CourtListener opinion 6495445

CourtListener opinion 6495445 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6495445 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 6495445

QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

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 6495445

domestic relations order: s due to an alleged altercation between defendant and his ex- girlfriend, Brenda F. That same day, the prosecution filed a complaint in case No. CR62118 (domestic violence case), charging defendant with causing corporal injury to a cohabitant and disobeying a domestic relations order.2 On September 1, defendant was 1 All further date references are to 2020 unless otherwise specified. 2 In the battery case, defendant was ordered to not annoy, harass, molest, attack, strike, or sexually batter Brenda F. -- the same alleged victim in the domestic violence case. 2 arraigned on the petition to revoke probation in the battery and firearm


CourtListener opinion 6495459

CourtListener opinion 6495459 Extracted reporter citation: 156 N.E.3d 932. Docket: indicating that the clerk served it on him. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6495459 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 6495459

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 6495459

QDRO: 1 as ordered by the divorce decree. {¶3} In stipulations incorporated into the divorce decree, the Ostaneks agreed that Gregory's pension with the Federal Employees Retirement System "shall be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] if/when the law changes." {¶4} Federal law requires the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"), which administers the Federal Employees Retirement System ("FERS"), to abide by the terms of a state court's divorce decree providing for federal retirement benefits to be paid to a former spouse. 5 U.S.C. 8461, 8345(j)(


CourtListener opinion 6495459

retirement benefits: tions order] if/when the law changes." {¶4} Federal law requires the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"), which administers the Federal Employees Retirement System ("FERS"), to abide by the terms of a state court's divorce decree providing for federal retirement benefits to be paid to a former spouse. 5 U.S.C. 8461, 8345(j)(1). See also 5 C.F.R. 838.101(a)(1); 57 Fed.Reg. 33570, 33575 (eff. Aug. 28, 1992). OPM's regulations require a former spouse seeking eligibility for a court-awarded portion of a federal employee's retirement benefits to submit "[a] certified copy of the court order acceptable for processing [‘COAP'


CourtListener opinion 6495459

pension: locating to the Washington, D.C. area. Julia lived in the marital home on Townline Road until the Ostaneks sold it in late 2001 as ordered by the divorce decree. {¶3} In stipulations incorporated into the divorce decree, the Ostaneks agreed that Gregory's pension with the Federal Employees Retirement System "shall be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] if/when the law changes." {¶4} Federal law requires the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"), which administers the Federal Employees Retirement System ("FERS"), to abide by the terms of a st


CourtListener opinion 6495459

survivor benefits: riage (from February 25, 1978 to April 23, 2001) and the denominator of which is the total number of months of the Employee's Creditable Service accrued under the Federal Employees Retirement System." The proposed order also required OPM to provide Julia a survivor annuity "equal to a pro-rata share" and for Julia and Gregory to divide equally the costs of that annuity. {¶7} The trial court adopted and signed the order, and the clerk filed it on January 22, 2013. The court did not direct the clerk to serve the order on Gregory, nor is there an entry on the docket indicating that the clerk served it on him. {¶8} Gregor


CourtListener opinion 6496824

CourtListener opinion 6496824 Docket: 21CA011774 Appellant v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6496824 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 6496824


CourtListener opinion 6496824

QDRO: employer, and cash. It also found that he had 1538 shares of his current employer's stock. The court did not find that any of those assets were Husband's separate property. {¶4} The trial court ordered Husband's retirement assets equally divided through a qualified domestic relations order, except for part of one of the 401ks, which Husband was awarded as an offset for some real estate equity that Wife received. The court also granted Husband the UBS and Fidelity investment accounts as an offset against the real estate. The court awarded Wife half of the shares from Husband's former employer. The court did not indicate how Husband's 1538


CourtListener opinion 6496824

retirement benefits: d was working for a large company where his salary was $275,000 with the possibility that he might receive additional salary bonuses, stock grants, or stock options. {¶3} Following the divorce hearing, the trial court found that Husband had multiple 401K retirement accounts from his current and past employers, investment accounts with UBS and 2 Fidelity, stock of a former employer, and cash. It also found that he had 1538 shares of his current employer's stock. The court did not find that any of those assets were Husband's separate property. {¶4} The trial court ordered Husband's retirement assets equally divided through


CourtListener opinion 6496824

401(k): usband was working for a large company where his salary was $275,000 with the possibility that he might receive additional salary bonuses, stock grants, or stock options. {¶3} Following the divorce hearing, the trial court found that Husband had multiple 401K retirement accounts from his current and past employers, investment accounts with UBS and 2 Fidelity, stock of a former employer, and cash. It also found that he had 1538 shares of his current employer's stock. The court did not find that any of those assets were Husband's separate property. {¶4} The trial court ordered Husband's retirement assets equa


CourtListener opinion 6496824

domestic relations order: and cash. It also found that he had 1538 shares of his current employer's stock. The court did not find that any of those assets were Husband's separate property. {¶4} The trial court ordered Husband's retirement assets equally divided through a qualified domestic relations order, except for part of one of the 401ks, which Husband was awarded as an offset for some real estate equity that Wife received. The court also granted Husband the UBS and Fidelity investment accounts as an offset against the real estate. The court awarded Wife half of the shares from Husband's former employer. The court did not indicate how Husband's 1538


CourtListener opinion 6498560

CourtListener opinion 6498560 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Barthold. Extracted reporter citation: 197 Cal.App.4th 1573. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6498560 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 6498560


CourtListener opinion 6498560

QDRO: ities or is a generally applicable criminal law"].) 9 Section 14.01(b) of the PSP's Basic Plan document provides exceptions to the general rule, that are not relevant here, and that are in accordance with cited provisions of the United States Code involving Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, federal tax levies, actions to recover benefit overpayments, and settlements between the participant and the Secretary of Labor or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. 20 We do not need to decide the extent to which ERISA preempts the California Enforcement of Judgments Law because there is no conflict between federal and state law here. As discus


CourtListener opinion 6498560

retirement benefits: December 2019, Coastline JX Holdings LLC (Coastline), assignee of a judgment creditor's interest in a money judgment entered against Stephen H. Bennett, served on Seamount Financial Group, Inc. (Seamount) a notice of levy on Bennett's assets in an individual retirement account and a profit-sharing plan. After the trial court ordered Seamount to liquidate Bennett's interest in both assets and turn them over to the levying officer to be delivered to Coastline, Bennett filed a motion for reconsideration of 1 the trial court's order, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. In his motion, Bennett first argued to the trial court t


CourtListener opinion 6498560

pension: eferences are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified. 2 hold, as a matter of first impression, that the profit-sharing plan here was automatically exempt from levy under both ERISA and California law because (1) it is an ERISA- compliant pension plan which is not assignable as a matter of federal law (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1)); and (2) under California's Enforcement of Judgments Law (§ 680.010 et seq.), property that is not assignable is not subject to California's enforcement of judgment procedures and is thus automatically exempt from levy. (See §§ 695.030, 704.210.) There is no conflict, therefore


CourtListener opinion 6498560

ERISA: al court's order, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. In his motion, Bennett first argued to the trial court that the profit-sharing plan was protected from levy because it qualified as a plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA; 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.). He also filed a motion to tax costs. The trial court denied Bennett's motion, but informed the parties that, under its inherent authority, it would reconsider its prior order regarding the distribution of the profit-sharing plan only (not the individual retirement account) because the court previously had not considered the impl


CourtListener opinion 6800535

CourtListener opinion 6800535 Extracted case name: LLC v. FI. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6800535 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 6800535


CourtListener opinion 6800535

QDRO: ovided that the wife would receive "[t]he sum of $725,000, which -7- Nos. 1-21-0464 & 1-21-0693 (consolidated) shall be transferred to the Wife (or her directed retirement account) from the Husband's Fidelity Investments IRA/SEP account *** pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order." Id. at 655. The Carrier court found that the plain language of the MSA was not ambiguous and expressly stated that a total sum of $725,000 must be transferred from the husband's IRA account to the wife. Id. at 658. The MSA did not indicate that the wife's award from the IRA was to be based on a percentage of the account balance or affected by subseque


