CourtListener opinion 3115444

CourtListener opinion 3115444 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McDonald. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3115444 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 3115444

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 3115444

retirement benefits: z, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 30, 2013 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART In this post-decree divorce action, Earl Seabron challenges the trial court's clarification order and domestic relations order concerning military retirement benefits. We affirm as modified in part and reverse and remand in part. BACKGROUND Earl Seabron and Ayesha Seabron were married in 1966 and divorced in 1990. At the time of the divorce, Earl was retired from the United States Air Force and was receiving military retirement. The divorce decree provided that Ayesha was to receive 42.95% of the "gross present


CourtListener opinion 3115444

401(k): silent as to husband's obligations if he retired at any age other than 65; trial court was therefore authorized to enter a clarifying order); see also Brown v. Brown, 236 S.W.3d 343, 350 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (holding that award of "401(k) plan in the amount of $136,000" was subject to more than one reasonable interpretation and thus clarification was permitted). The clarification did not alter the essential proportional division of the military retirement benefits. If anything, the clarification benefited Earl because it reduced the amount of military retired pay awarded to Ayesha (42.95


CourtListener opinion 3115444

domestic relations order: e Karen Angelini, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 30, 2013 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART In this post-decree divorce action, Earl Seabron challenges the trial court's clarification order and domestic relations order concerning military retirement benefits. We affirm as modified in part and reverse and remand in part. BACKGROUND Earl Seabron and Ayesha Seabron were married in 1966 and divorced in 1990. At the time of the divorce, Earl was retired from the United States Air Force and was receiving military retirement. The divorce decree provided that Ayesha was to


CourtListener opinion 3115444

valuation/division: nse, Earl pleaded the affirmative defenses of statute of limitations (asserted two- year limitations period applied); laches and estoppel; and payment, accord, and satisfaction. He also pleaded that Ayesha was improperly attempting to change the substantive property division ordered by the court in the final decree of divorce, and that he was entitled to an offset or a credit for having paid the federal taxes due on Ayesha's share of the military retired pay. A bench trial was held in early 2012, at which Ayesha, Earl, and Pamela Greenroyd, a Certified Public Accountant, testified; Ayesha's attorney also testified as to th


CourtListener opinion 3116933

CourtListener opinion 3116933 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: of months the member has served. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3116933 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 3116933


CourtListener opinion 3116933

retirement benefits: of the remand. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court's order. FREEMAN I The facts underlying this appeal are accurately set forth in the prior opinion. See Freeman I, 387 S.W.3d at 773-74. The divorce decree divided Stanley's military retirement benefits and awarded Sumiko the following benefits pertinent to this appeal: All right, title and interest in and to 44% percent [sic] of the United States Air Force disposable retired pay to be paid as a result of STANLEY FREEMAN SR.'S service in the United States Air Force, at the grade and time in service that exists as to the date of the divorce…. The do


CourtListener opinion 3116933

domestic relations order: an asserts that the order entered on remand erroneously awards Sumiko Freeman a 1 Although there was an initial appeal of the divorce decree on other issues, we refer to the El Paso court's opinion as Freeman I because it is the first opinion addressing the domestic relations order relating to Stanley's military retirement. The appeal addressed in Freeman I was transferred from this court to the El Paso court pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Texas Supreme Court. 04-12-00541-CV percentage of his disposable retirement pay that belongs to his separate estate. Stanley also asserts that the order entered on remand c


CourtListener opinion 3116933

valuation/division: y. In Freeman I, the El Paso court noted that courts have struggled in calculating the division of military retirement benefits upon divorce, asserting: Courts have grappled throughout the years over the proper formula for apportioning the extent of the community property interest when the service member joined the military prior to marriage. Courts have also struggled with valuing the community property interest when the service member is still on active duty at the time of divorce. 387 S.W.3d at 774 (emphasis in original). The El Paso court then noted the Taggart formula "was created to address the apportionment issue


CourtListener opinion 3118922

CourtListener opinion 3118922 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Joyner. Extracted reporter citation: 391 S.W.2d 723. Docket: entry stating. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3118922 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 3118922

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 3118922

QDRO: on to withdraw from representation, which the trial court granted on August 14, 2012. On that same day, Maldonado filed a petition in intervention, seeking recovery of attorney's fees. She then filed a "Motion in Opposition of Entry of Proposed Decree and Qualified Domestic Relations Order" on August 21, 2012. The trial court signed the "Final Decree of Divorce" on August 22, 2012, and Maldonado moved for a new trial on August 31, 2012. Both Quinn and Rosario filed motions to strike Maldonado's petition in intervention, which the trial court granted on September 19, 2012. Standing In his "Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdict


CourtListener opinion 3118922

domestic relations order: draw from representation, which the trial court granted on August 14, 2012. On that same day, Maldonado filed a petition in intervention, seeking recovery of attorney's fees. She then filed a "Motion in Opposition of Entry of Proposed Decree and Qualified Domestic Relations Order" on August 21, 2012. The trial court signed the "Final Decree of Divorce" on August 22, 2012, and Maldonado moved for a new trial on August 31, 2012. Both Quinn and Rosario filed motions to strike Maldonado's petition in intervention, which the trial court granted on September 19, 2012. Standing In his "Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdict


CourtListener opinion 3121258

CourtListener opinion 3121258 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 04-11-00898-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3121258 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 3121258


CourtListener opinion 3121258

QDRO: d of or contained in the decree. TEX. FAM. CODE §§ 9.002, 9.006(a), 9.008. The court may enter a clarifying order to enforce compliance with the original division of the property. Id. § 9.008(b); see also § 9.1045(a) (providing that a "court that renders a qualified domestic relations order retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to amend the order to correct the order or clarify the terms of the order to effectuate the division of property ordered by the court"). However, after its plenary power expires, a court may not alter, amend, or modify the substantive division of property in the decree. Id. § 9.007(a); Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S


CourtListener opinion 3121258

retirement benefits: rrent child support for the couple's two children, 100% of all travel expenses, and sixty percent of private school tuition. 2 On that same date, the trial court also signed a Domestic Relations Order (Military Retirement) ("the DRO") dividing the military retirement benefits. In December 2009, appellee was transferred back to San Antonio, Texas, where he resided until mid-2011. On March 22, 2011, appellee filed a Petition for Modification and Clarification of Prior Order in which he asserted he was "retiring from his position with the United States Air Force and, as a result, his income will be substantially reduced, and,


CourtListener opinion 3121258

alternate payee: court was without jurisdiction to do. A DRO, such as the one here, "is a species of post-divorce enforcement order." Quijano v. Quijano, 347 S.W.3d 345, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). The purpose of a DRO is to create or recognize an alternate payee's right, or to assign an alternate payee the - 12 - 04-11-00898-CV right, to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan. Id. at 353-54. A trial court that renders a divorce decree generally retains the power to enforce or clarify the property division approved of or contained in the decree. TEX. FAM. CODE


CourtListener opinion 3121258

domestic relations order: one, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 31, 2012 AFFIRMED Appellant, Susan Meyer, appeals from an order modifying appellee Mark Pistone's child support obligations and an order clarifying a Domestic Relations Order (Military Retirement). We affirm. BACKGROUND Prior to their divorce, appellant, appellee, and their two children lived in San Antonio, Texas, where appellee was stationed with the United States Air Force. Appellant and the two children went to Missouri in June 2006 to visit appellant's father. At this time, appellant and appellee knew he would soon


CourtListener opinion 3122519

CourtListener opinion 3122519 Extracted reporter citation: 283 S.W.3d 506. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3122519 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 3122519


CourtListener opinion 3122519

QDRO: or attorney's fees, as well as additional conditional appellate attorney's fees should he appeal the divorce decree. The trial court stated in the letter ruling that Stacy's attorney ―shall prepare the Decree of Divorce, the Wage 4 Withholding Order, and QDRO's to reflect this ruling and shall submit all orders to the Court no later than October 23, 2009.‖ But before such a decree could be signed, Michael and Stacy entered into an agreement to the exclusion of the law firm that deleted the award of the attorney's fee judgment of $190,000 plus conditional appellate fees to Stacy from Michael, and the trial


