CourtListener opinion 2780110

CourtListener opinion 2780110 Extracted case name: G.A. v. D.L. Extracted reporter citation: 947 A.2d 750. Docket: 1014 EDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2780110 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 2780110

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 2780110

QDRO: extrinsic to the case, was not fraud and did not permit the trial court to open the divorce decree. Id. at 1360. See also Stockton v. Stockton, 698 A.2d 1334, 1338 (Pa. Super. 1997) (interpreting 23 Pa.C.S.A § 3332 and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 as applied to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and holding allegations of counsel's failure to communicate adequately and party's dissatisfaction with counsel were insufficient to prove fraud or allow the trial court to modify a QDRO). Similarly, Husband's claim of his attorney's failure to communicate to him the consequence of the divorce decree cannot prove fraud by Wife. That claim also


CourtListener opinion 2780110

pension: o disclose cash surrender value of insurance policy when parties had engaged in negotiations and spouse was informed of the identities of the policies); -4- J-S02037-15 Major v. Major, 518 A.2d 1267, 1273 (Pa. Super. 1986) (failure to disclose military pension did not amount to extrinsic fraud). Further, Husband admitted that he was aware of the trust, but that Wife did not turn over documents relating to it in discovery. Notes of Testimony ("N.T."), 2/4/2014, at 9. Husband saw documentation about the trust and its value in 2007. Id. If Wife would not turn over trust documents in discovery, Husband could hav


CourtListener opinion 2780110

domestic relations order: to the case, was not fraud and did not permit the trial court to open the divorce decree. Id. at 1360. See also Stockton v. Stockton, 698 A.2d 1334, 1338 (Pa. Super. 1997) (interpreting 23 Pa.C.S.A § 3332 and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 as applied to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and holding allegations of counsel's failure to communicate adequately and party's dissatisfaction with counsel were insufficient to prove fraud or allow the trial court to modify a QDRO). Similarly, Husband's claim of his attorney's failure to communicate to him the consequence of the divorce decree cannot prove fraud by Wife. That claim also


CourtListener opinion 2780110

valuation/division: ecree. We affirm. The trial court made the following findings of fact: The parties, Jayne Dovin ("Wife") and [Husband] were married on October 17, 1997. On September 29, 2011, Wife, through counsel, filed a divorce complaint, which included a count for equitable distribution. On January 31, 2012, Wife filed an amended complaint, which omitted her previous request for economic relief. On March 19, 2012, Husband, acting pro se, filed a Response to Wife's divorce complaint and a [23 Pa.C.S.A. §] 3301(d) counter affidavit. However, rather than use a form counter affidavit, Husband modified and included his own language within


CourtListener opinion 2780113

CourtListener opinion 2780113 Extracted reporter citation: 857 A.2d 194. Docket: 2280 EDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2780113 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 2780113


CourtListener opinion 2780113

QDRO: 781.95. The combined total retirement assets of the parties are $350,819.85 and allocating this on a 50/50% basis would award $175,409.93 to each. The Master recommends that Wife transfer $75,627.98 in retirement assets to the Husband via an appropriate [Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")] which would address the PNC retirement account; the preparation and cost of same to be equally divided between the parties. -2- J-S08033-15 Master's Report, 1/29/2014, at 13 ¶ 7. Wife and Husband filed exceptions. Wife's exceptions included: (1) the Master erred in failing to place a value on the pre-marital contributions made to the Tr


CourtListener opinion 2780113

401(k): Mall Manager and after he was terminated he liquidated approximately $24,000 of company stock to pay bills in regard to house and living expenses. He also seized approximately $5,600 from a New York Life Trust Annuity account. In addition, Husband had a 401(k) account from his employment with CBL - the company managing the Malls - which as of April 1, 2013 had a value of $94,181.95 and this is in addition to a Morgan Stanley stock account having a balance of approximately $3,792.40. Master's Report, 1/29/2014, at 6-7. In discussing the distribution, the Master recommended the following: 7. The last group


CourtListener opinion 2780113

domestic relations order: e combined total retirement assets of the parties are $350,819.85 and allocating this on a 50/50% basis would award $175,409.93 to each. The Master recommends that Wife transfer $75,627.98 in retirement assets to the Husband via an appropriate [Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")] which would address the PNC retirement account; the preparation and cost of same to be equally divided between the parties. -2- J-S08033-15 Master's Report, 1/29/2014, at 13 ¶ 7. Wife and Husband filed exceptions. Wife's exceptions included: (1) the Master erred in failing to place a value on the pre-marital contributions made to the Tr


CourtListener opinion 2780113

valuation/division: , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Domestic Relations at No(s): 7632 CIVIL 2012 997-DR-2012 BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2015 Kathleen F. Dixon ("Wife") appeals from the equitable distribution order of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm. On September 12, 2012, Wife filed a divorce complaint against Kevin G. Dixon ("Husband"). The trial court assigned the case to a master, who conducted a hearing on November 15, 2013. On January 29, 2014, the Master issued a report. The Master found, "because of the parties' employment capa


CourtListener opinion 2780921

CourtListener opinion 2780921 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Myers. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2780921 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 2780921


CourtListener opinion 2780921

QDRO: nt of dissolution, along with a general waiver provision, is a sufficient surrender of a spouse's rights. In Robson, the reviewing court determined that the ex-wife's survivor benefit in the ex-husband's pension was waived pursuant to language in a -6- qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), finding "the court-approved QDRO overrode the beneficiary designation." Robson, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 382. Although the Robson court noted the judgment of dissolution listed the pension as a marital asset and another provision provided a general waiver by which the wife surrendered her rights to any property arising out of the marital relation


CourtListener opinion 2780921

pension: e affirm in part and reverse in part. ¶2 FACTS ¶3 Defendant Cheryl Winter (f/k/a Cheryl Albrecht) and Douglas Albrecht were married in May 1975. In January 2003, Douglas retired from his job at Caterpillar effective February 1, 2003, and applied for his pension benefit. He elected a surviving spouse's benefit of $650 per month and named Cheryl, his then-wife, as beneficiary. Upon his February 1, 2003, retirement, Douglas began receiving $2,252 in monthly pension payments. ¶4 Cheryl and Douglas divorced in April 2004. The judgment of dissolution incorporated a property settlement agreement in which the parti


CourtListener opinion 2780921

domestic relations order: olution, along with a general waiver provision, is a sufficient surrender of a spouse's rights. In Robson, the reviewing court determined that the ex-wife's survivor benefit in the ex-husband's pension was waived pursuant to language in a -6- qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), finding "the court-approved QDRO overrode the beneficiary designation." Robson, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 382. Although the Robson court noted the judgment of dissolution listed the pension as a marital asset and another provision provided a general waiver by which the wife surrendered her rights to any property arising out of the marital relation


CourtListener opinion 2780921

survivor benefits: curred in the judgment and opinion. ______________________________________________________________________________ OPINION ¶1 Plaintiff, the estate of Douglas Albrecht (the Estate), challenged the payment of the proceeds of a life insurance policy and a surviving spouse annuity to defendant Cheryl Albrecht, Douglas's former wife, arguing Cheryl waived her rights to the insurance proceeds and annuity in the judgment of dissolution. The trial court found that Cheryl waived her rights to the insurance policy proceeds but not to the surviving spouse annuity. Cheryl appealed and the Estate cross-appealed. We affirm in p


CourtListener opinion 2781321

CourtListener opinion 2781321 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 865 MDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2781321 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 2781321


CourtListener opinion 2781321

pension: of $40,000. Id. at 48. He retired from the police force in February 2011 and unsuccessfully ran for magisterial district judge. Id. at 41. Husband currently works as a driver for a waste management company earning $41,000 per year. Id. at 10, 39. He has a pension from the Borough of Chambersburg that pays a gross amount of $4,641.44, or $3,950.15 net, per month. Id. at 35; Master's Report, 8/15/13, at 3 ¶15. If Husband is married at the time of his death, the pension plan offers survivor benefits, at no cost, to his spouse in the amount of fifty percent of 1 Following a support conference on February 4, 2013,


