CourtListener opinion 4704636

ERISA: r after receiving no response from OPM. On March 19, 2015, OPM responded to Wife's inquiry, explaining that the 1997 order was insufficient for processing by OPM because it was a QDRO drafted under the auspices of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), and CSRS is a government- administered plan specifically exempt from ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1003(b)(1), 1051; 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32). Specifically, OPM explained: This court order contains language that is unacceptable under section 838.302 of Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The court order is labeled as a "qualified domestic relations ord


CourtListener opinion 4705297

CourtListener opinion 4705297 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANGELA JO TOWNE AND LARRY DEAN TOWNE Upon the Petition of ANGELA JO TOWNE. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 20-0829. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4705297 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 4705297

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 4705297

QDRO: valuing the parties' assets and debts and distributing them as shown by this recapitulation statement: Description of Asset/Debt Angela Larry House Divided upon sale Divided upon sale 2019 Ford F-150 $40,317.00 2003 Ford F-150 $500.00 IPERS Divided by QDRO Divided by QDRO TIAA-CREF $4,578.00 Roth IRA $37,037.00 Rollover IRA $34,206.00 401(k) $125,525.00 Boat, motor, and trailer $22,795.00 Older boat $2,000.00 Tools $3,000.00 Guns and bows $2,000.00 Mower, blower, trimmer $1,500.00 Golf cart $100.00 Furniture $7,763.00 $7,763.00 Jewelry $0.00 $0.00 House Mortgage Divided upon sale Divided upon sal


CourtListener opinion 4705297

retirement benefits: dividual choices each spouse made rather than mutual sacrifices or contributions made to the family"). As to duration, we see no basis for reducing the spousal support when Larry reaches the age of sixty-seven. Although both parties testified about their retirement plans, which included Larry surmising that he would have to work until he no longer could, Larry's health issues cause too much uncertainty about how long he can continue to work and at what level he could do so to justify reduction of the award at an arbitrary age. Further, we reiterate Angela was awarded almost all retirement assets, which also makes a ret


CourtListener opinion 4705297

401(k): tion statement: Description of Asset/Debt Angela Larry House Divided upon sale Divided upon sale 2019 Ford F-150 $40,317.00 2003 Ford F-150 $500.00 IPERS Divided by QDRO Divided by QDRO TIAA-CREF $4,578.00 Roth IRA $37,037.00 Rollover IRA $34,206.00 401(k) $125,525.00 Boat, motor, and trailer $22,795.00 Older boat $2,000.00 Tools $3,000.00 Guns and bows $2,000.00 Mower, blower, trimmer $1,500.00 Golf cart $100.00 Furniture $7,763.00 $7,763.00 Jewelry $0.00 $0.00 House Mortgage Divided upon sale Divided upon sale 2019 Ford F-150 loan ($28,578.00) Wife's student loans ($49,693.00) Youngest child stu


CourtListener opinion 4705297

valuation/division: challenges the property division and spousal support provisions of the decree, as well as the district court's refusal to order Angela to pay his trial attorney fees. He also requests appellate attorney fees. On her cross-appeal, Angela also challenges the property division and spousal support provisions of the decree and requests appellate attorney fees. I. Background Larry and Angela married in 1991. They moved to Hartley soon thereafter, where they started a family. By the time of their dissolution-of-marriage trial in 2020, Larry was sixty years old, Angela was fifty-eight years old, and they had three boys who were


CourtListener opinion 4706389

CourtListener opinion 4706389 Extracted case name: GINGER LOUGENE HUTSELL DENTON v. STEVEN LEE DENTON. Extracted reporter citation: 32 S.W.3d 222. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4706389 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 4706389


CourtListener opinion 4706389

QDRO: s about his attorney's failure to prevent an award of alimony to Ms. Denton, Ms. Denton's failure to honor the court's judgment, an order of protection sought by her, the court's division of the retirement funds and pensions, and the difficulty in preparing a qualified domestic relations order satisfactory to his employer. This Court's role is not to pick and choose among the various complaints and designate the issues. The responsibility for designating the issues for review rests on the parties. See TENN. R. APP. P. 27(a)(4), (b). And then we address only the issues designated by the parties. Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325, 334 (Tenn. 2012);


CourtListener opinion 4706389

retirement benefits: , because of restrictions on his pension and retirement funds, he contended that the division was not currently equitable. Specifically, he argued that it was inequitable for him to receive his share of the equity in the marital realty through his pension and retirement accounts, "which he cannot access now without severe financial repercussions." The trial court denied the motion to alter or amend. Acting pro se on appeal, Mr. Denton's handwritten brief does not contain a table of authorities, statement of the issues presented for review, statement of the case, statement of the facts, or conclusion. Instead, the brief merely co


CourtListener opinion 4706389

pension: evidentiary hearing, the Chancery Court for Jefferson County entered a judgment granting the parties a divorce. The judgment also divided the marital estate, including the parties' retirement funds and pensions. The court awarded Ms. Denton her retirement and pension. Mr. Denton received his retirement and pension up to the value of Ms. Denton's retirement and pension plus one-half the equity in real estate and a mobile 1 Under the rules of this Court, memorandum opinions may not be published, "cited[,] or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case." TENN. CT. APP. R. 10. home she received as part of the propert


CourtListener opinion 4706389

domestic relations order: s attorney's failure to prevent an award of alimony to Ms. Denton, Ms. Denton's failure to honor the court's judgment, an order of protection sought by her, the court's division of the retirement funds and pensions, and the difficulty in preparing a qualified domestic relations order satisfactory to his employer. This Court's role is not to pick and choose among the various complaints and designate the issues. The responsibility for designating the issues for review rests on the parties. See TENN. R. APP. P. 27(a)(4), (b). And then we address only the issues designated by the parties. Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325, 334 (Tenn. 2012);


CourtListener opinion 4706807

CourtListener opinion 4706807 Extracted case name: NITSCH v. KLAVUHN. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0622 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4706807 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 4706807


CourtListener opinion 4706807

QDRO: f the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 Michelle Nitsch ("Wife") appeals from the court's entry of the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") awarding Kurt Gustave Klavuhn ("Husband") credit for contributions he made to his retirement account after the termination of the marital community, as well as gains attributed to those contributions. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife were married for about fifteen years when Wife filed for


CourtListener opinion 4706807

retirement benefits: or the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife were married for about fifteen years when Wife filed for legal separation in 2016. The matter was later converted to a dissolution action. ¶3 Husband and Wife both had retirement accounts that existed before their marriage, and both alleged that they could trace premarital, separate property funds in their accounts. During the dissolution proceedings, the superior court found that neither party provided sufficient evidence that their premarital retirement accounts maintained their separate nature. As a result, the court appointed "a special


CourtListener opinion 4706807

domestic relations order: t MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 Michelle Nitsch ("Wife") appeals from the court's entry of the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") awarding Kurt Gustave Klavuhn ("Husband") credit for contributions he made to his retirement account after the termination of the marital community, as well as gains attributed to those contributions. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife were married for about fifteen years when Wife filed for


CourtListener opinion 4706807

valuation/division: 2016. These contributions are Husband's separate property. This would include any gains on the contributions. ¶13 Wife argues the retirement accounts are "entirely community property in nature" and the "increases, rents, and profits from community assets are community property." But the retirement accounts cannot be "entirely" community property if they contain Husband's post-petition contributions, which she admits are his separate property. Wife cites no 4 NITSCH v. KLAVUHN Decision of the Court legal authority for the proposition that the increases and profits from Husband's separate property should be categorized as comm


CourtListener opinion 4707969

CourtListener opinion 4707969 Extracted case name: CORNWELL v. CORNWELL. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4707969 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 4707969


CourtListener opinion 4707969

QDRO: ial matter, we turn to Melanie's assertions (1) that Daniel sought a DRO prohibited by Maryland law and (2) that he has waived any objection to the immediate offset method by failing to object to her expert's testimony. Both assertions are without merit. (a) QDRO Versus DRO Throughout his case, Daniel and his counsel sought use of the deferred distribution method and a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). And it appears, at least for purposes of the Maryland pension plan at issue, that the correct term is "domestic relations order." Still, Melanie's contention on appeal is one of semantics—there is nothing in


