CourtListener opinion 2699910

domestic relations order: d, but was not limited to, the appellee's STRS retirement benefits. With regard to the STRS retirement benefits, the Final Decree stated: {¶4} "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Teachers' Retirement Pension (STRS) shall be divided pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Costs of the division shall be paid equally by each party. Survivorship and costs of living protection for the Defendant [Appellant Kory] shall be provided." {¶5} Subsequent to the parties' divorce, a delay ensued concerning the preparation and filing of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Specifically, appellant's attorney believed that the entr


CourtListener opinion 2700098

CourtListener opinion 2700098 Extracted reporter citation: 472 N.E.2d 328. Docket: 10 CA 115 12. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2700098 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 2700098

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 2700098

QDRO: laintiff [Appellee] shall be entitled to receive the sum of $147,959 from one or more of Defendant's [Appellant's] retirement holdings and shall retain same free and clear of any claim of Defendant. Plaintiff shall prepare and the parties shall execute any QDRO(s) and/or rollover forms necessary to accomplish this transfer. Defendant shall retain, free and clear of any claim of Plaintiff, any remaining retirement funds held in his name." Divorce Decree at 4. {¶5} Although the figure used in Paragraph 9 was $147,959.00, the record indicates that due to changes in the stock market during some of the times in qu


CourtListener opinion 2700098

retirement benefits: laim of Plaintiff, any remaining retirement funds held in his name." Divorce Decree at 4. {¶5} Although the figure used in Paragraph 9 was $147,959.00, the record indicates that due to changes in the stock market during some of the times in question, the retirement accounts at issue varied in combined value as follows: Licking County, Case No. 10 CA 115 3 {¶6} December 31, 2007: $147,950.64 {¶7} December 31, 2008: $180,061.02 {¶8} March 31, 2009: $ 99,653.72 {¶9} As further discussed infra, a QDRO was not journalized until April 30, 2009, at which time the combined account balance had dropped well below the $147,95


CourtListener opinion 2700098

401(k): l 29, 2008, appellant and appellee were granted a divorce by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. {¶3} At the time of the divorce, appellant had built up several retirement accounts, including a profit sharing plan and a 401(K) plan. The 2008 divorce decree included the following provision (hereinafter "Paragraph 9") regarding appellant's retirement funds: {¶4} "9. RETIREMENT HOLDINGS – The Plaintiff [Appellee] shall be entitled to receive the sum of $147,959 from one or more of Defendant's [Appellant's] retirement holdings and shall retain same free and clear of any claim o


CourtListener opinion 2700098

valuation/division: ng to apply the clean hands doctrine. Jurisdiction to Modify {¶26} Appellant additionally contends the trial court should have dismissed the contempt motion on the grounds that the trial court did not have continuing jurisdiction to modify the parties' property division. This Court has recognized that once a court has made an equitable property division, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify its decision without consent. See, e.g., Oberst v. Oberst, Fairfield App.No. 09-CA-54, 2010-Ohio-452, ¶ 22, citing R.C. 3105.171(I). However, we find no merit in appellant's essential claim that the contempt remedy in


CourtListener opinion 2700454

CourtListener opinion 2700454 Docket: 2010-CA-00193 3 the Security Plan. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2700454 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 2700454


CourtListener opinion 2700454

QDRO: 3} The record indicates the parties ended their marriage in October, 2006, and executed a separation agreement. The agreement provided in pertinent part: "11. Husband and Wife consent and agree that Wife is to receive one-half of IBEW 401(K) by use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)." {¶4} On June 17, 2010, the court conducted a hearing on a request for clarification of the QDRO and the divorce decree. The trial court found the attorney representing the company clarified that appellant's IBEW pension account is a Security Plan Pension, and that a separate 401(K) Plan exists, but it has no value. The court found the pen


CourtListener opinion 2700454

retirement benefits: parties were married. {¶9} Appellant cites us to Ruthrauff v. Ruthrauff, Stark App. No. 2009-CA- 00191, 2010-Ohio-887. In Ruthrauff, the parties' separation agreement provided for Stark County, Case No. 2010-CA-00193 4 equal distribution of the husband's retirement benefits from U.S. Army. The decree was granted in 1985. When the ex-husband retired from the military in 2003, the ex-wife began receiving half of the total benefits. The trial court found the terms of the separation agreement were clear and unambiguous, and refused to modify the award. We found if the language of a written instrument is clear and unambiguous,


CourtListener opinion 2700454

pension: alified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)." {¶4} On June 17, 2010, the court conducted a hearing on a request for clarification of the QDRO and the divorce decree. The trial court found the attorney representing the company clarified that appellant's IBEW pension account is a Security Plan Pension, and that a separate 401(K) Plan exists, but it has no value. The court found the pension accrued during the marriage and has an approximate value of $30,000. {¶5} The trial court stated it lacks authority to modify the division of marital property contained in the final decree, but it does have the power to clar


CourtListener opinion 2700454

401(k): D BY THE COURT." {¶3} The record indicates the parties ended their marriage in October, 2006, and executed a separation agreement. The agreement provided in pertinent part: "11. Husband and Wife consent and agree that Wife is to receive one-half of IBEW 401(K) by use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)." {¶4} On June 17, 2010, the court conducted a hearing on a request for clarification of the QDRO and the divorce decree. The trial court found the attorney representing the company clarified that appellant's IBEW pension account is a Security Plan Pension, and that a separate 401(K) Plan exist


CourtListener opinion 2700477

CourtListener opinion 2700477 Extracted reporter citation: 855 N.E.2d 533. Docket: 10 CA 118 7. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2700477 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 2700477


CourtListener opinion 2700477

QDRO: t's conduct in support of the attorney fee award. In its Judgment Entry, the trial court held: {¶25} "The Court considers the award of attorney fees of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars to be equitable. The responsibility for the preparation of the original Qualified Domestic Relations Order was the Defendants. The disagreement primarily before the Court was driven by the Defendant's actions in naming his new wife as beneficiary, thus reducing the amount to which the Plaintiff was by Judgment Entry entitled. The legal costs involving the Qualified Domestic Relations Order have been substantial on both sides. Defendant's bill for his legal s


CourtListener opinion 2700477

retirement benefits: granted on May 23, 2007. {¶5} Since that time, the parties have been back before the court on a number of different issues. {¶6} On May 18, 2010, the parties came before the court on a post-decree hearing to decide issues relative to Husband's Executive Retirement Plan and Salaried Retirement Program. Requests for attorney fees were filed by both parties. Additionally, both parties stipulated that the attorney fees incurred by the other were reasonable. {¶7} On June 16, 2010, the Magistrate entered his Decision which, inter alia, awarded attorney fees in the amount of $5,000.00 to Appellee. Richland County, Case No


CourtListener opinion 2700477

pension: arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983) 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140. {¶22} Upon review, we find that in the instant case, the magistrate had before him evidence as to Appellant's monthly pension benefit which was initially $8,226.65 and then later reduced to $7,379.62 after he elected his current wife to receive the surviving spouse benefit in contravention of the divorce decree. {¶23} We further find that the trial court was familiar with the parties and their financial situations based on earlier proceedings in this case and the entire recor


CourtListener opinion 2700477

domestic relations order: t in support of the attorney fee award. In its Judgment Entry, the trial court held: {¶25} "The Court considers the award of attorney fees of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars to be equitable. The responsibility for the preparation of the original Qualified Domestic Relations Order was the Defendants. The disagreement primarily before the Court was driven by the Defendant's actions in naming his new wife as beneficiary, thus reducing the amount to which the Plaintiff was by Judgment Entry entitled. The legal costs involving the Qualified Domestic Relations Order have been substantial on both sides. Defendant's bill for his legal s


CourtListener opinion 2701213

CourtListener opinion 2701213 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2701213 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 2701213


CourtListener opinion 2701213

QDRO: marriage were emancipated. ¶{6} Approximately 20 days prior to trial at a telephone status conference, the parties stipulated to certain facts. In those stipulations it states: ¶{7} "Husband has a vested pension with Exxon Mobile and an IRA with Fidelity. A QDRO shall be issued relevant to the two (2) utilizing the dates of coverture as June 28, 1969, through December 21, 2009. Wife to be awarded 50% of coverture portion." ¶{8} The magistrate adopted and approved the written stipulations. Neither party filed objections to that decision. ¶{9} The case then proceeded to trial before the court. In the middle of tria


