CourtListener opinion 10488422

domestic relations order: ncurred in the judgment. _____________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ¶1 Held: In an appeal in a divorce case, the appellate court found that the trial court properly entered both an initial and an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as to the ex-husband's pension. The appellate court, therefore, affirmed the trial court's judgment. ¶2 More than 30 years after her divorce was finalized, petitioner, Barbara Ann Gavin, sought to have the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the pension of her ex-husband, respondent, Joseph John Gavin, as provided


CourtListener opinion 10489061

CourtListener opinion 10489061 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Budorick. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10489061 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 10489061

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 10489061

QDRO: mployer's guidelines prohibiting her from transferring the stock to anyone outside of the specified corporate entities by awarding Daniel his share of the stock's value, rather than the stock itself. ¶ 53 Daniel's arguments that the court should have used a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to turn over the stock shares to him or divide the stock in accordance with a "reserved jurisdiction" approach, are likewise unavailing. With regard to Daniel's argument that the court should have used a QDRO to effectuate its order dividing the JDS stock, it is premised on the assumption that the trial court awarded Daniel shares of JDS stock an


CourtListener opinion 10489061

retirement benefits: ues in August and September 2018. The court entered a judgment for dissolution on November 28, 2018, and a modified judgment for dissolution on April 10, 2019. Daniel appeals from both orders, arguing that the trial court erred in (1) classifying Heather's retirement accounts from her employment in California as nonmarital property, (2) classifying and valuing Heather's shares in certain restricted stock, (3) valuing Heather's and Daniel's retirement accounts at different points in time, (4) requiring Daniel to pay $50,000 in attorney fees, (5) calculating Heather's gross income for child support purposes, (6) apportioning


CourtListener opinion 10489061

pension: ember 3, 1995, in California. Prior to their marriage, beginning in July 1991, Heather worked as a nurse for Los Angeles County USC Medical Center (USC). During her employment, Heather participated in the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association pension program (LACERA pension), and also contributed to a retirement plan for government employees (L.A. County 457 Plan). Her contributions to the LACERA pension occurred both pre- and post-marriage. The interest from her contributions continued to grow following the marriage. Heather took two leaves from her employment at the hospital before terminating her


CourtListener opinion 10489061

401(k): er, Inc. (Hollister), a manufacturer of medical products. During her employment with Hollister, she participated in two retirement plans. The first plan, HolliShare, consists solely of contributions made by Hollister, while the second plan is a traditional 401(k) plan that allows for employee contributions (Hollister 401(k) Plan). Heather testified that she is only permitted to access HolliShare funds when she ends her employment with Hollister or when she retires. In August 2002, Heather rolled over $6663.50 from her L.A. County 457 Plan to the Hollister 401(k) Plan. ¶7 Also as part of her employment with Hollis


CourtListener opinion 10489405

CourtListener opinion 10489405 Extracted case name: In re ESTATE OF LISA R. LOESSY. Docket: 1-18-0419 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10489405 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 10489405


CourtListener opinion 10489405

QDRO: w her motion to vacate, at which point the judgment order became final. Stark testified that, at that point, what needed to happen next was the actual asset division contained in the judgment, which he considered a "simple" matter. ¶ 28 With respect to the qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) that were required to be prepared to divide the decedent's and John's retirement accounts, Stark testified that they "would have been [simple], but it did not turn out that way." Stark had many interactions with Sohn regarding the preparations of the QDROs. Sohn "didn't have any idea what a QDRO was or how to implement a QDRO," so Stark "had to


CourtListener opinion 10489405

retirement benefits: needed to happen next was the actual asset division contained in the judgment, which he considered a "simple" matter. ¶ 28 With respect to the qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) that were required to be prepared to divide the decedent's and John's retirement accounts, Stark testified that they "would have been [simple], but it did not turn out that way." Stark had many interactions with Sohn regarding the preparations of the QDROs. Sohn "didn't have any idea what a QDRO was or how to implement a QDRO," so Stark "had to educate him on a QDRO and what had to be done." Stark further testified that his firm "had to bas