CourtListener opinion 6800535

retirement benefits: controlled the asset or liability; whether the asset or liability was marital or non- marital property; the value of the asset or liability; the assets awarded to Kenneth, the assets awarded to Jessica; and notes. The MSA allocated the parties' real estate, retirement accounts, bank accounts, vehicles, frequent-flyer airline mileage, and other personal property. 1 In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order. -2- Nos. 1-21-0464 & 1-21-0693 (consolidated) ¶8 Article IV of the MSA


CourtListener opinion 6800535

domestic relations order: t the wife would receive "[t]he sum of $725,000, which -7- Nos. 1-21-0464 & 1-21-0693 (consolidated) shall be transferred to the Wife (or her directed retirement account) from the Husband's Fidelity Investments IRA/SEP account *** pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order." Id. at 655. The Carrier court found that the plain language of the MSA was not ambiguous and expressly stated that a total sum of $725,000 must be transferred from the husband's IRA account to the wife. Id. at 658. The MSA did not indicate that the wife's award from the IRA was to be based on a percentage of the account balance or affected by subseque


CourtListener opinion 6800574

CourtListener opinion 6800574 Docket: 356764 Charlevoix Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6800574 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 6800574

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 6800574

QDRO: o make any child or spousal support payments and was over $22,000 in arrears. It was further asserted that plaintiff was unable to make payments on her current attorney fee obligation, and she was unable to access the award from defendant's 401(k) because the qualified domestic relations order was still pending before his employer's plan administrator. Plaintiff submitted that defendant was able to pay for his appellate attorney because of his failure to make any of the court-ordered payments to her. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for appellate attorney fees. 4 The trial court interviewed the daughter but did not divulge her wishes


CourtListener opinion 6800574

retirement benefits: red the preference of the daughter,4 and awarded primary physical custody to plaintiff. It referred the child support calculation to the Friend of the Court (FOC). The trial court then considered the parties' assets, the valuations, the marital debts, and the retirement accounts. After reviewing the factors to consider in rendering a property division, the trial court awarded plaintiff the marital home and delineated the terms for removal of defendant's interest. It also concluded that the lack of liquid assets warranted an award of $2,800 in monthly spousal support to plaintiff for 48 months. The trial court ordered that defendan


CourtListener opinion 6800574

pension: rt ordered that defendant be held responsible for attorney fees as marital debt for failing to cooperate in good faith throughout the litigation, violating the court's restraining order, and engaging in furtive behavior pertaining to separate accounts and the pension evaluation. Defendant moved for reconsideration or relief from the divorce judgment and for a stay of the proceedings. Additionally, defendant objected to the monthly child support calculated at $1,082 a month. The trial court denied defendant's motions, citing the failure to timely seek review and to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief. It al


CourtListener opinion 6800574

401(k): endant had failed to make any child or spousal support payments and was over $22,000 in arrears. It was further asserted that plaintiff was unable to make payments on her current attorney fee obligation, and she was unable to access the award from defendant's 401(k) because the qualified domestic relations order was still pending before his employer's plan administrator. Plaintiff submitted that defendant was able to pay for his appellate attorney because of his failure to make any of the court-ordered payments to her. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for appellate attorney fees. 4 The trial court interview


CourtListener opinion 7275382

CourtListener opinion 7275382 Extracted case name: CHERYL ABBOTT OLSON v. BRIAN MATTHEW OLSON. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7275382 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 7275382

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 7275382

domestic relations order: tiff filed the United Kingdom divorce decree with the trial court in Connecticut under princi- ples of comity. On January 25, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order to enforce the parties' foreign judgment of dissolution and approve two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) prepared by an attorney retained by both parties. On March 7, 2011, the court, Wenzel, J., granted, by agreement of the par- ties, the plaintiff's motion for order to enforce judgment, postjudgment, and entered the two QDROs as orders of the court. Subsequently, in May, 2011, the plaintiff sought a modification of alimony in the Superior Court fo


CourtListener opinion 7360844

CourtListener opinion 7360844 Extracted reporter citation: 209 A.3d 367. Docket: 106 EDA 2022. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7360844 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 7360844


CourtListener opinion 7360844

QDRO: u of monthly pension payments from the date of separation until the time the property is sold will be determined once the property is sold and deducted from Lisa Pierce's portion of the [marital] value of the pension. If a balanced exists at this time, a QDRO will be written to state that Lisa Pierce will receive $1,000 a month until the remaining balance of Lisa Pierce's [marital] value of the pension is met. APSA Paragraphs 7(e) and (f). In July of 2011, Husband filed a Petition for Special Relief/Petition to Enforce the original PSA and APSA. Husband alleged, among other things, that Wife had failed t


CourtListener opinion 7360844

pension: FILED JULY 26, 2022 Appellant, Kevin Pierce ("Husband"), appeals from the Order entered on December 3, 2021, awarding Appellee, Lisa C. Pierce ("Wife"), the tentative sum of $90,954.85 from Husband's Pennsylvania State Employee Retirement System ("SERS") pension account, to be paid at the rate of $1,000.00 per month. After careful consideration, we affirm. Our examination of the record below, with particular attention to the parties' 2008 Property Settlement Agreement ("PSA") and their 2009 Amended Property Settlement Agreement ("APSA") confirms that the trial court opinion and order of December 3, 2021, appr


CourtListener opinion 7374904

CourtListener opinion 7374904 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF WILLIAM GEORGE. Docket: 2-19-1099 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7374904 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 7374904


CourtListener opinion 7374904

QDRO: The trial court ordered that the stipulated marital portion of the pension plan be divided equally between the parties. Thus, each party should have received $46,159 of the stipulated marital portion of the pension plan ($92,318 divided by 2). However, the qualified domestic relations order directed the pension plan to pay the wife $46,151, or $8 less than the trial court's order. The trial court found this difference to be de minimis and therefore a remand to correct it unnecessary. Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 261, 267 (2002). ¶ 114 We find respondent's reliance on Lindsey-Robinson unpersuasive. The error involved in that case was


CourtListener opinion 7374904

pension: capital call before it was due; (2) petitioner continued to pay his employees "significant" annual bonuses and salaries; (3) from 2016 to 2017, petitioner increased the wages paid to his employees by $117,110; (4) the contributions to ConopCo's employees' pension and profit-sharing plans for 2017 exceeded the average of the preceding three years (2014-2016) by more than $100,000; (5) in 2018, petitioner continued to pay Beecroft a full salary even though she was not working full time due to an illness; - 19 - 2022 IL App (2d) 191099-U (6) in 2017, petitioner paid Beecroft an extra $1000 per month in June, July


CourtListener opinion 7374904

domestic relations order: court ordered that the stipulated marital portion of the pension plan be divided equally between the parties. Thus, each party should have received $46,159 of the stipulated marital portion of the pension plan ($92,318 divided by 2). However, the qualified domestic relations order directed the pension plan to pay the wife $46,151, or $8 less than the trial court's order. The trial court found this difference to be de minimis and therefore a remand to correct it unnecessary. Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 261, 267 (2002). ¶ 114 We find respondent's reliance on Lindsey-Robinson unpersuasive. The error involved in that case was


CourtListener opinion 7374904

valuation/division: she was an "employee" of ConopCo and he did not provide her with a paycheck and access to her "wages." Petitioner does not challenge this finding on appeal. - 50 - 2022 IL App (2d) 191099-U of the assets. Thus, certain assets awarded to respondent in an equitable distribution of marital property were also considered as a source of income to petitioner for purposes of imposing support obligations. This resulted in "double dipping" and was improper. See In re Marriage of O'Malley, 2021 IL App (2d) 190917-U, ¶ 66; see also In re Marriage of Eberhardt, 387 Ill. App. 3d 226, 232 (2008) (discussing the concept of "double dipping")


CourtListener opinion 7602027

CourtListener opinion 7602027 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7602027 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 7602027