CourtListener opinion 2701213

retirement benefits: the account. However, that does not mean it is his separate property. R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a) defines "Marital property" as: ¶{28} "(i) All real and personal property that currently is owned by either or both of the spouses, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage; ¶{29} "(ii) All interest that either or both of the spouses currently has in any real or personal property, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage; ¶{30} "(i


CourtListener opinion 2701213

pension: the decision of the Mahoning County Domestic Relations Court that granted defendant-appellee Anastasia DeJoseph's, n.k.a. Anastasia Roussos (Wife), Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the separation agreement solely as it related to the division of the Exxon Mobil pension and awarded Wife 50% interest in Husband's pension with Exxon Mobil from the date of the marriage on June 28, 1969 though the date of the divorce on December 21, 2009. ¶{2} Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion in vacating the separation agreement as it pertained to the Exxon Mobil account, which he asserts is not a pension. He contends


CourtListener opinion 2701213

domestic relations order: s from the recently exercised stock options with Exxon Mobil. All of the stock options with Exxon Mobil have now been exercised. Verification of the exercising of the stock options shall be provided to the Defendant no later than January 30, 2010. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be issued against said Pension and a copy shall be forwarded to the Plan Administrator." 12/28/09 J.E. ¶{13} On July 2, 2010, Wife filed a "Motion to Clarify Divorce Entry; Alternatively, Motion to Vacate Judgment Entry of Divorce." Wife alleged that in Article Nine of the separation agreement it was the parties' intent to equally divide the investme


CourtListener opinion 2701394

CourtListener opinion 2701394 Docket: 08NO353. We held that the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2701394 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 2701394

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 2701394

QDRO: ties' were found to have no marital equity due to a mortgage and a $10,000 down payment which was found to have been derived from the husband's separate property. The court divided the marital portion of the husband's retirement plan and 401K evenly through a QDRO. Each party received a 1994 vehicle. The court ordered that each party would be responsible for payment of their own medical bills and for their own attorney fees. ¶{15} The court found that the parties' American Legion credit card had a $0 balance at the time of the parties' separation but now had a $7,150 balance. The court concluded that this balance wa


CourtListener opinion 2701394

retirement benefits: ation of spousal support, the court shall consider all of the following factors: (a) the income of the parties; (b) the relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) the ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) the parties' retirement benefits; (e) the duration of the marriage; (f) the extent to which it would be inappropriate for a custodian of a minor child of the marriage to seek employment; (g) the marital standard of living; (h) the parties' education; (i) the parties' relative assets and liabilities, including court-ordered payments; (j) the contribution of each to the education, training,


CourtListener opinion 2701394

pension: not possible for this person to do. ¶{33} The wife has made no qualifying contributions to Social Security, and her eligibility to collect as a spouse will not begin until years after her spousal support terminates. Any retirement benefits from the husband's pension are not available until he retires, which he expressed that he had no intention of doing in the near future. Finally, the wife is in debt, drives an unreliable fifteen-year old vehicle, and lives with her daughter. ¶{34} Under the totality of the facts and circumstances, the amount and/or duration of spousal support is unreasonable. See Kunkle v. Kunkle (1


CourtListener opinion 2701394

401(k): er from working full-time. (Tr. 70, 75). ¶{7} The husband related that in January of 2007, he discovered a large amount of credit card debt incurred by the wife without his knowledge. After the parties discussed the debt problem, he withdrew $26,000 from his 401K to pay off the debt. (Tr. 54, 61). He complained that after she incurred this credit card debt, she refused to seek employment outside of the home. (Tr. 72). In July of 2007, he received a telephone call regarding additional credit card debt of which he had no knowledge. (Tr. 63-64). ¶{8} The wife was forty-nine years of age at the time of trial with no po


CourtListener opinion 2701473

CourtListener opinion 2701473 Extracted reporter citation: 546 N.E.2d 950. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2701473 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 2701473


CourtListener opinion 2701473

QDRO: 21} After the case was remanded to the trial court, on December 4, 2007, Elaine filed a motion for attorney fees and expenses. Specifically, Elaine sought to -8- enforce a provision of the divorce decree that required Charles to pay for the preparation of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs"), to be reimbursed for the trial transcripts that were prepared for the appeal in Lepowsky II, and for attorneys fees incurred, "in pursuing the two appeals filed in connection with this matter, and in attempting to gain [Charles'] compliance with the payment of previously awarded expenses." (12/4/07 Motion, p. 2.) {¶22} With respect to the


CourtListener opinion 2701473

retirement benefits: uld provide an additional "safety net" to Elaine's retirement years, the payments as ordered would actually terminate when she was 62 years old, forcing her to take a permanently reduced rate of benefits. Id. at ¶64. Thus, the consideration of the parties' retirement benefits favored an increase in the duration of the award. Id. at ¶63. Finally, we noted the fact that during the marriage the Lepowskys enjoyed an upper-middle class lifestyle, which included a nice home, nice clothes, new cars, and antiques. Id. at ¶15-16. {¶19} Based on the length of the marriage and standard of living to which the parties were accustomed


CourtListener opinion 2701473

pension: mpting to gain [Charles'] compliance with the payment of previously awarded expenses." (12/4/07 Motion, p. 2.) {¶22} With respect to the QDROs, Elaine submitted a detailed list of expenses that included a $900.00 bill for the preparation of the QDROs from Pension Evaluators (which included a $200 charge for expedited service) as well as charges for copying, postage, and Federal Express fees. Elaine also sought $781.65 in attorneys' fees for time that her attorney spent compiling and providing information to Pension Evaluators. {¶23} After Elaine filed the motion, Charles forwarded $700 to Elaine. He argued to


CourtListener opinion 2701473

domestic relations order: the case was remanded to the trial court, on December 4, 2007, Elaine filed a motion for attorney fees and expenses. Specifically, Elaine sought to -8- enforce a provision of the divorce decree that required Charles to pay for the preparation of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs"), to be reimbursed for the trial transcripts that were prepared for the appeal in Lepowsky II, and for attorneys fees incurred, "in pursuing the two appeals filed in connection with this matter, and in attempting to gain [Charles'] compliance with the payment of previously awarded expenses." (12/4/07 Motion, p. 2.) {¶22} With respect to the


CourtListener opinion 2701494

CourtListener opinion 2701494 Extracted reporter citation: 887 N.E.2d 352. Docket: 2007CV00115. This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2701494 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 2701494

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 2701494

QDRO: eph J. Vukovich Hon. Mary DeGenaro Dated: March 25, 2010 [Cite as Planey v. Planey, 2010-Ohio-1295.] DONOFRIO, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Joseph Planey appeals a decision of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) stemming from a 1995 divorce decree concerning the distribution of plaintiff-appellee Suzanna Planey's share of the marital home and an IRA. {¶2} The parties were married in 1968. Suzanna filed for divorce in 1994. When the case was called to trial, Joseph told the court he believed his counsel was ineffective and was going to dismiss him. The court


CourtListener opinion 2701494

domestic relations order: ovich Hon. Mary DeGenaro Dated: March 25, 2010 [Cite as Planey v. Planey, 2010-Ohio-1295.] DONOFRIO, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Joseph Planey appeals a decision of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) stemming from a 1995 divorce decree concerning the distribution of plaintiff-appellee Suzanna Planey's share of the marital home and an IRA. {¶2} The parties were married in 1968. Suzanna filed for divorce in 1994. When the case was called to trial, Joseph told the court he believed his counsel was ineffective and was going to dismiss him. The court


CourtListener opinion 2701938

CourtListener opinion 2701938 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2701938 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 2701938


CourtListener opinion 2701938

QDRO: ull. {¶30} Furthermore, Arun's challenges to the division of his pension plan are without merit. In its opinion, the trial court awarded Mona a one-half marital interest in Arun's CBHC defined pension plan to be set aside in her name through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court found that the value of the pension was $1,630,904 as of December 31, 2009, and that Mona was entitled to no less than $815,452. Here, Arun argues that it was an abuse of discretion to "guarantee" Mona no less than a fixed amount where there was significant evidence presented at trial that the pension plan was underfunded. {¶31} Arun cites


CourtListener opinion 2701938

retirement benefits: le. Blakemore at 219. II. Division of Marital Property {¶7} In a divorce proceeding, marital property includes the following: (i) All real and personal property that currently is owned by either or both of the spouses, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage; (ii) All interest that either or both of the spouses currently has in any real or personal property, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage; (iii) Exc