CourtListener opinion 10489405

401(k): RO that Stark's firm prepared was ready to be entered, Stark discovered that decedent's account had been liquidated by decedent's mother prior to division. Although John's probate attorney, Michael Wood, took action to collect John's half of the decedent's 401(k) from the decedent's mother, Stark testified that Sohn took no action to collect the estate's half of decedent's 401(k) from decedent's mother. ¶ 29 Stark also testified that Sohn's numerous requests for financial records, including for records predating the divorce judgment, were unreasonable, especially given that the only differences in the statements


CourtListener opinion 10489405

domestic relations order: on to vacate, at which point the judgment order became final. Stark testified that, at that point, what needed to happen next was the actual asset division contained in the judgment, which he considered a "simple" matter. ¶ 28 With respect to the qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) that were required to be prepared to divide the decedent's and John's retirement accounts, Stark testified that they "would have been [simple], but it did not turn out that way." Stark had many interactions with Sohn regarding the preparations of the QDROs. Sohn "didn't have any idea what a QDRO was or how to implement a QDRO," so Stark "had to


CourtListener opinion 10489418

CourtListener opinion 10489418 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Wig. Docket: Second District No. 2-19-0929. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10489418 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 10489418


CourtListener opinion 10489418

QDRO: ose efforts failed, the parties would submit the matter to the trial court for resolution. A few days after the parties' marriage was dissolved, respondent lost her job. In September 2018, under the terms of the dissolution judgment, petitioner submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to his former employer. Garnishment of petitioner's pension began in October 2018. Respondent obtained new employment in November 2018, and in December 2018, petitioner moved to set maintenance. Effective January 1, 2019, section 504(b-1)(1)(A) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)(1)(A) (West 2018))


CourtListener opinion 10489418

pension: ew days after the parties' marriage was dissolved, respondent lost her job. In September 2018, under the terms of the dissolution judgment, petitioner submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to his former employer. Garnishment of petitioner's pension began in October 2018. Respondent obtained new employment in November 2018, and in December 2018, petitioner moved to set maintenance. Effective January 1, 2019, section 504(b-1)(1)(A) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)(1)(A) (West 2018)) (the 2019 version) was amended as to its formula for the initial se


CourtListener opinion 10489418

domestic relations order: s failed, the parties would submit the matter to the trial court for resolution. A few days after the parties' marriage was dissolved, respondent lost her job. In September 2018, under the terms of the dissolution judgment, petitioner submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to his former employer. Garnishment of petitioner's pension began in October 2018. Respondent obtained new employment in November 2018, and in December 2018, petitioner moved to set maintenance. Effective January 1, 2019, section 504(b-1)(1)(A) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)(1)(A) (West 2018))


CourtListener opinion 10489419

CourtListener opinion 10489419 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of JENNIFER JOHNSON. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2-20-0068 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10489419 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 10489419

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 10489419

domestic relations order: s counsel, respondent testified that as affiliates, he and Kadel could transfer shares between themselves. Respondent stated he was not familiar with a provision in BICC's "Equity Incentive Plan" that allowed for the transfer of shares in connection with a domestic relations order (DRO). Respondent objected to admission of the Equity Incentive -8- 2020 IL App (2d) 200068-U Plan, citing relevance, because it did not pertain to BICC stock and concerned an employee stock incentive plan. ¶ 22 Respondent agreed that the email he sent petitioner on July 8, 2016, informing petitioner that he could not transfer the BICC stock to her i


CourtListener opinion 10490088

CourtListener opinion 10490088 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-20-1003 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490088 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 10490088

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 10490088

retirement benefits: marriage, or plaintiff's cohabitation with another person on a resident, continuing conjugal basis. Plaintiff was also awarded 50% of her former husband's retirement fund and she was "entitled to any increase in benefits allowed on her marital share of the Retirement Plan." The retirement benefits would commence when her former husband retired or when he began to receive the benefits, whichever date was earlier. Thereafter, a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) was entered on January 25, 2013. ¶8 Plaintiff further alleged that on July 17, 2013, O'Hara advised and assured her that she had to wait until h


