opinion 1065765

domestic relations order: D. Tobin (wife) maintains the trial court (1) failed to address two procedural motions; (2) erred on January 28, 2005, in concluding that an issue was mature for decision without an evidentiary hearing; (3) erred in determining that language in a qualified domestic relations order, incorporating a property settlement agreement, was not ambiguous; and (4) erred in interpreting that language. We find no error and affirm. I. Facts Wife and Richard J. Tobin (husband) were divorced by final decree entered December 19, 2003. The parties had separated on April 6, 2002. The decree incorporated a property settlement agreement (the Ag


CourtListener opinion 1065830

CourtListener opinion 1065830 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065830 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 1065830

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 1065830

QDRO: mitting on brief. Charles Wayne Williams and Sonjia Lord Williams were divorced by entry of an amended final decree entered July 10, 1997, which awarded the wife 50% of the husband's pension benefits. To carry out that decree, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998. After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50% of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought to have the husband found in contempt for failing to pay that amount to her. The trial court decreed that the wife was entitled to hal


CourtListener opinion 1065830

retirement benefits: decree, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998. After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50% of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought to have the husband found in contempt for failing to pay that amount to her. The trial court decreed that the wife was entitled to half of all benefits and ordered the husband to pay all arrearages. The trial court did not hold the husband in contempt but amended the original amended final decree of July 10, 1997, nunc pro tunc, to order


CourtListener opinion 1065830

pension: B. Phillips; Phillips & Swanson, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. Charles Wayne Williams and Sonjia Lord Williams were divorced by entry of an amended final decree entered July 10, 1997, which awarded the wife 50% of the husband's pension benefits. To carry out that decree, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998. After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50% of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought to have the husband found in contempt


CourtListener opinion 1065830

domestic relations order: brief. Charles Wayne Williams and Sonjia Lord Williams were divorced by entry of an amended final decree entered July 10, 1997, which awarded the wife 50% of the husband's pension benefits. To carry out that decree, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998. After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50% of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought to have the husband found in contempt for failing to pay that amount to her. The trial court decreed that the wife was entitled to hal


CourtListener opinion 1065849

CourtListener opinion 1065849 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065849 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 1065849


CourtListener opinion 1065849

QDRO: ount. That money enabled the parties to cover living and trial-related expenses while the bulk of their accounts were frozen pending distribution. Throughout the course of the trial, both sides have agreed, and the court has encouraged, that the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) could solve the problems of federal tax liability. Neither side, however, has tendered such an order to the court so the problem remains. Because the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the Agreement under Code § 20-107.3(I) (allowing the incorporation of an agreement between the parties into a divorce decree), it retains jurisdiction of th


CourtListener opinion 1065849

retirement benefits: a separate account; 8) refusing to hear evidence on * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. wife's alleged conversion of marital property; and 9) failing to determine if money accidentally transferred into husband's retirement account instead of a corporate account should be returned. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Facts The parties married April 24, 1993 in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The marriage produced no children. On July 28, 1993, the parties entered into a post-nuptial agreement ("the Agreement") defining what property would constitute the marital estate in


CourtListener opinion 1065849

pension: usband's argument that wife was the beneficial purchaser of said property; 5) applying $419,585 held by husband's English solicitors to his share of the property division; 6) refusing to hear evidence on federal income taxes incurred by disbursement of his pension plan account so that such costs could be considered in the division of the marital estate; 7) failing to address husband's allegations that wife improperly transferred marital funds into a separate account; 8) refusing to hear evidence on * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. wife's alleged conversion of marita


CourtListener opinion 1065849

domestic relations order: money enabled the parties to cover living and trial-related expenses while the bulk of their accounts were frozen pending distribution. Throughout the course of the trial, both sides have agreed, and the court has encouraged, that the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) could solve the problems of federal tax liability. Neither side, however, has tendered such an order to the court so the problem remains. Because the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the Agreement under Code § 20-107.3(I) (allowing the incorporation of an agreement between the parties into a divorce decree), it retains jurisdiction of th


CourtListener opinion 1065957

CourtListener opinion 1065957 Docket: of this Court for entry of appropriate Qualified Do. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065957 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 1065957


CourtListener opinion 1065957

QDRO: d") for an alleged overpayment from husband's federal thrift savings plan. Wife argues that the trial court lacked the authority to alter the distribution of funds from the account, reasoning that the federal entity charged with implementing the underlying qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") correctly applied the relevant federal regulations. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the trial court possessed the statutory authority to enter the order so as to effectuate the original intent of the parties. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below. I. BACKGROUND Husband and wife married on January 7, 1983, and they separated on