CourtListener opinion 2701938

pension: of error, Arun argues that the trial court erred by not dividing the parties' retirement benefits equally and by guaranteeing a "minimum" amount of benefits to Mona. Specifically, Arun alleges that the trial court erred in dividing his CBHC defined benefit pension equally while allowing Mona to retain the entirety of her annual OPERS benefits of $24,875.76, which Arun argues far exceed his annual OPERS benefits of $8,237.71. {¶27} As stated, the division of marital property includes retirement benefits that were acquired during the marriage. R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a)(ii). However, R.C. 3105.171(C) clearly provides


CourtListener opinion 2701938

domestic relations order: 0} Furthermore, Arun's challenges to the division of his pension plan are without merit. In its opinion, the trial court awarded Mona a one-half marital interest in Arun's CBHC defined pension plan to be set aside in her name through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court found that the value of the pension was $1,630,904 as of December 31, 2009, and that Mona was entitled to no less than $815,452. Here, Arun argues that it was an abuse of discretion to "guarantee" Mona no less than a fixed amount where there was significant evidence presented at trial that the pension plan was underfunded. {¶31} Arun cites


CourtListener opinion 2702275

CourtListener opinion 2702275 Extracted reporter citation: 635 N.E.2d 308. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2702275 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 2702275

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 2702275

QDRO: } Plaintiff-appellant Ellen Manning and defendant-appellee James Jusak were divorced in 2006 according to the terms of a settlement agreement that made no specific mention of Jusak's pension plan. In 2011, Manning filed a motion asking the court to issue a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") dividing the proceeds of that plan between the parties. Jusak opposed the motion on grounds that the parties expressly excluded mention of his pension plan in the separation agreement because the spousal support order they agreed to specifically stated that it was based in part on each party receiving an equal share of the parties' retirement b


CourtListener opinion 2702275

retirement benefits: ion on grounds that the parties expressly excluded mention of his pension plan in the separation agreement because the spousal support order they agreed to specifically stated that it was based in part on each party receiving an equal share of the parties' retirement benefits, including the proceeds from the pension. A magistrate denied Manning's motion, and the court approved and adopted the magistrate's decision. Manning now appeals arguing that the trial court erred by denying her motion to divide Jusak's pension plan and by denying her motion for attorney fees. {¶2} The parties approach the issue on appeal from very d


CourtListener opinion 2702275

pension: Detroit Road, Suite 102 Westlake, OH 44145 MELODY J. STEWART, A.J.: {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Ellen Manning and defendant-appellee James Jusak were divorced in 2006 according to the terms of a settlement agreement that made no specific mention of Jusak's pension plan. In 2011, Manning filed a motion asking the court to issue a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") dividing the proceeds of that plan between the parties. Jusak opposed the motion on grounds that the parties expressly excluded mention of his pension plan in the separation agreement because the spousal support order they agreed to specifically


CourtListener opinion 2702275

domestic relations order: f-appellant Ellen Manning and defendant-appellee James Jusak were divorced in 2006 according to the terms of a settlement agreement that made no specific mention of Jusak's pension plan. In 2011, Manning filed a motion asking the court to issue a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") dividing the proceeds of that plan between the parties. Jusak opposed the motion on grounds that the parties expressly excluded mention of his pension plan in the separation agreement because the spousal support order they agreed to specifically stated that it was based in part on each party receiving an equal share of the parties' retirement b


CourtListener opinion 2702380

CourtListener opinion 2702380 Extracted reporter citation: 554 N.E.2d 83. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2702380 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 2702380


CourtListener opinion 2702380

QDRO: n the twentieth assignment of error, Kathleen argues the trial court erred by accepting the parties' stipulation that Thomas's Novelis Supplemental Executive Retirement Savings Plan ("SERP") should be equally divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). She contends that because the SERP is non-qualified under ERISA it is not subject to division, and the trial court should have made provisions for either offsetting Kathleen's interest in that plan or otherwise compensate her for her 50 percent share of Thomas's SERP benefits. {¶96} However, there is no evidence that SERP is a non-qualified plan. P


CourtListener opinion 2702380

retirement benefits: rought it up to $324,000. In 2008, his base salary was $285,000 and the two 10 percent premiums brought it to $342,000. At the time of trial, Thomas's base salary had increased by 5 percent each year since 2005. Thomas also received substantial bonuses and retirement benefits. {¶4} The magistrate issued its order for support pendente lite, on April 23, 2008, and ordered Thomas to pay Kathleen $15,000 per month, plus a two percent processing fee, retroactive to October 19, 2007. Shortly thereafter, Thomas filed a request for an oral hearing to modify the support pendente lite pursuant to Civ.R. 75(N) and the court schedule


CourtListener opinion 2702380

pension: Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, with a value of $724,956. However, the court's order requires Thomas to pay Kathleen five equal annual installments of a predetermined amount. Thomas was awarded 50 percent of Kathleen's State Teacher Retirement System Pension Plan. The court further awarded Kathleen 50 percent of Thomas's Novelis Pension Plan and his Novelis Supplemental Retirement Benefit Plan. {¶9} Part of Thomas's compensation package included payments under Novelis's Long Term Incentive Plan ("LTIP"). The magistrate's decision limited Kathleen's share of the LTIP to one-half of any additional LTIP bonu


CourtListener opinion 2702380

ERISA: t erred by accepting the parties' stipulation that Thomas's Novelis Supplemental Executive Retirement Savings Plan ("SERP") should be equally divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). She contends that because the SERP is non-qualified under ERISA it is not subject to division, and the trial court should have made provisions for either offsetting Kathleen's interest in that plan or otherwise compensate her for her 50 percent share of Thomas's SERP benefits. {¶96} However, there is no evidence that SERP is a non-qualified plan. Plaintiff's exhibit No. 20, which describes executive compensation at


CourtListener opinion 2704152

CourtListener opinion 2704152 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2704152 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 2704152


CourtListener opinion 2704152

QDRO: Bakers & Teamsters, etc. Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Pension Fund 9665 Rockside Road, Ste. D Valley View, Ohio 44125 COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.: {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Patricia Pawlak ("Patricia"), appeals the court's granting the motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") filed by defendant-appellee, Joseph Pawlak ("Joseph"). Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm. {¶ 2} Patricia and Joseph were divorced on March 8, 1995. Their divorce decree incorporates their separation agreement, which provides, in pertinent part: "Wife shall retain Husband's Sysco Pension Plan, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relatio


CourtListener opinion 2704152

pension: n Road North Royalton, Ohio 44133 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE For Joseph Pawlak Margaret E. Stanard Stanard & Corsi, Co., L.P.A. 1370 Ontario Street 748 Standard Building Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters, etc. Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Pension Fund 9665 Rockside Road, Ste. D Valley View, Ohio 44125 COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.: {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Patricia Pawlak ("Patricia"), appeals the court's granting the motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") filed by defendant-appellee, Joseph Pawlak ("Joseph"). Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm. {¶ 2} Patricia an


CourtListener opinion 2704152

domestic relations order: Teamsters, etc. Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Pension Fund 9665 Rockside Road, Ste. D Valley View, Ohio 44125 COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.: {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Patricia Pawlak ("Patricia"), appeals the court's granting the motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") filed by defendant-appellee, Joseph Pawlak ("Joseph"). Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm. {¶ 2} Patricia and Joseph were divorced on March 8, 1995. Their divorce decree incorporates their separation agreement, which provides, in pertinent part: "Wife shall retain Husband's Sysco Pension Plan, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relatio


CourtListener opinion 2704152

valuation/division: raining order is still in effect. Patricia also contends that the court erred when it failed to apply the doctrine of res judicata to bar Joseph's claims. {¶ 9} However, it is well established that: "[a] QDRO is merely an order in aid of execution on the property division ordered in the divorce or dissolution decree. So long as the QDRO is consistent with the decree, it does not constitute a modification, which R.C. 3105.171(I) prohibits, and the court does not lack jurisdiction to issue it." Bagley v. Bagley, 181 Ohio App.3d 141, 2009-Ohio-688, 908 N.E.2d 469, ¶26, citing Tarbert v. Tarbert (Sept. 27, 1996), Clark App.