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 7602027

QDRO: decree was entered in November 1988. The amended decree was necessary due to some problems with the first that were brought to the attention of the trial court by post-trial motions filed by the husband and by the wife. The November 1988, decree established a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that awarded the wife a percentage of the survivor's benefit under the husband's retirement program. We turn first to the ruling concerning contempt. The wife alleged the husband had failed to complete the necessary paperwork for her to secure the 30% survivor annuity awarded to her in the amended divorce order. It is her position that this failure on the


CourtListener opinion 7602027

domestic relations order: entered in November 1988. The amended decree was necessary due to some problems with the first that were brought to the attention of the trial court by post-trial motions filed by the husband and by the wife. The November 1988, decree established a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that awarded the wife a percentage of the survivor's benefit under the husband's retirement program. We turn first to the ruling concerning contempt. The wife alleged the husband had failed to complete the necessary paperwork for her to secure the 30% survivor annuity awarded to her in the amended divorce order. It is her position that this failure on the


CourtListener opinion 7602027

survivor benefits: ther the trial court erred in awarding an attorney's fee to the wife from the husband where the husband was not found to be in contempt. Next, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion by increasing the alimony award to be paid from the husband's survivor annuity. The original divorce decree was entered in August 1988, and an amended decree was entered in November 1988. The amended decree was necessary due to some problems with the first that were brought to the attention of the trial court by post-trial motions filed by the husband and by the wife. The November 1988, decree established a Qualified Domestic Relat


CourtListener opinion 7618020

CourtListener opinion 7618020 Extracted case name: MR ROBERT STACY HALL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JOHNSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JANIE MCKENZIE-WELLS. Extracted reporter citation: 833 S.W.2d 825. Docket: 2021-CA-1054-MR ROBERT STACY HALL APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7618020 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 7618020


CourtListener opinion 7618020

QDRO: ourt also ordered each party to assume the existing mortgage on the respective properties. After assigning the other personal property, the family court awarded Fannin one- half of the marital portion of Hall's retirement account, to be procured through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The family court also awarded maintenance to Fannin, essentially extending the temporary maintenance order of $1,000.00 per month for six months -2- until Fannin could obtain her equitable interest in the retirement account under the QDRO. Both parties filed motions to alter, amend, or vacate pursuant to CR1 59.05. Hall also requested additi


CourtListener opinion 7618020

retirement benefits: and the Salyersville residence to Hall. The court also ordered each party to assume the existing mortgage on the respective properties. After assigning the other personal property, the family court awarded Fannin one- half of the marital portion of Hall's retirement account, to be procured through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The family court also awarded maintenance to Fannin, essentially extending the temporary maintenance order of $1,000.00 per month for six months -2- until Fannin could obtain her equitable interest in the retirement account under the QDRO. Both parties filed motions to alter, amend


CourtListener opinion 7618020

domestic relations order: ordered each party to assume the existing mortgage on the respective properties. After assigning the other personal property, the family court awarded Fannin one- half of the marital portion of Hall's retirement account, to be procured through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The family court also awarded maintenance to Fannin, essentially extending the temporary maintenance order of $1,000.00 per month for six months -2- until Fannin could obtain her equitable interest in the retirement account under the QDRO. Both parties filed motions to alter, amend, or vacate pursuant to CR1 59.05. Hall also requested additi


CourtListener opinion 7618020

valuation/division: arital residence to Fannin and the Salyersville residence to Hall. The court also ordered each party to assume the existing mortgage on the respective properties. After assigning the other personal property, the family court awarded Fannin one- half of the marital portion of Hall's retirement account, to be procured through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The family court also awarded maintenance to Fannin, essentially extending the temporary maintenance order of $1,000.00 per month for six months -2- until Fannin could obtain her equitable interest in the retirement account under the QDRO. Both parties


CourtListener opinion 76899

CourtListener opinion 76899 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 02-00067-CV-JTC-3 RICHARD CHARLES FONTAINE. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 76899 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 76899

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 76899

QDRO: fore DUBINA and FAY, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG*, Judge. PER CURIAM: In this appeal, defendant-appellant Joan Thomas Guth (f. k. a. Joan Thomas Fontaine) appeals from the district court's determination that the 1986 Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") governing the equitable division of marital assets between defendant-appellant and plaintiff-appellee Richard Charles Fontaine remains in effect. Defendant-appellant requests that the Court reverse the district court's determination that the 1990 and 1991 QDROs, which were mutual modifications of the original 1986 QDRO, are null and void. Georgia do


CourtListener opinion 76899

domestic relations order: orgia (March 8, 2005) Before DUBINA and FAY, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG*, Judge. PER CURIAM: In this appeal, defendant-appellant Joan Thomas Guth (f. k. a. Joan Thomas Fontaine) appeals from the district court's determination that the 1986 Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") governing the equitable division of marital assets between defendant-appellant and plaintiff-appellee Richard Charles Fontaine remains in effect. Defendant-appellant requests that the Court reverse the district court's determination that the 1990 and 1991 QDROs, which were mutual modifications of the original 1986 QDRO, are null and void. Geo


CourtListener opinion 76899

valuation/division: rict court's determination that the 1990 and 1991 QDROs, which were mutual modifications of the original 1986 QDRO, are null and void. Georgia domestic relations law makes clear that post-judgment modification by a court of a divorce decree concerning the equitable distribution of property is normally not permissible. See, e.g., Williams v. Williams, 268 Ga. 126, 129, 485 S.E.2d 772, 775 (Ga. 1997) ("[A]n unexpected increase in the value of a risky * Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 2 asset is insufficient grounds to upset the policy disfavoring modif


CourtListener opinion 7797420

CourtListener opinion 7797420 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF THOMAS EDWARD GRAY AND NORMALEENA RAMIREZ GRAY n. Extracted reporter citation: 708 N.W.2d 347. Docket: 21-0580. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7797420 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 7797420


CourtListener opinion 7797420

QDRO: e of a modification"); In re Marriage of Heath-Clark & Clark, No. 15-0525, 2016 WL 2753779, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 11, 2016) (finding no jurisdictional concern where party was not requesting a modification of the property division but a modification of a qualified domestic relations order "to conform to the property division as set forth in the decree"). We turn to the modification record in this case. As noted, Grebe alleged Gray's employment with the federal contractor constituted "federal service" within the meaning of that order. The phrase "federal service" required interpretation of the 2014 order. Grebe asked Gray to answer int


CourtListener opinion 7797420

domestic relations order: ification"); In re Marriage of Heath-Clark & Clark, No. 15-0525, 2016 WL 2753779, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 11, 2016) (finding no jurisdictional concern where party was not requesting a modification of the property division but a modification of a qualified domestic relations order "to conform to the property division as set forth in the decree"). We turn to the modification record in this case. As noted, Grebe alleged Gray's employment with the federal contractor constituted "federal service" within the meaning of that order. The phrase "federal service" required interpretation of the 2014 order. Grebe asked Gray to answer int


CourtListener opinion 7797420

valuation/division: Clark, No. 15-0525, 2016 WL 2753779, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 11, 2016) (finding no jurisdictional concern where party was not requesting a modification of the property division but a modification of a qualified domestic relations order "to conform to the property division as set forth in the decree"). We turn to the modification record in this case. As noted, Grebe alleged Gray's employment with the federal contractor constituted "federal service" within the meaning of that order. The phrase "federal service" required interpretation of the 2014 order. Grebe asked Gray to answer interrogatories on the issue. Gray provid


CourtListener opinion 7798564

CourtListener opinion 7798564 Docket: 356764 Charlevoix Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7798564 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 7798564

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 7798564

QDRO: o make any child or spousal support payments and was over $22,000 in arrears. It was further asserted that plaintiff was unable to make payments on her current attorney fee obligation, and she was unable to access the award from defendant's 401(k) because the qualified domestic relations order was still pending before his employer's plan administrator. Plaintiff submitted that defendant was able to pay for his appellate attorney because of his failure to make any of the court-ordered payments to her. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for appellate attorney fees. 4 The trial court interviewed the daughter but did not divulge her wishes