CourtListener opinion 10490088

pension: agree to the settlement if she -4- 1-20-1003 would receive permanent maintenance. According to plaintiff's amended complaint, O'Hara assured her that the marital settlement agreement would furnish plaintiff with all the benefits of her former husband's pension and that the terms were the very best possible solution to her property settlements, she would fare no better at trial, and there was nothing to worry about. ¶ 15 After the matter was fully briefed and argued, the circuit court entered a written order dismissing the complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(5). Specifically, the circuit court observed that


CourtListener opinion 10490088

domestic relations order: to any increase in benefits allowed on her marital share of the Retirement Plan." The retirement benefits would commence when her former husband retired or when he began to receive the benefits, whichever date was earlier. Thereafter, a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) was entered on January 25, 2013. ¶8 Plaintiff further alleged that on July 17, 2013, O'Hara advised and assured her that she had to wait until her former husband retired to enter the QILDRO calculation order to begin receiving funds. In September 2013, O'Hara informed plaintiff that she was no longer practicing law and would not be entering th


CourtListener opinion 10490324

CourtListener opinion 10490324 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Salata. Docket: 2-20-0502 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490324 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 10490324


CourtListener opinion 10490324

QDRO: ss as his sole and separate property." The MSA further provided that the "401(k) and pension shall be distributed pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders." The MSA stated: "The Wife and/or her counsel shall be responsible for the preparation of the QDRO and other required documents." The MSA also provided for equalization of attorney fees paid through marital funds and otherwise evenly distributed marital assets. ¶7 B. Bruning's Small Claims Complaint ¶8 On January 30, 2018, Bruning filed a complaint in small claims court, seeking $2410.64 in unpaid attorney fees. ¶9 C. Eversman's Answer and Countercl


CourtListener opinion 10490324

retirement benefits: judgment of dissolution of the marriage, which incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement (MSA). ¶6 As is relevant here, the MSA provided for a $75,000 lump sum payment to Laura, instead of monthly maintenance, to be paid from one of Eversman's retirement accounts. Eversman owned three retirement accounts that were addressed in the MSA: (1) a "FedEx Retirement Savings Plan 401(k) with Vanguard, with an approximate value $498,445.09 as of September 26, 2016" (FedEx Savings Plan); (2) a "FedEx pension, which includes [Eversman's] non-marital Flying Tigers pension" (FedEx Pension Plan); and (3) a "Portable P


CourtListener opinion 10490324

pension: retirement accounts. Eversman owned three retirement accounts that were addressed in the MSA: (1) a "FedEx Retirement Savings Plan 401(k) with Vanguard, with an approximate value $498,445.09 as of September 26, 2016" (FedEx Savings Plan); (2) a "FedEx pension, which includes [Eversman's] non-marital Flying Tigers pension" (FedEx Pension Plan); and (3) a "Portable Pension through Federal Express with a lump sum value of $71,004.12 as of September 26, 2016" (Portable Pension Plan). The MSA provided: (1) Laura was "awarded $321,383.35 from the [FedEx Savings Plan]" and "[t]his sum represents an overall set-


CourtListener opinion 10490324

401(k): the MSA provided for a $75,000 lump sum payment to Laura, instead of monthly maintenance, to be paid from one of Eversman's retirement accounts. Eversman owned three retirement accounts that were addressed in the MSA: (1) a "FedEx Retirement Savings Plan 401(k) with Vanguard, with an approximate value $498,445.09 as of September 26, 2016" (FedEx Savings Plan); (2) a "FedEx pension, which includes [Eversman's] non-marital Flying Tigers pension" (FedEx Pension Plan); and (3) a "Portable Pension through Federal Express with a lump sum value of $71,004.12 as of September 26, 2016" (Portable Pension Plan). T


CourtListener opinion 10490336

CourtListener opinion 10490336 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Folley. Docket: Third District No. 3-18-0427 Rule 23 order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490336 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 10490336