CourtListener opinion 2704625

CourtListener opinion 2704625 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2704625 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 2704625


CourtListener opinion 2704625

QDRO: Costanzo Costanzo & Lazzaro 13317 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Ronald K. Butcher ("Husband"), appeals from the trial court's judgment entry adopting the proposed qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") of plaintiff-appellee, Sally J. Butcher, n.k.a. Peterson ("Wife"). For the following reasons, we reverse and remand with instructions. {¶ 2} In September 2000, the parties' marriage was terminated by a divorce decree that incorporated and adopted the parties' negotiated handwritten separation agreement. Pursuant to the judgment of divorce, a QDRO w


CourtListener opinion 2704625

retirement benefits: ally.'" Accordingly, the magistrate recommended that Wife's QDRO, which utilized coverture fraction and provided Wife with early retirement supplements, interim supplements, temporary benefits, and pre-retirement survivorship benefits under Husband's Ford retirement account, be adopted. {¶ 6} Husband filed written objections to the magistrate's decision, in which he challenged only the recommendation to adopt Wife's proposed QDRO. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision in its entirety, without a hearing. Husband now appeals, arguing as his sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in adopting Wife's


CourtListener opinion 2704625

pension: inated by a divorce decree that incorporated and adopted the parties' negotiated handwritten separation agreement. Pursuant to the judgment of divorce, a QDRO was to be submitted to the trial court resolving Wife's interest in Husband's Ford Motor Company pension. Husband submitted his proposed QDRO to Wife; however, she did not respond to the proposal. In February 2009, Husband moved the trial court to adopt his proposed QDRO, which the court adopted a week later. Upon receiving notification of the signed QDRO, Wife filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing that she did not receive notice of Husband's m


CourtListener opinion 2704625

alternate payee: .g., McKinney v. McKinney (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 604, 608, 756 N.E.2d 694. {¶ 9} To effectuate the division of pension and retirement benefits, the domestic relations court enters a QDRO, which is an order that "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefit payable with respect to a participant under a plan * * *." Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 206(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). Ordinarily, it is issued subsequent to and separate from the decree of divorce itself. A QDRO is therefore merely an or


CourtListener opinion 2704781

CourtListener opinion 2704781 Extracted reporter citation: 351 N.E.2d 113. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2704781 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 2704781

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 2704781

QDRO: ns of time to file her objections to the magistrate's decision. No objections were filed by April 30, 2009, which was the deadline under the third extension. On June 4, 2009, the court issued its final decree. On December 4, 2009, the trial court filed two qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO"). On June 3, 2010, Wilson-Walker filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate. The trial court denied the motion, without a hearing, on June 10, 2010. {¶ 3} Wilson-Walker has assigned the following two assignments of error for our review: "I. The trial court erred in denying defendant-appellant's motion for relief from judgment without conducting


CourtListener opinion 2704781

domestic relations order: to file her objections to the magistrate's decision. No objections were filed by April 30, 2009, which was the deadline under the third extension. On June 4, 2009, the court issued its final decree. On December 4, 2009, the trial court filed two qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO"). On June 3, 2010, Wilson-Walker filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate. The trial court denied the motion, without a hearing, on June 10, 2010. {¶ 3} Wilson-Walker has assigned the following two assignments of error for our review: "I. The trial court erred in denying defendant-appellant's motion for relief from judgment without conducting


CourtListener opinion 2705096

CourtListener opinion 2705096 Docket: 26957 26962 Appellant v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2705096 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 2705096

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 2705096

QDRO: ied Husband's motion for the same reason. According to Wife, since Husband did not appeal the original division of property order, he is barred from arguing that he is entitled to anything other than the "first benefit" that she received from STRS. {¶6} A qualified domestic relations order "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a [retirement] plan." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 6, quoting 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). When the retirement plan at issu


CourtListener opinion 2705096

retirement benefits: n 2007, Wife began receiving disability benefits from STRS. Based on the language of the division of property order, STRS paid some of her benefits to Husband. Wife moved to modify the order, arguing that Husband was only entitled to receive a share of her retirement benefits, not pre-retirement disability benefits. The trial court denied her motion and this Court affirmed, concluding that neither the decree nor the division of property order excluded Husband from receiving Wife's STRS disability benefits. Kesling at ¶ 20. {¶4} Wife later returned to work, and she continued working until she retired in February 2013. After


CourtListener opinion 2705096

pension: contributed to the State Teachers' Retirement System (STRS). At the time of the divorce, Husband's income was solely from Social Security Disability and Veteran's Administration Disability. The parties agreed that Husband should receive part of Wife's STRS pension. In its decree, the court directed them to "employ Pension Evaluators to determine the marital portion [of Wife's STRS account] and to determine the value of a Social Security offset for [Husband's] 2 right to receive Social Security benefits. The marital portion of said account less said Social Security offset will then be divided equally between the


CourtListener opinion 2705096

alternate payee: not appeal the original division of property order, he is barred from arguing that he is entitled to anything other than the "first benefit" that she received from STRS. {¶6} A qualified domestic relations order "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a [retirement] plan." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 6, quoting 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). When the retirement plan at issue is a public retirement plan, such orders are referred to a


CourtListener opinion 2705158

CourtListener opinion 2705158 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Seders. Docket: 13CA0009 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2705158 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 2705158


CourtListener opinion 2705158

QDRO: lows: The parties acknowledge that both parties have accumulated retirement funds in both public and private accounts in their sole names through their respective employment positions and have agreed upon the division of these accounts as follows: A. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue equally dividing the vested value of Wife's retirement account accumulate[d] through Wooster Eye Center, as of the date of the court order which terminates her marital relationship or the nearest date of value established by the plan administrator, minus the amount of any unpaid loan proceeds on the account. Wife shall assume full re


CourtListener opinion 2705158

retirement benefits: ately offered for sale through public auction," and the terms of the auction would "be agreed upon and determined through an auction contract executed by both parties." {¶3} Further, in the separation agreement, the parties agreed to the division of their retirement benefits as follows: The parties acknowledge that both parties have accumulated retirement funds in both public and private accounts in their sole names through their respective employment positions and have agreed upon the division of these accounts as follows: A. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue equally dividing the vested value of


CourtListener opinion 2705158

pension: o make timely mortgage payments on the mortgages securing the marital residence, his failure to secure a release of Wife from liability on the mortgages, his failure to pay her one half of the equity in the marital residence, and his failure to divide a 3 pension account. Wife further asked the court to order an auction of the marital residence in accordance with the terms of the separation agreement. {¶5} The trial court held a hearing before a magistrate on Wife's motion, and the magistrate issued a decision on August 30, 2012. On the same date that the magistrate issued his decision, the trial court issued a


CourtListener opinion 2705158

401(k): itable division of their retirement accounts. After the decree was issued, the parties prepared two QDROs, one dividing Wife's plan known as "Wooster Ophthalmologists, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan" and one dividing Husband's plan known as "K+S/Morton Salt 401(k) Savings Plan." {¶4} In 2012, Wife filed a motion in the trial court asking that Husband be found in contempt for his failure to make timely mortgage payments on the mortgages securing the marital residence, his failure to secure a release of Wife from liability on the mortgages, his failure to pay her one half of the equity in the marital residence, an


CourtListener opinion 2705396

CourtListener opinion 2705396 Docket: 12CA0035 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2705396 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 2705396


CourtListener opinion 2705396

QDRO: nown as the UPS/IBT Full-Time Employee Pension Plan." Husband agreed to distribute to Wife 50% of the martial portion of this vested pension plan with UPS. {¶4} To facilitate the transfer of the pension plan to Wife, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") was prepared. The court signed the QDRO on June 18, 2010. Sometime thereafter, Wife learned that Husband's UPS pension benefits had been split into two separate plans, the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund ("Central States Fund") and the UPS/IBT Full Time Employee Pension Plan ("Full Time Employee Plan"). The plan administrator


CourtListener opinion 2705396

retirement benefits: or dissolution of marriage and attached a proposed dissolution agreement. The court granted the petition on February 6, 2009, and incorporated the parties' agreement detailing the division of property. {¶3} The dissolution agreement contains a section for retirement accounts and, within that, a subsection for pensions. The pension subsection lists only one account. The agreement states that "Husband has a vested interest in a pension provided through his employer, UPS, said 2 Plan being known as the UPS/IBT Full-Time Employee Pension Plan." Husband agreed to distribute to Wife 50% of the martial portion of this vested pen


CourtListener opinion 2705396

pension: nt. The court granted the petition on February 6, 2009, and incorporated the parties' agreement detailing the division of property. {¶3} The dissolution agreement contains a section for retirement accounts and, within that, a subsection for pensions. The pension subsection lists only one account. The agreement states that "Husband has a vested interest in a pension provided through his employer, UPS, said 2 Plan being known as the UPS/IBT Full-Time Employee Pension Plan." Husband agreed to distribute to Wife 50% of the martial portion of this vested pension plan with UPS. {¶4} To facilitate the transfer of th