CourtListener opinion 3122519

valuation/division: o fails to discharge the duty of support is liable to any person who provides necessaries to the spouse to whom support is owed.11 A spouse is personally liable for the other spouse's acts if the other spouse incurs a debt for necessaries.12 Further, all community property is subject to a liability for which both spouses are personally liable.13 A spouse's attorney's fees may be regarded as necessaries to protect his legal rights as long as he acts in 10 900 S.W.2d 108, 111–12 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no writ) (citations omitted). 11 Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.501 (West 2006). 12 Id. § 3.201. 13 See id. §


CourtListener opinion 3123289

CourtListener opinion 3123289 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Joyner. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3123289 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 3123289

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 3123289

retirement benefits: judgment are substituted in their place. 04-11-00700-CV At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court impermissibly deviated from the parties' mediated settlement agreement in rendering a domestic relations order. Two provisions related to military retirement benefits are in dispute—the husband's pay grade and whether the "high-36 month retired pay" is to be determined on the date of the husband's retirement or on the date of the mediated settlement agreement. Because we conclude the essential terms of the parties' agreement were included in the binding and irrevocable mediated settlement agreement, the trial court


CourtListener opinion 3123289

pension: s, 99 S.W.3d 150, 158-59 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.), in support. Otherwise, Andrew contends he would be divested of his separate property in contravention of Berry v. Berry, 647 S.W.2d 945, 947 (Tex. 1983), in which the court held that pension benefits accruing for services rendered after a divorce are not part of the parties' community estate subject to a just and right division. Lillian responds that if the retired pay awarded her is determined on the date the Mediation Agreement was - 10 - 04-11-00700-CV signed, as Andrew argues, it would not allow her awarded share to increase due to po


CourtListener opinion 3123289

domestic relations order: ent dated October 3, 2012 are withdrawn, and this opinion and judgment are substituted in their place. 04-11-00700-CV At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court impermissibly deviated from the parties' mediated settlement agreement in rendering a domestic relations order. Two provisions related to military retirement benefits are in dispute—the husband's pay grade and whether the "high-36 month retired pay" is to be determined on the date of the husband's retirement or on the date of the mediated settlement agreement. Because we conclude the essential terms of the parties' agreement were included in the binding and irre


CourtListener opinion 3123289

valuation/division: na 2006, pet. denied) (same); Boyd, 67 S.W.3d at 402 (same); Cayan v. Cayan, 38 S.W.3d 161, 166 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (same). Unlike other settlement agreements in family law, the trial court is not required to determine if the property division is "just and right" before approving a mediated settlement agreement. Milner, 361 S.W.3d at 618 (citing Joyner, 196 S.W.3d at 889, 891). A mediated settlement agreement must be enforced in the absence of allegations that the agreement calls for -6- 04-11-00700-CV the performance of an illegal act or that it was procured by fraud, duress, coercion, or


CourtListener opinion 3127571

CourtListener opinion 3127571 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. SOS. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3127571 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 3127571


CourtListener opinion 3127571

retirement benefits: le Marie 04-10-00563-CV Joyner's divorce decree and attendant domestic relations order. 1 In his petition, Doug asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order because it impermissibly modified the substantive division of his military retirement benefits. The trial court denied Doug's petition for bill of review. We reverse the trial court's order denying the bill of review and vacate the Amended Domestic Relations Order. BACKGROUND Doug and Janelle were divorced in October 2001. The divorce decree awarded Janelle a portion of Doug's military retirement benefits and stated that her portion would be


CourtListener opinion 3127571

pension: e construction that correctly applies the law. Id. "[W]hether a divorce decree is ambiguous is a question of law." Id. B. Discussion Doug and Janelle's divorce decree provides that Janelle is entitled to "[a] portion of [Doug]'s benefits in the military pension plan arising out of [Doug's] employment with the military, that portion being 50% of the community interest and more particularly defined in a Domestic Relations Order." The DRO formulated Janelle's entitlement as follows 4: 195 months The disposable monthly retired pay of an E-7 with Total Creditable 16 years, 3 months of 1/2 x Months of Military


CourtListener opinion 3127571

domestic relations order: g) Wayne Joyner's motion for rehearing is granted. We withdraw our opinion and judgment of April 6, 2011, and substitute this opinion and judgment. Doug appeals the trial court's order denying his petition for bill of review to set aside an agreed amended domestic relations order in a suit to clarify his and Appellee Janelle Marie 04-10-00563-CV Joyner's divorce decree and attendant domestic relations order. 1 In his petition, Doug asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order because it impermissibly modified the substantive division of his military retirement benefits. The trial court denied Doug's petit


CourtListener opinion 3127571

survivor benefits: Rule 11 agreement (the Agreement) 3 in which the parties agreed to the entry of an amended domestic relations order that was similar to 1 Doug died prior to this appeal. The Notice of Appeal in this case was filed in Doug's name by Stephanie Joyner, Doug's surviving spouse. Janelle argues that there is no showing that Stephanie has authority to prosecute this appeal. "If a party to a civil case dies after the trial court renders judgment but before the case has been finally disposed of on appeal, the appeal may be perfected, and [we] will proceed to adjudicate the appeal as if all parties were alive." TEX. R. APP. P. 7.1(a)(1


CourtListener opinion 3127913

CourtListener opinion 3127913 Extracted reporter citation: 221 S.W.3d 622. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3127913 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 3127913


CourtListener opinion 3127913

QDRO: Y TO PETITIONER (Husband): . . . All interest in Husband's Teacher Retirement benefits (TRS) except that portion awarded to wife herein. . . . PROPERTY TO RESPONDENT (Wife): . . . 35.5% of Husband's TRS (Tex. Teacher Retirement) Benefits to be divided by QDRO. No mention was made in the mediated settlement agreement of Beverly's designation as Colin's beneficiary. Because Colin was already receiving retirement payments, under Texas law, to revoke Beverly as the designated beneficiary, Colin needed to have the trial court order the change in the divorce decree. As the Texas Supreme Court has explained, the


CourtListener opinion 3127913

retirement benefits: he optional retirement annuity under which, upon Colin's death, she would receive 100% of Colin's monthly retirement annuity for the rest of her life. In their mediated settlement agreement, Beverly and Colin agreed to the following with respect to Colin's retirement benefits under the Teacher Retirement System: PROPERTY TO PETITIONER (Husband): . . . All interest in Husband's Teacher Retirement benefits (TRS) except that portion awarded to wife herein. . . . PROPERTY TO RESPONDENT (Wife): . . . 35.5% of Husband's TRS (Tex. Teacher Retirement) Benefits to be divided by QDRO. No mention was made in the mediated settleme


CourtListener opinion 3127913

domestic relations order: d interest as the beneficiary of the continuing retirement annuity. Further, Colin D. Elsik, as the owner of all rights, title, and interest, including the beneficiary interest in the TRS benefits, except those which may have been awarded in any Qualified Domestic Relations Order, is authorized to complete the forms necessary to effect the revocation of beneficiary as ordered herein. Beverly objected to this provision being included in the divorce decree, arguing that the mediated settlement agreement contained no such provision. The trial court agreed with Beverly and declined to include the provision in the decree. On appeal


CourtListener opinion 3127913

survivor benefits: at date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the court on the day this Final Decree of Divorce is signed. Thus, like the mediated settlement agreement, the divorce decree did not mention anything relating to the survivor annuity. Indeed, had the trial court included Colin's proposed provision, it would have improperly signed a judgment that varied from the terms of the mediated settlement agreement. Therefore, finding no error on the part of the trial court, we affirm the judgment. Karen Angelini, Justice -6-


CourtListener opinion 3130837

CourtListener opinion 3130837 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hayes. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3130837 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 3130837


CourtListener opinion 3130837

retirement benefits: trustee of Jacqueline's interest. Constrained by federal legislation and binding court precedent, we are forced to affirm the trial court's order. BACKGROUND Lugene and Jacqueline were divorced in 1994. With regard to the division of Lugene's military retirement benefits, the decree provided that Jacqueline was awarded the following as her sole and separate property: As agreed between the parties, . . . all right, title and interest in and to thirty-nine and fifty-eight hundredths (39.58%) percent of the United States Army disposable retired or retainer pay to be paid as a result of LUGENE JACKSON'S service in the Uni