CourtListener opinion 10490336

QDRO: penses were to be paid from the spousal maintenance payments; at the time of the dissolution of marriage in 2012, the parties had three minor children in Anne's care, but there was currently only one minor child in her care; at the time of the dissolution, qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) were entered, which equally divided Greg's retirement and deferred compensation plans between the parties; at the time of the parties' MSA, Greg had base gross income of $38,380 per month plus significant additional short-term and long-term incentive pay; on July 1, 2017, defendant opted to retire as the result of being forced to choose between


CourtListener opinion 10490336

retirement benefits: d the equal division of the parties' checking, savings, and investment accounts (total approximate value of $1,365,155), as well as an equal division of Greg's retirement benefits—a pension plan, a supplemental pension plan, 401(k) ($1,449,386), individual retirement account (IRA) ($287,946), and Caterpillar stock options (valued at $604,464). The parties also had college savings plans for the children valued at $881,000, which they agreed to continue to maintain for the benefit of the children. ¶5 In 2012, at the time of the dissolution judgment, four of the parties' nine children were still minors. Under the MSA, Anne was


CourtListener opinion 10490336

pension: d at $309,000 with a $245,000 mortgage). The property division also included the equal division of the parties' checking, savings, and investment accounts (total approximate value of $1,365,155), as well as an equal division of Greg's retirement benefits—a pension plan, a supplemental pension plan, 401(k) ($1,449,386), individual retirement account (IRA) ($287,946), and Caterpillar stock options (valued at $604,464). The parties also had college savings plans for the children valued at $881,000, which they agreed to continue to maintain for the benefit of the children. ¶5 In 2012, at the time of the dissolution ju


CourtListener opinion 10490336

401(k): e property division also included the equal division of the parties' checking, savings, and investment accounts (total approximate value of $1,365,155), as well as an equal division of Greg's retirement benefits—a pension plan, a supplemental pension plan, 401(k) ($1,449,386), individual retirement account (IRA) ($287,946), and Caterpillar stock options (valued at $604,464). The parties also had college savings plans for the children valued at $881,000, which they agreed to continue to maintain for the benefit of the children. ¶5 In 2012, at the time of the dissolution judgment, four of the parties' nine children


CourtListener opinion 10490382

CourtListener opinion 10490382 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of A'Hearn. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490382 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 10490382


CourtListener opinion 10490382

QDRO: h the court classified as marital property, was to be sold. After the mortgage and the expenses of the sale were paid, the remaining proceeds of the sale were to be divided equally between the parties. Also, the order contemplated the drafting and entry of qualified domestic relations orders: -9- "The following retirement, investment, mutual funds, and other accounts comprise both marital and non-marital property. Each party shall retain the non-marital portion of each, respectively. The marital portion of each, respectively, shall be divided pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO') or Qualified Illinois Domestic Rela


CourtListener opinion 10490382

retirement benefits: portion of each, respectively. The marital portion of each, respectively, shall be divided pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO') or Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (‘QILDRO'). i. State Farm 401(k) Plan—QDRO ii. State Farm Retirement Plan/Pension—QDRO iii. [Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)] Retirement Account— QILDRO." Exhibit B of the order provided that the State Farm 401(k) plan, the State Farm pension, and the IMRF retirement account were to be divided by qualified domestic relations orders, giving each party a "one-half marital portion." ¶ 26 On January 16, 2020, the ci


CourtListener opinion 10490382

pension: ed the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Knecht and Justice Harris concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: (1) The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by requiring petitioner to make respondent a beneficiary of the survivor benefit of his pension plan. (2) By finding that petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he did not intend a gift by contributing $200,000 toward the purchase of a house conveyed to the parties in joint tenancy, the circuit court did not make a finding that was against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶2 The circuit court of McLean County dis


CourtListener opinion 10490382

401(k): ty shall retain the non-marital portion of each, respectively. The marital portion of each, respectively, shall be divided pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO') or Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (‘QILDRO'). i. State Farm 401(k) Plan—QDRO ii. State Farm Retirement Plan/Pension—QDRO iii. [Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)] Retirement Account— QILDRO." Exhibit B of the order provided that the State Farm 401(k) plan, the State Farm pension, and the IMRF retirement account were to be divided by qualified domestic relations orders, giving each party a "one-half marital