CourtListener opinion 2705396

valuation/division: NAL ENTRY Dated: August 19, 2013 WHITMORE, Judge. {¶1} Appellant, John Semmelhaack ("Husband"), appeals from the judgment of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granting Appellee, Elegra Semmelhaack's, motion to enforce property division provisions. This Court reverses. I {¶2} Husband and Elegra Semmelhaack ("Wife") were married on July 10, 1982, and have two emancipated children from the marriage. On December 12, 2008, Husband and Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and attached a proposed dissolution agreement. The court granted the petition on February 6, 2009, and i


CourtListener opinion 2705492

CourtListener opinion 2705492 Docket: 26418 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2705492 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 2705492


CourtListener opinion 2705492

QDRO: n of Domestic Relations. We reverse. I. {¶2} After nearly thirty-three years of marriage, James McFall ("Husband") and Wife divorced on February 22, 2010. At the time of their divorce, they had several retirement and pension plans to be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO"), including: (1) Husband's defined benefit pension from his service in the United States Air Force through the Department of Defense, (2) Husband's 401k with Toyota of Bedford through Wachovia, (3) Wife's defined benefit pension through First Energy Corp., (4) Wife's retirement savings plan through First Energy Corp., (5) Wife's 401k plan throu


CourtListener opinion 2705492

retirement benefits: r 10, 2009. {¶3} The parties' Decree of Divorce included a provision entitled "Preretirement Survivorship Protection for Alternate Payee," which stated: In order to secure an Alternate Payee's ownership right in the assigned portion of the Participant's retirement benefits under the Plan, in the event that the latter predeceases the Alternate Payee and neither party has commenced his or her benefits under the Plan, such Alternate Payee shall be designated as the surviving spouse of the other for purposes of establishing his/her entitlement to receipt of this monthly preretirement surviving spouse annuity. This designatio


CourtListener opinion 2705492

pension: ounty Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations. We reverse. I. {¶2} After nearly thirty-three years of marriage, James McFall ("Husband") and Wife divorced on February 22, 2010. At the time of their divorce, they had several retirement and pension plans to be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO"), including: (1) Husband's defined benefit pension from his service in the United States Air Force through the Department of Defense, (2) Husband's 401k with Toyota of Bedford through Wachovia, (3) Wife's defined benefit pension through First Energy Corp., (4) Wife's retirement savin


CourtListener opinion 2705492

401(k): y had several retirement and pension plans to be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO"), including: (1) Husband's defined benefit pension from his service in the United States Air Force through the Department of Defense, (2) Husband's 401k with Toyota of Bedford through Wachovia, (3) Wife's defined benefit pension through First Energy Corp., (4) Wife's retirement savings plan through First Energy Corp., (5) Wife's 401k plan through KeyBank, and (6) Wife's defined benefit pension through KeyBank. For purposes of determining the marital portion of the 2 parties' pensions, the length of the


CourtListener opinion 2705723

CourtListener opinion 2705723 Docket: 11CA010091 Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2705723 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 2705723

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 2705723

QDRO: LORAIN, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 89 DU 037396 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: December 3, 2012 DICKINSON, Judge. INTRODUCTION {¶1} James and Brenda Ross divorced after 25 years of marriage. At the time of their divorce, the trial court approved a qualified domestic relations order that gave Ms. Ross "one- half" of Mr. Ross's interest in his pension plan "as of January 16, 1990." When Mr. Ross retired many years later, the administrator of the pension plan rejected the court's order. Ms. Ross subsequently moved the trial court to approve a new qualified domestic relations order. The court referred the issue to a magistrate, who re


CourtListener opinion 2705723

retirement benefits: s added.) In addition, the original QDRO provides that "[b]enefits from this Plan shall be payable to the Alternate Payee [Wife] equal to one-half of the Participant's [Husband] interest as of January 16, 1990." {¶14} It is well-settled that "[p]ension or retirement benefits earned during the course of a marriage are marital assets and a factor to be considered in the division of property." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 5. "A QDRO ‘implements a trial court's decision of how [retirement benefits are] to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution.'" Id at ¶ 7. As the majority correctly indicates,


CourtListener opinion 2705723

pension: 012 DICKINSON, Judge. INTRODUCTION {¶1} James and Brenda Ross divorced after 25 years of marriage. At the time of their divorce, the trial court approved a qualified domestic relations order that gave Ms. Ross "one- half" of Mr. Ross's interest in his pension plan "as of January 16, 1990." When Mr. Ross retired many years later, the administrator of the pension plan rejected the court's order. Ms. Ross subsequently moved the trial court to approve a new qualified domestic relations order. The court referred the issue to a magistrate, who recommended that it determine Ms. Ross's interest in the pension plan b


CourtListener opinion 2705723

alternate payee: s of January 16, 1990 as shown in the [QDRO] attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and all survivorship interest in said plan. (Emphasis added.) In addition, the original QDRO provides that "[b]enefits from this Plan shall be payable to the Alternate Payee [Wife] equal to one-half of the Participant's [Husband] interest as of January 16, 1990." {¶14} It is well-settled that "[p]ension or retirement benefits earned during the course of a marriage are marital assets and a factor to be considered in the division of property." Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, ¶ 5. "A QDRO ‘implements a t


CourtListener opinion 2706430

CourtListener opinion 2706430 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 10CA0034-M Appellee v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2706430 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 2706430


CourtListener opinion 2706430

QDRO: d Airlines, consisting of his monthly pension, the Frank Russell [account] []and the [RAA account], referred to respectively as the A and B Plans that those should be divided by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ["QDROs"]. Said order shall be prepared by QDRO Consultants, and the parties agree that each shall be responsible for one-half of the expense of preparing such Qualified Orders. The date of the [QDROs] shall be a division on date of final hearing, which is as of July 25, 2001. The parties agree and the Court orders that the distribution by and between [Wife] shall be 50 percent of the marital covert


CourtListener opinion 2706430

retirement benefits: ummarized much of this matter's facts and procedural history in a prior appeal: "Husband and Janice M. Miller ("Wife") were married on October 25, 1969. Husband worked both before and during the parties' marriage and participated in each of the following retirement accounts: a United Airlines defined-benefit account, a Frank Russell Corporation ‘A fund' account (‘the Frank Russell account'), and a Retirement Advisors of America ‘B fund' account (‘the RAA account'). After Wife filed for divorce on August 10, 2000, the parties engaged in lengthy litigation, culminating in this appeal. The sole issue on appeal is whether th


CourtListener opinion 2706430

pension: nts'). 2 "The parties' divorce hearing took place on July 25, 2001. At the hearing, the parties read an agreement into the record, part of which defined how they would distribute the Accounts. The record provides as follows: "‘There are some retirement pension accounts that are set forth on Attachment B[.] * * * [The Accounts] * * * are the United Airlines related accounts typically called the ‘A' and ‘B' funds. Those also will be divided taking into consideration the premarital component credit to [Husband] before the equal division. * * * The pension distribution-the ‘A' and ‘B' funds-will be handled throug


CourtListener opinion 2706430

401(k): ement accounts. One of those accounts was a defined benefit plan held in Mr. Miller's name. That account has been divided using a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and is no longer at issue in this case. The remaining nine accounts 16 were apparently all defined contribution plans: five in Mrs. Miller's name and four in Mr. Miller's name. The five accounts in Mrs. Miller's name were marital property because they contained only assets purchased with funds deposited during the marriage or purchased with account earnings during the marriage. Two of the accounts in Mr. Miller's name were also marital property. One contained onl


CourtListener opinion 2706551

CourtListener opinion 2706551 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 25319 Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2706551 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 2706551


CourtListener opinion 2706551

retirement benefits: on filed his answer on July 22, 2005. The matter proceeded to trial in August 2006. On April 11, 2007, the trial court issued its decree of divorce. On May 13, 2009, two qualified domestic relations orders were issued in this case, distributing the parties' retirement accounts in accordance with the decree of divorce. On May 27, 2009, Mr. Byron filed a notice of appeal. Ms. Shih filed a notice of cross-appeal on June 5, 2009. On June 29, 2009, this Court dismissed both appeals on the basis that the parties did not appeal from a final, appealable order. In our journal entry, we concluded that the trial court had insufficientl


CourtListener opinion 2706551

domestic relations order: sequently, on March 16, 2005, Ms. Shih filed a complaint for divorce. Mr. Byron filed his answer on July 22, 2005. The matter proceeded to trial in August 2006. On April 11, 2007, the trial court issued its decree of divorce. On May 13, 2009, two qualified domestic relations orders were issued in this case, distributing the parties' retirement accounts in accordance with the decree of divorce. On May 27, 2009, Mr. Byron filed a notice of appeal. Ms. Shih filed a notice of cross-appeal on June 5, 2009. On June 29, 2009, this Court dismissed both appeals on the basis that the parties did not appeal from a final, appealable order. In


CourtListener opinion 2706551

valuation/division: itures and this portion of his argument must be rejected. {¶13} To the extent that the trial court assigned the same debt on the line of credit to Mr. Byron on two separate occasions, the first assignment of error is sustained. How this error impacts the equitable distribution of marital assets and debts is not before us, but may be considered by the trial court on remand. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING APPELLEE SPOUSAL SUPPORT, AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE." {¶14} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Byron argues that the trial erred in awarding Ms.