CourtListener opinion 3130837

pension: p. 2009). In In re Marriage of Hayes, at the time of the parties' divorce in 1998, the husband had served 15 -7- 04-09-00117-CV years in the military. 208 P.3d at 1048. Although the husband was not entitled to retire, the prospective military retirement pension was the most valuable asset in the marriage, making it the "centerpiece" of the parties' property division. Id. The parties agreed to a property settlement in which the wife was to receive a percentage interest in the husband's military retirement benefit plan. Id. The decree expressly provided, "The Court retains jurisdiction of the division of the re


CourtListener opinion 3130837

domestic relations order: nt benefits described herein so it can make any modifications to this judgment which may be necessary to accomplish the goals stated herein relating to the division of said benefits." Id. (emphasis added). The husband was to retain an attorney to prepare a domestic relations order to divide the benefits. Id. After the attorneys for the parties prepared competing domestic relations orders, the matter was set for a hearing. Id. At the time of the hearing, the husband had served 23 years in the military. Id. Although he was eligible to retire, he had no immediate plans to do so. Id. The husband was not disabled at the time of the h


CourtListener opinion 3130837

valuation/division: the trial court's order. DISPOSABLE RETIRED PAY In McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981), the United States Supreme Court held that federal statutes then governing military retirement pay prevented state courts from treating military retirement pay as community property. In direct response to McCarty, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act ("FSPA"), which authorized state courts to treat "disposable retired or retainer pay" as community property. Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 584 (1989). The federal statutes expressly defined "disposable retired or retainer pay" and required any amou


CourtListener opinion 3131422

CourtListener opinion 3131422 Extracted case name: MERMANN v. TILLITSKI. MELTON. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3131422 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 3131422

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 3131422

QDRO: ve 50% of the Husband's SEP IRA[1] as of the date of this agreement and shall have her pro rata share of all investment experience, including earnings and losses. . . . Wife shall be responsible for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) incorporating the terms of all paragraphs in Item 14 said QDRO to be prepared within thirty (30) days of the signing of this Agreement.[2] Said QDRO shall be subject to approval of Husband's attorney and the Court of proper jurisdiction in this case, as well as the Administrator(s) of the aforementioned Plan. 1 The parties and the trial court appear


CourtListener opinion 3131465

CourtListener opinion 3131465 Extracted case name: FROEHLICH v. FROEHLICH. NAHMIAS. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3131465 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 3131465

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 3131465

QDRO: r of half of a 401(k) retirement account, where "[t]he divorce decree specified both how [Wife's] interest in the 401(k) account would be calculated and the manner in which the transfer was to be accomplished, including requiring her counsel to prepare the QDRO." 286 Ga. at 236. We held that "transmuting this award into a presently due cash obligation" was an impermissible modification. Id. Unlike Killingsworth, the contempt order in this case does not transmute any property or compel Husband to relinquish or sell any asset awarded to him by the divorce decree. The Marriott points at issue are Wife's property


CourtListener opinion 3131465

retirement benefits: 13). See, e.g., Gooch v. Gooch, 297 Ga. 189 (___ SE2d ___) (2015) (holding that where the husband, contrary to the divorce decree, made an irrevocable designation of his new wife instead of his former wife as the recipient of the survivor benefits from his retirement plan, the trial court could enforce the decree with a contempt order requiring him "to secure something of the same monetary value as that which was set forth in the violated order"); Doritis v. Doritis, 294 Ga. 421, 421-422 (754 SE2d 53) (2014) (affirming a contempt order that required the husband to pay the wife the value of jewelry that the parties had a


CourtListener opinion 3131465

401(k): ontemptuous conduct." Smith, 293 Ga. at 565. Husband's reliance on Killingsworth is misplaced. In that case, we held that the trial court impermissibly modified the divorce decree by ordering a cash payment to the wife in lieu of the transfer of half of a 401(k) retirement account, where "[t]he divorce decree specified both how [Wife's] interest in the 401(k) account would be calculated and the manner in which the transfer was to be accomplished, including requiring her counsel to prepare the QDRO." 286 Ga. at 236. We held that "transmuting this award into a presently due cash obligation" was an impermissible


CourtListener opinion 3131465

survivor benefits: 63, 564 (748 SE2d 456) (2013). See, e.g., Gooch v. Gooch, 297 Ga. 189 (___ SE2d ___) (2015) (holding that where the husband, contrary to the divorce decree, made an irrevocable designation of his new wife instead of his former wife as the recipient of the survivor benefits from his retirement plan, the trial court could enforce the decree with a contempt order requiring him "to secure something of the same monetary value as that which was set forth in the violated order"); Doritis v. Doritis, 294 Ga. 421, 421-422 (754 SE2d 53) (2014) (affirming a contempt order that required the husband to pay the wife the value of jewe


CourtListener opinion 3131568

CourtListener opinion 3131568 Extracted case name: POLLARD v. POLLARD. BENHAM. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3131568 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 3131568


CourtListener opinion 3131568

retirement benefits: by appellant Kayleen Pollard (Wife) against Brian Pollard (Husband). A bench trial was conducted, after which the final judgment and decree was entered July 31, 2013. Wife retired in 2012 after the divorce complaint was filed, and she commenced receiving retirement benefits from the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia prior to the date the final judgment was entered. Wife elected not to provide for survivor benefits, thereby entitling her to receive the maximum monthly benefits during her life. Further, the final judgment recited the Husband had already named Wife as the sole beneficiary with survivorship rights of his


CourtListener opinion 3131568

pension: Wife elected not to provide for survivor benefits, thereby entitling her to receive the maximum monthly benefits during her life. Further, the final judgment recited the Husband had already named Wife as the sole beneficiary with survivorship rights of his pension plan, which he was ordered not to change for so long as Wife is alive, and Wife was ordered to "restore" Husband as her sole beneficiary with survivorship rights within thirty days of the date of the order. By the time the final judgment was entered, however, Wife was precluded from changing her survivor benefits election. Whether or not she was aware


CourtListener opinion 3131568

domestic relations order: quires be paid to her.'" Id. at 417. As the parties later discovered, the Navy did not require any division of the husband's retirement benefits to be paid to the wife, and the wife brought a contempt action when the husband refused to enter into an Agreed Domestic Relations Order (ADRO) granting her fifty percent of his retirement benefits. Alternatively, the wife sought an order 6 setting aside the divorce decree on the ground of mutual mistake of the parties. Id. at 417-418. The trial court found the parties had a mutual misunderstanding of the Navy's regulations relating to a former spouse's share of retirement pay, but, i


CourtListener opinion 3131568

survivor benefits: red July 31, 2013. Wife retired in 2012 after the divorce complaint was filed, and she commenced receiving retirement benefits from the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia prior to the date the final judgment was entered. Wife elected not to provide for survivor benefits, thereby entitling her to receive the maximum monthly benefits during her life. Further, the final judgment recited the Husband had already named Wife as the sole beneficiary with survivorship rights of his pension plan, which he was ordered not to change for so long as Wife is alive, and Wife was ordered to "restore" Husband as her sole beneficiary wi


CourtListener opinion 3133284

CourtListener opinion 3133284 Extracted reporter citation: 320 P.3d 1244. Docket: 41013-2013 STEPHANIE M. REED. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3133284 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 3133284


CourtListener opinion 3133284

QDRO: ore amended notices of appeal, the last being on April 20, 2013. The appeal was heard by the district court, and on April 5, 2013, it entered its decision on appeal. It affirmed all aspects of the magistrate court's purported judgment except the dates of the qualified domestic relations orders. The district court held that the orders incorrectly listed the date of the parties' divorce as June 20, 2011 (the date of the document titled "Amended Final Decree of Divorce") and that the correct date was January 14, 2011 (the date the magistrate 4 The document did not constitute a judgment because it did not comply with Rule 54(a) of the Idaho Rules


CourtListener opinion 3133284

retirement benefits: a partial final judgment terminating the marriage in order to expedite the later resolution of the property distribution issues, Brinkmeyer v. Brinkmeyer, 135 Idaho 596, 599-600, 21 P.3d 918, 921-22 (2001); and the trial court may retain jurisdiction to value retirement benefits after the actual date of divorce, Hunt v. Hunt, 137 Idaho 18, 21, 43 P.3d 777, 780 (2002). 6 corporation on the building. Father argues that the insurance policy shows that it was replacement cost insurance, which is not the measure of market value. Although the magistrate court considered the amount of the insurance purchased on the building, it state