CourtListener opinion 4707969

retirement benefits: rce was contentious, with many issues litigated, as is partially reflected by Melanie's cross-appeal regarding the district court's failure to award her attorney fees and costs. However, as noted above, the primary issue on appeal is the valuation of Daniel's retirement plan from his employment with the Maryland State Police. Daniel's retirement plan is a defined benefit plan that has been in pay status since his retirement in 2010. Daniel origi- nally retired on a full service pension, but several months post- retirement, the plan was retroactively changed to a disability pension. Because the plan is in part a disability pens


CourtListener opinion 4707969

pension: retires and orders that the nonowning spouse receive that percentage of every payment check which the owning spouse is entitled to receive. 5. ____: ____: ____. Under the immediate offset method, the court deter- mines the present value of a share in the pension of the owning spouse and immediately awards the nonowning spouse a lump-sum amount in view of that value. 6. Divorce: Attorney Fees. In awarding attorney fees in a dissolution action, a court shall consider the nature of the case, the amount involved - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports CORNWELL v. CORNWELL Cite as 309


CourtListener opinion 4707969

domestic relations order: ets 309 Nebraska Reports CORNWELL v. CORNWELL Cite as 309 Neb. 156 Daniel's expert, Ernest Goss, challenged the accuracy of that valuation, suggesting that the valuation was speculative on various bases. Instead, Daniel sought to divide the pension via a domestic relations order (DRO). Following a trial, the district court accepted Rosenbaum's valuation for purposes of valuation of the entire marital estate. It then awarded the pension to Daniel and divided the estate in half. Daniel was ordered to make an equalization payment to Melanie in the amount of $403,892, to be payable annually in the amount of $100,000 per year until pai


CourtListener opinion 4709641

CourtListener opinion 4709641 Extracted case name: MR TODD A. DREXEL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE CATHERINE R. HOLDERFIELD. Extracted reporter citation: 542 S.W.3d 286. Docket: 2020-CA-0422-MR TODD A. DREXEL APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4709641 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 4709641

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 4709641

QDRO: pt was filed on August 9. Once again, Selena asked the court to award her attorney's fees. Todd responded to the various motions. He asked the court to order Selena to reimburse him for his attorney's fees incurred as a result of her frivolous filings. A qualified domestic relations order was entered on August 8, 2018. Following a hearing conducted on September 27, 2018, Todd was held in contempt for failing to pay maintenance on a timely basis. He was also required by the court's order to deposit $5,700.00 into the children's 529 accounts and to disgorge $26,920.95 (plus prejudgment interest) and an additional $4,250.00 -4- represen


CourtListener opinion 4709641

retirement benefits: nts were left to the discretion of the therapists. By the terms of the agreement, Selena was released from any obligation to contribute to the support of the children. In a provision included in a portion of the agreement entitled "Bank Accounts and -2- Retirement Accounts," Selena agreed to provide to Todd "the account information for the 529 plans." Each party was to be responsible for his and her own attorney's fees incurred as of the date of the agreement. In the event of a default on any obligation, the defaulting party was required to reimburse the other for any losses and the fees and costs incurred to enforce t


CourtListener opinion 4709641

domestic relations order: ed on August 9. Once again, Selena asked the court to award her attorney's fees. Todd responded to the various motions. He asked the court to order Selena to reimburse him for his attorney's fees incurred as a result of her frivolous filings. A qualified domestic relations order was entered on August 8, 2018. Following a hearing conducted on September 27, 2018, Todd was held in contempt for failing to pay maintenance on a timely basis. He was also required by the court's order to deposit $5,700.00 into the children's 529 accounts and to disgorge $26,920.95 (plus prejudgment interest) and an additional $4,250.00 -4- represen


CourtListener opinion 4709648

CourtListener opinion 4709648 Extracted case name: MR ANGELA FERNANDEZ APPELLANT APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE STEVE ALAN WILSON. Extracted reporter citation: 586 S.W.3d 737. Docket: 2020-CA-0302-MR ANGELA FERNANDEZ APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4709648 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 4709648


CourtListener opinion 4709648

QDRO: s this result. We find Satterfield v. Satterfield, to be supportive of our determination, rather than supportive of the outcome Angela insists. 608 S.W.3d 171 (Ky. App. 2020). In that matter, the wife sought entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) upon the commencement of the husband's retirement, some twenty years after the entry of the decree, when she did not begin receiving a portion thereof as ordered in the decree. The wife then brought an action to have a QDRO entered as the husband had failed to do so as ordered in the decree. The wife took action as soon as she became aware that the hus


CourtListener opinion 4709648

retirement benefits: se included: pay Angela half the proceeds from any sale of property located in New Mexico; maintain a life insurance policy with Angela as the beneficiary in the amount of $56,000 payable to her on his death; name Angela as the beneficiary of an individual retirement account (IRA) Leo owned at the time of the divorce; and -2- designate Angela as the beneficiary of his retirement account through the Kentucky Teachers' Retirement System (KTRS), choosing a particular option which would reduce the monthly pension to the retiree but provide a payout to a beneficiary at the retiree's death. Both Angela and Leo remarried over


CourtListener opinion 4709648

pension: dual retirement account (IRA) Leo owned at the time of the divorce; and -2- designate Angela as the beneficiary of his retirement account through the Kentucky Teachers' Retirement System (KTRS), choosing a particular option which would reduce the monthly pension to the retiree but provide a payout to a beneficiary at the retiree's death. Both Angela and Leo remarried over the years. Leo remained in Bowling Green and Angela in Tennessee. In 1998, Leo retired from Western Kentucky University. In 2017, he passed away. It was only at Leo's death that it was discovered by Angela that he had not followed the dictat


CourtListener opinion 4709798

CourtListener opinion 4709798 Extracted reporter citation: 21 A.3d 62. Docket: when it dismissed Anderson. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4709798 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 4709798

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 4709798

QDRO: (2) The record reflects that Addalli retained Boyer for assistance with ancillary matters and a custody dispute following Addalli's divorce from her husband. Addalli and her ex-husband agreed to a settlement of the matters, and the Family Court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") on July 6, 2016. The QDRO divided the ex-spouses' debts and assets and provided that Addalli's ex-husband would pay alimony and child support totaling $6,500 month. (3) On June 21, 2019, Addalli filed a legal malpractice complaint against Boyer and MacElree Harvey in the Superior Court. She filed an amended complaint on August 23, 2019. Addal


CourtListener opinion 4709798

domestic relations order: record reflects that Addalli retained Boyer for assistance with ancillary matters and a custody dispute following Addalli's divorce from her husband. Addalli and her ex-husband agreed to a settlement of the matters, and the Family Court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") on July 6, 2016. The QDRO divided the ex-spouses' debts and assets and provided that Addalli's ex-husband would pay alimony and child support totaling $6,500 month. (3) On June 21, 2019, Addalli filed a legal malpractice complaint against Boyer and MacElree Harvey in the Superior Court. She filed an amended complaint on August 23, 2019. Addal


CourtListener opinion 4710326

CourtListener opinion 4710326 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4710326 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 4710326

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 4710326

retirement benefits: erwilliger, United States Attorney, Daniel T. Young, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 2 PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether and to what extent retirement benefits protected by the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") are subject to criminal restitution orders under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 ("MVRA"). The MVRA provides expressly that restitution orders may be enforced against "all property or rights to property" and "[n]otwithstanding any


CourtListener opinion 4710326

pension: A's prohibition on disbursing retirement funds to third parties, and the MVRA's requirement that defendants pay – and courts compel – restitution for certain crimes. In 1974, Congress enacted ERISA to "protect . . . the interests of participants in private pension plans and their beneficiaries." 29 U.S.C. § 1001(c). To achieve that goal, what is known as ERISA's "anti-alienation" provision "broadly protects covered retirement benefits from dissipation through payment to third parties," Novak, 476 F.3d at 1045, requiring pension plans to provide that their benefits "may not be assigned or alienated," 29 U.S.C. § 1


CourtListener opinion 4710326

ERISA: EY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 2 PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether and to what extent retirement benefits protected by the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") are subject to criminal restitution orders under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 ("MVRA"). The MVRA provides expressly that restitution orders may be enforced against "all property or rights to property" and "[n]otwithstanding any other Federal law." See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a). Largely for that reason, we agree with the district court that