CourtListener opinion 2781321

domestic relations order: directing in paragraph #19(a) the payment of survivor benefits to Wife under this scenario. Id. at 12–13. The provision of the Master's Report to which the trial court referred, stated as follows: a. The attorneys are directed to prepare an appropriate Domestic Relations Order, in cooperation with the plan administrator, directing the plan administrator to pay 55% of the -8- J-A34021-14 monthly payment of [Husband's] pension, together with the cost of living increases as awarded from time to time, directly to [Wife]. This payment shall be taxable to [Wife]. If [Wife] predeceases [Husband], the entire benefit shall revert


CourtListener opinion 2781321

survivor benefits: ar. Id. at 10, 39. He has a pension from the Borough of Chambersburg that pays a gross amount of $4,641.44, or $3,950.15 net, per month. Id. at 35; Master's Report, 8/15/13, at 3 ¶15. If Husband is married at the time of his death, the pension plan offers survivor benefits, at no cost, to his spouse in the amount of fifty percent of 1 Following a support conference on February 4, 2013, the trial court entered a support order that day. Wife's gross income was set at $23,885 based on her part-time employment with Blaine Windows plus her unemployment compensation. Husband's gross annual income, excluding his pension, was set


CourtListener opinion 2781321

valuation/division: 4 order of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in this divorce action. We affirm. After a nearly twenty-nine-year marriage, Richard Allen Swartz ("Husband"), age fifty-five, filed a complaint in divorce on April 29, 2011, that included a count for equitable distribution. N.T., 2/25/13, at 8, 40. On June 30, 2011, the court entered an order, upon stipulation of the parties: 1) prohibiting Husband's contact with Wife and providing that upon violation of the order, "Wife may bring a Protection from Abuse action against him," and 2) proscribing Husband's ability to "raise, as a defense or objection, the passage of time be


CourtListener opinion 2782328

CourtListener opinion 2782328 Docket: 140350. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2782328 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 2782328

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 2782328

QDRO: HIEF JUSTICE LEMONS and SENIOR JUSTICE KOONTZ join, dissenting. Because I conclude that ERISA-governed death benefits successfully vested in his surviving spouse at David Griffin's death, and are therefore not subject to limitation by a posthumously entered Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), I must respectfully dissent. In 1996, in the course of their original divorce action, David and Sandra Griffin entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) in which they agreed to name their children as beneficiaries in \401(k) plans and other such plans which would be distributed


CourtListener opinion 2782328

ERISA: sex County, and shall be published in the Virginia Reports. Justice Kelsey took no part in the consideration of this case. _______________ JUSTICE MILLETTE, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE LEMONS and SENIOR JUSTICE KOONTZ join, dissenting. Because I conclude that ERISA-governed death benefits successfully vested in his surviving spouse at David Griffin's death, and are therefore not subject to limitation by a posthumously entered Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), I must respectfully dissent. In 1996, in the course of their original divorce action, David and Sandra Griffin entered into a Property Settlement Agree


CourtListener opinion 2782328

401(k): omestic Relations Order (QDRO), I must respectfully dissent. In 1996, in the course of their original divorce action, David and Sandra Griffin entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) in which they agreed to name their children as beneficiaries in \401(k) plans and other such plans which would be distributed


CourtListener opinion 2782328

domestic relations order: CE LEMONS and SENIOR JUSTICE KOONTZ join, dissenting. Because I conclude that ERISA-governed death benefits successfully vested in his surviving spouse at David Griffin's death, and are therefore not subject to limitation by a posthumously entered Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), I must respectfully dissent. In 1996, in the course of their original divorce action, David and Sandra Griffin entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) in which they agreed to name their children as beneficiaries in \401(k) plans and other such plans which would be distributed


CourtListener opinion 2782750

CourtListener opinion 2782750 Extracted case name: JOSEPHINE WHITTHORNE YOUNG v. WILLIAM F. YOUNG. Extracted reporter citation: 342 S.W.3d 19. Docket: W2014-02006-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2782750 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 2782750


CourtListener opinion 2782750

QDRO: rther, the trial court's decision to distribute this property through alimony rather than a property division is explained by Wife's affidavit—that neither the City of Memphis retirement/pension plan nor the deferred compensation plan "were . . . subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order" and therefore, "the payments had to come from [Husband] as they could not come from the City of Memphis directly." The record contains -14- no transcripts from the original trial, and Husband offers no evidence to dispute Wife's explanation for the trial court's treatment of this property. As such, we can only credit Wife's testimony that the trial cour


CourtListener opinion 2782750

retirement benefits: M F. YOUNG, JR. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 1641518RD Robert Samual Weiss, Judge No. W2014-02006-COA-R3-CV - Filed February 26, 2015 This post-divorce dispute concerns a divorce decree that required husband to pay one-half of his retirement benefits to wife as alimony in solido. Fourteen years after the divorce, Husband returned to the trial court to terminate the payments on the ground that by the terms of the divorce decree, husband had been substantially overpaying wife. The trial court denied husband's petition on the alternative grounds of res judicata, and a finding that the divorce decree oblig


CourtListener opinion 2782750

pension: as of the date of the entry of this Final Decree of Divorce, and which plan had a balance as of December 31, 1999, of $68,657.77 [hereinafter "City of Memphis DROP plan"]. 11. As alimony in solido, the parties shall equally divide [Husband's] retirement/pension plan with the City of Memphis . . . , as of the date of the entry of this Final Decree of Divorce, and to which plan [Husband] has contributed $60,114.96 through March 24, 2000 [hereinafter "City of Memphis retirement/pension plan"]. 12. As alimony in solido, the parties shall equally divide [Husband's] deferred compensation plan with the City of Mem


CourtListener opinion 2782750

domestic relations order: trial court's decision to distribute this property through alimony rather than a property division is explained by Wife's affidavit—that neither the City of Memphis retirement/pension plan nor the deferred compensation plan "were . . . subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order" and therefore, "the payments had to come from [Husband] as they could not come from the City of Memphis directly." The record contains -14- no transcripts from the original trial, and Husband offers no evidence to dispute Wife's explanation for the trial court's treatment of this property. As such, we can only credit Wife's testimony that the trial cour


CourtListener opinion 2783008

CourtListener opinion 2783008 Extracted case name: SONIA KOCHHAR v. AMAR NATH BANSAL. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2783008 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 2783008

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 2783008

domestic relations order: e not subject to attack because of any prior stay violation. Klass, 377 Md. at 24. The Court further held that the "remaining aspects of the judgment -- the grant of a monetary award . . . the reduction of that award to judgment, the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order directing a lump sum distribution to [the wife] from [the husband's] profit sharing plan . . . and the grant to [the wife] of use and possession of a [jointly titled vehicle]" -- were "subject to the stay." Id. at 29. The Court observed that there is "some debate as to whether actions taken in contravention of an automatic stay under § 362(a) are absolu


CourtListener opinion 2783346

CourtListener opinion 2783346 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Rock. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2783346 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 2783346


CourtListener opinion 2783346

retirement benefits: 2012 is the addition of the word ‘retirement' before the word ‘benefit.'" The district court filed the amended DRO on August 2. The August 2 DRO stated, in relevant part, that "[Jacobson's] interest in the plan shall be one-half the amount of each monthly retirement benefit" (emphasis added). Moore left his job as a police officer with the City of Minneapolis in September 2012 because of a work-related injury and began receiving a monthly disability benefit of $3,526.49 through his PERA plan. In February 2013, Jacobson moved the district court for an order (1) "[f]inding that [Moore] impermissibly altered [her] property


CourtListener opinion 2783346

pension: ct-based attorney fees. We affirm. FACTS In April 2010, the district court entered a judgment and decree dissolving the marriage of appellant Stephen Joseph Moore and respondent Lisa Jo Jacobson. The district court found that Moore "has a defined benefit pension plan through the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)." The district court found that if Moore "were to have terminated his employment on May 31, 2009, it would pay him $3,550.79 per month at a retirement age of 55." The district court awarded Jacobson as property "fifty percent (50%) of [Moore's] pension, using a valuation date of November 1,


CourtListener opinion 2783346

domestic relations order: parties were married during which [Moore] was a contributing member to PERA and the denominator of which shall be the total number of years [Moore] was a contributing member of PERA at the time of his termination. In 2012, Jacobson submitted a proposed domestic relations order (DRO) to the district court. The district court filed the DRO on June 6. The DRO directed PERA to pay Jacobson a "fixed percentage of [Moore's] interest in the pension plan" based on a percentage of Moore's "monthly retirement and disability benefit" (emphasis added). Moore asked the court to vacate the June 6 DRO because "it was submitted over the obj