CourtListener opinion 3133284

domestic relations order: d notices of appeal, the last being on April 20, 2013. The appeal was heard by the district court, and on April 5, 2013, it entered its decision on appeal. It affirmed all aspects of the magistrate court's purported judgment except the dates of the qualified domestic relations orders. The district court held that the orders incorrectly listed the date of the parties' divorce as June 20, 2011 (the date of the document titled "Amended Final Decree of Divorce") and that the correct date was January 14, 2011 (the date the magistrate 4 The document did not constitute a judgment because it did not comply with Rule 54(a) of the Idaho Rules


CourtListener opinion 3133284

valuation/division: n the sum of $10,000 for attorney fees. On the same date, it also entered a document titled "Judgment for Equalization of Property Settlement," which stated that it granted Mother a judgment against Father in the sum of $198,642.00 to equalize the division of community property. 2 On January 28, 2011, the court orally announced its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record. On April 7, 2011, the court filed a document titled "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decree of Divorce," which stated that "[t]he attached Oral Pronouncement transcribed shall constitute the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and F


CourtListener opinion 3133447

CourtListener opinion 3133447 Extracted reporter citation: 148 S.W.3d 761. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3133447 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 3133447


CourtListener opinion 3133447

QDRO: irty-two percent (32%) of the monthly pension Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 571 amount paid to [Edmondson] through Southwestern Bell Corporation, at the time of his retirement. On June 2, 1998, Lockett petitioned the circuit court to order Edmondson to file a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") so that Southwestern Bell would set aside and pay benefits to her when Edmondson retired. On September 4, 1998, the circuit court ordered that a QDRO be executed. On March 2, 2011, Lockett filed a petition for citation for contempt. In the petition, she asked the court to hold Edmondson in contempt for failing to follow the divorce decree in


CourtListener opinion 3133447

retirement benefits: ockett] will be paid a sum equal to thirty-two percent (32%) of the monthly pension amount paid to [Edmondson] through Southwestern Bell Corporation, at the time of his retirement." Edmondson testified at the March hearing that he receives $1500 a month in retirement benefits. He offered no other evidence that he receives a different amount. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in ordering him to pay Lockett thirty-two percent of $1500. Edmondson next argues that the court erred in finding him in contempt of court because the language of the divorce decree does not require him to personally pay Lockett. 4 Cite as


CourtListener opinion 3133447

pension: 804] PENNY EDMONDSON-LOCKETT APPELLEE HONORABLE MORGAN E. WELCH, JUDGE AFFIRMED RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge Edward Edmondson appeals the order from the Pulaski County Circuit Court directing him to pay Penny Edmondson-Lockett thirty-two percent of his pension benefits and finding him in contempt of court. On appeal, Edmondson argues that the circuit court erred in (1) awarding Lockett more of his pension than the parties' divorce decree provides and (2) finding him in contempt. We affirm. Edmondson and Lockett divorced in December 1988. Paragraph 10 of the divorce decree provides that [o]n the date of tr


CourtListener opinion 3133447

domestic relations order: ercent (32%) of the monthly pension Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 571 amount paid to [Edmondson] through Southwestern Bell Corporation, at the time of his retirement. On June 2, 1998, Lockett petitioned the circuit court to order Edmondson to file a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") so that Southwestern Bell would set aside and pay benefits to her when Edmondson retired. On September 4, 1998, the circuit court ordered that a QDRO be executed. On March 2, 2011, Lockett filed a petition for citation for contempt. In the petition, she asked the court to hold Edmondson in contempt for failing to follow the divorce decree in


CourtListener opinion 3134661

CourtListener opinion 3134661 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Scott. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 88352–Agenda 17–March 2000. DELORES SMITHBERG. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3134661 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 3134661

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 3134661

QDRO: uthorized a domestic relations court order directing payment of a governmental pension benefit to a person other than the regular payee. Although the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (1994)) would have allowed for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in this situation had James been a member of a private pension plan, ERISA is not applicable to governmental pension funds (29 U.S.C. §1003(b) (1994)). We note in passing that Illinois' new QILDRO provision, among other things, states that a QILDRO will not apply to or affect "the payment of any survivor's benefit, death benefit, disability b


CourtListener opinion 3134661

retirement benefits: tered into [the] agreement, free of any duress or coercion and with full knowledge of each and every provision contained in [the] agreement, and the consequences thereof." As part of the agreement, and in exchange for her waiver of any right or claim to other retirement benefits belonging to James, it was agreed that Nancy would be "listed as the recipient of any benefits payable upon the death of" James from the IMRF, and that he would "not designate any other survivors, or allocate any survivorship benefits, to anyone other than" Nancy. Subsequently, on a date not disclosed in the record, James remarried and, contrary to the


CourtListener opinion 3134661

pension: hose principles should serve as a beacon to any court charting a course through conflicting case authorities, and we believe they are particularly apt in the resolution of this case. Delores argues for a strict application of section 7–118 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (40 ILCS 5/7–118 (West 1998) (definition of "beneficiary")), without regard to the attendant circumstances. Section 7–118(a) states that "[d]esignations of beneficiaries shall be in writing on forms prescribed by the board and effective upon filing in the fund offices." 40 ILCS 5/7–118(a) (West 1998). According to Delores, since section 7–118(b)


CourtListener opinion 3134661

ERISA: efore that legislation, no specific statutory authority in Illinois authorized a domestic relations court order directing payment of a governmental pension benefit to a person other than the regular payee. Although the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (1994)) would have allowed for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in this situation had James been a member of a private pension plan, ERISA is not applicable to governmental pension funds (29 U.S.C. §1003(b) (1994)). We note in passing that Illinois' new QILDRO provision, among other things, states that a QILD


CourtListener opinion 3138182

CourtListener opinion 3138182 Extracted reporter citation: 660 N.E.2d 157. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3138182 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 3138182


CourtListener opinion 3138182

QDRO: when Kathleen's ex-husband received the current pension valuation, his attorney was to provide a copy for the court and forward a copy to Kathleen's attorney. The judgment of dissolution was entered in April of 1994. It stated that a supplemental order or a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was to be entered to divide the pension. Attorney Scovil last appeared as counsel of record for Kathleen in April of 1994. Scovil asserts that he spoke to Kathleen on one occasion after his April 1994 court appearance to inform her that he would no longer act as her attorney until she made arrangements to pay her outstanding bill. Scovil ulti


CourtListener opinion 3138182

pension: f the court: _________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Kathleen O'Brien brought this legal malpractice action against defendant Douglas Scovil alleging that he failed to secure her one-half interest in her ex-husband's pension pursuant to the judgment of dissolution of her marriage. The trial court held that Kathleen's complaint was barred under the six-year attorney malpractice statute of repose (735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(c) (West 2000)) and granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of attorney Scovil. We hold that the legal malpractice statute of repose commences with the last act


CourtListener opinion 3138182

domestic relations order: een's ex-husband received the current pension valuation, his attorney was to provide a copy for the court and forward a copy to Kathleen's attorney. The judgment of dissolution was entered in April of 1994. It stated that a supplemental order or a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was to be entered to divide the pension. Attorney Scovil last appeared as counsel of record for Kathleen in April of 1994. Scovil asserts that he spoke to Kathleen on one occasion after his April 1994 court appearance to inform her that he would no longer act as her attorney until she made arrangements to pay her outstanding bill. Scovil ulti


CourtListener opinion 3138617

CourtListener opinion 3138617 Docket: 4-98-0690. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3138617 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 3138617


CourtListener opinion 3138617

QDRO: Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/503 (West 1996)). The trial court awarded Judith $17,643 as her share of the marital interest in the plan. The trial court ordered this amount to be paid to Judith under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), effective the date of dissolution. We affirm. On January 12, 1998, the trial court held a hearing on property distribution issues. On August 5, 1998, the trial court entered the supplemental property distribution order. The trial court split the nonpension marital property fairly equally. The trial court awarded Judith her pension. Judith


CourtListener opinion 3138617

pension: ial court held a hearing on property distribution issues. On August 5, 1998, the trial court entered the supplemental property distribution order. The trial court split the nonpension marital property fairly equally. The trial court awarded Judith her pension. Judith earns $13,036 per year working full-time as a high school secretary and part-time in a restaurant. Judith has worked at the high school for 25½ years. Finally, the trial court awarded Judith $17,643 as her share of the marital interest in James' thrift plan, to be allocated according to a QDRO, effective March 19, 1997. James had work


CourtListener opinion 3140057

CourtListener opinion 3140057 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 5-01-0939. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3140057 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 3140057


CourtListener opinion 3140057

retirement benefits: ion on November 9, 1989. The court ruled that the marital portion of the benefits actually paid was to be determined by multiplying the amount in \each benefit check issued\" by a fraction with a numerator of 234 (the number of months John contributed to his retirement plan during the marriage) and a denominator of the total number of calendar months in which John contributed to the plan during his career. Mary would be entitled to half of this amount.