CourtListener opinion 4710326

401(k): ay be enforced against "all property or rights to property" and "[n]otwithstanding any other Federal law." See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a). Largely for that reason, we agree with the district court that the MVRA permits the seizure of defendant Jon Lawrence Frank's 401(k) retirement account, notwithstanding ERISA's protections, in order to compensate the victim of his crime. At the same time, we clarify that when the government enforces a restitution order under the MVRA, it stands in the shoes of the defendant himself, acquiring whatever rights to 401(k) retirement funds he possesses – no less, but also no more. That


CourtListener opinion 4710461

CourtListener opinion 4710461 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4710461 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 4710461

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 4710461

QDRO: Matter B Respondent represented a client in a domestic matter, and on March 7, 2014, a final decree of divorce was filed. The divorce decree provided that Respondent's client would be responsible for the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing the client's pension plan between the parties with both parties being equally responsible for the costs for the preparation of the QDRO. The order further provided that preparation of the QDRO should begin within thirty days of the date of the decree. Respondent agreed to assist his client with the preparation of the QDRO. After various inquiries


CourtListener opinion 4710461

pension: sented a client in a domestic matter, and on March 7, 2014, a final decree of divorce was filed. The divorce decree provided that Respondent's client would be responsible for the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing the client's pension plan between the parties with both parties being equally responsible for the costs for the preparation of the QDRO. The order further provided that preparation of the QDRO should begin within thirty days of the date of the decree. Respondent agreed to assist his client with the preparation of the QDRO. After various inquiries from opposing counsel regarding


CourtListener opinion 4765562

CourtListener opinion 4765562 Docket: 350739 Wayne Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4765562 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 4765562


CourtListener opinion 4765562

QDRO: t the lake house.3 The trial court ordered defendant to take out a loan against the lake house in the amount of $163,000, which was to be used to pay $125,000 to Judy, $38,000 in various attorney fees,4 and 50% of any fees associated with the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The trial court awarded Judy a life estate interest in the marital home, while granting defendant a remainderman interest.5 The court also granted Judy a life estate interest in the personal property located at the marital home and on the farm. Defendant was awarded a remainderman interest in the marital-home personal property. The trial court award


CourtListener opinion 4765562

retirement benefits: property located at the marital home and on the farm. Defendant was awarded a remainderman interest in the marital-home personal property. The trial court awarded Judy a horse trailer, a van equipped with features for the handicapped, a deferred compensation retirement account held by defendant (by QDRO), her county retirement plan, and any checking and savings accounts currently in her name. The court made her responsible for any credit card or unsecured debts that were solely in her name. The trial court awarded defendant farm and excavation equipment that was not presently located at the marital home or farm, a pickup truck, a


CourtListener opinion 4765562

domestic relations order: house.3 The trial court ordered defendant to take out a loan against the lake house in the amount of $163,000, which was to be used to pay $125,000 to Judy, $38,000 in various attorney fees,4 and 50% of any fees associated with the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The trial court awarded Judy a life estate interest in the marital home, while granting defendant a remainderman interest.5 The court also granted Judy a life estate interest in the personal property located at the marital home and on the farm. Defendant was awarded a remainderman interest in the marital-home personal property. The trial court award


CourtListener opinion 4765562

valuation/division: r to [Judy] as her sole and separate property, free of any claim of the Defendant. Plaintiff is entitled to name her separate beneficiary. Plaintiff appealed by leave granted, and defendant cross-appeals. In its brief on appeal, plaintiff argued that the property division was not fair and equitable with respect to Judy's award of marital assets. Plaintiff contended that the trial court, in awarding the life insurance policy to Judy, gave her an asset that "she could never benefit from while living." Plaintiff noted that the court's attempt to reduce the incongruity between the awards by giving Judy the insurance policy faile


CourtListener opinion 4765651

CourtListener opinion 4765651 Extracted case name: MR CHARLES ROBERT RUSSELBURG APPELLANT APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JULIA H. GORDON. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 2020-CA-1287-MR CHARLES ROBERT RUSSELBURG APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4765651 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 4765651


CourtListener opinion 4765651

QDRO: rance policy payable on the death of the other, regardless of the beneficiary designation made in the policy, unless such designation is made after the Decree of Dissolution. 5.2.3. Charles' counsel shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") required to divide the Retirement Accounts and to establish a separate (divided) account in Charles' name only, for his interest -2- and division as described in the preceding paragraph. The QDRO shall be reviewed by counsel for the Parties before being submitted for review to the administrators of the Retirement Accounts for acceptance, before be


CourtListener opinion 4765651

retirement benefits: Lisa's name are marital property. Lisa has disclosed the existence of two such accounts, a Kentucky state pension and a Kentucky deferred compensation account as a consequence of her employment during the marriage, and all of which are marital property ("Retirement Accounts"). Lisa's Retirement Accounts shall be divided equally between the parties, 50/50, based upon the values of the Retirement Accounts as of the date of entry of a Decree of Dissolution of marriage. Thereafter, neither Party shall continue to be a beneficiary under an insurance policy payable on the death of the other, regardless of the beneficiary des


CourtListener opinion 4765651

pension: ts on appeal, we reverse and remand. As part of the dissolution of their marriage, the Russelburgs executed a property settlement agreement. Signed by the parties on December 8, 2015, the agreement contained the following provisions: 5.2 Retirement and Pension Accounts 5.2.1 Charles has a vested interest in a military pension or retirement. The Parties agree that such retirement is Charles' non-marital property, all such interest having been earned prior to the marriage of the Parties. The Parties further agree that Charles does not have any other type of retirement. 5.2.2 Lisa and Charles agree that any


CourtListener opinion 4765651

401(k): interest having been earned prior to the marriage of the Parties. The Parties further agree that Charles does not have any other type of retirement. 5.2.2 Lisa and Charles agree that any life insurance, retirement, pension, deferred compensation, and/or 401K savings accounts or annuity program in Lisa's name are marital property. Lisa has disclosed the existence of two such accounts, a Kentucky state pension and a Kentucky deferred compensation account as a consequence of her employment during the marriage, and all of which are marital property ("Retirement Accounts"). Lisa's Retirement Accounts shall be


CourtListener opinion 4765652

CourtListener opinion 4765652 Extracted case name: MR CHARLES F. MAHL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE GINA KAY CALVERT. Extracted reporter citation: 168 S.W.2d 738. Docket: 2019-CA-0874-MR CHARLES F. MAHL APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4765652 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 4765652


CourtListener opinion 4765652

QDRO: rial court found that Charlie had about $1.84 million in an IRA trust account. And it ordered that Louanne receive $764,117 from Charlie's IRA trust account "[t]o equalize the division of the retirement accounts" and that the IRA trust account be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to be drafted by Louanne's attorney. (p. 11 of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered August 1, 2007, attached as Appendix D to Appellee's Brief, also Record ("R."), p. 1041). The parties later agreed that the IRA funds would be transferred into another account without needing to prepare a QDRO, but the transfer apparently was delayed due


CourtListener opinion 4765652

retirement benefits: son Family Court also ultimately ordered Charlie to pay Louanne $6,000 a month in maintenance, terminating upon Louanne's remarriage or cohabitation or either party's death or Charlie's turning 65 years old in 2017, whichever happened first. 2 Individual Retirement Account. 3 In the August 2007 divorce decree, the trial court found that Charlie had about $1.84 million in an IRA trust account. And it ordered that Louanne receive $764,117 from Charlie's IRA trust account "[t]o equalize the division of the retirement accounts" and that the IRA trust account be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to be draft


CourtListener opinion 4765652

domestic relations order: found that Charlie had about $1.84 million in an IRA trust account. And it ordered that Louanne receive $764,117 from Charlie's IRA trust account "[t]o equalize the division of the retirement accounts" and that the IRA trust account be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to be drafted by Louanne's attorney. (p. 11 of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered August 1, 2007, attached as Appendix D to Appellee's Brief, also Record ("R."), p. 1041). The parties later agreed that the IRA funds would be transferred into another account without needing to prepare a QDRO, but the transfer apparently was delayed due


CourtListener opinion 4765662

CourtListener opinion 4765662 Extracted reporter citation: 947 N.E.2d 1317. Docket: R.C. 3105.18 allows a. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4765662 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 4765662

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 4765662

QDRO: husband's federal employee retirement system pension, purportedly in compliance with the parties' 2001 divorce decree that had incorporated a stipulation that the husband's retirement would "be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO [qualified domestic-relations order]." The Court of Appeals decided that the COAP was void because it was a modification of the divorce decree to the extent that it granted the wife survivorship benefits, an issue that had not been addressed in the 2001 decree. {¶ 19} A post-decree modification of property division is prohibited by R.C. -11- 3105.171