CourtListener opinion 2783346

valuation/division: district court found that if Moore "were to have terminated his employment on May 31, 2009, it would pay him $3,550.79 per month at a retirement age of 55." The district court awarded Jacobson as property "fifty percent (50%) of [Moore's] pension, using a valuation date of November 1, 2009." Later, the district court issued an order "clarifying and amending" the property division in the dissolution judgment as follows: [Moore's] Pension. [Jacobson] is awarded fifty percent of the marital portion of [Moore's] pension valued as of November 1, 2009. [Jacobson's] interest in the plan shall be one-half the amount of each


CourtListener opinion 2783468

CourtListener opinion 2783468 Extracted reporter citation: 846 N.W.2d 205. Docket: A-14-335. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2783468 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 2783468

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 2783468

QDRO: count in the division of the parties' retirement accounts. The court also credited Sean $15,860 and credited Rachel $10,000 for inheritances. The court ordered that the parties' pension accounts with the Methodist Health System should be divided equally by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Sean had a 403(B) account and two Edward Jones accounts that totaled $48,357 as of the date of filing. Rachel had a 403(B) account and two Edward Jones accounts that totaled $18,736 at the time of filing. In order to equalize the division of assets and debts, Rachel was awarded $14,943 from Sean's retirement accounts by QDRO. Sean has timely appeale


CourtListener opinion 2783468

retirement benefits: rected to be responsible for the outstanding debt to Chase credit card. The court also determined that Rachel was indebted to Sean for retroactive child support of $5,229. The court stated that it took that amount into account in the division of the parties' retirement accounts. Sean was given credit for $13,538 as interest reimbursement pursuant to the court's temporary order which provided that Sean was to be given credit for all interest paid on the mortgage during the pendency of the proceedings. Sean was given credit for children's expenses of $3,425; a Reno trip reimbursement of $1,984; and one-half of home repairs of $225.


CourtListener opinion 2783468

pension: nd one-half of home repairs of $225. The total of those amounts was taken into account in the division of the parties' retirement accounts. The court also credited Sean $15,860 and credited Rachel $10,000 for inheritances. The court ordered that the parties' pension accounts with the Methodist Health System should be divided equally by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Sean had a 403(B) account and two Edward Jones accounts that totaled $48,357 as of the date of filing. Rachel had a 403(B) account and two Edward Jones accounts that totaled $18,736 at the time of filing. In order to equalize the division of a


CourtListener opinion 2783468

domestic relations order: he division of the parties' retirement accounts. The court also credited Sean $15,860 and credited Rachel $10,000 for inheritances. The court ordered that the parties' pension accounts with the Methodist Health System should be divided equally by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Sean had a 403(B) account and two Edward Jones accounts that totaled $48,357 as of the date of filing. Rachel had a 403(B) account and two Edward Jones accounts that totaled $18,736 at the time of filing. In order to equalize the division of assets and debts, Rachel was awarded $14,943 from Sean's retirement accounts by QDRO. Sean has timely appeale


CourtListener opinion 2783787

CourtListener opinion 2783787 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of PHILLIP and GLORIA PINON. PHILLIP LOUIS PINON. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2783787 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 2783787


CourtListener opinion 2783787

retirement benefits: ipulation and judgment provided, "The court reserves jurisdiction over spousal support for the benefit of both parties until the remarriage or death of either party." It was further stipulated Gloria was "entitled to one-half (1/2) interest in Petitioner's Retirement Benefits with the County of Orange." Judgment was entered on October 2, 1996. Phillip remarried in April 1997. In 1997, the parties executed a stipulated domestic relations order, prepared by Gloria, dividing their interest in Phillip's retirement benefits. In 1998, the parties executed an agreement, prepared by Gloria, in which Gloria agreed to waive her inte


CourtListener opinion 2783787

domestic relations order: It was further stipulated Gloria was "entitled to one-half (1/2) interest in Petitioner's Retirement Benefits with the County of Orange." Judgment was entered on October 2, 1996. Phillip remarried in April 1997. In 1997, the parties executed a stipulated domestic relations order, prepared by Gloria, dividing their interest in Phillip's retirement benefits. In 1998, the parties executed an agreement, prepared by Gloria, in which Gloria agreed to waive her interest in the retirement benefits for payment of $14,400. 3 B. The Modification of Child Support in 2013 On September 23, 2013, Gloria filed a request to modify spousal s


CourtListener opinion 2784107

CourtListener opinion 2784107 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2784107 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 2784107


CourtListener opinion 2784107

retirement benefits: OPM's petition for review, REVERSE the initial decision, and AFFIRM OPM's reconsideration decision. DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW ¶2 The appellant, a former federal employee, submitted his application to commence Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) retirement benefits in 2010. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 102-05. The appellant was previously married and divorced during his federal employment. Id. at 77, 102. The divorce proceedings produced four documents that are material to this appeal. Those documents are: (1) a March 3, 1995 Marital Settlement Agreement, id. at 62-76; (2) a March 3, 1995 Family Court Ju


CourtListener opinion 2784107

pension: a March 3, 1995 Family Court Judgment and Decree of Dissolution, id. at 77-81; (3) a June 8, 1995 Domestic Relations Order (1995 DRO), id. at 55—61; and (4) a March 13, 2013 Amended Domestic Relations Order (amended DRO), id. at 50-54. ¶3 The appellant's pension was subject to the terms of the 1995 marital settlement agreement which resolved the property rights acquired by each party from the marriage. Id. at 63, 65-67. The 1995 DRO was drafted to comply with OPM regulations for apportioning benefits under the CSRS. Id. at 55. The 1995 DRO provided that the intervenor would receive a former spouse survivor annu


CourtListener opinion 2784107

domestic relations order: ard's case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c). 2 FINAL ORDER ¶1 The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which reversed its reconsideration decision regarding the processing of the appellant's amended domestic relations order (DRO). For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT OPM's petition for review, REVERSE the initial decision, and AFFIRM OPM's reconsideration decision. DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW ¶2 The appellant, a former federal employee, submitted his application to commence Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) retirement benefits in 2010. Initial Appeal File


CourtListener opinion 2784107

survivor benefits: property rights acquired by each party from the marriage. Id. at 63, 65-67. The 1995 DRO was drafted to comply with OPM regulations for apportioning benefits under the CSRS. Id. at 55. The 1995 DRO provided that the intervenor would receive a former spouse survivor annuity at the maximum possible amount. Id. at 59. The amended DRO was drafted to correct provisions in the 1995 DRO involving CSRS benefits. Id. at 51. In 3 particular, the amended DRO changed the former spouse survivor annuity to provide a "prorata share" based on the duration of the marriage. Id. at 52. ¶4 In 2011, OPM notified the appellant that it had p


CourtListener opinion 2788825

CourtListener opinion 2788825 Extracted case name: COA JOHN T. WALKER APPELLANT v. MARY M. WALKER APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2788825 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 2788825


CourtListener opinion 2788825

QDRO: 012, Mary filed for a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. The Jefferson Davis County Chancery Court entered its judgment of divorce on July 1, 2013. The chancellor also entered a qualified domestic relations order (QRDO) on July 1, 2013. Aggrieved, John appeals asserting the following issues: whether the trial court erred when it denied John's motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law; whether the trial court committed manifest error in granting Mary a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment; whether the trial court erred when it di


CourtListener opinion 2788825

retirement benefits: y Essence's $504.30 medical bill; (4) ordering that John pay for Mary's knee injections; (5) ordering that John maintain medical insurance for Mary and the children, and that he pay any and all costs over the insurance; (6) awarding Mary one-half of John's retirement benefits from the U.S. Postal Service; (7) awarding Mary one-half of John's retirement benefits from the U.S. Military; (8) ordering John to pay Mary's current rent and to continue to pay each month up to $500 for future housing for Mary; (9) awarding John the marital home, but if it is sold, ordering him to split the profits with Mary; (10) awarding Mary perio


CourtListener opinion 2788825

domestic relations order: filed for a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. The Jefferson Davis County Chancery Court entered its judgment of divorce on July 1, 2013. The chancellor also entered a qualified domestic relations order (QRDO) on July 1, 2013. Aggrieved, John appeals asserting the following issues: whether the trial court erred when it denied John's motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law; whether the trial court committed manifest error in granting Mary a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment; whether the trial court erred when it di