CourtListener opinion 10490636

CourtListener opinion 10490636 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Andres. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: Second District No. 2-19-1146. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490636 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 10490636

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 10490636

domestic relations order: he rights and obligations that already existed, it is properly characterized as a motion to enforce the prior Agreed Order, rather than a modification or a new cause of action. See id.; In re Marriage of Allen, 343 Ill. App. 3d 410, 412-13 (2003). "Where a domestic relations order has been entered, the trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce its order [citation], as further performance by the parties is often contemplated [citation]." Smithberg, 192 Ill. 2d at 297-98. Accordingly, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the issue. ¶ 62 We now turn to the issue of whether the trial court should have deducted Nick's mainte


CourtListener opinion 10490853

CourtListener opinion 10490853 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Wehr. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: Second District No. 2-20-0726. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490853 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 10490853

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 10490853

pension: appellee. Panel PRESIDING JUSTICE BRIDGES delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Jorgensen and Brennan concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 Respondent, Paul A. Wehr, appeals the trial court's division of his municipal pension in a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) issued according to a marital settlement agreement (MSA) between him and petitioner, Janet H. Wehr. At issue is whether Paul was a "participant," as defined by the MSA, in his pension plan during times that he did not work for a municipality and contribute to the plan. In calculating the marital


CourtListener opinion 10490853

alternate payee: and presented to the Court for entry a [QILDRO] equally dividing the marital portion, in a form acceptable to the respective plan administrators, of the Husband's [IMRF] pension. The ‘QILDRO' for the Husband's [IMRF] pension shall define the amount of the Alternate Payee's benefit as follows: ‘This order assigns to the Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of 50% of the marital portion of the Participant's accrued benefit under the Plan as of the Participant's Benefit Commencement Date, or the Alternate Payee's Benefit Commencement Date, if earlier. The marital portion shall be determined by multip


CourtListener opinion 10490853

domestic relations order: ICE BRIDGES delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Jorgensen and Brennan concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 Respondent, Paul A. Wehr, appeals the trial court's division of his municipal pension in a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) issued according to a marital settlement agreement (MSA) between him and petitioner, Janet H. Wehr. At issue is whether Paul was a "participant," as defined by the MSA, in his pension plan during times that he did not work for a municipality and contribute to the plan. In calculating the marital portion of Paul's accrued benefit under the plan,


CourtListener opinion 10490853

valuation/division: ettlement agreement (MSA) between him and petitioner, Janet H. Wehr. At issue is whether Paul was a "participant," as defined by the MSA, in his pension plan during times that he did not work for a municipality and contribute to the plan. In calculating the marital portion of Paul's accrued benefit under the plan, the trial court determined that Paul was a "participant" in the plan even during months where he was not a municipal employee and not contributing to the plan. This was error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to enter a correct QILDRO. ¶2 I. BACKGROUND ¶3 Paul and Janet were married on October


CourtListener opinion 10490947

CourtListener opinion 10490947 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Baggett. Docket: of documents to require Christy to comply with orders of the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10490947 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 10490947


CourtListener opinion 10490947

QDRO: ile an emergency motion to compel. On April 27, 2015, Christy was ordered to pay Claudio $3460 based on the March 20, 2015, contempt finding. ¶ 14 As the 508(b) petition further alleged, Christy was ordered to pay a fee due for preparation of the parties qualified domestic relations order, which she did not pay, and was held in contempt for her failure. Claudio was also forced to seek the court's intervention to comply with discovery requests and required to send subpoenas due to Christy's failure to comply with his requests and the court's directives. Although Christy complains that the awarded attorney fees include billings subsequ