CourtListener opinion 4765662

pension: on July 14, 2021, referring us to Ostanek v. Ostanek, Ohio Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2319, __ N.E.3d __. Ostanek involved a January 22, 2013 trial court order acceptable for processing (COAP) which divided the husband's federal employee retirement system pension, purportedly in compliance with the parties' 2001 divorce decree that had incorporated a stipulation that the husband's retirement would "be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO [qualified domestic-relations order]." The Court of Appeals decided that the COAP was void because it was a modification of the divorce decree to


CourtListener opinion 4765662

valuation/division: Court of Appeals decided that the COAP was void because it was a modification of the divorce decree to the extent that it granted the wife survivorship benefits, an issue that had not been addressed in the 2001 decree. {¶ 19} A post-decree modification of property division is prohibited by R.C. -11- 3105.171(I), which states: "A division or disbursement of property or a distributive award made under this section is not subject to future modification by the court except upon the express written consent or agreement to the modification by both spouses." Based on this statute, the Ostanek Court of Appeals held "[t]he trial


CourtListener opinion 4765925

CourtListener opinion 4765925 Extracted reporter citation: 361 S.W.3d 615. Docket: 14-19-00646-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4765925 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 4765925


CourtListener opinion 4765925

QDRO: N THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF SHAWN DENNING AND SURRON STOKES On Appeal from the 507th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-21638 OPINION Surron Stokes appeals from the trial court's order denying her motion for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) filed after the trial court signed a final divorce decree dissolving her marriage to Shawn Denning and enforcing the parties' mediated settlement agreement (MSA). In three issues, Stokes contends that she is entitled to a QDRO that reflects an award of Denning's retirement account contributions expressed as a percentage of accumulated contributions t


CourtListener opinion 4765925

retirement benefits: ed after the trial court signed a final divorce decree dissolving her marriage to Shawn Denning and enforcing the parties' mediated settlement agreement (MSA). In three issues, Stokes contends that she is entitled to a QDRO that reflects an award of Denning's retirement account contributions expressed as a percentage of accumulated contributions that accrued during the marriage. We reverse the trial court's order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Background Denning filed for divorce in April 2018, and the parties went to mediation. The parties initially agreed that Stokes would receive fifty percent of De


CourtListener opinion 4765925

pension: eal)). Accrued state retirement benefits may be divided by a QDRO and paid to a former spouse. Tex. Gov't Code § 841.0091(a); cf. Stavinoha v. Stavinoha, 126 S.W.3d 604, 615 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (discussing QDROs for police officer pension systems). By statute, the state retirement system must divide the accrued benefits to a former spouse in accordance with a QDRO that "strictly follows the terms and format of the model qualified domestic relations order, as well as any other requirements, adopted by the [TCDRS] board of trustees for this purpose." Tex. Gov't Code § 841.0091(a). TCDRS, throu


CourtListener opinion 4765925

alternate payee: [Denning's] retirement with TCDRS earned from the date of marriage . . . is awarded to [Stokes]. The remainder of [Denning's] retirement with TCDRS earned from the date of marriage . . . is awarded to [Denning]." As a prerequisite to releasing the funds to an alternate payee, TCDRS requires a QDRO that sets forth the amount due expressed as a percentage of accumulated contributions that accrued during the marriage, not expressed as a lump sum. Stokes' counsel asked Denning to agree to convert the number to a percentage in the divorce decree, but he refused. The trial court then assigned an arbitrator to the case, who proposed a


CourtListener opinion 4772550

CourtListener opinion 4772550 Docket: 350739 Wayne Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4772550 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 4772550


CourtListener opinion 4772550

QDRO: t the lake house.3 The trial court ordered defendant to take out a loan against the lake house in the amount of $163,000, which was to be used to pay $125,000 to Judy, $38,000 in various attorney fees,4 and 50% of any fees associated with the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The trial court awarded Judy a life estate interest in the marital home, while granting defendant a remainderman interest.5 The court also granted Judy a life estate interest in the personal property located at the marital home and on the farm. Defendant was awarded a remainderman interest in the marital-home personal property. The trial court award


CourtListener opinion 4772550

retirement benefits: property located at the marital home and on the farm. Defendant was awarded a remainderman interest in the marital-home personal property. The trial court awarded Judy a horse trailer, a van equipped with features for the handicapped, a deferred compensation retirement account held by defendant (by QDRO), her county retirement plan, and any checking and savings accounts currently in her name. The court made her responsible for any credit card or unsecured debts that were solely in her name. The trial court awarded defendant farm and excavation equipment that was not presently located at the marital home or farm, a pickup truck, a


CourtListener opinion 4772550

domestic relations order: house.3 The trial court ordered defendant to take out a loan against the lake house in the amount of $163,000, which was to be used to pay $125,000 to Judy, $38,000 in various attorney fees,4 and 50% of any fees associated with the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The trial court awarded Judy a life estate interest in the marital home, while granting defendant a remainderman interest.5 The court also granted Judy a life estate interest in the personal property located at the marital home and on the farm. Defendant was awarded a remainderman interest in the marital-home personal property. The trial court award


CourtListener opinion 4772550

valuation/division: r to [Judy] as her sole and separate property, free of any claim of the Defendant. Plaintiff is entitled to name her separate beneficiary. Plaintiff appealed by leave granted, and defendant cross-appeals. In its brief on appeal, plaintiff argued that the property division was not fair and equitable with respect to Judy's award of marital assets. Plaintiff contended that the trial court, in awarding the life insurance policy to Judy, gave her an asset that "she could never benefit from while living." Plaintiff noted that the court's attempt to reduce the incongruity between the awards by giving Judy the insurance policy faile


CourtListener opinion 4794620

CourtListener opinion 4794620 Docket: 351858 Clinton Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4794620 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 4794620

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 4794620

QDRO: oppe deliver the guns in the courthouse parking lot one hour before the scheduled hearing date on the motion. Additionally, it was claimed that plaintiff failed to comply with the COBRA insurance coverage provision and the qualified domestic- relations order (QDRO) requirements. Defendant requested compliance with the judgment provisions or reimbursement for the purchase price of the guns and costs and attorney fees. On July 18, 2017, the court heard oral argument regarding the motion to enforce the CSA. The parties resolved the COBRA benefit issue as well as the QDRO issue and submitted it to the court for signatu


CourtListener opinion 4794620

valuation/division: t concluded that the appropriate recourse was a show cause to pursue civil contempt involving Martinez and Dr. Hoppe to facilitate the execution of the transfer. Even though the CSA and the divorce judgment imposed obligations on the parties to facilitate the property division, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to award attorney fees when it became apparent that Dr. Hoppe had the firearms in his possession as a licensed dealer, and his attorney advised that there could be potential liability issues if the weapons were transferred to plaintiff to act as an intermediary with defendant. B. MARITAL HOME EXPENS


CourtListener opinion 4880167

CourtListener opinion 4880167 Extracted case name: MARN SUZANNE LARSEN-BALL v. WILLIAM GORDON BALL. Extracted reporter citation: 301 S.W.3d 228. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4880167 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 4880167

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 4880167

QDRO: t rental value of the Old Kent Drive property for the time period when Husband solely occupied and profited from that property. 8. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the overpayment Wife received concerning the Waterview condominium via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order was not a gift. -6- 9. Whether the trial court erred by awarding to Husband credit for paying Poolside taxes when all of the taxes were proven to have been paid by Wife, paid jointly, or paid from the sale of the property. III. Standard of Review We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings o


CourtListener opinion 4880167

pension: m that he was due credit for two checks written to Wife totaling $590,000.00, the court found that the $570,000.00 check had been repaid by Wife because the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") determined such payment to be an improper distribution from Husband's pension plan. The court therefore determined that Husband should not receive credit for this payment. The court did find, however, that Husband should receive credit for the $20,000.00 check. After dividing the proceeds from the East Pass property between the parties and considering the additional payment from Husband to Wife in the amount of $20,000.00, the court