CourtListener opinion 2788825

valuation/division: consider all applicable factors from Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994), or to rule that any of the factors were not applicable. With regard to this issue, the law in Mississippi is clear: Factor tests, such as provided in Ferguson for property division and Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993), for alimony, must be considered on the record in every case. These factor considerations are not only essential for appellate purposes, but also for trial courts, as they provide a checklist to assist in the accuracy of their rulings. Following these guidelines reduces unintended errors that may


CourtListener opinion 2788932

CourtListener opinion 2788932 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Myers. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Third District Docket No. 3-13-0651. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2788932 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 2788932

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 2788932

QDRO: h a general waiver provision, is a sufficient surrender of a spouse's rights. In Robson, the reviewing court determined that the ex-wife's survivor benefit in the ex-husband's pension was waived pursuant to language in a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), finding "the court-approved QDRO overrode the beneficiary designation." Robson, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 382. Although the Robson court noted the judgment of dissolution listed the pension as a marital asset and another provision provided a general waiver by which the wife surrendered her rights to any property arising out of the marital relationship, it b


CourtListener opinion 2788932

pension: nce proceeds, found that the trial court erred in awarding those proceeds to her and the judgment for her was reversed; however, with respect to the provisions of the settlement agreement dealing with the surviving spouse annuity, the language listing the pension payments demonstrated an intent that decedent's former spouse would waive any interest and that she would continue to receive the surviving spouse annuity, which would leave her with a monthly pension income nearly equal to decedent's, and therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that she did not waive her rights to the surviving spouse annuit


CourtListener opinion 2788932

domestic relations order: of dissolution, along with a general waiver provision, is a sufficient surrender of a spouse's rights. In Robson, the reviewing court determined that the ex-wife's survivor benefit in the ex-husband's pension was waived pursuant to language in a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), finding "the court-approved QDRO overrode the beneficiary designation." Robson, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 382. Although the Robson court noted the judgment of dissolution listed the pension as a marital asset and another provision provided a general waiver by which the wife surrendered her rights to any property arising out of the marital relationship


CourtListener opinion 2788932

survivor benefits: No. 3-13-0651 Filed February 20, 2015 Held In an action by decedent's estate and his surviving former spouse (Note: This syllabus challenging the trial court's award paying the proceeds of a life constitutes no part of the insurance policy on decedent and a surviving spouse annuity to opinion of the court but decedent's former wife based on the trial court's finding that the has been prepared by the former wife waived her rights to the proceeds of the insurance policy Reporter of Decisions but not the surviving spouse annuity in the property settlement, the for the convenience of appellate court, in considering the parties' cr


CourtListener opinion 2788939

CourtListener opinion 2788939 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Bushnell. Extracted reporter citation: 328 P.3d 608. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2788939 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 2788939


CourtListener opinion 2788939

QDRO: , PLLP; Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 24, 2015 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Kevin John Fries (Fries) appeals from the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) of the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County. We affirm, order that Cadena is entitled to reasonable attorney fees on appeal, and remand for determination of those fees. ISSUES ¶2 We review the following issues: 1. Did the District Court err in its application of the law regarding division of Fries' pension? 2. Is e


CourtListener opinion 2788939

retirement benefits: The Court finds that [Fries] has earned Plan benefits that are community/marital property of [Fries] and [Cadena]. (b) The Court awards [Cadena] a separate interest in [Fries'] Plan benefits equal to 50% of the marital property portion of [Fries'] normal retirement benefit accrued to the effective date of [Cadena]'s Plan benefits ("Alternate Payee's Separate Percentage Interest"). The effective date of [Cadena]'s Plan benefits is hereinafter referred to as "Alternate Payee's Benefit Commencement Date." (c) Alternate Payee's Separate Percentage Interest in [Fries'] Plan benefits shall be determined using the following for


CourtListener opinion 2788939

pension: affirm, order that Cadena is entitled to reasonable attorney fees on appeal, and remand for determination of those fees. ISSUES ¶2 We review the following issues: 1. Did the District Court err in its application of the law regarding division of Fries' pension? 2. Is either party entitled to attorney fees? FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶3 Brenda Cadena (Cadena) and Fries married on June 7, 1980. The marriage was dissolved by an order of the District Court on March 13, 2000. The order approved a settlement agreement that Cadena and Fries entered into on February 29, 2000. In the settlement agreement, C


CourtListener opinion 2788939

alternate payee: ssed the division of the pension until Cadena filed a proposed QDRO on November 12, 2013. The pension had not fully vested or begun to pay out benefits by this time. In the agreement, Cadena proposed to divide the pension as follows: 2 4. DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATE PAYEE'S SEPARATE PERCENTAGE INTEREST IN PARTICIPANT'S BENEFITS. (a) The Court finds that [Fries] has earned Plan benefits that are community/marital property of [Fries] and [Cadena]. (b) The Court awards [Cadena] a separate interest in [Fries'] Plan benefits equal to 50% of the marital property portion of [Fries'] normal retirement benefit accrued to the ef


CourtListener opinion 2789367

CourtListener opinion 2789367 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2789367 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 2789367


CourtListener opinion 2789367

retirement benefits: April 2011 and filed an application for service retirement benefits effective June 30, 2011. He learned at the meeting, however, that a domestic relations order filed with respondent -2- 519268 would result in his ex-wife receiving a portion of his monthly retirement benefit. Petitioner believed that the terms of the order were inaccurate and, as such, told the representative that he did not wish to retire until that problem could be resolved. It became apparent that his retirement application was still being processed and, on June 29, 2011, petitioner telephoned respondent and again stated that he did not wish to retire. Petit


CourtListener opinion 2789367

domestic relations order: e Buffalo Police Department in 1988. With an eye towards retirement, he met with a retirement information representative in April 2011 and filed an application for service retirement benefits effective June 30, 2011. He learned at the meeting, however, that a domestic relations order filed with respondent -2- 519268 would result in his ex-wife receiving a portion of his monthly retirement benefit. Petitioner believed that the terms of the order were inaccurate and, as such, told the representative that he did not wish to retire until that problem could be resolved. It became apparent that his retirement application was still being pro


CourtListener opinion 2789648

CourtListener opinion 2789648 Extracted reporter citation: 855 N.W.2d 156. Docket: 14–1201. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2789648 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 2789648


CourtListener opinion 2789648

QDRO: ship with one of his clients, then assaulted her after the relationship deteriorated. The attorney pled guilty to assault causing bodily injury, a serious misdemeanor. See Iowa Code §§ 708.1(1), .2(2) (2011). In addition, the attorney did not finalize the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in this client's divorce case for two years, and he withdrew this client's fee from his trust account before doing the work. The Board filed a complaint alleging the attorney violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.3 (lack of diligence), 32:1.8(j) (sexual relationship with a client), 32:8.4(b) (criminal act adversely reflecting on the


CourtListener opinion 2789648

retirement benefits: ted a proposed divorce decree and sent copies to Doe and her husband. The stipulated decree of dissolution was filed and approved by the district court in March. It provided, in relevant part, that Jane Doe was to be awarded $110,000.00 from her husband's retirement plan and that "[Jane Doe]'s attorney shall be responsible for preparing the necessary documents to effectuate this transfer." At that time, Blessum sent a copy of the decree and a letter to Doe, stating, "Our office will prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO—to effectuate the transfer from your ex-husband's retirement plan] once we receive t


CourtListener opinion 2789648

pension: ate this transfer." At that time, Blessum sent a copy of the decree and a letter to Doe, stating, "Our office will prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO—to effectuate the transfer from your ex-husband's retirement plan] once we receive the pension documents from [your ex-husband]." That same day, Blessum wrote Doe's ex-husband asking him to forward his pension documents. Doe's ex-husband provided the relevant documents to Blessum two months later. Handwritten notes in 1Due to the sensitive nature of the complaint and the underlying facts, we use the pseudonym "Jane Doe" to refer to the complaina