CourtListener opinion 2707258

CourtListener opinion 2707258 Docket: of years. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2707258 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 2707258


CourtListener opinion 2707258

QDRO: H 44004 (For Plaintiff-Appellant). William P. Bobulsky, William P. Bobulsky Co., L.P.A., 1612 East Prospect Road, Ashtabula, OH 44004 (For Defendant-Appellee). PER CURIAM. {¶1} Appellant, Thomas Nappi, appeals the judgment of the trial court clarifying a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), which increased the monthly payment to appellee, Lauren Nappi, from $77.82 per month to $302.77 per month. Based on the following, we affirm. {¶2} The parties were married on June 15, 1982, and divorced by final judgment on December 16, 1997. Prior to that date, the trial court noted that the parties had reached an agreement as to all the ma


CourtListener opinion 2707258

retirement benefits: r to that date, the trial court noted that the parties had reached an agreement as to all the marital issues and granted the parties' divorce on the ground of incompatibility. The December 16, 1997 Final Decree of Divorce provided the following: {¶3} "C. Retirement Benefits {¶4} "1. The marital portion of Plaintiff, Thomas Nappi's retirement benefit with ESAB shall be divided in accordance with the Qualified Domestic Relations Order." {¶5} The QDRO relative to Thomas's ESAB Welding & Cutting Products Plan ("the Plan") was filed on January 29, 1998. Each party, along with their counsel, signed a separate approval page,


CourtListener opinion 2707258

pension: ed on January 29, 1998. Each party, along with their counsel, signed a separate approval page, which were incorporated into the document. At paragraph 5 of the QDRO, it stated that Lauren would receive the following: [F]ifty percent (50%) of Participant's pension entitlements from the date of marriage of June 5, 1982 through December 3, 1997 shall be credited to a separate bookkeeping account under the Plan in the name of Alternate Payee. Such amount, adjusted in accordance with the Plan for any appreciation or depreciation and gains or losses subsequent to the most recent Plan valuation date * * * and prior t


CourtListener opinion 2707258

alternate payee: ated that Lauren would receive the following: [F]ifty percent (50%) of Participant's pension entitlements from the date of marriage of June 5, 1982 through December 3, 1997 shall be credited to a separate bookkeeping account under the Plan in the name of Alternate Payee. Such amount, adjusted in accordance with the Plan for any appreciation or depreciation and gains or losses subsequent to the most recent Plan valuation date * * * and prior to the date of distribution, but not adjusted for any contributions or forfeitures under the Plan subsequent to the Valuation Date, shall be payable to Alternate Payee in accordanc


CourtListener opinion 2707393

CourtListener opinion 2707393 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2707393 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 2707393

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 2707393

QDRO: Luke, appeals from the January 17, 2013 judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Appellant was married to appellee, Dreama D. Luke, on December 18, 1976, and the couple divorced on August 26, 2005. At that time, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") was entered, which awarded a portion of appellant's pension to appellee. Appellee died in July 2012. Thereafter, appellant moved the trial court for interpretation of the QDRO seeking reversion of appellee's pension allocation to appellant. The trial court adopted the magistrate's finding that the portion of appellant's pension awarded to appe


CourtListener opinion 2707393

pension: omestic Relations Division. Appellant was married to appellee, Dreama D. Luke, on December 18, 1976, and the couple divorced on August 26, 2005. At that time, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") was entered, which awarded a portion of appellant's pension to appellee. Appellee died in July 2012. Thereafter, appellant moved the trial court for interpretation of the QDRO seeking reversion of appellee's pension allocation to appellant. The trial court adopted the magistrate's finding that the portion of appellant's pension awarded to appellee in the QDRO did not revert back to appellant upon appellee's deat


CourtListener opinion 2707393

alternate payee: t as a matter of fact and law in its determination that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order was not in the nature of a survivor annuity which by its terms allowed for survivorship and/or reversion to the plan participant/appellant upon the death of the alternate payee. {¶6} Appellant's second and third assignments of error raise objections to the trial court's adoption of the magistrate's decision. By failing to timely object to the magistrate's findings below, however, appellant has waived all but plain error on appeal. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). Regarding plain error, the following standard of review was announced b


CourtListener opinion 2707393

domestic relations order: als from the January 17, 2013 judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Appellant was married to appellee, Dreama D. Luke, on December 18, 1976, and the couple divorced on August 26, 2005. At that time, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") was entered, which awarded a portion of appellant's pension to appellee. Appellee died in July 2012. Thereafter, appellant moved the trial court for interpretation of the QDRO seeking reversion of appellee's pension allocation to appellant. The trial court adopted the magistrate's finding that the portion of appellant's pension awarded to appe


CourtListener opinion 2707453

CourtListener opinion 2707453 Extracted reporter citation: 671 N.E.2d 236. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2707453 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 2707453


CourtListener opinion 2707453

QDRO: County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, adopting the Magistrate's Decision of September 20, 2012, and overruling objections thereto. The issue raised in this appeal is whether, pursuant to Civil Rule 60(A), a trial court may modify a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to accurately reflect the division of a pension asset as set forth in the decree of divorce. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below. {¶2} On December 2, 2004, the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, issued a Judgment Entry (Decree of Divorce), terminating the marriage between Karen


CourtListener opinion 2707453

pension: rate's Decision of September 20, 2012, and overruling objections thereto. The issue raised in this appeal is whether, pursuant to Civil Rule 60(A), a trial court may modify a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to accurately reflect the division of a pension asset as set forth in the decree of divorce. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below. {¶2} On December 2, 2004, the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, issued a Judgment Entry (Decree of Divorce), terminating the marriage between Karen M. Angelo and defendant-appellee, Anthony L. Angelo. I


CourtListener opinion 2707453

alternate payee: c relations court issued a QDRO with respect to the J.C. Penney Savings Plan, containing the following provision: {¶4} SECTION 4. From the benefits which would otherwise be payable to the Participant [Anthony] under the Plan, the Participant assigns to Alternate Payee [Karen] and the Alternate Payee shall receive directly from the Plan, an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of Participant's vested account balance accrued from May 21, 1988, to November 9, 2002. {¶5} On March 2, 2006, an amended QDRO was issued with respect to the J.C. Penney Savings Plan. The amended QDRO added a section addressing the payment


CourtListener opinion 2707453

domestic relations order: urt of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, adopting the Magistrate's Decision of September 20, 2012, and overruling objections thereto. The issue raised in this appeal is whether, pursuant to Civil Rule 60(A), a trial court may modify a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to accurately reflect the division of a pension asset as set forth in the decree of divorce. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below. {¶2} On December 2, 2004, the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, issued a Judgment Entry (Decree of Divorce), terminating the marriage between Karen


CourtListener opinion 2707664

CourtListener opinion 2707664 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2707664 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 2707664


CourtListener opinion 2707664

QDRO: 94,500.00) and [Thomas] awarded the sum of Ninety-Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($94,500.00). * * * 13 {¶57} [Carolyn] is awarded Fifty percent (50%) of [Thomas'] FirstEnergy Corporation Pension Plan earned during the marriage to be secured by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order * * *. {¶58} In sum, the trial court ordered the equal division of the marital residence, Thomas' savings plan, and Thomas' pension plan. Each party retained the personal property in their possession. Carolyn retained her 401K, inasmuch as the court made no express division of this asset. According to the court's order, Carolyn was to receive $27,500


CourtListener opinion 2707664

retirement benefits: gross or in installments, the court shall consider all of the following factors: (a) The income of the parties * * *; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; * * * (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the parties; (i) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties * * *; * * * (n) Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant and equitable." R.C. 3105.18(C)(1).