CourtListener opinion 7798564

retirement benefits: red the preference of the daughter,4 and awarded primary physical custody to plaintiff. It referred the child support calculation to the Friend of the Court (FOC). The trial court then considered the parties' assets, the valuations, the marital debts, and the retirement accounts. After reviewing the factors to consider in rendering a property division, the trial court awarded plaintiff the marital home and delineated the terms for removal of defendant's interest. It also concluded that the lack of liquid assets warranted an award of $2,800 in monthly spousal support to plaintiff for 48 months. The trial court ordered that defendan


CourtListener opinion 7798564

pension: rt ordered that defendant be held responsible for attorney fees as marital debt for failing to cooperate in good faith throughout the litigation, violating the court's restraining order, and engaging in furtive behavior pertaining to separate accounts and the pension evaluation. Defendant moved for reconsideration or relief from the divorce judgment and for a stay of the proceedings. Additionally, defendant objected to the monthly child support calculated at $1,082 a month. The trial court denied defendant's motions, citing the failure to timely seek review and to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief. It al


CourtListener opinion 7798564

401(k): endant had failed to make any child or spousal support payments and was over $22,000 in arrears. It was further asserted that plaintiff was unable to make payments on her current attorney fee obligation, and she was unable to access the award from defendant's 401(k) because the qualified domestic relations order was still pending before his employer's plan administrator. Plaintiff submitted that defendant was able to pay for his appellate attorney because of his failure to make any of the court-ordered payments to her. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for appellate attorney fees. 4 The trial court interview


CourtListener opinion 7800221

CourtListener opinion 7800221 Extracted case name: LLC v. FI. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: for this case are cited as. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7800221 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 7800221


CourtListener opinion 7800221

domestic relations order: hed that the use of the term Majority Consent in Section 7.1 is a scrivener's error. Qualizza's reliance on Dauderman v. Dauderman, 263 N.E.2d 708 (Ill. App. 1970) is misplaced. In Dauderman the words "per month" were omitted from an alimony provision in a domestic relations order. Id. at 710. The appeals court concluded that the omission was "clearly clerical in nature," observing that the trial judge's notes reflected that he had directed counsel to include monthly alimony in the order, and that there were written memoranda of counsel for both parties which clearly suggested that periodic, rather than a lump sum, alimony payme


CourtListener opinion 7800574

CourtListener opinion 7800574 Docket: 21CA011807 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7800574 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 7800574


CourtListener opinion 7800574

QDRO: s for further proceedings consistent with this decision. I. {¶2} Ms. Gustafson-Jowiski ("Wife") and Daniel Jowiski ("Husband") married in 1982, legally separated in 1996, and divorced in 1997. As part of the divorce, the trial court issued a stipulated qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). In it, the trial court determined that Wife was entitled to one-half of Husband's retirement benefits from the Ford Motor Company for years the parties were married. Specifically, it stated that: [T]he amount payable to [Wife] shall be the amount otherwise payable to [Husband] as follows: one-half (1/2) of the fraction the numerator of which


CourtListener opinion 7800574

retirement benefits: d") married in 1982, legally separated in 1996, and divorced in 1997. As part of the divorce, the trial court issued a stipulated qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). In it, the trial court determined that Wife was entitled to one-half of Husband's retirement benefits from the Ford Motor Company for years the parties were married. Specifically, it stated that: [T]he amount payable to [Wife] shall be the amount otherwise payable to [Husband] as follows: one-half (1/2) of the fraction the numerator of which is the number of years [Husband] participated in said plan while married to [Wife], the denominator of which i


CourtListener opinion 7800574

pension: it deems necessary to provide [Wife] with all benefits to which she is entitled or that are necessary to effectuate the terms of the Plan[.]" {¶3} In 2020, Husband filed a "Motion to Modify and Clarify Judgment Entry Regarding [Husband's] Retirement and Pension" ("Motion to Modify"). In it, he asserted that he worked for Ford for 12 years while the parties were married, continued to work there after the divorce, and was set to retire after working there for over 35 years. He asserted that, while he was married to Wife, he did not actively contribute to his retirement. According to Husband, had he continued to


CourtListener opinion 7800574

domestic relations order: her proceedings consistent with this decision. I. {¶2} Ms. Gustafson-Jowiski ("Wife") and Daniel Jowiski ("Husband") married in 1982, legally separated in 1996, and divorced in 1997. As part of the divorce, the trial court issued a stipulated qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). In it, the trial court determined that Wife was entitled to one-half of Husband's retirement benefits from the Ford Motor Company for years the parties were married. Specifically, it stated that: [T]he amount payable to [Wife] shall be the amount otherwise payable to [Husband] as follows: one-half (1/2) of the fraction the numerator of which


CourtListener opinion 7801304

CourtListener opinion 7801304 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7801304 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 7801304


CourtListener opinion 7801304

QDRO: Former Wife argued that Former Husband is a participant of a municipal pension plan which is not subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and as a result, the municipal pension plan will not pay her a share of the pension benefits pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Former Wife's motion declared that, "by mutual mistake, the parties fashioned an equitable distribution award that is impossible to perform, untenable and will inevitably lead to compliance issues." As relief, Former Wife requested that the trial court "set aside" the portion of the final judgment pertaining to the division of the pension benefits and fash


CourtListener opinion 7801304

retirement benefits: eement (also referred to as "the mediation agreement"). Paragraph seven of the agreement required the equitable distribution of Former Husband's pension benefits and provided as follows: The parties shall each be entitled to one-half share of the husband's retirement account with St. Lucie County Fire Rescue. The date of the division of the retirement account shall be as of August 21, 1996 and each party shall cooperate with the other to effectuate the terms of this provision. The marital settlement agreement was silent as to the method for valuing and paying the pension benefits. However, the agreement stated that the tria


CourtListener opinion 7801304

pension: el Lopresti ("Former Husband") were divorced. The final judgment approved and incorporated a marital settlement agreement (also referred to as "the mediation agreement"). Paragraph seven of the agreement required the equitable distribution of Former Husband's pension benefits and provided as follows: The parties shall each be entitled to one-half share of the husband's retirement account with St. Lucie County Fire Rescue. The date of the division of the retirement account shall be as of August 21, 1996 and each party shall cooperate with the other to effectuate the terms of this provision. The marital settlement


CourtListener opinion 7801304

domestic relations order: e argued that Former Husband is a participant of a municipal pension plan which is not subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and as a result, the municipal pension plan will not pay her a share of the pension benefits pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Former Wife's motion declared that, "by mutual mistake, the parties fashioned an equitable distribution award that is impossible to perform, untenable and will inevitably lead to compliance issues." As relief, Former Wife requested that the trial court "set aside" the portion of the final judgment pertaining to the division of the pension benefits and fash


CourtListener opinion 7801333

CourtListener opinion 7801333 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RACHAEL KAY SOKOL AND DAVID LANGDON SOKOL Upon the Petition of RACHAEL KAY SOKOL. Extracted reporter citation: 874 N.W.2d 103. Docket: 21-1918. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7801333 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 7801333

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 7801333

QDRO: the division of Rachael's 401(k). We affirm that portion of the district court ruling. 7This court has noted: Pension rights are not easily valued. Consequently, the preferred method of valuation of these benefits is, as here, to divide a plan through a qualified domestic relations order which, in essence, separates the pension rights into two separate accounts. This makes valuation of the pension unnecessary, allows the court to allocate other assets equitably, and assures similar retirement security for both spouses. However, such a division of pension benefits is not an absolute requirement. The allocation of a pension, like the al


CourtListener opinion 7801333

retirement benefits: r it should be distributed upon dissolution, although it is relevant. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5). 10 business. See id. Given these facts, we determine that equity requires Rachael's medical school student loan debt be included in the property division. 3. Retirement Account David argues the district court should have divided Rachael's 401(k) retirement account separately from the rest of the property "based on the tax implications." However, in the single paragraph devoted to this argument, David cites no authority supporting the proposition that the court should divide the property separately from the rest of the dissol


CourtListener opinion 7801333

pension: and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume."). Further, the record before this court is void of any evidence on the tax consequences of the division of Rachael's 401(k). We affirm that portion of the district court ruling. 7This court has noted: Pension rights are not easily valued. Consequently, the preferred method of valuation of these benefits is, as here, to divide a plan through a qualified domestic relations order which, in essence, separates the pension rights into two separate accounts. This makes valuation of the pension unnecessary, allows the court to allocate other assets equitably, and a