CourtListener opinion 10490947

domestic relations order: rgency motion to compel. On April 27, 2015, Christy was ordered to pay Claudio $3460 based on the March 20, 2015, contempt finding. ¶ 14 As the 508(b) petition further alleged, Christy was ordered to pay a fee due for preparation of the parties qualified domestic relations order, which she did not pay, and was held in contempt for her failure. Claudio was also forced to seek the court's intervention to comply with discovery requests and required to send subpoenas due to Christy's failure to comply with his requests and the court's directives. Although Christy complains that the awarded attorney fees include billings subsequ


CourtListener opinion 10491532

CourtListener opinion 10491532 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10491532 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 10491532


CourtListener opinion 10491532

QDRO: final ruling for up to one year if the grounds specified in the motion are fraud or mistake, the court should have reconsidered its final divorce order, required Wife to produce an affidavit to show proof of the attorney fees, corrected the computation of the QDRO, and clarified the spousal support award. We agree that, generally, a motion for reconsideration based upon fraud or mistake can be filed up to one year after a final order is entered. However, we have previously stated: A motion for reconsideration is simply not an opportunity to relitigate facts upon which a court has already ruled. In Ray v. Ray, 216


CourtListener opinion 10491532

retirement benefits: ] and finds them to be reasonable." Husband's assertion that Wife's attorney fraudulently or mistakenly misrepresented the marital portion of his retirement fund was litigated during the divorce proceeding and the computed amount of the marital portion of the retirement account was incorporated into the final divorce order. While Husband argues to assert mistake on his own attorney's behalf and fraud involving Wife and Wife's attorney, his allegations to support those claims involved issues litigated during the parties' final divorce hearing. It is apparent from the motion for reconsideration and the record on appeal that Husban


CourtListener opinion 10491532

401(k): 2022, the family court held final hearings on the divorce petition. In its final order entered on December 16, 2022, the court awarded spousal support to Wife in the amount of $1,000.00 per month for five years, and half of the appreciated value of Husband's 401(k) that was accumulated during the marriage, based on the court's findings regarding the parties' respective incomes and expenses. The court also granted Wife's request for attorney fees in the amount of $8,000.00, finding that "[Husband] is 100% at fault in causing the divorce to be filed" and Wife "did not want a divorce." Husband did not appeal the final or


CourtListener opinion 10491532

valuation/division: s December 16, 2022, final divorce order, styled as "Motion to Dismiss Order Entered in a Divorce Proceeding on the Basis it Was Obtained by Fraudulent Representations." Husband asked the family court to modify the award of attorney fees, spousal support, and equitable distribution of retirement funds in its final divorce order. Husband asserted that Wife fraudulently and falsely represented that she was not at fault in causing the divorce and fraudulently and falsely represented that she needed spousal support. He also stated that he mistakenly believed Wife's attorney would produce the invoice for the attorney fees, but nothing had


CourtListener opinion 10492258

CourtListener opinion 10492258 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10492258 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 10492258

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 10492258

QDRO: ife, Michelle. His notice of appeal lists these orders, claiming they are being "appealed" as "final judgments." Michelle moved to dismiss this appeal as untimely, and she in part is correct. Of the orders identified in Robert's notice, only two are timely: a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and an order denying the former husband's motion for relief from a previously rendered recommended dissolution judgment. The initial brief, however, fails to demonstrate any "preliminary basis for" reversing or vacating either one. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a) (authorizing summary affirmance in such circumstances). We affirm as to those two orders


CourtListener opinion 10492258

domestic relations order: lle. His notice of appeal lists these orders, claiming they are being "appealed" as "final judgments." Michelle moved to dismiss this appeal as untimely, and she in part is correct. Of the orders identified in Robert's notice, only two are timely: a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and an order denying the former husband's motion for relief from a previously rendered recommended dissolution judgment. The initial brief, however, fails to demonstrate any "preliminary basis for" reversing or vacating either one. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a) (authorizing summary affirmance in such circumstances). We affirm as to those two orders


CourtListener opinion 10494304

CourtListener opinion 10494304 Extracted case name: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. STEPHEN E. WHITTED. Extracted reporter citation: 815 F. App'x 202. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10494304 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 10494304