CourtListener opinion 2707664

pension: 9 Ohio St.2d at 319-320, 432 N.E.2d 183. {¶52} The trial court identified the following marital assets: the marital residence ($142,500); personal property ($41,000); Carolyn's 401K ($18,500); Thomas' savings 12 plan as of March 2011 ($189,000); Thomas' pension plan as of February 2010 ($193,709). The court made the following division of property: {¶53} The marital residence located at 2916 Sexton Road, Geneva, Ohio, 44041, currently occupied by [Carolyn], has a stipulated value of One Hundred Forty Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($142,500.00), shall be listed for sale with a mutually agreed-upon rea


CourtListener opinion 2707664

401(k): Forms, Carolyn received taxable wages of $28,628.51 in 2010, or about $2,385.71 per month; Thomas' taxable wages in 2010 were $80,503.09, or about $6,708.59 per month. Thomas' lower monthly figures are the result of deductions made for taxes, saving plans/401K, and health and life insurance. Thomas' lower monthly income reflects the fact that he contributes $201 every biweekly pay period to savings, whereas Carolyn only contributes $70.10 per biweekly pay to savings. Thomas also pays for health and life insurance out of his biweekly pay, an expense that Carolyn was not paying for at the time of the divorce. W


CourtListener opinion 2709824

CourtListener opinion 2709824 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Iqbal. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Second District Docket No. 2-13-1306. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2709824 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 2709824

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 2709824

domestic relations order: time, as equivalent to setting the amount of maintenance at zero until further order of court. Such an award is immediately enforceable and appealable. Id. ¶ 20 This court has long held that a trial court's "reservation" of jurisdiction over an issue in a domestic relations order does not necessarily indicate that the order is nonfinal. See In re Marriage of Wojcik, 362 Ill. App. 3d 144, 167-68 (2005) (discussing the "reserved-jurisdiction" approach to maintenance awards); In re Marriage of Marriott, 264 Ill. App. 3d 23, 41 (1994); In re Marriage of Bingham, 181 Ill. App. 3d 966, 971 (1989). Rather, trial courts often refer to "


CourtListener opinion 2709824

valuation/division: ty seeking maintenance to acquire appropriate education, training, and employment; the standard of living established during the marriage; the duration of the marriage; the age and physical and emotional condition of each party; the tax consequences of the property division; any contribution and services by the recipient spouse to the other spouse; any valid agreement of the parties; and any other factor that the trial court expressly finds to be just and equitable. 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2012). A court is not limited to the enumerated factors in reaching an equitable determination, and no one factor is dispositive. In re


CourtListener opinion 2713828

CourtListener opinion 2713828 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of DARYL HOWARD and. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2713828 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 2713828

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 2713828

retirement benefits: and largely unintelligible brief, plaintiff and appellant Daryl Howard Meeks (Daryl)1 appeals from a trial court order following a judgment of dissolution of marriage. He seems to contend that the trial court erred in its award of a portion of Daryl's pension/retirement plan to Monica Jo Meeks (Monica). Because Daryl did not meet his burden on appeal, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Daryl and Monica were married. According to the judgment, entered April 1, 1993, their marital status ended on October 19, 1992. Also according to the terms of the judgment, Monica was entitled to a portion of Daryl's retirement bene


CourtListener opinion 2713828

pension: nfusing and largely unintelligible brief, plaintiff and appellant Daryl Howard Meeks (Daryl)1 appeals from a trial court order following a judgment of dissolution of marriage. He seems to contend that the trial court erred in its award of a portion of Daryl's pension/retirement plan to Monica Jo Meeks (Monica). Because Daryl did not meet his burden on appeal, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Daryl and Monica were married. According to the judgment, entered April 1, 1993, their marital status ended on October 19, 1992. Also according to the terms of the judgment, Monica was entitled to a portion of Daryl's


CourtListener opinion 2713828

domestic relations order: a copy of the judgment, notice of entry of judgment, a copy of the minute order denying Daryl's request for an order of modification, and the notice of appeal. While he claims that he filed a motion for modification of the original judgment and new qualified domestic relations order, no such documents are a part of the appellate record. (Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1320–1321.) In fact, as set forth above, many assertions are made without reference to law or the appellate record. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [appellant bears the burden of 3 supporting a point with reasoned argument];


CourtListener opinion 2716879

CourtListener opinion 2716879 Extracted reporter citation: 41 A.3d 248. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2716879 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 2716879


CourtListener opinion 2716879

QDRO: an equitable distribution of the marital assets, awarding sixty percent to plaintiff and forty percent to defendant of all marital assets, save for the parties' respective "pension/retirement plans"; those he awarded fifty percent to each party by means of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). After the trial justice issued his decision, at least three hearings were held on motions for clarification of the decision. At one such proceeding on April 21, 2010, the trial justice noted that plaintiff would continue to receive the benefit of defendant's medical coverage under his retirement plan. There was further discussion regarding one


CourtListener opinion 2716879

retirement benefits: ement of both plaintiff and defendant. Finally, the trial justice performed an equitable distribution of the marital assets, awarding sixty percent to plaintiff and forty percent to defendant of all marital assets, save for the parties' respective "pension/retirement plans"; those he awarded fifty percent to each party by means of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). After the trial justice issued his decision, at least three hearings were held on motions for clarification of the decision. At one such proceeding on April 21, 2010, the trial justice noted that plaintiff would continue to receive the benefit of def


CourtListener opinion 2716879

pension: he retirement of both plaintiff and defendant. Finally, the trial justice performed an equitable distribution of the marital assets, awarding sixty percent to plaintiff and forty percent to defendant of all marital assets, save for the parties' respective "pension/retirement plans"; those he awarded fifty percent to each party by means of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). After the trial justice issued his decision, at least three hearings were held on motions for clarification of the decision. At one such proceeding on April 21, 2010, the trial justice noted that plaintiff would continue to receive th


CourtListener opinion 2716879

domestic relations order: le distribution of the marital assets, awarding sixty percent to plaintiff and forty percent to defendant of all marital assets, save for the parties' respective "pension/retirement plans"; those he awarded fifty percent to each party by means of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). After the trial justice issued his decision, at least three hearings were held on motions for clarification of the decision. At one such proceeding on April 21, 2010, the trial justice noted that plaintiff would continue to receive the benefit of defendant's medical coverage under his retirement plan. There was further discussion regarding one


CourtListener opinion 2718533

CourtListener opinion 2718533 Docket: of the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2718533 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 2718533


CourtListener opinion 2718533

QDRO: 013. (Oct. 28, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 77).1 This matter also came for hearing on September 30, 2013 on Scott's contempt motion filed June 14, 2013. (Id.).2 The trial court heard testimony from Michelle, Scott, David Kelley ("Kelley"), a pension consultant with QDRO Consultants Company, William Napoli, Jr. ("Napoli"), the president of, and actuary consultant with, American Benefit Evaluators, and Larry Heiser, a family law attorney in Marion, Ohio. {¶9} On October 28, 2013, the trial court issued a final divorce decree. (Oct. 28, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 77). In its final divorce decree, the trial court divided the mari


CourtListener opinion 2718533

retirement benefits: Heiser, a family law attorney in Marion, Ohio. {¶9} On October 28, 2013, the trial court issued a final divorce decree. (Oct. 28, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 77). In its final divorce decree, the trial court divided the marital portion of each party's pension and retirement benefits and the parties' marital and separate debts, denied Michelle's claim on Scott's real estate owned prior to the marriage, and issued a decision on the motions for contempt and 1 The October 28, 2013 judgment entry incorrectly states that the matter was heard on June 24, 2013 and August 5, 2013. (Oct. 28, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 77). The June 28, 2013 transcri


CourtListener opinion 2718533

pension: ney fees, filed May 24, 2013. (Oct. 28, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 77).1 This matter also came for hearing on September 30, 2013 on Scott's contempt motion filed June 14, 2013. (Id.).2 The trial court heard testimony from Michelle, Scott, David Kelley ("Kelley"), a pension consultant with QDRO Consultants Company, William Napoli, Jr. ("Napoli"), the president of, and actuary consultant with, American Benefit Evaluators, and Larry Heiser, a family law attorney in Marion, Ohio. {¶9} On October 28, 2013, the trial court issued a final divorce decree. (Oct. 28, 2013 JE, Doc. No. 77). In its final divorce decree, the trial c