CourtListener opinion 7801333

401(k): § 598.21(5). 10 business. See id. Given these facts, we determine that equity requires Rachael's medical school student loan debt be included in the property division. 3. Retirement Account David argues the district court should have divided Rachael's 401(k) retirement account separately from the rest of the property "based on the tax implications." However, in the single paragraph devoted to this argument, David cites no authority supporting the proposition that the court should divide the property separately from the rest of the dissolution property division. 7 "Failure to cite authority in support of an


CourtListener opinion 7802015

CourtListener opinion 7802015 Extracted case name: MR CHARLES K. BUCKLEY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE ERNESTO M. SCORSONE. Extracted reporter citation: 391 S.W.3d 377. Docket: 2021-CA-0040-MR CHARLES K. BUCKLEY APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7802015 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 7802015


CourtListener opinion 7802015

QDRO: n from investigating."). -7- Buckley relies upon Satterfield v. Satterfield, 608 S.W.3d 171, 173 (Ky. App. 2020), in support of his equitable estoppel argument. Satterfield concerned a marriage dissolution action wherein husband was ordered to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") awarding wife fifty percent of husband's pension within thirty days of the dissolution order. Twenty years later, wife discovered that husband had never executed the QDRO and moved the court to enter the QDRO into the record. The trial court found that wife's claim was barred by KRS 413.090(1)'s fifteen-year statute of limitations. On appeal,


CourtListener opinion 7802015

pension: W.3d 171, 173 (Ky. App. 2020), in support of his equitable estoppel argument. Satterfield concerned a marriage dissolution action wherein husband was ordered to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") awarding wife fifty percent of husband's pension within thirty days of the dissolution order. Twenty years later, wife discovered that husband had never executed the QDRO and moved the court to enter the QDRO into the record. The trial court found that wife's claim was barred by KRS 413.090(1)'s fifteen-year statute of limitations. On appeal, a panel of this Court held that equitable estoppel barred


CourtListener opinion 7802015

domestic relations order: estigating."). -7- Buckley relies upon Satterfield v. Satterfield, 608 S.W.3d 171, 173 (Ky. App. 2020), in support of his equitable estoppel argument. Satterfield concerned a marriage dissolution action wherein husband was ordered to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") awarding wife fifty percent of husband's pension within thirty days of the dissolution order. Twenty years later, wife discovered that husband had never executed the QDRO and moved the court to enter the QDRO into the record. The trial court found that wife's claim was barred by KRS 413.090(1)'s fifteen-year statute of limitations. On appeal,


CourtListener opinion 7806683

CourtListener opinion 7806683 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of ELMER and DONNA. Extracted reporter citation: 16 Cal.4th 67. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7806683 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 7806683


CourtListener opinion 7806683

QDRO: ved issues, which consisted primarily of a division of property, on April 10, 2019. The following aspects of the judgment are at issue in this appeal: The court awarded each party 50 percent of the community value of a Morgan Stanley IRA, to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order1 with the parties to pay equally for the cost. The court found that the community had a 16.38 percent interest in the account as of June 30, 1991. The court found that the community took out $30,000 from the IRA in May 2016 and ordered each party to cover the tax on their share of the withdrawal. The court found that Husband withdrew $1,000 per month from t


CourtListener opinion 7806683

retirement benefits: at 83.62 percent of the Morgan Stanley account as of June 30, 1991, was Husband's separate property and awarded it to him. 1 "Under provisions of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; hereafter ERISA), private retirement plans may, pursuant to a state court's domestic relations order, pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse or dependents, if and only if the state court order meets certain specifications. Such an order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' . . . . (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3).)" (In re Marriage of Odd


CourtListener opinion 7806683

ERISA: e court found that 83.62 percent of the Morgan Stanley account as of June 30, 1991, was Husband's separate property and awarded it to him. 1 "Under provisions of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; hereafter ERISA), private retirement plans may, pursuant to a state court's domestic relations order, pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse or dependents, if and only if the state court order meets certain specifications. Such an order is a ‘qualified domestic relations order' . . . . (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)


CourtListener opinion 7806683

domestic relations order: , which consisted primarily of a division of property, on April 10, 2019. The following aspects of the judgment are at issue in this appeal: The court awarded each party 50 percent of the community value of a Morgan Stanley IRA, to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order1 with the parties to pay equally for the cost. The court found that the community had a 16.38 percent interest in the account as of June 30, 1991. The court found that the community took out $30,000 from the IRA in May 2016 and ordered each party to cover the tax on their share of the withdrawal. The court found that Husband withdrew $1,000 per month from t


CourtListener opinion 7827908

CourtListener opinion 7827908 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Miller. Docket: 2-21-0608 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 7827908 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 7827908

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 7827908

QDRO: es that it substantively modified the terms of the judgment. Further, to the extent the orders for support conflicted with the original judgment or amended order, the "actual pronouncements of the court control." Jeffrey likens this issue to the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations order (QDRO), which simply carries out the judgment, but does not become a substantive part of the judgment. Moreover, Jeffrey notes that the trial court originally found that the percentage of maintenance was to be a percentage of income, "to be paid at the rate of $6000 monthly, and the balance to be paid by May of the following year." Accordingly, he argue


CourtListener opinion 7827908

domestic relations order: substantively modified the terms of the judgment. Further, to the extent the orders for support conflicted with the original judgment or amended order, the "actual pronouncements of the court control." Jeffrey likens this issue to the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations order (QDRO), which simply carries out the judgment, but does not become a substantive part of the judgment. Moreover, Jeffrey notes that the trial court originally found that the percentage of maintenance was to be a percentage of income, "to be paid at the rate of $6000 monthly, and the balance to be paid by May of the following year." Accordingly, he argue


CourtListener opinion 7827908

valuation/division: m his employer annually. These percentages apply to Jeffrey Miller's earnings from employment (salary, bonuses, grants and options granted after the date of dissolution) not predecree grants, bonuses and options which have been previously divided in the property division and not income earned on Jeffrey Miller's share of these assets or other passive income. 9. Any income reported on Jeffrey Miller's tax returns or received by Jeffrey Miller as a result of Lorena Miller's exercise of her share of Jeffrey Miller's existing stock options and grants through the date of [the judgment] shall not be considered income to J


CourtListener opinion 814716

CourtListener opinion 814716 Extracted case name: RAJ v. MEMORANDUM. Extracted reporter citation: 488 F.3d 1189. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 814716 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 814716

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 814716

QDRO: Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and 2 11-35546 discussing factors for reconsideration or relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)). Hoppel's arguments that the district court allegedly violated or ignored the terms of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued in her divorce proceedings, rejected evidence of fraud in a prior litigation, or failed to apply Mack v. Kuckenmeister, 619 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2010), are not supported by the record. AFFIRMED. 3 11-35546


CourtListener opinion 814716

pension: insurance policy to her late ex-husband and whether defendant's contract to pay him certain retirement income from its operating budget constituted a qualified plan subject to § 1055's surviving spouse provisions. See 29 U.S.C. § 1055 (stating that certain pension plans must be provided in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity benefit); id. § 1051(2) (excluding from § 1055 a pension plan that is unfunded and maintained by an employer to provide deferred compensation for a select group of management or highly compensated employees); see also Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir.