CourtListener opinion 1065957

retirement benefits: ration agreement providing, inter alia, that * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Moreover, as this opinion has no precedential value, we recite only those facts necessary to our holding. "the marital share of all retirement benefits, deferred compensation, thrift plan, savings plan, 401(K) or equivalents, in Husband's name shall be equally divided by the parties by qualified domestic relations order." Also, according to the separation agreement, husband's attorney was given "the primary responsibility for completion of the qualified domestic relations order." On August 24, 2001,


CourtListener opinion 1065957

pension: nt," we reversed and remanded "for entry of a QDRO consistent with the final decree." Id. Similarly, in the original divorce decree, husband and wife agreed to split the "marital share" of the TSP account. As the dissent recognizes, the marital share of a pension account is determined based on the value of the account as of the date of the parties' separation. See Code § 20-107.3(G)(1). To the extent that the QDRO sought to award post-separation earnings and losses, the QDRO "modified the total amount to be paid" and, therefore, substantively modified the provisions of the original divorce decree. Hastie, 29 Va.


CourtListener opinion 1065957

401(k): 1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Moreover, as this opinion has no precedential value, we recite only those facts necessary to our holding. "the marital share of all retirement benefits, deferred compensation, thrift plan, savings plan, 401(K) or equivalents, in Husband's name shall be equally divided by the parties by qualified domestic relations order." Also, according to the separation agreement, husband's attorney was given "the primary responsibility for completion of the qualified domestic relations order." On August 24, 2001, the trial court issued a final decree awarding husband a div


CourtListener opinion 1065966

CourtListener opinion 1065966 Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065966 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 1065966


CourtListener opinion 1065966

QDRO: The trial court found after argument by counsel and a review of its notes from the divorce hearing that the language of Paragraph 7 created an "express reservation" that entitled wife to the entry of a supplemental decree dividing the CSRS benefits and a QDRO implementing such decree. We find no error in the trial court's interpretation of its own order and hold that the trial court properly retained jurisdiction over the issue of the equitable distribution of husband's pension. -5- B. Trial Court's Consideration of the Factors in Code § 20-107.3 Husband next argues that the trial court erred by failin


CourtListener opinion 1065966

retirement benefits: 1999. In June 1999, husband filed a bill of complaint for divorce and requested equitable distribution of the marital property. At the final hearing on December 6, 2000, counsel for husband presented an exhibit which husband identified as his "civil service retirement benefit statement." That document is labeled "Your Personal Benefits Statement Based on Your Account as of January 2, 2000" and includes husband's social security number, his birth date, his service commencement date, and lists his retirement coverage as "1 – CSRS." A second document introduced at trial, a "Thrift Savings Plan Participant Statement," identified


CourtListener opinion 1065966

pension: COUNTY Thomas D. Horne, Judge Rachel L. Virk for appellant. Craig E. White (Sevila, Saunders, Huddleston & White, P.C., on brief), for appellee. In this domestic appeal David Neveln (husband) contends the trial court erred in its distribution of his pension three years after a final decree of divorce was entered because the court did not properly retain jurisdiction to address the issue. In the alternative, husband argues that the trial court erred in making an award to Elaine Neveln (wife) of half of the marital share of his pension without adequately considering the factors set forth in Code § 20-107.3. W


CourtListener opinion 1065966

valuation/division: ues that the trial court erred in making an award to Elaine Neveln (wife) of half of the marital share of his pension without adequately considering the factors set forth in Code § 20-107.3. We hold that the trial court retained jurisdiction to address the equitable distribution of husband's pension and the evidence in the record established that the trial court sufficiently considered the factors enumerated in Code § 20-107.3. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.1 ∗ Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Wife also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as procedurally ba


CourtListener opinion 1065974

CourtListener opinion 1065974 Extracted case name: REBECCA JANE LEW v. IRA EUGENE LEW. Extracted reporter citation: 732 S.W.2d 598. Docket: 12 of the Marital Dissolution Agreement as entered into and. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1065974 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 1065974

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 1065974

QDRO: granted for a period of one year, and in the event the parties cannot reconcile within that one year, then the parties shall be granted an absolute divorce on the basis of the Marital Dissolution Agreement heretofore executed by the parties, including the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, subject to increased value; and It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows: 1. That the divorce granting [Wife] and [Husband] a termination of their marriage on irreconcilable differences that was entered on September 1, 2000, is hereby withdrawn. 2. That in accordance with T.C.A. 36-4-126, all proceedings in this cause of action ar


CourtListener opinion 1065974

domestic relations order: r a period of one year, and in the event the parties cannot reconcile within that one year, then the parties shall be granted an absolute divorce on the basis of the Marital Dissolution Agreement heretofore executed by the parties, including the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, subject to increased value; and It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows: 1. That the divorce granting [Wife] and [Husband] a termination of their marriage on irreconcilable differences that was entered on September 1, 2000, is hereby withdrawn. 2. That in accordance with T.C.A. 36-4-126, all proceedings in this cause of action ar


CourtListener opinion 1066005

CourtListener opinion 1066005 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. NCP. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066005 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.