CourtListener opinion 2718533

domestic relations order: equitable distribution of Scott's and Michelle's pension and retirement benefits, Napoli testified that the $183,380.05 valuation should be used if the court determined that Scott and Michelle's pension and retirement benefits should be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or other domestic relations order. (June 28, 2013 Tr. at 130); (Doc. No. 63). -14- Case No. 9-13-67 used to calculate the present value of Scott's STRS pension benefits. Both witnesses were properly qualified as experts in the field of valuing pension and retirement benefits pursuant to Michelle's and Scott's stipulations. (Aug. 6, 2013 Tr. at 11, 90


CourtListener opinion 2719306

CourtListener opinion 2719306 Extracted case name: SMITH v. OPM. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2719306 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 2719306


CourtListener opinion 2719306

domestic relations order: m civil service, we vacate and remand. I Ms. Smith and her former spouse, Paul Marshall, di- vorced in March 1987 while Mr. Marshall was a federal employee. A divorce judgment issued that year, dividing the couple's marital property. It included a qualified domestic relations order (1987 order) allocating Mr. Marshall's accrued benefits. In 1999, a court modi- fied the 1987 order (1999 order). Mr. Marshall retired from federal service in 2005 and died in 2006. Following Mr. Marshall's death, Ms. Smith applied for a former spouse annuity. In 2013, an adminis- trative judge found that the 1987 order provided Ms. Smith a former spouse a


CourtListener opinion 2719306

survivor benefits: d by rule, law, or regulation, or unsupported by substantial evidence." Addison v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 945 F.2d 1184, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). The law provides that a former spouse of a federal employee is entitled to a survivor annuity if and to the extent a divorce decree or court order expressly so pro- vides. 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(1). A modification of the provi- sions involving an annuity in such a decree or order shall not be effective if made after the retirement or death of the employee concerned. 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h)(4). OPM's regulations state: For purposes of awarding, increasing,


CourtListener opinion 2722563

CourtListener opinion 2722563 Extracted case name: APPELLATE DIVISION v. MICHAEL KRUPINSKI. Docket: A-2300-12T2 KATHLEEN KRUPINSKI. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2722563 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 2722563

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 2722563

QDRO: is agreed that at such time as the Husband starts to draw his pension, the Wife shall be entitled to one-third of each of the periodic pension payments made to the Husband. The Husband further agrees to execute such qualifying domestic relations order [QDRO] as may be necessary to direct the organization administering the pension to make the Wife's one-third share of each pension payment directly to the Wife. At the time the court entered the JOD in 1990, the PERS recognized defendant had accumulated nineteen years and eleven months of service as a public school teacher. The QDRO, which for reasons not


CourtListener opinion 2722563

retirement benefits: in the PERS. Of particular importance here, defendant continued his education after the parties separated, and was promoted to an administrative position, resulting in a significant increase in salary. The Division of Pensions and Benefits calculated his retirement benefits based on an annual salary of $132,210.97, nearly three times the $45,798 salary he was making as a teacher when he separated from plaintiff. With respect to alimony, Article II, Paragraph 4 of the PSA obligated defendant to pay plaintiff $100 per week, the equivalent of $430 per month ($100 X 4.3 weeks), subject to termination only upon plaintiff's


CourtListener opinion 2722563

pension: ted. Defendant's motion requires the trial court to address and answer one key question it did not address in denying defendant's motion to terminate alimony in 2010 and again in 2012. Specifically, the court must discern what part of the $1,871 monthly pension benefits plaintiff has been receiving since defendant's retirement in 2010 is attributable to defendant's post-dissolution efforts, and thus may be considered income to plaintiff for purposes of determining alimony, outside the bar imposed in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b). The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion without making this threshold determ


CourtListener opinion 2722563

alternate payee: A-2300-12T2 denominator will be stated to be the total years of service credit accrued within the retirement system at the time of retirement. After payments commence to the Alternate Payee, they shall continue until the death of the Participant or the Alternate Payee. The Alternate Payee shall receive a pro-rata share of any cost of living adjustments or other economic improvements made to the Participant's retirement allowance on or after the date of his retirement. Such pro- rata share shall be calculated in the same manner as the Alternate Payee's share of the Participant's gross monthly retirement allowanc


CourtListener opinion 2722866

CourtListener opinion 2722866 Extracted reporter citation: 888 A.2d 906. Docket: 1804 WDA 2013. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2722866 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 2722866


CourtListener opinion 2722866

QDRO: insurance through the COBRA plan with PennDot, the cost will be $541.00 monthly. Master's Report, at 5-6, 7-8. The Master also recommended the equal division of Husband's pension that was not yet in pay status. Wife's attorney was directed to prepare a QDRO so that at the time Husband retired, Wife would receive her share.2 Additionally, to cover a partial amount of Wife's attorney's fees, the Master recommended that Husband pay $4,500.00 to Wife's counsel. The Master further recommended that Husband pay alimony to Wife for a four-year period, the first two years at $1,000.00 per month and the third and fo


CourtListener opinion 2722866

pension: plaint in divorce on September 2, 2010. A hearing before a Master was held on February 6, 2013, which resolved issues concerning the equitable distribution of the parties' assets, including Husband's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (PSERS) pension, valued at $333,706.00, Husband's deferred compensation account, valued at $15,536.00, the parties' vehicles, and a bank account. The Master explained his recommendation for the division of the bank account, stating: First Commonwealth Checking and Savings Account. At the time of separation, the above account contained $70,835.99. The Wife removed $65


CourtListener opinion 2722866

401(k): household expenses and medical bills. She has also worked as a cashier for Giant Eagle and worked two summers at Idewild in the gift shop cashier's office and in Storybook Forest. Those jobs were minimum wage jobs with no benefits. The Wife has no IRA or 401k. The Wife hasn't worked since 2010 when she stated she went into a coma and was hospitalized and received therapy for approximately one month. Based on the Wife's age and health, it is doubtful she will be able to obtain employment for more than minimum wage unless she received additional training and her health improves. Upon cross-examination of th


CourtListener opinion 2722866

valuation/division: ed cross-appeals from the order entered on October 4, 2013, that ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A19010-14 essentially duplicated the court's July 26, 2013 order providing for the equitable distribution of the parties marital property, and directing Husband to pay Wife: (1) a portion of her attorney's fees, (2) alimony for a four-year period, and (3) $1,000 for unreimbursed medical expenses. Both parties raise issues concerning these items. After review, we affirm. The parties were married on July 24, 1987, and separated on July 7, 2010.1 Wife filed


CourtListener opinion 2724936

CourtListener opinion 2724936 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2724936 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 2724936

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 2724936

domestic relations order: %. On September 18, 2012, Terry's counsel sent Michelle's counsel two checks totaling $107,961: the $27,445 payment from Terry's American United Life account, and the $80,516 equalization payment balance. Terry also filed with the trial court a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for the $31,043 Great American Life and Annuity payment and an IRA Divorce Transfer Request for the $22,816 American Funds payment. Together, these payments and documents satisfied the $161,820 equalization judgment. On November 1, 3 2012, Michelle signed a Release of Judgment verifying that Terry had satisfied that judgment. On November 26, 2012, M


CourtListener opinion 2724936

valuation/division: 2,816 from his American Funds account; and 3) $27,445 from his American United Life Insurance account. This would be $81,304, and Terry would still owe $80,516. Terry has satisfied the $161,820 equalization judgment; however, he has not, as required by the property division, signed over to Michell the $31,043 from the Great American account and the $22,816 from the American Funds account. Terry relies on Michelle's Release of Judgment, but his reliance is misplaced. The dissolution decree distinguished between the distribution of the parties' property and the equalization judgment. Trial Rule 67(B) required Michelle to s


CourtListener opinion 2725337

CourtListener opinion 2725337 Extracted reporter citation: 799 N.E.2d 1048. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2725337 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 2725337


CourtListener opinion 2725337

QDRO: e Jerry F. Jacobi, Judge Cause No. 10C02-0906-DR-117 March 24, 2014 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION ROBB, Judge Case Summary and Issue Following a dissolution of marriage between Albert Purcell and Theresa Purcell, the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") that distributed funds from a profit sharing account owned by the parties prior to their divorce. Albert, pro se, appeals the QDRO, raising the following issue for our review: whether the QDRO improperly modified the terms of the parties' decree of dissolution. Concluding the QDRO did not countermand the terms of the decree of dissolution, we a