CourtListener opinion 4880167

domestic relations order: alue of the Old Kent Drive property for the time period when Husband solely occupied and profited from that property. 8. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the overpayment Wife received concerning the Waterview condominium via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order was not a gift. -6- 9. Whether the trial court erred by awarding to Husband credit for paying Poolside taxes when all of the taxes were proven to have been paid by Wife, paid jointly, or paid from the sale of the property. III. Standard of Review We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings o


CourtListener opinion 4880167

valuation/division: to a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct and had entered into an agreed parenting plan with respect to their children, the court was tasked with equitably dividing the parties' marital estate valued at over $29,000,000.00. As part of that equitable distribution, the trial court awarded to Wife certificates of deposit valued at $5,783,258.00; Wife's then-current condominium residence valued at $950,000.00; and various vehicles and items of personalty. The court also ordered that other marital real properties be sold and that Wife would receive one-half of the proceeds from the sale of those properties, which had a


CourtListener opinion 4908254

CourtListener opinion 4908254 Extracted case name: GRAYSON v. ELMER WAYNE GRAYSON. Extracted reporter citation: 556 S.W.3d 219. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4908254 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 4908254


CourtListener opinion 4908254

QDRO: "make sense on its face" and required clarification); Stout v. Stout, No. E2013-00760-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 6858279, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2013) ("This Court has previously recognized that a trial court may retain jurisdiction to establish or maintain a QDRO with regard to the division of retirement benefits incident to divorce" and "that the trial court has the authority, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.01, to correct an error in a judgment sua sponte without limitation as to time.") (internal citations omitted). B. Effect of Subsequent Orders Although Husband's postulate that the trial co


CourtListener opinion 4908254

retirement benefits: tirement." On June 3, 2011, Husband filed a motion to alter or amend the trial court's judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04. In his motion, Husband requested, inter alia, that the trial court "clarify the terms of the distribution of retirement benefits, reconsider the application of alimony in futuro, and reconsider the allowance of alimony during the period of time that [Wife] shall be residing in the marital residence." In an order entered on July 21, 2011, the trial court determined that its division of the marital estate had been equitable and its award of alimony appropriate given Wife's needs and H


CourtListener opinion 4908254

pension: ed on Retired Pay Accrued During Marriage The designated agent cannot honor awards based on the value of the member's retired pay that has "accrued" during the marriage because military retired pay does not accrue over time. Military retired pay is not a pension. Rather, it is a statutory entitlement computed at the time the -9- member retires and it is based on the member's rank and total years of service at the time of retirement, or member's high-3 and total years of service. [2] 290615. Awards of a Percentage of the Marital Portion The designated agent cannot honor an award of a percentage of the "mari


CourtListener opinion 4908254

valuation/division: d not disburse retirement funds to the wife due to deficient award language contained in the 2011 order. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service explained in a letter addressed to the wife that the 2011 order had failed to provide a method to calculate the marital portion of the husband's retirement pay and that it had no way to calculate retirement pay that had "accumulated during the term of the marriage." In order to effectuate the enforcement of its intended division of the husband's military retirement pay, the trial court attempted to correct its order by replacing "accumulated during the term of the marriage" with lan


CourtListener opinion 4908539

CourtListener opinion 4908539 Extracted case name: ANNA SINCLAIR-JAMISON v. DEMETRISE PINKERTON. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4908539 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 4908539


CourtListener opinion 4908539

domestic relations order: not award, refuse to change, or modify custody; nor does it hold or decline to hold a person in contempt of such an order. It simply vacates a prior order declining to hold a person in contempt, and it schedules further proceedings. Because the interlocutory domestic relations order that Sinclair-Jamison wishes to appeal does not come within the ambit of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), she was required to file an interlocutory application to obtain appellate review at this juncture. Her failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996);


CourtListener opinion 4908755

CourtListener opinion 4908755 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Wagner. Extracted reporter citation: 711 P.2d 1384. Docket: 56. 5 The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4908755 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 4908755


CourtListener opinion 4908755

QDRO: of Thomas James Bick and Kathleen Jo Johnson's dissolution of marriage case and associated child support case.1 Bick appeals from the District Court's December 31, 2018 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order and Decree of Dissolution (Decree) and two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). We affirm. ¶3 Bick and Johnson married in September 1987 and have two children together, H.B. and K.B. The parties resided in Billings, Montana since their marriage. In May 2016, Johnson told Bick that she had a job offer in Bozeman. She moved to Bozeman on June 14, 2016, with H.B. and K.B. Johnson signed a Petition for Dissolution of Marria


CourtListener opinion 4908755

retirement benefits: illiams, 186 Mont. at 75, 606 P.2d at 517. The District Court did not err by not crediting Bick for the motel and campground expenses.5 ¶19 The fifth issue raised on appeal is whether the District Court erred in ordering Bick to pay the costs to divide his retirement accounts.6 "The distribution of marital property in a dissolution proceeding is governed by § 40-4-202, MCA, under which a 5 Bick also argues the District Court ordered Bick to continue paying for Johnson's phone, phone service, and car insurance not only through trial delays but also once child support had started and after the court closed the window on child


CourtListener opinion 4908755

pension: e addressed in the variance infra." The District Court explained that the variance "would assist [Bick] in paying for lodging and meals out to parent." ¶8 Johnson's attorney prepared the QDROs for Bick's Billings Clinic 403(b) Plan and his Billings Clinic Pension Plan. Bick was named the "Participant" in each QDRO and Johnson was named the "Alternate Payee." The final provision in each QDRO required Bick to pay the one-time fee for review of the QDRO. The one-time fee for each QDRO was $300. The parties stipulated to the court entering each QDRO. On November 6, 2019, the District Court signed the QDROs. ¶9 Thre


CourtListener opinion 4908755

alternate payee: ld assist [Bick] in paying for lodging and meals out to parent." ¶8 Johnson's attorney prepared the QDROs for Bick's Billings Clinic 403(b) Plan and his Billings Clinic Pension Plan. Bick was named the "Participant" in each QDRO and Johnson was named the "Alternate Payee." The final provision in each QDRO required Bick to pay the one-time fee for review of the QDRO. The one-time fee for each QDRO was $300. The parties stipulated to the court entering each QDRO. On November 6, 2019, the District Court signed the QDROs. ¶9 Three issues Bick raises on appeal ask this Court to overturn decisions the District Court made in


CourtListener opinion 4911389

CourtListener opinion 4911389 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McDonald. Extracted reporter citation: 219 S.W.3d 97. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4911389 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 4911389

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 4911389

QDRO: arital estate, Edward was awarded a fifty-percent portion of Isabel's retirement benefits with Mason & Hanger Pantex and Isabel was awarded a fifty-percent portion of Edward's retirement benefits with ASARCO. Following the divorce, Edward's attorney sent a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")1 to the trial court for signature and approval. Isabel and her counsel were unaware of the document. The court signed and entered the QDRO nine months after the divorce was final. On April 24, 2012, a plan administrator from Mason & Hanger sent a letter to Isabel, her attorney, and Edward stating that the QDRO had been accepted and "[a]ccording


CourtListener opinion 4911389

retirement benefits: Final Decree of Divorce was filed that same day. As part of the division of the marital estate, Edward was awarded a fifty-percent portion of Isabel's retirement benefits with Mason & Hanger Pantex and Isabel was awarded a fifty-percent portion of Edward's retirement benefits with ASARCO. Following the divorce, Edward's attorney sent a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")1 to the trial court for signature and approval. Isabel and her counsel were unaware of the document. The court signed and entered the QDRO nine months after the divorce was final. On April 24, 2012, a plan administrator from Mason & Hanger sent a le


CourtListener opinion 4911389

pension: nt. The court signed and entered the QDRO nine months after the divorce was final. On April 24, 2012, a plan administrator from Mason & Hanger sent a letter to Isabel, her attorney, and Edward stating that the QDRO had been accepted and "[a]ccordingly, the pension plan payments will be distributed in accordance with the [QDRO]." While Mason & Hanger Pantex initially approved the QDRO, it later withdrew approval. Accordingly, Edward failed to receive his portion of Isabel's retirement benefits from Mason & Hanger Pantex paid prior to November 2019. Instead, Isabel received both the full share of her retirement as


CourtListener opinion 4911389

alternate payee: The matter was tried to the bench, after which the 1 A qualified domestic relations order is a post-divorce enforcement order. Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). Its purpose is to create or recognize an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan. Quijano v. Quijano, 347 S.W.3d 345, 353-54 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). 2 trial court entered its Judgment and Order Granting Relief, awarding judgment against Isabel in the amount of $13,325.91, together with interest thereon, costs,


CourtListener opinion 4912212

CourtListener opinion 4912212 Extracted reporter citation: 96 S.W.3d 227. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4912212 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 4912212


CourtListener opinion 4912212

QDRO: s and expenses at Redeemers Academy, including all payments required for summer school and / or daycare. c. IT IS ORDERED AND DECREE[D] that [Wife] is awarded the sum of $38,000, in favor of [Wife] against [Husband]'s 401 (k), secured by payment through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). d. IT IS ORDERED AND DECREE[D] The IRS tax debt of the parties for tax [years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019], together with all penalties and interest due thereon, which [Husband] is ordered to timely pay. Husband is further ordered to indemnify Wife 1 Wife does not argue prejudice stemming from noncompliance by Husband with Rule 34.6(c).