CourtListener opinion 814716

ERISA: ODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Olaree E. Hoppel appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her action for joint and survivor annuity benefits and insurance benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended by * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). the Retirement Equity Act of 1984. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo


CourtListener opinion 814716

domestic relations order: (setting forth standard of review and 2 11-35546 discussing factors for reconsideration or relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)). Hoppel's arguments that the district court allegedly violated or ignored the terms of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued in her divorce proceedings, rejected evidence of fraud in a prior litigation, or failed to apply Mack v. Kuckenmeister, 619 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2010), are not supported by the record. AFFIRMED. 3 11-35546


CourtListener opinion 8205826

CourtListener opinion 8205826 Extracted reporter citation: 922 N.E.2d 214. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8205826 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 8205826


CourtListener opinion 8205826

QDRO: ree divided some of Ms. Allen's retirement and benefit plans in the ratio of 55% to Mr. Allen and 45% to Ms. Allen. A list of six plans subject to this division was attached to the decree as a joint exhibit. Four of the plans were to be divided pursuant to qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs"),1 the terms of which were attached as joint exhibits. A QDRO for each plan was subsequently filed in the trial court. {¶13} The fifth plan, known as the "2005 Excess Defined Contribution Plan," is nonqualified, meaning it could not be divided pursuant to a QDRO. The divorce decree requires Ms. Allen to pay Mr. Allen's share directly as spous


CourtListener opinion 8205826

retirement benefits: L. Allen ("Mr. Allen"), appeals from the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, overruling his objections to the magistrate's decision and denying his motions (1) for additional orders to enforce the assignment of retirement benefits; (2) to rescind permission to make direct spousal support payments; (3) to show cause; and (4) for attorney fees. Mr. Allen's motions relate to the divorce decree between himself and his former spouse, appellee Karen S. Allen ("Ms. Allen"). {¶2} Mr. Allen asserts five assignments of error. In his first assignment of error, Mr. Allen contends that the


CourtListener opinion 8205826

pension: Sullivan, supra, at ¶ 26-27 (the husband received vested benefits that he had transferred to another account); Bevan v. Bevan, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 06CA008969, 2008-Ohio-724, ¶ 1 (the husband elected to receive a different type of vested benefits from his pension fund). Rather than enforcement, Mr. Allen sought to modify the assignment of benefits to include more favorable terms. Without Ms. Allen's express written agreement, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the decree in this manner. Thus, we find no error in the trial court's jurisdictional determination. {¶59} Mr. Allen's second assignment of er


CourtListener opinion 8205826

401(k): of the plans were to be divided pursuant to qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs"),1 the terms of which were attached as joint exhibits. A QDRO for each plan was subsequently filed in the trial court. {¶13} The fifth plan, known as the "2005 Excess Defined Contribution Plan," is nonqualified, meaning it could not be divided pursuant to a QDRO. The divorce decree requires Ms. Allen to pay Mr. Allen's share directly as spousal support immediately upon her "receipt/withdrawal." The decree provides that a QDRO will be issued in the event the plan's nonqualified status changes. The decree does not specifically address the


CourtListener opinion 8206585

CourtListener opinion 8206585 Extracted case name: STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ARKOW. Extracted reporter citation: 819 N.E.2d 284. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8206585 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 8206585


CourtListener opinion 8206585

QDRO: 's findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. Stipulated Facts and Misconduct Count I—The Hall Matter {¶ 5} In March 2019, Karen R. Hall hired Arkow to represent her in her divorce. That November, Hall paid Arkow an additional fee of $400 to obtain a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to divide her former husband's retirement account. The fee included the expense of hiring QDRO Group to prepare that order. 2 January Term, 2022 {¶ 6} In April 2020, Arkow sent Hall an email stating that he had not heard anything about the QDRO and speculating that it had been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That statement was false, how


CourtListener opinion 8206585

retirement benefits: isconduct Count I—The Hall Matter {¶ 5} In March 2019, Karen R. Hall hired Arkow to represent her in her divorce. That November, Hall paid Arkow an additional fee of $400 to obtain a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to divide her former husband's retirement account. The fee included the expense of hiring QDRO Group to prepare that order. 2 January Term, 2022 {¶ 6} In April 2020, Arkow sent Hall an email stating that he had not heard anything about the QDRO and speculating that it had been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That statement was false, however, because Arkow had never submitted Hall's information


CourtListener opinion 8206585

domestic relations order: s of misconduct and recommended sanction. Stipulated Facts and Misconduct Count I—The Hall Matter {¶ 5} In March 2019, Karen R. Hall hired Arkow to represent her in her divorce. That November, Hall paid Arkow an additional fee of $400 to obtain a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to divide her former husband's retirement account. The fee included the expense of hiring QDRO Group to prepare that order. 2 January Term, 2022 {¶ 6} In April 2020, Arkow sent Hall an email stating that he had not heard anything about the QDRO and speculating that it had been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That statement was false, how


CourtListener opinion 8207633

CourtListener opinion 8207633 Extracted reporter citation: 927 F.2d 955. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8207633 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 8207633


CourtListener opinion 8207633

QDRO: of $573.42, representing his half of the marital portion of petitioner's retirement. Petitioner testified that, pursuant to the parties' agreement, the family court would enter, and the retirement board would implement, a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to divide the marital portion of her retirement between the parties. Once the QDRO was entered and implemented, petitioner's obligation to pay respondent the monthly sum of $573.42, pursuant to the October 21, 2021, order, would cease as respondent would receive his half of the marital portion of petitioner's retirement directly from the retirement board.


CourtListener opinion 8207633

retirement benefits: ermined that the house constructed after the marriage constituted marital property. Respondent had the marital residence appraised, and it was valued at $20,000. Also, at the March 23, 2020, hearing, respondent raised the issue of the marital portion of the retirement benefits being paid to petitioner. Respondent asserted that approximately 75% of petitioner's retirement constituted marital property. The family court, by an order entered on October 21, 2021, found that petitioner receives $1,520 per month in retirement benefits from the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board ("retirement board"). The family court fur


CourtListener opinion 8207633

valuation/division: als the June 2, 2021, order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County refusing her appeal from the April 26, 2021, agreed final order of the Family Court of Jackson County that granted petitioner a divorce from Respondent Dallas Ray Simons 1 and provided for the equitable distribution of marital assets between the parties. On appeal, petitioner challenges the equitable distribution. Respondent, by counsel Leah R. Chappell, filed a summary response. Petitioner filed a reply. The Court has considered petitioner's brief and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not b


CourtListener opinion 8207755

CourtListener opinion 8207755 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8207755 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 8207755

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 8207755

QDRO: ent Entry, the trial court set forth what transpired at the December 13, 2021 and the February 2, 2022 hearings, respectively, and made orders. The February 14, 2022, Judgment Entry made final orders with respect to the then-pending motions as follows: 1. Qualified Domestic Relations Order. After further discussion and drafting, the parties agreed on the terms and language to be included in the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) called for in section 14.C. (on pages 27-28) of the Decree of Divorce. The parties approved the QDRO and submitted it to the Court for review and approval. The Court approved the QDRO, signed it, and


CourtListener opinion 8207755

domestic relations order: the trial court set forth what transpired at the December 13, 2021 and the February 2, 2022 hearings, respectively, and made orders. The February 14, 2022, Judgment Entry made final orders with respect to the then-pending motions as follows: 1. Qualified Domestic Relations Order. After further discussion and drafting, the parties agreed on the terms and language to be included in the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) called for in section 14.C. (on pages 27-28) of the Decree of Divorce. The parties approved the QDRO and submitted it to the Court for review and approval. The Court approved the QDRO, signed it, and


CourtListener opinion 8208226

CourtListener opinion 8208226 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF TODD KALIS. Docket: 2-21-0434 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8208226 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 8208226

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 8208226

QDRO: t she could modify the claim, if necessary, within that time period. ¶ 28 B. Post-judgment Proceedings ¶ 29 Hyeok filed two post-judgment motions, one for entry of a judge's deed to transfer title of the marital residence to her and another for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to divide certain retirement accounts. Both motions were set for hearing on January 22, 2021. ¶ 30 On January 21, 2021, Todd's new counsel, the law firm of Grund and Leavitt, P.C., filed an appearance. ¶ 31 On January 22, 2021, the court ordered Todd to execute the quit claim deed for the marital residence and continued all remaining matters. To


CourtListener opinion 8208226

retirement benefits: period. ¶ 28 B. Post-judgment Proceedings ¶ 29 Hyeok filed two post-judgment motions, one for entry of a judge's deed to transfer title of the marital residence to her and another for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to divide certain retirement accounts. Both motions were set for hearing on January 22, 2021. ¶ 30 On January 21, 2021, Todd's new counsel, the law firm of Grund and Leavitt, P.C., filed an appearance. ¶ 31 On January 22, 2021, the court ordered Todd to execute the quit claim deed for the marital residence and continued all remaining matters. Todd filed a response to the motion for entry o