CourtListener opinion 3140057

pension: _____________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the opinion of the court: The Ramseys married in 1969 and divorced in 1989. Pursuant to John's request, the trial court reserved jurisdiction to divide his pension upon his retirement. Neither the parties nor the court contemplated then that John would be offered an early retirement incentive package. John retired in 2000 at the age of 55, taking advantage of early retirement incentives which required that both he and his employer make one-time monetary contributions to the Teachers' Retirement System of the State o


CourtListener opinion 3140057

domestic relations order: early retirement incentives which required that both he and his employer make one-time monetary contributions to the Teachers' Retirement System of the State of Illinois (TRS). Shortly after John's retirement, Mary filed a motion seeking a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO). The trial court granted Mary's motion. John appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay to Mary a portion of his pension benefits attributable to his nonmarital monetary contributions. We reverse in part. I. BACKGROUND John Ramsey and Mary Ramsey, now known as Mary Cornell, were married in June 1969. Throughout t


CourtListener opinion 3140057

valuation/division: ril 14, 1989, however, John filed a posttrial motion in which he requested that the court instead reserve jurisdiction to divide his pension upon his retirement. The court entered an order granting John's motion on November 9, 1989. The court ruled that the marital portion of the benefits actually paid was to be determined by multiplying the amount in \each benefit check issued\" by a fraction with a numerator of 234 (the number of months John contributed to his retirement plan during the marriage) and a denominator of the total number of calendar months in which John contributed to the plan during his career. Mary would be


CourtListener opinion 3140221

CourtListener opinion 3140221 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3140221 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 3140221

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 3140221

retirement benefits: he court: After a trial, the trial court dissolved the marriage of petitioner, Tara Menken, and respondent, George Menken, awarded maintenance and child support, and divided the marital assets. The court awarded petitioner, among other things, 60% of the retirement benefits respondent earned as a member of the Rockford police department. On appeal, respondent contends that the trial court lacked the authority to order him to sign a consent form authorizing petitioner to receive the retirement benefits directly pursuant to a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO). See 40 ILCS 5/1--119(b)(1) (West 2000). We vac


CourtListener opinion 3140221

pension: he order requiring respondent to sign the consent form and affirm in all other respects. The parties were married on August 4, 1973. Respondent had been a member of the Rockford police department since January 1977 and participated in the Rockford Police Pension Fund. At the time of the trial, the value of respondent's pension was approximately $2,250 per month. On December 5, 2000, the trial court issued its memorandum decision awarding petitioner \60% of [respondent's] retirement benefits


CourtListener opinion 3140221

domestic relations order: ed as a member of the Rockford police department. On appeal, respondent contends that the trial court lacked the authority to order him to sign a consent form authorizing petitioner to receive the retirement benefits directly pursuant to a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO). See 40 ILCS 5/1--119(b)(1) (West 2000). We vacate the order requiring respondent to sign the consent form and affirm in all other respects. The parties were married on August 4, 1973. Respondent had been a member of the Rockford police department since January 1977 and participated in the Rockford Police Pension Fund. At the time of the tr


CourtListener opinion 3140560

CourtListener opinion 3140560 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 4-03-0015. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3140560 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 3140560


CourtListener opinion 3140560

retirement benefits: expenses to date, and he indicates a willingness to continue making those payments. The court ordered Charles to continue paying Meghan's educational expenses and her car insurance. Finally, the court determined each party is entitled to 50% of the other's retirement benefits to be paid through a QILDRO (qualified Illinois domestic relations order). When fashioning the maintenance award, the trial court considered the parties' financial-affairs affidavits. Mary Anne's affidavit indicated her average monthly expenses were $4,527. Mary Anne prepared the affidavit on May 24, 2001, averaging her expenses for the prior


CourtListener opinion 3140560

domestic relations order: those payments. The court ordered Charles to continue paying Meghan's educational expenses and her car insurance. Finally, the court determined each party is entitled to 50% of the other's retirement benefits to be paid through a QILDRO (qualified Illinois domestic relations order). When fashioning the maintenance award, the trial court considered the parties' financial-affairs affidavits. Mary Anne's affidavit indicated her average monthly expenses were $4,527. Mary Anne prepared the affidavit on May 24, 2001, averaging her expenses for the prior 12 months, although the parties separated on July 10, 2000, and she filed


CourtListener opinion 3141433

CourtListener opinion 3141433 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thomas. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3141433 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 3141433


CourtListener opinion 3141433

QDRO: dence of his 1984 income as a sanction for failing to personally appear at the evidentiary hearing; (2) award petitioner, Lynn Rose Thomas, $317,753.72 in past-due support and $75,000 in attorney fees and costs; and (3) allow Lynn to recover the arrearage via qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs). We conclude that the trial court calculated the arrearage incorrectly because the court abused its discretion in excluding the contested evidence. However, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the attorney fees and costs. We further determine as a matter of law that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (2


CourtListener opinion 3141433

retirement benefits: cretion in awarding the attorney fees and costs. We further determine as a matter of law that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (2000)) permits the entry of QDROs to transfer the value of pension and retirement accounts to satisfy a support arrearage. However, such an assignment is limited to the value of the accounts at the time of the marriage dissolution. Because it is unclear whether the QDROs in this case were so limited, we reverse them and remand the cause for the entry of new QDROs. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in part, reverse it in part, and remand the


CourtListener opinion 3141433

pension: buse its discretion in awarding the attorney fees and costs. We further determine as a matter of law that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (2000)) permits the entry of QDROs to transfer the value of pension and retirement accounts to satisfy a support arrearage. However, such an assignment is limited to the value of the accounts at the time of the marriage dissolution. Because it is unclear whether the QDROs in this case were so limited, we reverse them and remand the cause for the entry of new QDROs. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in part, reverse it


CourtListener opinion 3141433

ERISA: e the court abused its discretion in excluding the contested evidence. However, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the attorney fees and costs. We further determine as a matter of law that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (2000)) permits the entry of QDROs to transfer the value of pension and retirement accounts to satisfy a support arrearage. However, such an assignment is limited to the value of the accounts at the time of the marriage dissolution. Because it is unclear whether the QDROs in this case were so limited, we reverse them and


CourtListener opinion 3143322

CourtListener opinion 3143322 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3143322 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 3143322


CourtListener opinion 3143322

QDRO: Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding. _________________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: In these consolidated appeals, petitioner, Thomas E. David, seeks review of two amended qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) entered by the circuit court of Du Page County. The QDROs awarded a share of Thomas's pension benefits to respondent, Mary A. David. We dismiss case No. 2--04--1191 for lack of jurisdiction. In case No. 2--05--0088, we conclude that the amended QDROs were properly entered and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND On


CourtListener opinion 3143322

pension: Y delivered the opinion of the court: In these consolidated appeals, petitioner, Thomas E. David, seeks review of two amended qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) entered by the circuit court of Du Page County. The QDROs awarded a share of Thomas's pension benefits to respondent, Mary A. David. We dismiss case No. 2--04--1191 for lack of jurisdiction. In case No. 2--05--0088, we conclude that the amended QDROs were properly entered and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND On February 18, 2003, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the parties' marriage. Among the mari