CourtListener opinion 2789648

alternate payee: Blessum received a faxed letter from Jane Doe's ex-husband himself. The letter read, Dear Zane, In regards to our QDRO we agree to the following changes to your draft submitted to [ex-husband's pension provider] dated December 21, 2009. Item #4: The Alternate Payee's [(Jane Doe's)] accounts effective date shall begin as of August 1, 2008. Item # 7 [Line struck through]. Thank you for your attention in this matter. 5 (Signed) [Doe's ex-husband] [Jane Doe] 2 Both Jane Doe and her ex-husband had signed the letter at the bottom and initialed the line that had been struck through. The fax cover sheet from Doe'


CourtListener opinion 2791228

CourtListener opinion 2791228 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Epsteen. Docket: 2-13-0961 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2791228 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 2791228

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 2791228

QDRO: in Du Page County circuit court case number 85-MR-111. ¶4 In May 2008, James died from injuries suffered in a workplace accident. In April 2012, Anita filed in case number 85-MR-111 a "petition for confirmation of lien, sale of real estate, and entry of a qualified domestic relations order." She alleged child support arrearages of $7,770 and $14,687.34, respectively, in case numbers 82-D-24518 and 85-MR-111. Adding statutory interest, Anita alleged a total arrearage of $65,976.46. Anita claimed that there was an existing lien in that amount against the assets of the Estate by operation of section 505(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissol


CourtListener opinion 2791228

pension: ] lien arises by operation of law against the real and personal property of the noncustodial parent for each installment of overdue [child] support owed by the noncustodial parent.")). Those assets included real estate that James had owned in Elmhurst and a pension that he had earned from Iron Workers Mid-America. Anita sought an order directing the sale of the real estate and applying the proceeds to the support arrearage. She also sought a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) applying James's pension to the arrearage. ¶5 The Estate responded by filing a nine-count motion to strike and dismiss Anita's petiti


CourtListener opinion 2791228

domestic relations order: e County circuit court case number 85-MR-111. ¶4 In May 2008, James died from injuries suffered in a workplace accident. In April 2012, Anita filed in case number 85-MR-111 a "petition for confirmation of lien, sale of real estate, and entry of a qualified domestic relations order." She alleged child support arrearages of $7,770 and $14,687.34, respectively, in case numbers 82-D-24518 and 85-MR-111. Adding statutory interest, Anita alleged a total arrearage of $65,976.46. Anita claimed that there was an existing lien in that amount against the assets of the Estate by operation of section 505(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissol


CourtListener opinion 2791228

survivor benefits: governed by the Probate Act. ¶ 17 Section 18-12 of the Probate Act specifies limitations periods for claims against a decedent's estate, providing in relevant part: "(a) Every claim against the estate of a decedent, except expenses of administration and surviving spouse's or child's award, is barred as to all of the decedent's estate if: (1) Notice is given to the claimant as provided in Section 18-3 and the claimant does not file a claim with the representative or the court on or before the date stated in the notice; or (2) Notice of disallowance is given to the claimant as provided in Section 18-11 and the cl


CourtListener opinion 2792103

CourtListener opinion 2792103 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2869 EDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2792103 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 2792103

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 2792103

domestic relations order: it shall not be merged with such decree." Post-Nuptial Agreement, 11/8/13, at 2. The objective of Mother's petition was to enforce/increase the amount of Father's monthly child support obligation from $697 (which Father paid pursuant to a December 31, 2013 domestic relations order issued after Mother filed for child support on November 5, 2013) to $1,100 J-S24028-15 (which Father agreed to pay in the November 8, 2013 post-nuptial agreement). Mother had also filed to modify child support on March 24, 2014. A conference was held on April 29, 2014, after which Mother's modification action was dismissed and the prior order for $697


CourtListener opinion 2792876

CourtListener opinion 2792876 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Drexler. Extracted reporter citation: 245 P.3d 336. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2792876 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 2792876


CourtListener opinion 2792876

QDRO: nator shall be [his] total number of years employed by a railroad employer at retirement, and then dividing the product by two. Further, this Court will have continuing jurisdiction to modify this Decree of Divorce so as to assure its qualification as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. [¶4] Mr. Greenmeyer retired in March 2009 when he reached the age of sixty. He began receiving retirement benefits from the Railroad Retirement Board. The parties were not in communication with each other then, and Ms. Greenmeyer was unaware of his retirement until some years later. Upon reaching the age of sixty two, Ms. Greenmeyer applied for her retire


CourtListener opinion 2792876

retirement benefits: Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume. BURKE, Chief Justice. [¶1] Sandra Greenmeyer was awarded a portion of Jacob Greenmeyer's railroad retirement benefits in the decree of divorce terminating their marriage. For reasons explored below, those benefits were paid to Mr. Greenmeyer. Ms. Greenmeyer filed a post-divorce motion seeking to recover the benefits. The district court granted the motion and entered judgment against Mr. Greenmeyer. He challenges that decision in this appeal. We will affirm. ISSUE [¶2]


CourtListener opinion 2792876

domestic relations order: l be [his] total number of years employed by a railroad employer at retirement, and then dividing the product by two. Further, this Court will have continuing jurisdiction to modify this Decree of Divorce so as to assure its qualification as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. [¶4] Mr. Greenmeyer retired in March 2009 when he reached the age of sixty. He began receiving retirement benefits from the Railroad Retirement Board. The parties were not in communication with each other then, and Ms. Greenmeyer was unaware of his retirement until some years later. Upon reaching the age of sixty two, Ms. Greenmeyer applied for her retire


CourtListener opinion 2794973

CourtListener opinion 2794973 Extracted case name: M ARYLAND ET AL. v. C ARROLL T HIERGARTNER J EFFREY W ALTERS V. B ALTIMORE C OUNTY. Extracted reporter citation: 684 A.2d 1338. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2794973 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 2794973


CourtListener opinion 2794973

QDRO: between [those] accruing by reason of age and service versus those accruing as the result of a disability"); cf. Dennis v. Fire & Police Employees' Retirement System, 390 Md. 639, 651, 890 A.2d 737 (2006) (DROP payments are pension benefits for purposes of qualified domestic relations order). Nor does there appear to be any dispute that the lump sum DROP payment must be accounted for in some way in the formula set forth in LE §9-503(e)(2).7 7 Counsel for Mr. Thiergartner and Mr. Walters has cited a provision of the County Code that provides that benefits from a deferred compensation program do not "effect a reduction of the amount of any


CourtListener opinion 2794973

retirement benefits: Baltimore County Maryland, et al. v. Carroll Thiergartner No. 44, September Term, 2014 Jeffrey Walters v. Baltimore County Maryland No. 58, September Term, 2014 Workers' Compensation Benefits - Presumption Accorded Public Safety Employees - Offset for Retirement Benefits - Deferred Retirement Option Benefits. The State Workers' Compensation Act includes a special presumption for public safety employees that certain medical conditions are the result of an occupational disease and are compensable under the Act. Benefits paid as a result of that presumption, however, are capped such that the weekly total of those benefits and


CourtListener opinion 2794973

pension: a County firefighter who is eligible to retire and has the requisite years of service may elect to participate in the DROP. The employee then continues to work for the County as an active employee while deferring certain compensation related to the forgone pension payments and ongoing employee pension contributions in a special account. Baltimore County Code, §5-1-302(b)-(e). In particular, when the employee elects to participate in the DROP, an account is created for the employee that includes (1) an amount equivalent to a year's worth of pension payments for each year 5 that the employee continues to work for


CourtListener opinion 2794973

domestic relations order: hose] accruing by reason of age and service versus those accruing as the result of a disability"); cf. Dennis v. Fire & Police Employees' Retirement System, 390 Md. 639, 651, 890 A.2d 737 (2006) (DROP payments are pension benefits for purposes of qualified domestic relations order). Nor does there appear to be any dispute that the lump sum DROP payment must be accounted for in some way in the formula set forth in LE §9-503(e)(2).7 7 Counsel for Mr. Thiergartner and Mr. Walters has cited a provision of the County Code that provides that benefits from a deferred compensation program do not "effect a reduction of the amount of any


CourtListener opinion 2795003

CourtListener opinion 2795003 Extracted case name: POLLARD v. POLLARD. BENHAM. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2795003 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 2795003

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 2795003

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 Teacher's 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 2795003

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 2795003

domestic relations order: res to 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 6 fifty percent of his retirement benefits. Alternatively, the wife sought an order 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 2795003

survivor benefits: ed July 31, 2013. Wife retired in 2012 after the divorce complaint was filed, and she commenced receiving retirement benefits from the Teacher's 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 2795768