CourtListener opinion 4912212

retirement benefits: debt" of the parties incurred during the marriage and to indemnify 3 In his reply brief, Husband argues the trial court was required to apply Family Code section 3.007(c), which states, "The separate property interest of a spouse in a defined contribution retirement plan may be traced using the tracing and characterization principles that apply to a nonretirement asset." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 3.007(c). First, the use of "may" indicates that this is not the exclusive means of apportioning separate and community interests in a defined contribution account. See Code Construction Act, Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 311.016(1) ("‘May' c


CourtListener opinion 4912212

401(k): nrewaju (Wife). In four issues identified in his notice of appeal on a partial reporter's record, Husband argues the trial court reversibly erred by (1) ordering Husband to pay the school fees of the couple's children, (2) awarding Wife $38,000 from Husband's 401(k) account, (3) ordering Husband to pay tax debt incurred during the marriage, and (4) ordering Husband to pay child support. We affirm. I. ANALYSIS Husband filed this appeal on a partial reporter's record. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c)(1) states, "If the appellant requests a partial reporter's record, the appellant must include in the request a


CourtListener opinion 4912212

domestic relations order: nses at Redeemers Academy, including all payments required for summer school and / or daycare. c. IT IS ORDERED AND DECREE[D] that [Wife] is awarded the sum of $38,000, in favor of [Wife] against [Husband]'s 401 (k), secured by payment through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). d. IT IS ORDERED AND DECREE[D] The IRS tax debt of the parties for tax [years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019], together with all penalties and interest due thereon, which [Husband] is ordered to timely pay. Husband is further ordered to indemnify Wife 1 Wife does not argue prejudice stemming from noncompliance by Husband with Rule 34.6(c).


CourtListener opinion 4912251

CourtListener opinion 4912251 Extracted reporter citation: 555 S.W.3d 539. Docket: 2019-33496 MEMORANDUM OPINION This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4912251 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 4912251


CourtListener opinion 4912251

QDRO: ugh the trial court did not provide specific reasons for its division 55 In her brief, Dalia explained that she would have not agreed to the rollover because "Samuel put all of his retirement accounts out of reach of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") division by putting the annuity entirely in his name." However, there was no evidence to support her conclusion. 14 of the community property estate, the trial court could have had a reasonable basis to award Dalia 100% of her FERS pension. Dalia proposed that Samuel keep his IRA. She testified that she would not have consented to his rollover had sh


CourtListener opinion 4912251

retirement benefits: o an engineer. She worked for NASA. Samuel testified that he and Dalia earned roughly the same annual income, between $110,000 and $120,000, and that both parties were in good health. Throughout their careers, both Dalia and Samuel accumulated substantial retirement benefits. Samuel testified about his Lockheed Martin pension account. He stated that if he retired on July 1, 2020, then Lockheed Martin would pay him a monthly pension payment of $257.22 for the rest of his life. In support of this monthly pension benefit, he presented a Lockheed Martin retirement statement showing the estimated values of his monthly pension


CourtListener opinion 4912251

pension: s ———————————— NO. 01-20-00753-CV ——————————— SAMUEL RIOJAS, Appellant V. DALIA RIOJAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 310th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2019-33496 MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal concerns the division of pension assets between divorcing spouses. Samuel Riojas petitioned for divorce from Dalia Riojas. The trial court granted the divorce based on insupportability, divided the community property, and awarded each party 100% of their respective pensions. On appeal, Samuel1 argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Dalia a disproportionate share


CourtListener opinion 4912251

401(k): Boeing on the International Space Station. He had about 35 years' experience in the space industry. 1 We refer to the appellant and appellee by their first names because they share the same last name. 2 During their marriage, Samuel accumulated multiple 401(k) accounts because he worked for multiple companies, including Lockheed Martin. Dalia was also an engineer. She worked for NASA. Samuel testified that he and Dalia earned roughly the same annual income, between $110,000 and $120,000, and that both parties were in good health. Throughout their careers, both Dalia and Samuel accumulated substantial retirem


CourtListener opinion 4912486

CourtListener opinion 4912486 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Reinauer. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: sheet from when the decree was rendered. 3 Award to. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4912486 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 4912486


CourtListener opinion 4912486

QDRO: may not modify a property division in a divorce decree, if it is ambiguous, the trial court may enter a clarifying order to enforce compliance with the division of property."). A trial court's clarification (by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) or similar order) of a decree's ambiguous division of retirement benefits does not constitute a change to the decree's substantive division of property and does not run afoul of section 9.007. See Watret, 623 S.W.3d at 563; see also Wilde v. Murchie, 949 S.W.2d 331, 332 (Tex. 1997) ("[I]f the decree is ambiguous, the court must interpret the judgment b


CourtListener opinion 4912486

retirement benefits: n the substance of his arguments. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 (requiring opinion to be "as brief as 4 amend the decree in violation of Family Code section 9.007; (2) the trial court exceeded its authority in rendering the MRPDO when it divided Paul's military retirement benefits in violation of Family Code section 9.101; and (3) Teresa's motion to enforce the decree's property division was time-barred by Family Code section 9.003. We will address each issue in turn. Family Code section 9.007 Family Code section 9.007 prohibits a trial court from amending, modifying, altering, or changing the actual, substantive division of p


CourtListener opinion 4912486

pension: a Jones, Appellee FROM THE 169TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 231,816-C, THE HONORABLE GORDON G. ADAMS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Paul Jones and Teresa Jones1 were divorced in 2009. In 2020, the trial court rendered a Military Retirement Pension Division Order (MRPDO), finding the order "necessary to effectuate the terms" of the parties' divorce decree. Paul, appearing pro se, appeals the order. For the following reasons, we will affirm the MRPDO. BACKGROUND The final divorce decree provides, relevantly, that Paul is awarded All sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vest


CourtListener opinion 4912486

alternate payee: use of community property); In re L.W., No. 12-19-00375-CV, 2020 WL 2078793, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Tyler Apr. 30, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining judicial admissions and their effect). 6 divisible under the law of this state or of the United States to an alternate payee or other lawful payee. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.101(a). As best we can discern Paul's complaint regarding section 9.101, he seems to be arguing that the trial court erred in rendering the MRPDO without first rendering a QDRO. Alternatively, his argument appears to be that because the MRPDO was entered later than the decree, the trial court somehow lacked pow


CourtListener opinion 4969750

CourtListener opinion 4969750 Extracted case name: F.T. v. L.J. Extracted reporter citation: 5 Cal.App.5th 69. Docket: H045078. 3 B. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4969750 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 4969750

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 4969750

QDRO: fees order); (2) an order of October 29, 2018, denying Hage's request to set aside or vacate the attorney fees order; and (3) a minute order of November 6, 2018, purportedly granting Mhanna's request to enforce a prior court order for attorney fees through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO; hereafter, the QDRO minute order). Hage contends the trial court erred in making the six orders from which appeals have been taken. We conclude that the appeal as to the attorney fees order (April 6, 2018 order in case No. H046384) is untimely, and we will accordingly dismiss that appeal. As to the remaining five orders, we conclude there is no erro


CourtListener opinion 4969750

domestic relations order: r); (2) an order of October 29, 2018, denying Hage's request to set aside or vacate the attorney fees order; and (3) a minute order of November 6, 2018, purportedly granting Mhanna's request to enforce a prior court order for attorney fees through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO; hereafter, the QDRO minute order). Hage contends the trial court erred in making the six orders from which appeals have been taken. We conclude that the appeal as to the attorney fees order (April 6, 2018 order in case No. H046384) is untimely, and we will accordingly dismiss that appeal. As to the remaining five orders, we conclude there is no erro