CourtListener opinion 3143322

domestic relations order: . ) Judge, Presiding. _________________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: In these consolidated appeals, petitioner, Thomas E. David, seeks review of two amended qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) entered by the circuit court of Du Page County. The QDROs awarded a share of Thomas's pension benefits to respondent, Mary A. David. We dismiss case No. 2--04--1191 for lack of jurisdiction. In case No. 2--05--0088, we conclude that the amended QDROs were properly entered and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND On


CourtListener opinion 3144570

CourtListener opinion 3144570 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Pagano. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3144570 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 3144570

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 3144570

domestic relations order: d attorney's fees necessarily incurred ***." 750 ILCS 5/508(a) (West 1994). In appeal number 1-02-0081, Haddon argues that the trial court erred in quashing its citation proceedings. Haddon claims that the trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce its domestic relations orders. Haddon also argues that, because the citation sufficiently describes the original judgment, it acts to revive the original judgment. Weiss responds that nowhere in the judgment order or the marital settlement agreement is there a finding in favor of Haddon and against Weiss for a sum of money. She argues that a recital of a promise to pay one's at


CourtListener opinion 3144818

CourtListener opinion 3144818 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Jensen. Extracted reporter citation: 857 N.E.2d 332. Docket: Fourth District Docket No. 4-12-0355. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3144818 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 3144818

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 3144818

QDRO: beth had rolled over from her former IRA account with Richard, Merrill & Peterson. The court also awarded Elizabeth 50% of the $327,950 in the IRA account with Richard, Merrill & Peterson in Phillip's name, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The court awarded Phillip the balance of that account. In addition, the court awarded Elizabeth assets and debt obligations totaling $145,230 and awarded Phillip assets and debts totaling $143,855. ¶ 23 The trial court reserved the issue of maintenance, denied Elizabeth's request that Phillip -4- be ordered to make a monthly contribution to the livin


CourtListener opinion 3144818

retirement benefits: court ordered any remaining funds or deficiency to be divided 60% to Elizabeth and 40% to Phillip. The court also ordered the couple's timeshare to be sold, with the parties to split the loss or gain from the sale equally. ¶ 22 With respect to the parties' retirement accounts, the trial court awarded Elizabeth the property from her 403(b) retirement account, valued at approximately $162,000, which contained the money Elizabeth had rolled over from her former IRA account with Richard, Merrill & Peterson. The court also awarded Elizabeth 50% of the $327,950 in the IRA account with Richard, Merrill & Peterson in Phillip's name


CourtListener opinion 3144818

valuation/division: r that amount. The court further stated upon reconsidering "the significant disparity in earnings and earning potential, the duration of the marriage, [Elizabeth's] contribution to [Phillip's] profession and other testimony presented," it found "a fair and equitable distribution of the parties marital assets and debts require[d] a modification of the Court's prior order." The court amended its prior order to award Elizabeth 62% of the $327,950 Richard, Merrill & Peterson account in Phillip's name, pursuant to a QDRO. The court left all other terms of the distribution of assets and liabilities unchanged. The court's order direct


CourtListener opinion 3145522

CourtListener opinion 3145522 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Radzik. Docket: Second District Docket No. 2-10-0374. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3145522 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 3145522


CourtListener opinion 3145522

QDRO: considered a support order. Specifically, in Thomas, the trial court awarded the petitioner past-due support and attorney fees. This court considered the question whether the trial court properly allowed the petitioner to recover the support arrearage via qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs).6 We concluded that a court may enter QDROs to transfer the value of pension and retirement accounts to satisfy a support arrearage but that the assignment must be limited to the value of the accounts at the time of the marriage dissolution. Id. at 227. Specifically, we stated, "we hold that ERISA permits a trial court's entry of a QDRO to assi


CourtListener opinion 3145522

retirement benefits: 374 Filed August 8, 2011 Held An interim order requiring respondent to pay petitioner's attorney fees (Note: This syllabus was invalid where petitioner failed to establish respondent's ability to pay constitutes no part of the amount awarded, his individual retirement account was exempt from the opinion of the court any judgment for interim attorney fees, and the contempt order but has been prepared respondent employed in a good-faith effort to challenge the trial court's by the Reporter of order was vacated. Decisions for the convenience of the reader.) Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 09-D-113;


CourtListener opinion 3145522

pension: it applies to the Act, holds that the exemption does not apply to support arrearages. For example, in In re Marriage of Murphy, 338 Ill. App. 3d 1095, 1098 (2003), the court rejected the respondent's argument that certificates of deposit purchased with his pension funds could not, per section 12-1006, be ordered to be transferred to the petitioner to satisfy a child support arrearage. The court noted that section 15(d) of the Income Withholding for Support Act (Support Act) (750 ILCS 28/15(d) (West 2000) (originally codified within the Dissolution Act and which applies to withholding income to secure support orde


CourtListener opinion 3145522

ERISA: r QDROs to transfer the value of pension and retirement accounts to satisfy a support arrearage but that the assignment must be limited to the value of the accounts at the time of the marriage dissolution. Id. at 227. Specifically, we stated, "we hold that ERISA permits a trial court's entry of a QDRO to assign pension and other retirement benefits to a former spouse to satisfy a judgment for past-due maintenance and child support." (Emphasis added.) Id. In so holding, we rejected the respondent's argument that section 12-1006 of the Code prohibited the assignment, noting that, insofar as a beneficial interest


CourtListener opinion 3145599

CourtListener opinion 3145599 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hall. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3145599 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 3145599


CourtListener opinion 3145599

QDRO: nd Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/508, 511 (West 2008)). The petition to enforce alleged that the parties' intent in entering into the MSA was to split equally all marital assets, including "non-qualified or retirement plans." Loree sought a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to enforce the MSA. On October 5, 2009, Loree filed a petition to modify and/or vacate the judgment of dissolution of marriage (petition to modify and/or vacate), pursuant to section 510(b) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/510(b) (West 2008)) and section 2—1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2—1401 West 2008)). Count I alleged, inter a


CourtListener opinion 3145599

retirement benefits: ner, Loree Hendry, appeals the trial court's order denying her petitions to enforce and to modify and/or vacate the judgment of dissolution of marriage between herself and respondent, Michael Hendry, arguing that she was entitled to half of two of Michael's retirement accounts. On appeal, Loree argues that (a) the trial court erred by interpreting the parties' marital settlement agreement (MSA) as denying her a share of Michael's Pacific Life deferred compensation plan; and (b) the trial court erred by failing to consider the case law on mutual and excusable mistake in denying Loree's petition to modify and/or vacate the jud


CourtListener opinion 3145599

domestic relations order: ution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/508, 511 (West 2008)). The petition to enforce alleged that the parties' intent in entering into the MSA was to split equally all marital assets, including "non-qualified or retirement plans." Loree sought a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to enforce the MSA. On October 5, 2009, Loree filed a petition to modify and/or vacate the judgment of dissolution of marriage (petition to modify and/or vacate), pursuant to section 510(b) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/510(b) (West 2008)) and section 2—1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2—1401 West 2008)). Count I alleged, inter a


CourtListener opinion 3145702

CourtListener opinion 3145702 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Schinelli. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3145702 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 3145702


CourtListener opinion 3145702

QDRO: ce now appeals. Bruce contends that the trial court erred in (1) awarding Cecily $15,000 in attorney fees for defending the first appeal; (2) finding that he had dissipated $17,919 of marital assets; and (3) entering a "Qualified Domestic Relations Order" (QDRO) that improperly modified the judgment of the dissolution of marriage. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for additional proceedings. The record in this case is substantial. A great deal of evidence was presented in the trial court. Therefore, only those facts necessary to an understanding of this court's decision will be set forth below,


CourtListener opinion 3145702

retirement benefits: te. On April 27, 2009, the trial court conducted a hearing on Cecily's motion. The evidence established that as of March 31, 2009, the Wachovia 401(k) account had a value of $179,830. In response to comments by the parties as to its intent in dividing the retirement accounts, the trial court explained: "I added them all up, divided them by two. She kept hers, he kept his, except for the 401K for him, he would have to roll over money into her. So that, when they all ended up at the bottom, they had the same amount. *** -13- Nos. 2—09—0591 & 2—09—1160 cons. The Wachovia 401K was the vehicle designated to be the one