CourtListener opinion 8208226

domestic relations order: d modify the claim, if necessary, within that time period. ¶ 28 B. Post-judgment Proceedings ¶ 29 Hyeok filed two post-judgment motions, one for entry of a judge's deed to transfer title of the marital residence to her and another for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to divide certain retirement accounts. Both motions were set for hearing on January 22, 2021. ¶ 30 On January 21, 2021, Todd's new counsel, the law firm of Grund and Leavitt, P.C., filed an appearance. ¶ 31 On January 22, 2021, the court ordered Todd to execute the quit claim deed for the marital residence and continued all remaining matters. To


CourtListener opinion 8208403

CourtListener opinion 8208403 Extracted case name: CARRION v. CARRION. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0135 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8208403 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 8208403


CourtListener opinion 8208403

retirement benefits: awarded their debts and property, including each party's interest in various retirement assets. In part, the decree provided that Wife receive: One half of the community interest in any employment benefits and deferred compensation, including pension and retirement benefits, as a result of [Husband's] employment including, but not limited to, [Husband's PSPRS] retirement and his 401(k), but shall not include his "deferred comp" account[1] which is awarded to [Husband] in its entirety. The decree expressly contemplated Husband's retirement "at the normal 20 year retirement" in July 2020 and also provided that the superior


CourtListener opinion 8208403

pension: David B. Gass joined. B A I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Jeff Carrion ("Husband") appeals the superior court's post- decree domestic relations orders addressing the division of two retirement assets—Husband's Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System ("PSPRS") pension and his City of Peoria 401(a) Plan account—between him and his ex-wife, Lindsay Hunter Carrion ("Wife"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife were married in 1999, and Wife petitioned for divorce in May 2014. In August 2014, the couple divorced pursuant to a consent judgment and decree of dissolution ("th


CourtListener opinion 8208403

401(k): t Wife receive: One half of the community interest in any employment benefits and deferred compensation, including pension and retirement benefits, as a result of [Husband's] employment including, but not limited to, [Husband's PSPRS] retirement and his 401(k), but shall not include his "deferred comp" account[1] which is awarded to [Husband] in its entirety. The decree expressly contemplated Husband's retirement "at the normal 20 year retirement" in July 2020 and also provided that the superior court would reserve "jurisdiction to enter any orders necessary to divide retirement assets as provided in Exhibit A,


CourtListener opinion 8208403

domestic relations order: MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass joined. B A I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Jeff Carrion ("Husband") appeals the superior court's post- decree domestic relations orders addressing the division of two retirement assets—Husband's Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System ("PSPRS") pension and his City of Peoria 401(a) Plan account—between him and his ex-wife, Lindsay Hunter Carrion ("Wife"). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife were married in 1999, and Wife petit


CourtListener opinion 8210737

CourtListener opinion 8210737 Extracted reporter citation: 86 N.E.3d 937. Docket: 29308 and 29321 Appellee : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8210737 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 8210737


CourtListener opinion 8210737

QDRO: t in the subject property. That interest vested – that is, became fixed – at the time the divorce decree was filed. However, at the time of the divorce, Lelak's retirement benefits with the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) were not subject to a qualified domestic relations order, nor could the benefits be withdrawn as Lelak had not retired. Thus, the divorce court ordered Lelak to make advance payments in the sum of $50 per week to Siddall to satisfy her portion of the account. Lelak I, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28243, 2019-Ohio-4807, at ¶ 18. {¶ 17} We then remarked on the bankruptcy court's recognition of the "distinction


CourtListener opinion 8210737

retirement benefits: ............. WELBAUM, J. -2- {¶ 1} This matter is before our court for the third time. Most recently, M. Angela Lelak (aka Siddall) ("Siddall") appealed from a November 2, 2021 trial court judgment awarding her 11% in statutory interest on $10,313 in retirement benefits that her ex- husband, John W. Lelak, Jr. ("Lelak") failed to pay. The judgment also awarded Siddall $2,000 in attorney fees based on a contempt finding against Lelak for failing to pay the benefits. That appeal was filed on November 22, 2021, and was designated Montgomery C.A. No. 29308. {¶ 2} On December 2, 2021, Lelak also appealed from the same ju


CourtListener opinion 8210737

pension: the withdrawal. The trial court also stated it could not order Lelak to pay the amount owed because doing so would constitute an impermissible modification of the divorce decree, since the decree did not set forth an alternate method of payment of the pension benefits. Further, the court found the doctrine of laches operated to prevent it from crafting a method for such payment. In sum, the trial court declined to find Lelak in contempt and ruled Siddall was not entitled to payment of the pension benefits, any growth thereon, or attorney fees. Id. at ¶ 9-11. {¶ 21} We disagreed with the trial court's


CourtListener opinion 8210737

domestic relations order: subject property. That interest vested – that is, became fixed – at the time the divorce decree was filed. However, at the time of the divorce, Lelak's retirement benefits with the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) were not subject to a qualified domestic relations order, nor could the benefits be withdrawn as Lelak had not retired. Thus, the divorce court ordered Lelak to make advance payments in the sum of $50 per week to Siddall to satisfy her portion of the account. Lelak I, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28243, 2019-Ohio-4807, at ¶ 18. {¶ 17} We then remarked on the bankruptcy court's recognition of the "distinction


CourtListener opinion 8210958

CourtListener opinion 8210958 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 64. Docket: L-21-1168 Appellant Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8210958 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 8210958


CourtListener opinion 8210958

QDRO: fits equally, the trial court applied the method of dividing such benefits that prevailed in 1999, the year in which the divorce decree was issued. According to the trial court, parties wishing to divide pension plans in 1999 utilized a "separate interest" Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to the Retirement Equity Act, 26 U.S.C. 414(p)(5)(A), which "incorporates survivorship, both 10. pre-retirement and post-retirement." Under this structure, a coverture formula was used to calculate the former spouse's pro-rata share of the member's retirement benefit. Notably, the trial court recognized a local court rule that was in e


CourtListener opinion 8210958

retirement benefits: pellant, Joan Haddox, appeals the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, issuing a division of property order (DOPO) concerning its prior award of a portion of Joan's State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS) retirement benefit to appellee, Donald Haddox. A. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} This action began on April 21, 1997, the date Joan filed her complaint for divorce. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, an issue arose concerning the valuation and distribution of future distributions from Joan's STRS retirement account. At the time, Joan was still empl


CourtListener opinion 8210958

pension: o the method of dividing the parties' retirement benefits equally, the trial court applied the method of dividing such benefits that prevailed in 1999, the year in which the divorce decree was issued. According to the trial court, parties wishing to divide pension plans in 1999 utilized a "separate interest" Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to the Retirement Equity Act, 26 U.S.C. 414(p)(5)(A), which "incorporates survivorship, both 10. pre-retirement and post-retirement." Under this structure, a coverture formula was used to calculate the former spouse's pro-rata share of the member's retireme


CourtListener opinion 8210958

alternate payee: t recognized a local court rule that was in effect at the time the divorce decree in this case was issued, under which QDROs were "assumed by rule to be including certain well-known provisions including a separate interest (i.e. survivorship rights) in the alternate payee, and pre-retirement survivorship as well." {¶ 30} Consistent with the norms of pension division described above, the trial court determined that Donald is entitled to survivorship benefits, and indicated in its order that such benefits would be incorporated into the divorce decree. Having found that Donald was entitled to survivorship rights, the trial


CourtListener opinion 8211316

CourtListener opinion 8211316 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 48224 DESIREE LASHAWN HORTON. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8211316 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 8211316

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 8211316

retirement benefits: ed between them. Because Desiree was employed as a teacher in Italy by the United States government and Andrew was a member of the United States military on active duty, the decree of divorce required specific language to be enforceable as to their respective retirement accounts. The magistrate court stated that, due to this specific language, it would "retain jurisdiction" with respect to the parties' retirement accounts. A written judgment and decree of divorce was entered on February 26, 2018, and dated nunc pro tunc to June 15, 2017, the date of the parties' oral stipulation. After later motions and hearings on behalf of both