CourtListener opinion 4994886

CourtListener opinion 4994886 Extracted case name: BETH E. ANKETELL v. MARTIN KULLDORFF. Extracted reporter citation: 99 A.3d 1206. Docket: of grants that he applies for and receives. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4994886 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 4994886

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 4994886

QDRO: , several of the assets awarded to the plaintiff in the dissolution judgment were not easily liquidated. Specifically, she was awarded her Worcester home, in which she reported $68,858 in equity, $175,000 in retirement accounts to be trans- ferred by way of a qualified domestic relations order, $71,035 in her retirement plan, and $2665 in equity in her motor vehicle.12 The only assets that the plaintiff was awarded that were capable of immediate liquida- tion were the lump sum property settlement of $52,500, $5000 in funds that were held by the caretaker of the Nicaragua property, and $6801 in bank accounts.13 As the plaintiff maintains, the $25,


CourtListener opinion 4994886

retirement benefits: in 2015, the plaintiff worked twenty-nine hours per week, which was considered a full-time position, as a nurse at UMass Memorial Medi- cal Center in Worcester, Massachusetts. While working full time, the plaintiff elected not to participate in her employer's retirement plans. Following the birth of the parties' children, the plaintiff returned to work as a per diem nurse. Because her position is per diem, it is without fringe benefits, and her income depends on the number of hours she works. During the pendency of the dissolution proceedings, the plaintiff's work hours varied considerably. The defendant has earned a PhD and w


CourtListener opinion 4994886

domestic relations order: of the assets awarded to the plaintiff in the dissolution judgment were not easily liquidated. Specifically, she was awarded her Worcester home, in which she reported $68,858 in equity, $175,000 in retirement accounts to be trans- ferred by way of a qualified domestic relations order, $71,035 in her retirement plan, and $2665 in equity in her motor vehicle.12 The only assets that the plaintiff was awarded that were capable of immediate liquida- tion were the lump sum property settlement of $52,500, $5000 in funds that were held by the caretaker of the Nicaragua property, and $6801 in bank accounts.13 As the plaintiff maintains, the $25,


CourtListener opinion 4994886

valuation/division: .'' She further clarified, when asked whether she was ‘‘still looking for $60,000 even though [the defendant had] been funding the chil- dren's education,'' that her ‘‘desire to have the $60,000 did not factor on the CHET account[s] alone.'' In rendering its property division orders, the court considered the defendant's several unilateral financial transactions, which, although they increased the equity in the Ashford home and set aside funds for the three children's college education, were made without the input of the plaintiff and had the effect of reducing the liquid assets available for distribution. Having reviewed the ev


CourtListener opinion 5078025

CourtListener opinion 5078025 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5078025 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 5078025


CourtListener opinion 5078025

QDRO: vatorship and visitation, ordered appellant to pay child support and attorney's fees, divided the parties' real estate in Indiana, awarded the wife an interest in an annuity recovered by appellant in a personal injury case in Indiana, and was accompanied by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order directing payment by Life Insurance Company of North America of one-half of appellant's annuity benefits to his wife. Appellant acknowledges the efficacy of the judgment as to divorce, conservatorship, and visitation, but challenges the remainder of the judgment for want of the court's jurisdiction over his person and property, claiming that neither pleadin


CourtListener opinion 5078025

domestic relations order: and visitation, ordered appellant to pay child support and attorney's fees, divided the parties' real estate in Indiana, awarded the wife an interest in an annuity recovered by appellant in a personal injury case in Indiana, and was accompanied by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order directing payment by Life Insurance Company of North America of one-half of appellant's annuity benefits to his wife. Appellant acknowledges the efficacy of the judgment as to divorce, conservatorship, and visitation, but challenges the remainder of the judgment for want of the court's jurisdiction over his person and property, claiming that neither pleadin


CourtListener opinion 5084734

CourtListener opinion 5084734 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5084734 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. 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 5084734

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, 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 5084734

retirement benefits: and granting appellee's Motion for Enforcement and Clarification. We affirm. The parties were divorced on May 11, 1988. The final decree awarded to appellee, as her separate property, one-half of the cash surrender value as of May 11, 1988, of two optional retirement plans in appellant's name. On February 10, 1992, appellee filed a Motion for Enforcement and Clarification. In her motion, appellee requested that the court render a \clarifying\" order so that the portion of the divorce decree awarding her the retirement benefits would include appellee's last known address and appellant's mailing address and thus


CourtListener opinion 5115720

CourtListener opinion 5115720 Extracted reporter citation: 133 S.W.3d 217. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5115720 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 5115720


CourtListener opinion 5115720

QDRO: ht to appeal sanctions order accrued when trial court rendered final judgment); cf. Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex. 2000) (declining to address whether sanctions order must be included in final judgment). 2 to render qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO). Tex. Fam. Code §§ 9.006, 9.008, 9.101; see also Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 106-08 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). The sanctions order in this case does not pertain to the enforcement or clarification of the property division or to a QDRO. Accordingly, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to order sanctions in Novemb


CourtListener opinion 5115720

domestic relations order: al sanctions order accrued when trial court rendered final judgment); cf. Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex. 2000) (declining to address whether sanctions order must be included in final judgment). 2 to render qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO). Tex. Fam. Code §§ 9.006, 9.008, 9.101; see also Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 106-08 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). The sanctions order in this case does not pertain to the enforcement or clarification of the property division or to a QDRO. Accordingly, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to order sanctions in Novemb


CourtListener opinion 5115720

valuation/division: ned the order at issue in this appeal sanctioning Brenda Cay Hemenway's attorney Michael Rinehart. After its plenary power expires, a trial court in divorce proceedings has continuing, yet limited, postjudgment jurisdiction to enforce and clarify the decree's property division and 1 The trial court signed two sanctions orders in this case against Brenda Cay Hemenway's attorney Michael Rinehart. The trial court signed the first sanctions order before it rendered a final decree. Brenda Cay Hemenway implies that the divorce decree superseded the first sanctions order. John Richard Hemenway, appearing pro se on appeal, contends th


CourtListener opinion 5116129

CourtListener opinion 5116129 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of NANCY and BRYAN MCKINNEY. NANCY MCKINNEY. Extracted reporter citation: 4 Cal.App.5th 574. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5116129 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 5116129


CourtListener opinion 5116129

QDRO: for the survivorship benefit for Wife's disability retirement, Husband would get 50 percent at her death. Wife would get 50 percent of Husband's pension from the City of La Quinta 2006 to 2010 but would also have to contribute to the cost of a professional QDRO calculation. As for the Anaheim Hills House, there was nothing left to divide or give back. The trial court found, "I know that there was information about separate property was put into it, and therefore [Wife] should get some of the down payment back and that [Husband] maybe put a small amount, but there is no tracing here that I can trace it back t


CourtListener opinion 5116129

retirement benefits: had been living in the Fawnskin House, which went into foreclosure. Wife alleged that she paid the down payment on the Fawnskin House with her separate property and wanted to equalize her loss in the home in the amount of $70,000. Wife also listed an OCER retirement account, which she wanted awarded as her sole and separate property. Wife also requested that Husband pay a portion of her attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $15,000. Husband filed a trial brief on August 14, 2015. He listed the date of separation as May 1, 2012. When Husband signed the quitclaim deed to the Rembrandt House there was no equity and he


CourtListener opinion 5116129

pension: When Husband signed the quitclaim deed to the Rembrandt House there was no equity and he believed that they were going to reconcile. Further, they jointly agreed to have the Fawnskin House go into foreclosure. He also sought his community share of her OCER pension. Husband also alleged that each party should bear their own attorney's fees and costs. 3 Wife filed an amended trial brief on October 6, 2015. She again contended that the date of separation was March 1, 2010. Wife sought $5,000 each month in spousal support; to be awarded the Rembrandt House as her separate property; a payout from Husband's pension


CourtListener opinion 5116129

valuation/division: iamond ring at her behest—to save the marriage—on which he still owed money. He also wanted her to share in paying back the loan from his parents. 10 As for Wife's disability retirement, he was not asking for any of it during her lifetime but wanted the community property in the survivorship pension. He wanted the $115,000 back that was from his retirement account because of her breach of fiduciary duty in taking it and wanted Wife to pay all of his attorney's fees. He also sought to have the transfer of the Rembrandt House to be rescinded because of duress. The house should be sold so he could get his portion. Husband