CourtListener opinion 3145702

401(k): Qualified Domestic Relations Order In its judgment of dissolution on March 16, 2007, the trial court evenly divided the parties' retirement assets. The trial court awarded each party his or her own retirement assets. The one exception was Bruce's Wachovia 401(k) account. The trial court divided that asset so that the overall division of the marital retirement assets would be equal. Specifically, the trial court's order provided: Asset Equity Bruce Cecily -12- Nos. 2—09—0591 & 2—09—1160 cons. TTX Thrift Plan $5,418 $5,418 0 Wachovia 401(k) $309,423 $156,901 $152,522 Wachovia Deferred Comp. $62,665 $62,6


CourtListener opinion 3145702

domestic relations order: three orders from which Bruce now appeals. Bruce contends that the trial court erred in (1) awarding Cecily $15,000 in attorney fees for defending the first appeal; (2) finding that he had dissipated $17,919 of marital assets; and (3) entering a "Qualified Domestic Relations Order" (QDRO) that improperly modified the judgment of the dissolution of marriage. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for additional proceedings. The record in this case is substantial. A great deal of evidence was presented in the trial court. Therefore, only those facts necessary to an understanding of this court's decision will be set forth


CourtListener opinion 3147152

CourtListener opinion 3147152 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Abma. Extracted reporter citation: 720 N.E.2d 645. Docket: 1-07-0417 Appellate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3147152 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 3147152

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 3147152

QDRO: S. JAMIESON, ) Honorable ) Kathleen G. Kennedy, Respondent-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding. JUSTICE THEIS delivered the opinion of the court: Following the entry of a judgment for dissolution of marriage, respondent, Edward S. Jamieson, sought review of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered by the circuit court of Cook County, awarding a share of Edward's profit-sharing benefits to petitioner, Kathleen M. Jamieson. Edward contends on appeal that the QDRO violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (2000)), and is contrary to the parties' marital settlement agreement because i


CourtListener opinion 3147152

retirement benefits: t she was only entitled to "55% of the marital estate in the Jamieson Plan as of September 30, 2005." The resolution of this issue involves the interplay between ERISA and state domestic relations laws. Generally, ERISA restricts the alienation of certain retirement benefits. 29 U.S.C. §1056(d)(1) (2000). However, under an important exception to this principle, in a divorce or dissolution of marriage proceeding, ERISA permits a state court to enter a QDRO which recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to receive a portion of the participant's retirement benefits as marital property. 29 U.S.C. §1056(d)(3)(A),


CourtListener opinion 3147152

pension: erty and the allocation of assets. Specifically relevant to this appeal, the agreement provided as follows: "a. Name of Plan. It is intended that the Wife shall receive an interest in the Husband's benefits in the Jamieson and Associates Money Purchase Pension Trust, and the Husband shall cooperate in entering a Qualfied Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to effectuate this intent. Said [QDRO] shall include the following information and provisions: * * * iii. Description of Benefit to be Transferred to Alternate Payee. 55% of the marital portion of the total benefits accrued by the Participant under


CourtListener opinion 3147152

ERISA: ations order (QDRO) entered by the circuit court of Cook County, awarding a share of Edward's profit-sharing benefits to petitioner, Kathleen M. Jamieson. Edward contends on appeal that the QDRO violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (2000)), and is contrary to the parties' marital settlement agreement because it grants Kathleen increased benefits not otherwise provided for under Edward's profit-sharing plan. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 1-07-0417 BACKGROUND On June 30, 2006, the circuit court entered a judgment


CourtListener opinion 3147828

CourtListener opinion 3147828 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3147828 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 3147828


CourtListener opinion 3147828

QDRO: payment in the amount of $8,483 to be paid from petitioner's share of the proceeds from the marital home. In addition, the judgment awarded an equal division of petitioner's retirement account from McGraw-Hill Publishers pursuant to a -2- No. 1-10-1452 qualified domestic relations order. Lastly, respondent was awarded spousal support in the sum of $3,000 per month continuing \until the death of either party


CourtListener opinion 3147828

retirement benefits: ployed and had no income from wages or business. Pursuant to the judgment, petitioner was awarded a vacation home located in Minoqua, Wisconsin, one half of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home located in San Diego, California and six individual retirement accounts (IRAs) held in his name. Respondent was awarded one-half of the proceeds from the marital home, four IRAs held in her name, Southwestern Bell bonds, and an equalization payment in the amount of $8,483 to be paid from petitioner's share of the proceeds from the marital home. In addition, the judgment awarded an equal division of petitioner's retirement


CourtListener opinion 3147828

domestic relations order: n the amount of $8,483 to be paid from petitioner's share of the proceeds from the marital home. In addition, the judgment awarded an equal division of petitioner's retirement account from McGraw-Hill Publishers pursuant to a -2- No. 1-10-1452 qualified domestic relations order. Lastly, respondent was awarded spousal support in the sum of $3,000 per month continuing \until the death of either party


CourtListener opinion 3148212

CourtListener opinion 3148212 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Kehoe. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1-11-0644. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3148212 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 3148212


CourtListener opinion 3148212

QDRO: e of the parties' separation, but the pension fund Decisions for the subsequently informed petitioner that it could pay benefits only on a convenience of the court-entered qualified Illinois domestic relations order and was not reader.) required to honor the QDRO, the trial court's refusal to grant petitioner's motion for the entry of a QILDRO and the denial of her motion for reconsideration were affirmed, since the trial court could not enter a QILDRO that was not in accordance with the binding provisions of the original QDRO, but the cause was remanded for the entry of an appropriate QILDRO based on the terms


CourtListener opinion 3148212

retirement benefits: regular plus permissive service that the member accumulated in the Retirement System from the time of initial membership in the Retirement System through the member's effective date of retirement. *** ‘C' equals the gross amount of *** the member's monthly retirement benefits *** -4- calculated as of the member's effective date of retirement including permissive service, upgrades purchased, and other benefit formula enhancements. *** ‘D' equals the percentage noted in Section III(A)(2) [50% per month of the marital portion of the pension]." ¶ 11 At a postjudgment hearing on June 2, 2010, Lauretta argued that the trial cou


CourtListener opinion 3148212

pension: e: This syllabus proceedings incorporated a marital settlement agreement and qualified constitutes no part of domestic relations order based on their agreement that petitioner would the opinion of the court be entitled to one-half of the value of respondent's pension from the but has been prepared police department where he was employed from the date of his by the Reporter of employment to the date of the parties' separation, but the pension fund Decisions for the subsequently informed petitioner that it could pay benefits only on a convenience of the court-entered qualified Illinois domestic relations order and was not


CourtListener opinion 3148212

401(k): Husband's name in the SCHILLER PARK POLICE PENSION FUND (hereinafter referred to as ‘PLAN') or successor, shall be divided between the parties as follows: *** (v.) Marital Portion: An amount equal to the balance in the Husband's account (in the case of a defined contribution plan) and/or the amount accumulated by the Husband under the terms of the plan (in the case of a defined benefit plan) for each Plan multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of years (months) of marriage during which benefits were accumulated prior to the ‘Marital Retirement Date', aforesaid, and the denominator of which is the tot


CourtListener opinion 3148325

CourtListener opinion 3148325 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Winter. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-11-2836 Rule 23 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3148325 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 3148325


CourtListener opinion 3148325

retirement benefits: former wife. Id. The supreme court then affirmed the judgment of the appellate court. Id. at 306. In affirming the appellate court, the supreme court found the death benefits at issue were marital property subject to distribution upon dissolution, noting "retirement benefits have long been presumed to be marital property to the extent that the beneficial interest was acquired during the marriage." Id. at 303. ¶ 14 The facts of Smithberg noticeably differ from those of the instant case. Smithberg concerned a death benefit that could be designated to any person the retiree desired. Id. at 293. Conversely, this case involves


CourtListener opinion 3148325

pension: ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court In re Marriage of Winter, 2013 IL App (1st) 112836 Appellate Court In re MARRIAGE OF ANA L. WINTER, Petitioner-Appellant, and Caption JEROME WINTER, Respondent (Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, Intervenor-Appellee). District & No. First District, Sixth Division Docket No. 1-11-2836 Rule 23 Order filed June 14, 2013 Rule 23 Order withdrawn July 12, 2013 Opinion filed July 12, 2013 Held In proceedings dissolving the parties' marriage, the trial court properly (Note: This syllabus found that the "surviving spouse