CourtListener opinion 8211316

pension: ) before the magistrate court, which was read into the record by Andrew's counsel. The Stipulation provided in pertinent part: Judgment is entered as follows: . . . The parties are divorced on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. ... 3. The military pension plan in Andrew's name shall be awarded as follows: A. All funds earned up to the date of marriage, August 19, 1998, shall be awarded to Andrew; and B. All funds earned from August 19, 1998, until the date of the entry of this judgment and decree re: divorce shall be equal – shall be equally divided between the parties, since this portion represents the


CourtListener opinion 8211316

domestic relations order: JAG to see if it can assist them in having these documents prepared. If so, they shall provide all documentation needed for the completion of both documents. They shall equally share in the cost of said preparation. b. If JAG is unable to prepare the two Domestic Relations Orders, they shall have Peter Svennungsen, or another agreed upon preparer, prepare them and they shall equally share in his costs. They shall contact Peter Svennungsen at [his listed contact information]. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the two retirement /pension [sic] accounts for the preparation and entry of appropriate Domestic Relations Orders


CourtListener opinion 8211316

survivor benefits: ent, the district court agreed and concluded the magistrate court had abused its discretion in three distinct ways: (1) by deciding to remove the nunc pro tunc language from the initial judgment entered on February 26, 2018; (2) by requiring Andrew to obtain "Survivor Benefit Coverage" for Desiree; and (3) by excluding, over Andrew's objection, language related to Desiree's Federal Employee Retirement System account. The district court ordered that the amended judgment and decree of divorce entered on October 18, 2018, be vacated and the case remanded to the magistrate court for various findings of fact and conclusions of law. D


CourtListener opinion 8211899

CourtListener opinion 8211899 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KELLI ANNE NARDONE AND JOHN WILLIAM NARDONE. Extracted reporter citation: 973 N.W.2d 601. Docket: 21-1419. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8211899 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 8211899


CourtListener opinion 8211899

QDRO: Kelli requested spousal support of $1000 per month. The court's decree ordered spousal support of $550 per month until Kelli qualifies for Medicare, remarries, or either party dies. The court also awarded Kelli one-half of John's military pension through a qualified domestic relations order.2 1 The parties agree that John's military disability payments are not subject to division in the dissolution. See In re Marriage of Erlandson, 973 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa Ct. App. 2022) 2 Petitioner's Exhibit 20, a pamphlet entitled Military Divorce Guide, advises that since a military retirement is not a qualified pension under section 401(a) of the Inter


CourtListener opinion 8211899

pension: the life insurance, otherwise affirm the decree, and decline to award appellate attorney fees. I. Procedural and factual background The parties were married for twenty-two years. John was in the United States Air Force and retired in 2018. He receives a pension of $3090 per month and disability retirement due to service-related injuries of $2283 per month.1 Since leaving the military, John has been employed with Lincoln Technical Institute and earned $83,707 in 2019. Kelli has been employed the past eleven years as a dental hygienist/office manager and earns a salary of $47,426 per year. At trial, Kelli reque


CourtListener opinion 8211899

domestic relations order: ested spousal support of $1000 per month. The court's decree ordered spousal support of $550 per month until Kelli qualifies for Medicare, remarries, or either party dies. The court also awarded Kelli one-half of John's military pension through a qualified domestic relations order.2 1 The parties agree that John's military disability payments are not subject to division in the dissolution. See In re Marriage of Erlandson, 973 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa Ct. App. 2022) 2 Petitioner's Exhibit 20, a pamphlet entitled Military Divorce Guide, advises that since a military retirement is not a qualified pension under section 401(a) of the Inter


CourtListener opinion 8211900

CourtListener opinion 8211900 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LORI A. HILL AND MARSHALL R. HILL Upon the Petition of LORI A. HILL. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 21-2007. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8211900 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 8211900


CourtListener opinion 8211900

QDRO: a, Lori is entitled to one-half of Marshall's monthly benefits multiplied by a fraction of which the numerator is 12 and the denominator is the number of years covered by the plan up to maturity (retirement)." The decree directs Lori's attorney to "prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders [QDRO] that are acceptable to the plans' administrators and, under the Benson formula, 3 award Lori one-half of the military and postal retirement benefits accrued during the parties' 12 years of marriage." In August 2015, two years after entry of the dissolution decree, the parties consented to and signed proposed orders related to Marshall's feder


CourtListener opinion 8211900

retirement benefits: rd. At some point, he took leave from the post office to work full-time for the military. The decretal court noted he had recently resumed full-time with the post office. Because Marshall was not fully vested at the time of dissolution and the value of his retirement benefits was unknown, the district court awarded Lori a percentage of each pension, to be calculated under the method as explained in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255–57 (Iowa 1996), when Marshall retires. The decree states that "[u]nder the Benson formula, Lori is entitled to one-half of Marshall's monthly benefits multiplied by a fraction of whi


CourtListener opinion 8211900

pension: ing his marriage to Lori Hill. Finding the order consistent with the decretal court's intent, we affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Marshall and Lori were married for twelve years. The property divided in their 2013 dissolution decree includes pension benefits Marshall is entitled to receive from his employment with the United States Postal Service and the Iowa Air National Guard. Marshall worked for both employers throughout the parties' twelve-year marriage. He was employed by the post office full-time and worked part-time for the Iowa Air National Guard. At some point, he took leave from the post


CourtListener opinion 8211900

ERISA: n of the marital share of the benefit occurs in situations, where the member of the military retirement system switches from regular component to reserve component service'") (quoting W. Troyan, "Procedures for Evaluating Retirement Entitlements Under Non–ERISA, Retirement Systems for Marriage Dissolution Actions," in 3 J.P. McCahey, ed., Valuation & Distribution of Marital Property § 46.34(1) (1990)); [In re Marriage of] Poppe, 158 Cal. Rptr. 500, 503–04 [(Cal. Ct. App. 1979)] ("[T]he basis upon which apportionment was made, years of service during the marriage before separation compared to ‘qualifying' year


CourtListener opinion 8212253

CourtListener opinion 8212253 Extracted reporter citation: 432 N.E.2d 183. Docket: 110353. During the pendency of the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8212253 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 8212253


CourtListener opinion 8212253

QDRO: t awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018, the first day of the divorce trial. The trial court subsequently issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") regarding the pension. Wife now appeals from that order and argues the trial court abused its discretion in improperly modifying the judgment entry of divorce by using a date for the pension that varies from the date of the termination of the marriage. Our review of pertinent case law authority indicates that it is within the trial court's discretio


CourtListener opinion 8212253

retirement benefits: aintiff-appellee Constantine Karabogias ("husband") and defendant- appellant Joan Zoltanski ("wife") were married in 2000. In 2016, husband filed a complaint for divorce. Wife is an executive at University Hospitals, and there are significant assets in her retirement accounts, including a 401(K) account, a 403(b) account, a 457(f) Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan ("SERP") account, and her pension with University Hospitals. This appeal concerns her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018,


CourtListener opinion 8212253

pension: led a complaint for divorce. Wife is an executive at University Hospitals, and there are significant assets in her retirement accounts, including a 401(K) account, a 403(b) account, a 457(f) Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan ("SERP") account, and her pension with University Hospitals. This appeal concerns her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018, the first day of the divorce trial. The trial court subsequently issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") regarding t


CourtListener opinion 8212253

401(k): bogias ("husband") and defendant- appellant Joan Zoltanski ("wife") were married in 2000. In 2016, husband filed a complaint for divorce. Wife is an executive at University Hospitals, and there are significant assets in her retirement accounts, including a 401(K) account, a 403(b) account, a 457(f) Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan ("SERP") account, and her pension with University Hospitals. This appeal concerns her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018, the first day of th


CourtListener opinion 8212691

CourtListener opinion 8212691 Extracted case name: SEC v. LBRY. Extracted reporter citation: 174 F.3d 599. Docket: 21-20617 tactics that are within the district. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 8212691 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 8212691

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.