CourtListener opinion 5117095

CourtListener opinion 5117095 Extracted case name: GILREATH v. CONNER. REESE. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5117095 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 5117095

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 5117095

QDRO: and stated: (A) The parties agree that [Conner] shall have an interest in [Gilreath's] pension plan upon [Gilreath's] retirement in good standing from his employer . . . based on the following: (1) [Conner] shall be responsible for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) incorporating the terms in paragraph 11(A) herein, within ninety (90) days of [Gilreath's] instatement of his pension. Said QDRO shall be subject to approval of [Gilreath] and the Court of proper jurisdiction in this case, as well as the Administrator(s) of the aforementioned pension plan. . . . (2) [Conner's] interest in [Gilreath's] pension s


CourtListener opinion 5117095

retirement benefits: lowing. As part of the final judgment and decree governing Gilreath and Conner's divorce, the parties entered into an agreement outlining, inter alia, the division of marital property (the "Agreement"). Section 11 of the Agreement addressed the division of retirement benefits and stated: (A) The parties agree that [Conner] shall have an interest in [Gilreath's] pension plan upon [Gilreath's] retirement in good standing from his employer . . . based on the following: (1) [Conner] shall be responsible for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) incorporating the terms in paragraph 11(A) herein, with


CourtListener opinion 5117095

pension: T. ALL FILINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN THE TIMES SET BY OUR COURT RULES. September 21, 2021 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A21A0816. GILREATH v. CONNER. REESE, Judge. Edward Gilreath and Sherrie Conner divorced in 2014. Gilreath began receiving pension payments as of January 1, 2019, following his retirement, but he did not provide any portion of these payments to Conner. Conner subsequently filed a motion for clarification of the final judgment and decree, and a motion for contempt. The trial court denied Conner's contempt motion, but found that Gilreath owed Conner 27.4 percent of his monthly pensio


CourtListener opinion 5117095

domestic relations order: : (A) The parties agree that [Conner] shall have an interest in [Gilreath's] pension plan upon [Gilreath's] retirement in good standing from his employer . . . based on the following: (1) [Conner] shall be responsible for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) incorporating the terms in paragraph 11(A) herein, within ninety (90) days of [Gilreath's] instatement of his pension. Said QDRO shall be subject to approval of [Gilreath] and the Court of proper jurisdiction in this case, as well as the Administrator(s) of the aforementioned pension plan. . . . (2) [Conner's] interest in [Gilreath's] pension s


CourtListener opinion 5119999

CourtListener opinion 5119999 Extracted case name: MINER v. MINER. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0155 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5119999 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 5119999


CourtListener opinion 5119999

retirement benefits: sion Clause of the Arizona Constitution. I. Koelsch Payments ¶8 Our Supreme Court defines a matured pension as an "unconditional right to immediate payment." See Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 178 n.2 (cleaned up). When an employee spouse continues working after his retirement benefits mature, then he is "liable to reimburse the non- employee spouse for the property interest in the monthly pension benefit." Id. at 185. A non-employee spouse may waive her right to seek Koelsch payments if that spouse agrees to receive her share of benefits when distributed to the employee spouse. See Quijada, 246 Ariz. at 221, ¶ 10. ¶9 The Order's langua


CourtListener opinion 5119999

pension: affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Husband and Wife married in 1998. During the marriage, Husband worked for the Phoenix Police Department. As a police officer, Husband participates in the Arizona State Public Safety Personnel Retirement System ("Pension"). Husband still worked for, but could not retire from, Phoenix Police Department when the parties divorced in November 2017. ¶3 In the consent decree, the parties agreed to equally divide the community's interest in the Pension. The decree required the parties to hire an attorney to "prepare any orders and documentation necessary to effectuate a division


CourtListener opinion 5119999

domestic relations order: eed to equally divide the community's interest in the Pension. The decree required the parties to hire an attorney to "prepare any orders and documentation necessary to effectuate a division of the Pension." In September 2019, the parties entered a stipulated domestic relations order ("Order") that divided the Pension. The Order provided: "[Wife] is awarded as her sole and separate property a pro-rata share of [the Pension] payable directly . . . at the same time and in the same manner payments are made to [Husband]." ¶4 In June 2020, Wife petitioned to enforce the decree's provision concerning the Pension. Wife alleged "Husband will r


CourtListener opinion 5122404

CourtListener opinion 5122404 Extracted reporter citation: 791 N.E.2d 434. Docket: 12-21-01. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5122404 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 5122404


CourtListener opinion 5122404

QDRO: w -11- Case No. 12-21-01 of the record shows that the parties stipulated that they would offset the amount owed by Patrick for equity in the marital home for an equal amount in Melissa's 401K plan and all of the retirement accounts would be subject to a QDRO. However, the record does not indicate that the parties stipulated that they would divide the assets first and then offset the amount. A trial court has broad discretion in how marital assets are divided and its determination will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275, 2003-Ohio-3624, 791


CourtListener opinion 5122404

retirement benefits: et to her 401K plan was completed. A review -11- Case No. 12-21-01 of the record shows that the parties stipulated that they would offset the amount owed by Patrick for equity in the marital home for an equal amount in Melissa's 401K plan and all of the retirement accounts would be subject to a QDRO. However, the record does not indicate that the parties stipulated that they would divide the assets first and then offset the amount. A trial court has broad discretion in how marital assets are divided and its determination will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3


CourtListener opinion 5122404

401(k): rst assignment of error that the trial court erred in its property division by 1) mistakenly listing the FME/Community Choice debt as $117 instead of $1,170 and 2) erring in how it offset the amount owed by Patrick to Melissa from the division of Melissa's 401K plan. As to the FME/Community Choice debt, a review of the record shows that as of September 2020, Melissa had paid $990. Plaintiff's Ex. LLL. The trial court indicated that it was using the numbers set forth in Plaintiff's Ex. LLL to determine the values, but used the number $117 in its calculations. This appears to be a typographical error that affec


CourtListener opinion 5122404

valuation/division: Ex. 3. This affects the equitable division of assets. Thus, the trial court upon remand needs to correct this error. Patrick's third assignment of error is sustained. {¶15} Melissa claims in her first assignment of error that the trial court erred in its property division by 1) mistakenly listing the FME/Community Choice debt as $117 instead of $1,170 and 2) erring in how it offset the amount owed by Patrick to Melissa from the division of Melissa's 401K plan. As to the FME/Community Choice debt, a review of the record shows that as of September 2020, Melissa had paid $990. Plaintiff's Ex. LLL. The trial court indicated


CourtListener opinion 5125604

CourtListener opinion 5125604 Extracted case name: CYNTHIA LAWRENCE v. THOMAS LAWRENCE. Extracted reporter citation: 193 S.W.3d 495. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5125604 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 5125604


CourtListener opinion 5125604

QDRO: y in this case, Mr. Lawrence will designate a $70,000.00 figure as dissipat ion in this case, one- otChalf of which or ;37.505).Q0. Mr. Lawrence will transfer ette.zemainder of his 401(k) account. Counsel for Wife shall to Mrs. Lawrence the prepare the QDRO jte vit.) Sa., Wrfe's expense. Additionally, Mr. Lawrence will pay P Lawrence for the loan and withdrawal he took out against the o Mrs. 1.1'8.)588 co Lt- ' 401(k)to fund this litigation in the total arnount of $.2867{4/4040. Husband will also pay to Wife one- half(%)of the value of the gold and silver at National Security & Trust that existed at


CourtListener opinion 5125604

401(k): Prior to the mediation, Husband made a written settlement offer in a letter dated July 3, 2018. On July 9, 2018, Husband sent Wife's counsel another letter advising of an error in the July 3, 2018 letter regarding the amount of Husband's withdrawals from his 401(k). This letter advised and provided proof that the actual amount of the withdrawals was $298,588.64, not the $250,000.00 referenced in the July 3, 2018 letter. The mediator used this letter as a basis to arrive at a "Mediated Agreement," making notations on the letter to reflect the parties' evolving agreements, see infra. The parties signed off on the letter


CourtListener opinion 5126331

CourtListener opinion 5126331 Extracted case name: KELLY v. KELLY. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0441 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5126331 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.