CourtListener opinion 2795768 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARY K. BOLAND-CHAMBERS AND RYAN P. CHAMBERS Upon the Petition of MARY K. BOLAND-. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 14-0920. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2795768 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 2795768


CourtListener opinion 2795768

QDRO: RYAN P. CHAMBERS, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Sean W. McPartland, Judge. A husband appeals the district court's refusal to add language to a QDRO to protect his interest in his former wife's IPERS pension and the court's decision to set aside gifts, inheritance, and premarital property to his wife. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Karen A. Volz of Ackley, Kopecky & Kingery, Cedar Rapids, for appellant. Kodi A. Brotherson of Babich Goldman, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee. Heard by Vogel, P.J., McDonald,


CourtListener opinion 2795768

retirement benefits: e case proceeded to trial in December 2013. In the dissolution decree entered in March 2014, the court decided issues of child custody, physical care, child support, and property division; however, only the property division issues related to the parties' retirement accounts and funds set aside to Mary have been raised on appeal. II. Scope and Standard of Review. We review dissolution actions de novo as they are heard in equity. In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Iowa 2013). "[W]e examine the 3 entire record and adjudicate anew the issue of the property distribution." Id. While we give weight to the findi


CourtListener opinion 2795768

pension: _________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Sean W. McPartland, Judge. A husband appeals the district court's refusal to add language to a QDRO to protect his interest in his former wife's IPERS pension and the court's decision to set aside gifts, inheritance, and premarital property to his wife. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Karen A. Volz of Ackley, Kopecky & Kingery, Cedar Rapids, for appellant. Kodi A. Brotherson of Babich Goldman, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee. Heard by Vogel, P.J., McDonald, J., and Scott, S.J.* *Senior judge assigned by order purs


CourtListener opinion 2795768

alternate payee: d be able to designate her postretirement death benefits to pass to whomever she chooses. As to (b)—preretirement death benefits, Schochenmaier, IPERS general counsel, testified: Q. If a Qualified Domestic Relations Order is prepared simply giving the alternate payee [Ryan] 50 percent of the marital portion and there is no provision for a preretirement death benefit, will the alternate payee receive anything from IPERS if the 3 We note per the information in the record, under Option 4, the monthly joint and survivor death benefit payments IPERS will make to the alternate payee cannot be subdivided. So if Mary is req


CourtListener opinion 2795770

CourtListener opinion 2795770 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LEONARD JOHN WEIS AND DIANE DOROTHY WEIS Upon the Petition of DIANE DOROTHY WEIS. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 14-0763. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2795770 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 2795770


CourtListener opinion 2795770

QDRO: ith respect to Leonard's premarital property, the district court properly exercised its discretion when declining to exclude this asset and distributing the property between the parties. In regard to Leonard's pension benefits, we remand for the entry of a QDRO. Consequently, we affirm the dissolution decree as modified. I. Factual and Procedural Background At the time of trial, Leonard was eighty-two years old. In 1955 he began working at H&W Motor Express and was employed there until his retirement in 1991. He received a pension from this company through the Teamsters Union. He also retired from the Iowa


CourtListener opinion 2795770

pension: at the district court failed to apply the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 528.21A (2013) when awarding spousal support, and that the award was improperly established as a lump sum payment. He also asserts the court did not clarify how his Teamsters pension was to be divided, nor did it consider the survivorship benefits. His final claim asserts the district court should have credited him with his premarital cash infusion into the marital home and the resulting increase in value. We conclude the district court considered the appropriate factors when allocating the property and awarding spousal support. Ad


CourtListener opinion 2795770

domestic relations order: which outlined the Teamsters pension and its accompanying survivorship benefits. 12 Nonetheless, the district court did order that Diane receive "one-half of the marital share of the Teamsters pension, which shall be divided by the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order." This is consistent with the holding in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996). Leonard worked for a total of thirty-six years qualifying under the plan. Half of those years Leonard was married to Diane. Therefore, under the district court's order, which we find equitable, Diane's share of the Teamsters monthly benefit pension is to


CourtListener opinion 2795770

valuation/division: en into the marriage, and they also had one daughter together. All the children are well into adulthood. Diane filed a petition for dissolution on July 3, 2013. A pre-trial conference was held on November 13, 2013, at which time the parties agreed to some property division, but could not agree as to other issues. While not affecting the district court nor our resolution of the issues, the precipitating event to the dissolution petition being filed was a conflict over Leonard's will. Executed in September 2012, this will gave Diane a life estate in "whatever he left behind, with the residue going to his children rather th


CourtListener opinion 2797516

CourtListener opinion 2797516 Extracted case name: JASON PULLIAM v. JILL IRENE PULLIAM. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2797516 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 2797516


CourtListener opinion 2797516

QDRO: ion in Dennis, id. at 656, that the DROP payments were to be considered retirement assets within the meaning of the EDRO.2 The court noted that 2 In its opinion, the circuit court refers to the requested EDRO as a "qualified domestic relations order," or a QDRO. Although both EDROs and QDROs serve the (continued . . . ) 3 same purpose, EDROs involve benefits from the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System and are governed by the Code of Maryland Regulations ("COMAR") 22.01.03.03, whereas QDROs are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Use of the term "QDRO" in lieu of


CourtListener opinion 2797516

retirement benefits: cronym are creatures of ERISA, the label "QDRO" may have achieved a broader meaning. As is often the case with a living language, the term has sometimes leapt the boundaries of its formal meaning to encompass generically orders in divorces that distribute retirement plan benefits, much as "xerox copy" became a synonym for "photocopy" regardless of the machine used to produce it, and the verb "google" has come to mean searching the Internet regardless of the search engine being used. Robinette v. Hunsecker, 439 Md. 243, 247 (2014). The acquired broader meaning of the QDRO is understandable given its history. In 1974, Co


CourtListener opinion 2797516

pension: vorce proceedings in the Circuit Court for Harford County, Appellant and his then-wife, Appellee Jill Irene Pulliam, agreed, as reflected in the consent judgment entered, that she would receive one half of the marital share of his Law Enforcement Officers' Pension System ("LEOPS") pension. The parties dispute whether, pursuant to the agreement and consent judgment, a voluntary Deferred Retirement Option Program ("DROP") benefit is part of Husband's pension plan and properly included in Wife's eligible domestic relations order ("EDRO"). The circuit court concluded that Husband's LEOPS pension plan encompassed the


CourtListener opinion 2797516

ERISA: ) 3 same purpose, EDROs involve benefits from the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System and are governed by the Code of Maryland Regulations ("COMAR") 22.01.03.03, whereas QDROs are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Use of the term "QDRO" in lieu of "EDRO" or other acronyms for similar orders, though technically inaccurate, has become recurrent: [A]lthough the [QDRO] concept and acronym are creatures of ERISA, the label "QDRO" may have achieved a broader meaning. As is often the case with a living language, the term has sometimes leapt the boundaries of its for


CourtListener opinion 2800501

CourtListener opinion 2800501 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2800501 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 2800501

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 2800501

domestic relations order: did nothing other than to correct a typographical error pertaining to which party was charged with the responsibility of placing the former marital home on the market. 9 See supra note 8. 4 III. Discussion The regular practice of inserting language in domestic relations orders aimed at restricting the conduct of each party towards the other is at the center of this appeal.10 While the need for specific directives aimed at protecting individuals is not itself in question, the issuance of mutual protective orders is clearly governed by statute. See W.Va. Code § 48-27-507 (2014). This case involves the issuance of an order outs


CourtListener opinion 2801225

CourtListener opinion 2801225 Extracted case name: WBS- GGH v. HOLLISTER EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP TRUST. Extracted reporter citation: 552 U.S. 248. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2801225 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 2801225

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 2801225

QDRO: the district court held after trial—they have not proposed or sought any remedy with respect to this claim. The Plan Participants do not contest this holding on appeal; thus, they have waived any challenge to the district court's ruling on this claim. II. Qualified Domestic Relations Orders 6 Separately, James DeFazio raises an issue relating to the handling of his portion of his former wife's Plan account. We conclude that these orders were "qualified domestic relations orders" under ERISA and complied with the Act's requirements. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(D). DeFazio's related claims are without merit. III. The Cross-Appeal In th