CourtListener opinion 3148325

domestic relations order: icago Public Schools, began receiving pension payments from the Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund (Pension Fund) in 1985. The 2005 judgment of dissolution awarded the entire marital portion of this pension to Ana via a "Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order" (QILDRO) (40 ILCS 5/1-119 (West 2004)). ¶4 Initially, Jerome blocked Ana's receipt of any pension payments by refusing to sign a consent to the QILDRO, as required by section 1-119(m) of the QILDRO law.1 Ana, 1 Jerome began participating in the pension plan prior to the 1999 effective date of the QILDRO law. Pub. Act 90-731 (eff. July 1, 1999) (adding


CourtListener opinion 3148325

survivor benefits: ict, Sixth Division Docket No. 1-11-2836 Rule 23 Order filed June 14, 2013 Rule 23 Order withdrawn July 12, 2013 Opinion filed July 12, 2013 Held In proceedings dissolving the parties' marriage, the trial court properly (Note: This syllabus found that the "surviving spouse benefit" under respondent's disability constitutes no part of pension plan was not marital property subject to distribution to petitioner the opinion of the court upon his death, since the benefit did not belong to either spouse during but has been prepared the marriage, it was not marital property and the Pension Code excluded by the Reporter of a "former


CourtListener opinion 3148924

CourtListener opinion 3148924 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3148924 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 3148924

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 3148924

retirement benefits: 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 04-1155, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This is the second appeal in this case. In the previous appeal, this Court reversed the trial court's judgment with respect to the percentage of military-retirement benefits awarded to appellee Phyllis Arlene Beyer ("Ms. Beyer") in a divorce proceeding between her and appellant Eugene Albert Beyer ("Mr. Beyer") and rendered judgment awarding Ms. Beyer a greater percentage of the benefits. In an attempt to enforce this Court's judgment after Ms. Beyer moved the trial court to do so, the trial court entered two orders changi


CourtListener opinion 3148924

domestic relations order: affirm the trial court's orders. BACKGROUND The record shows that Mr. Beyer and Ms. Beyer divorced in 2006 after approximately forty-three years of marriage. At the close of the divorce proceedings, the trial court entered a Final Decree of Divorce and a Domestic Relations Order. The Domestic Relations Order ("the original order") awarded Ms. Beyer 34.5% of the military-retirement benefits accrued by Mr. Beyer due to his service in the military. Ms. Beyer appealed from the trial court's order, arguing to this Court that there was no evidence to support the percentage of retirement benefits awarded to her and that the correct pe


CourtListener opinion 3148924

survivor benefits: ntending that the trial court erred in (1) awarding a greater percentage of retirement benefits to Ms. Beyer pursuant to this Court's mandate, and (2) ordering Mr. Beyer to pay the cost of maintaining Ms. Beyer's beneficiary status under the Armed Services Survivor Benefit Plan. We will affirm the trial court's orders. BACKGROUND The record shows that Mr. Beyer and Ms. Beyer divorced in 2006 after approximately forty-three years of marriage. At the close of the divorce proceedings, the trial court entered a Final Decree of Divorce and a Domestic Relations Order. The Domestic Relations Order ("the original order") awarde


CourtListener opinion 3150147

CourtListener opinion 3150147 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARYANN S. PETESICH AND JOHN A. PETESICH Upon the Petition of MARYANN S. PETESICH. Extracted reporter citation: 858 N.W.2d 402. Docket: 14-2148. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3150147 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 3150147


CourtListener opinion 3150147

QDRO: or the child support calculation. 4 Both parties were awarded the premarital value of their respective retirement accounts, but the court ordered the increase in those retirement accounts that occurred during the marriage to be equally divided through a qualified domestic relations order. The court noted that both parties contributed to the marriage. While John's contributions were largely financial, Maryann gave up financial earnings in order to provide a stable, structured, and well-run household for the family. Finally, the court ordered John to pay $6000 toward Maryann's trial attorney fees, and gave him a $250 credit in light of Jo


CourtListener opinion 3150147

retirement benefits: child support payment $830 monthly. The parties do not raise appellate challenges to the physical care, visitation, or custody provisions of the decree, or the child support calculation. 4 Both parties were awarded the premarital value of their respective retirement accounts, but the court ordered the increase in those retirement accounts that occurred during the marriage to be equally divided through a qualified domestic relations order. The court noted that both parties contributed to the marriage. While John's contributions were largely financial, Maryann gave up financial earnings in order to provide a stable, structur


CourtListener opinion 3150147

domestic relations order: ld support calculation. 4 Both parties were awarded the premarital value of their respective retirement accounts, but the court ordered the increase in those retirement accounts that occurred during the marriage to be equally divided through a qualified domestic relations order. The court noted that both parties contributed to the marriage. While John's contributions were largely financial, Maryann gave up financial earnings in order to provide a stable, structured, and well-run household for the family. Finally, the court ordered John to pay $6000 toward Maryann's trial attorney fees, and gave him a $250 credit in light of Jo


CourtListener opinion 3150147

valuation/division: awarded Maryann a portion of the marital appreciation of his premarital retirement accounts. He also claims the amount and duration of the spousal support is not equitable in light of what he claims is Maryann's decision to be underemployed. He claims the property division is inequitable particularly with respect to the order that he pay a portion of the mortgage on the marital home. Finally, he asserts the court abused its discretion in awarding trial attorney fees to Maryann. Maryann defends the district court's decision and requests an award of appellate attorney fees. Having considered the claims made, we affirm the d


CourtListener opinion 3151509

CourtListener opinion 3151509 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hansen. Extracted reporter citation: 828 N.W.2d 109. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3151509 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 3151509


CourtListener opinion 3151509

QDRO: f of the remaining balance as of December 31, 2010, plus any earnings on the amount, less any losses on the amount, from December 31, 2010 to the date of distribution or rollover to [wife]. . . . Each party shall receive his or her interest pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.] If [husband] is able to work continuously as a teacher and accumulate additional benefits that qualify him for the "Rule of 90" benefit payments, the Judgment and Decree shall be amended and the Court shall award and transfer to [wife] an additional $20,000 from [husband's] share of [his] Fidelity 3 403(b) divided account as additional property


CourtListener opinion 3151509

retirement benefits: . Moran, Eagan, Minnesota (for respondent) Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge.* SYLLABUS 1. Parties' written agreement to limit division of property in marriage- dissolution action to husband's "retirement benefits" is narrowly construed and does not * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. include a presumptive award of "disability benefits" unless clearly set out in the dissolution judgment. 2. A district court deprives a litigant of due process of law by modifying a marriage-dissolutio


CourtListener opinion 3151509

pension: ases on her portion of the benefits awarded . . . . Each party shall receive his or her interest pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.] In May 2011, the parties signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and Judgment to Divide Public Pension Benefits.1 The QDRO provides that husband "shall assign and [wife] is awarded any and all benefits from [husband's TRA]." The parties agreed that: [T]he State of Minnesota [TRA] will pay benefits to [wife] as follows: [wife] is awarded fifty percent (50%) interest in [husband's] benefits determined as of December 31, 2010, deferred; [wife's] award of


CourtListener opinion 3151509

ERISA: the parties stipulated to entry of an order amending the Judgment providing that husband would pay temporary spousal maintenance to wife of $500 per month until wife died or remarried, husband died, or 1 Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a QDRO "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 plan," which meets certain specificity and substantive requirements. Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp., 828 N.W.2d 109, 113-14 (Minn. 2013) (quoti


CourtListener opinion 3152047

CourtListener opinion 3152047 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Padgett. Extracted reporter citation: 172 Cal.App.4th 830. Docket: of issues presented on. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3152047 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 3152047


CourtListener opinion 3152047

QDRO: g Ilunga's pension benefits "as and for child support and support arrearage for the parties['] minor children." In 2011,Terry obtained a judgment against Ilunga for pendente lite child support arrearages totaling $114,592.69. Rosalyn obtained an enforceable "qualified domestic relations order," or "QDRO," authorizing the Plan to pay her share of the retirement benefits in 2012. 2 Terry 1 We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended. 2 A domestic relations order (DRO) is "any judgment, decree, or order (including approval of a property settlement agreement) which—[¶] (I) relates to the provision