CourtListener opinion 2801225

ERISA: nts" and the "Plan," respectively) sued the Plan, Hollister, Inc., Hollister's parent company The Firm of John Dickinson Schneider, Inc. ("JDS"), and various Plan fiduciaries for violation of their rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The parties are familiar with the facts underlying this eleven-year dispute, and we do not recount them here. I. The Appeal The Plan Participants appeal the district court's judgment in favor of the defendant companies and fiduciaries following multiple pre-trial motions and a 2 fifteen-day bench trial. The district cour


CourtListener opinion 2801225

domestic relations order: ct court held after trial—they have not proposed or sought any remedy with respect to this claim. The Plan Participants do not contest this holding on appeal; thus, they have waived any challenge to the district court's ruling on this claim. II. Qualified Domestic Relations Orders 6 Separately, James DeFazio raises an issue relating to the handling of his portion of his former wife's Plan account. We conclude that these orders were "qualified domestic relations orders" under ERISA and complied with the Act's requirements. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(D). DeFazio's related claims are without merit. III. The Cross-Appeal In th


CourtListener opinion 2802178

CourtListener opinion 2802178 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LEONARD JOHN WEIS AND DIANE DOROTHY WEIS Upon the Petition of DIANE DOROTHY WEIS. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 14-0763. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2802178 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 2802178


CourtListener opinion 2802178

QDRO: th respect to Leonard's premarital property, the district court properly exercised its discretion when declining to exclude this asset and distributing the property between the parties. In regard to Leonard's pension benefits, we remand for the entry of a QDRO. Consequently, we affirm the dissolution decree as modified and remand. 1 This matter comes before us, after granting Diane Weis's petition for rehearing. The original opinion, filed on April 22, 2015, is vacated. 3 I. Factual and Procedural Background At the time of trial, Leonard was eighty-two years old. In 1955 he began working at H&W Motor Expre


CourtListener opinion 2802178

pension: hat the district court failed to apply the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 528.21A (2013) when awarding spousal support and that the award was improperly established as a lump sum payment. He also asserts the court did not clarify how his Teamsters pension was to be divided, nor did it consider the survivorship benefits. His final claim asserts the district court should have credited him with his premarital cash infusion into the marital home and the resulting increase in value. We conclude the district court considered the appropriate factors when allocating the property and awarding spousal support. Ho


CourtListener opinion 2802178

domestic relations order: trial that outlined the Teamsters pension and its accompanying survivorship benefits. Nonetheless, the district court did order that Diane receive "one-half of the marital share of the Teamsters pension, which shall be divided by the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order." This is consistent with the holding in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996). Leonard worked for a total of thirty-six years qualifying under the plan. Half of those years Leonard was married to Diane. Therefore, under the district court's order, which we find equitable, Diane's share of the Teamsters monthly benefit pension is to


CourtListener opinion 2802178

valuation/division: en into the marriage, and they also had one daughter together. All the children are well into adulthood. Diane filed a petition for dissolution on July 3, 2013. A pre-trial conference was held on November 13, 2013, at which time the parties agreed to some property division, but could not agree as to other issues. While not affecting the district court nor our resolution of the issues, the precipitating event to the dissolution petition being filed was a conflict over Leonard's will. Executed in September 2012, this will gave Diane a life estate in "whatever he left behind, with the residue going to his children rather th


CourtListener opinion 2803445

CourtListener opinion 2803445 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Ross. Docket: Second District Docket No. 2-13-0961. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2803445 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 2803445


CourtListener opinion 2803445

QDRO: in Du Page County circuit court case number 85-MR-111. ¶4 In May 2008, James died from injuries suffered in a workplace accident. In April 2012, Anita filed in case number 85-MR-111 a "petition for confirmation of lien, sale of real estate, and entry of a qualified domestic relations order." She alleged child support arrearages of $7,770 and $14,687.34, respectively, in case numbers 82-D-24518 and 85-MR-111. Adding statutory interest, Anita alleged a total arrearage of $65,976.46. Anita claimed that there was an existing lien in that amount against the assets of the Estate by operation of section 505(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissol


CourtListener opinion 2803445

pension: lien arises by operation of law against the real and personal property of the noncustodial parent for each installment of overdue [child] support owed by the noncustodial parent.")). Those assets included real estate that James had owned in Elmhurst and a pension that he had earned from Iron Workers Mid-America. Anita sought an order directing the sale of the real estate and applying the proceeds to the support arrearage. She also sought a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) applying James's pension to the arrearage. -2- ¶5 The Estate responded by filing a nine-count motion to strike and dismiss Anita's


CourtListener opinion 2803445

domestic relations order: e County circuit court case number 85-MR-111. ¶4 In May 2008, James died from injuries suffered in a workplace accident. In April 2012, Anita filed in case number 85-MR-111 a "petition for confirmation of lien, sale of real estate, and entry of a qualified domestic relations order." She alleged child support arrearages of $7,770 and $14,687.34, respectively, in case numbers 82-D-24518 and 85-MR-111. Adding statutory interest, Anita alleged a total arrearage of $65,976.46. Anita claimed that there was an existing lien in that amount against the assets of the Estate by operation of section 505(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissol


CourtListener opinion 2803445

survivor benefits: is governed by the Probate Act. ¶ 17 Section 18-12 of the Probate Act specifies limitations periods for claims against a decedent's estate, providing in relevant part: "(a) Every claim against the estate of a decedent, except expenses of administration and surviving spouse's or child's award, is barred as to all of the decedent's estate if: (1) Notice is given to the claimant as provided in Section 18-3 and the claimant does not file a claim with the representative or the court on or before the date stated in the notice; or (2) Notice of disallowance is given to the claimant as provided in Section 18-11 and the claimant


CourtListener opinion 2805614

CourtListener opinion 2805614 Extracted reporter citation: 520 U.S. 833. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2805614 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 2805614


CourtListener opinion 2805614

QDRO: ng of ERISA and thus validly assign 15 those funds to her. The District Court granted summary judgment 16 in favor of Claire Nicholls on the ground that the divorce settlement ‐3‐ YALE‐NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL V. NICHOLLS 1 agreement constitutes a QDRO applicable to all four retirement 2 plans. 3 We find that the divorce settlement agreement does not 4 constitute a QDRO because the agreement fails to comply with the 5 requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C). We conclude, however, 6 that the nunc pro tunc orders constitute valid QDROs that assign 7 funds to Claire Nicholls from t


CourtListener opinion 2805614

pension: n for summary judgment. We hold that the 12 posthumous nunc pro tunc domestic relations orders constitute valid 13 "qualified domestic relations orders" that properly assign plan 14 funds to Claire Nicholls with respect to the three retirement and 15 pension plans specified therein, but that they have no such effect on 16 a fourth plan not so specified. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part and 17 REVERSE in part the judgment of the District Court. 18 19 Judge WESLEY concurs in part and dissents in part, in a 20 separate opinion. 21 22 23 KENNETH VOTRE, Votre & Associates, P.C., East 24 Haven, CT


CourtListener opinion 2805614

ERISA: Haven, CT, for Claire M. Nicholls. 27 ‐2‐ YALE‐NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL V. NICHOLLS 1 STRAUB, Circuit Judge: 2 Yale‐New Haven Hospital brought this interpleader action 3 pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 4 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., to resolve competing claims by 5 Barbara Nicholls and Claire Nicholls to certain funds held in the 6 four retirement and pension plans of the late Harold Nicholls. 7 Barbara Nicholls, the surviving spouse of Mr. Nicholls, argues that 8 the funds are payable to her because she is the named beneficiary in 9 th


CourtListener opinion 2805614

401(k): participant and former spouse is not invalid simply by virtue of modifying an earlier QDRO's assignment of benefits between the same parties. Example 2 further illustrates the point, noting that where a valid QDRO assigns a portion of a participant's 401k benefits to a first spouse, a second QDRO may later issue assigning a different portion of the same 401k plan to a second spouse. See id. The second QDRO is not invalid merely because it constitutes a second QDRO regarding the same account but will be valid as long as it does not purport to assign to the second spouse that portion of the benefits


CourtListener opinion 2806661

CourtListener opinion 2806661 Docket: 13-0748: Complaint of Charles E. Banks. Charles Banks. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2806661 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 2806661

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 2806661

QDRO: count, with [Ms. Walker] being entitled to receive an amount equal to one-half of the money or assets held in the 401(k) account at the time of the parties' separation on June 2, 2007. Counsel for [Ms. Walker] shall be responsible for the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [("QDRO")] necessary for the division of the [ex-husband's] 401(k). Ms. Walker contended that Mr. Hart failed to prepare the QDRO; therefore, she did not receive her equitable share from the 401(k). Ms. Walker contacted Mr. Hart on numerous occasions, but he did not return her telephone calls. She attempted to obtain information about the matter from


CourtListener opinion 2806661

retirement benefits: esent her in a divorce case; one issue was the distribution of a 401(k) account held by Ms. Walker's former husband. A temporary order was issued in the divorce case on or about August 27, 2007, prohibiting both parties from making "any withdrawal from any retirement account, 401(k), pension or other such retirement account held by that party and in that party's name as a result of any period of employment during the parties' marriage. . . ." Ms. Walker alleged that Mr. Hart failed to forward this order "freez[ing]" the account. The final order stated that Ms. Walker was entitled to an equitable distribution of the [ex-hus


CourtListener opinion 2806661

pension: one issue was the distribution of a 401(k) account held by Ms. Walker's former husband. A temporary order was issued in the divorce case on or about August 27, 2007, prohibiting both parties from making "any withdrawal from any retirement account, 401(k), pension or other such retirement account held by that party and in that party's name as a result of any period of employment during the parties' marriage. . . ." Ms. Walker alleged that Mr. Hart failed to forward this order "freez[ing]" the account. The final order stated that Ms. Walker was entitled to an equitable distribution of the [ex-husband's] 401(k) a


CourtListener opinion 2806661

401(k): es are considered in this Opinion, and a brief summary of the underlying complaints is included herein. 2 1. No. 13-0748: Complaint of Greta J. Walker. Ms. Walker retained Mr. Hart to represent her in a divorce case; one issue was the distribution of a 401(k) account held by Ms. Walker's former husband. A temporary order was issued in the divorce case on or about August 27, 2007, prohibiting both parties from making "any withdrawal from any retirement account, 401(k), pension or other such retirement account held by that party and in that party's name as a result of any period of employment during the partie


CourtListener opinion 2807039

CourtListener opinion 2807039 Extracted case name: DHHR v. PERS. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 14-0734 SUPREME. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2807039 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 2807039


CourtListener opinion 2807039

QDRO: d domestic relations order and not through the terms of the final order of divorce. 4. A family court has the necessary authority to posthumously enforce, revise, modify, or amend a domestic relations order for the purpose of establishing such order as a qualified domestic relations order. LOUGHRY, Justice: Through this consolidated appeal, petitioners, Patricia Jones ("Patricia" or "Mrs. Jones") and Judy Vannoy Akers ("Mrs. Akers"), challenge the decisions of the respondent, the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System ("PERS") d/b/a the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board (the "Board"), in connection with reti


CourtListener opinion 2807039

retirement benefits: tem with ten or more years of credited service, who is entitled to a deferred annuity under West Virginia Code § 5-10-21 (2013), shall, barring a previously-executed spousal waiver, immediately receive a preretirement death annuity. 3. The distribution of retirement benefits from the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System to a former spouse is accomplished through a qualified domestic relations order and not through the terms of the final order of divorce. 4. A family court has the necessary authority to posthumously enforce, revise, modify, or amend a domestic relations order for the purpose of establishing suc


CourtListener opinion 2807039

pension: nt death benefits are authorized by West Virginia Code § 5-10-27 (2013). 3 See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I) (2012) (defining QDRO as domestic relations order that recognizes existence of alternate payee's right to all or portion of benefits payable under pension plan). 1 grant of disability retirement benefits was in error. With regard to the circuit court's ruling on the issue of Mrs. Jones' entitlement to retirement benefits, we affirm the trial court's decision that the Board was correct in rejecting the domestic relations orders submitted by her counsel.4 In the interest of enforcing the equitable distri


CourtListener opinion 2807039

ERISA: rts that the June QDRO was fully enforceable. Looking entirely beyond state public retirement systems, Mrs. Jones focuses on the options that are available under either private plans or plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to -1461 (2012). Essentially positing that the purpose of a QDRO is to fully effectuate the terms of a final order of divorce, Mrs. Jones maintains that the necessary statutory authority and case law permit what she sought to accomplish. Upon distillation of these arguments, we find that Mrs. Jones is describing the law as she w


CourtListener opinion 2807878

CourtListener opinion 2807878 Extracted reporter citation: 320 P.3d 291. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2807878 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 2807878


CourtListener opinion 2807878

QDRO: November 2012 separation and the late-May 2013 trial, John lived with his parents and Sarah continued to live rent-free in the marital home. In early April Sarah asked the superior court to postpone the May custody trial until September. Sarah anticipated a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for her share of John's retirement but believed it would take "two to three months" before she would "actually have access to [those] funds." She asked for the continuance so that she could obtain the funds, retain counsel, and allow her new counsel to prepare for trial.1 John responded that Sarah had "consented to the withdrawal of her attorney in M


CourtListener opinion 2807878

retirement benefits: court denied Sarah's motion for a continuance without comment. In late April the superior court issued a divorce decree, noting that the parties had agreed to proceed to trial over custody. The court also issued Sarah a QDRO giving her a percentage of John's retirement benefit worth about $16,000. Also in late April John's stepfather, John L. D. (JL), sought grandparent visitation with John and Sarah's daughter. JL, who is retired, often watched John and Sarah's daughter when they were working. According to JL, "[h]e has cared for [his granddaughter] on a frequent basis since her birth [and since] the parties have separated, bot


CourtListener opinion 2807878

domestic relations order: 2012 separation and the late-May 2013 trial, John lived with his parents and Sarah continued to live rent-free in the marital home. In early April Sarah asked the superior court to postpone the May custody trial until September. Sarah anticipated a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for her share of John's retirement but believed it would take "two to three months" before she would "actually have access to [those] funds." She asked for the continuance so that she could obtain the funds, retain counsel, and allow her new counsel to prepare for trial.1 John responded that Sarah had "consented to the withdrawal of her attorney in M


CourtListener opinion 2807878

valuation/division: interim attorney's fees to a divorcing spouse "is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court"5 and primarily takes into account "the relative economic situations and earning powers of the parties."6 "A party's economic situation includes the divorce property division, and a party who receives a property settlement 3 We review the denial of interim attorney's fees in a divorce proceeding for abuse of discretion. Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 291, 296 (Alaska 2014); id. at 302 (stating superior court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award additional interim attorney's fees). A superior court has "broad discr


CourtListener opinion 2808372

CourtListener opinion 2808372 Extracted reporter citation: 548 A.2d 611. Docket: 598 WDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2808372 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 2808372


CourtListener opinion 2808372

QDRO: e the much larger component of the defined benefit part of the pension which will pay Husband considerably more than Wife. III) Whether the Court erred by failing to Order that the defined benefits portion of the parties' pensions should be subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order upon retirement of the parties with an equitable division between the parties. IV) Whether the court erred by failing to equitably divide the Husband's contributions to his pension, said contributions constituting an entirely separate asset than the monthly benefits Husband will receive as part of his defined pension plan. V) Whether in affirming


CourtListener opinion 2808372

retirement benefits: n the statement. The absence of that calculation may be due to the fact that Wife was twenty-two years away from retirement when the statement issued. Nonetheless, the present value of Wife's defined benefit plan is not required if the distribution of the retirement benefits is to be deferred. A finding as to present value is necessary only if the retirement benefits are to be awarded to one spouse with an offset to the other. Gordon v. Gordon, 681 A.2d 732, 733 (Pa. 1996) (noting that in a deferred distribution, one identifies the marital share of the benefit but does not value it). The trial court erroneously treated t


CourtListener opinion 2808372

pension: nctive relief from the trial court. She represented that Husband submitted a letter of resignation dated March 5, 2014, to the Pennsylvania State Police. Based upon her belief that Husband could elect to receive a substantial lump sum distribution from his pension and fearing that the pension proceeds would be dissipated, Wife asked the trial court to enjoin disbursement of the pension to Husband until the exceptions had -3- J-A04011-15 been finally decided. On March 17, 2014, the trial court entered an order that neither party could sell, alienate, or transfer any asset of the marital estate until further or