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 10494304

QDRO: Judge Lane's custody decision, to no avail. Judge Lane also held Ms. Jordan in contempt for failing to transfer the $55,000 from her 401(k) plan. Judge Lane stated, however, that the burden was on Mr. Whitted to provide Ms. Jordan with a valid and executed qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO")3 and directed him to do so. Mr. Whitted subsequently executed a defective QDRO but failed to take further action to transfer the money from the 401(k) plan. 2 The complaint was eventually dismissed. Mr. Whitted appealed the decision, without success. 3 "A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is the vehicle by which pension benefits are


CourtListener opinion 10494304

retirement benefits: es joint legal custody of their children, physical custody to Ms. Jordan, and reasonable visitation 2 to Mr. Whitted. The court ordered Mr. Whitted to pay child support in the amount of $1,735.93 per month and awarded him $55,000 from Ms. Jordan's 401(k) retirement plan. Mr. Whitted was directed to provide Ms. Jordan with an account into which the retirement funds would be transferred. At that time, Mr. Whitted was employed as an Assistant County Attorney for DeKalb County, Georgia. Mr. Whitted chronically failed to pay child support, and in 2010, Ms. Jordan asked the Superior Court of Fulton County to hold him in co


CourtListener opinion 10494304

pension: ctive QDRO but failed to take further action to transfer the money from the 401(k) plan. 2 The complaint was eventually dismissed. Mr. Whitted appealed the decision, without success. 3 "A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is the vehicle by which pension benefits are transferred from one party to another, ‘either pursuant to the Marital Disposition Act, or through an attachment in aid of a support obligation.'" Fischbach v. Fischbach, 187 Md. App. 61, 94 (2009) (quoting Janusz v. Gilliam, 404 Md. 524, 538 (2008)). 4 On May 5, 2011, Mr. Whitted moved for the recusal of Judge Lane. He also petitioned for m


CourtListener opinion 10494304

401(k): e parties joint legal custody of their children, physical custody to Ms. Jordan, and reasonable visitation 2 to Mr. Whitted. The court ordered Mr. Whitted to pay child support in the amount of $1,735.93 per month and awarded him $55,000 from Ms. Jordan's 401(k) retirement plan. Mr. Whitted was directed to provide Ms. Jordan with an account into which the retirement funds would be transferred. At that time, Mr. Whitted was employed as an Assistant County Attorney for DeKalb County, Georgia. Mr. Whitted chronically failed to pay child support, and in 2010, Ms. Jordan asked the Superior Court of Fulton County t


CourtListener opinion 1049797

CourtListener opinion 1049797 Extracted case name: JESSE ROBERT ANDERSON v. CHRIS. Extracted reporter citation: 8 S.W.3d 625. Docket: M2009-01691-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1049797 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 1049797


CourtListener opinion 1049797

QDRO: we have determined the relief sought in the motion did not qualify for Rule 60.02 relief. Wife merely sought to substantially amend the division of marital property because Husband had been recalcitrant by failing to file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to facilitate the division of the marital property. The May 6 motion did not qualify for Rule 60.02 relief, and we find no other legal basis upon which the trial court was authorized to amend a judgment that had become final 1 Wife also filed other pleadings and motions in the interim. On August 6, 2008, Wife filed a suit for the Sale and Partition of


CourtListener opinion 1049797

domestic relations order: motions in the interim. On August 6, 2008, Wife filed a suit for the Sale and Partition of Real Property and sought additional relief from the court. On January 30, 2009, the trial court entered an order stating that Husband had sixty days to file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate the division of martial assets. No such Qualified Domestic Relations Order was filed. 2 Wife also raises issues on appeal. Our ruling renders the other issues moot, a fact counsel for both parties agreed to during oral argument. -2- more than a year earlier; therefore, we have determined the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the Ma


CourtListener opinion 10499144

CourtListener opinion 10499144 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thurston. Extracted reporter citation: 445 P.3d 971. Docket: 57344-0-II The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10499144 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 10499144


CourtListener opinion 10499144

QDRO: the Matter of the Marriage of: No. 57344-0-II LAURIE MARIE HELM, Respondent, and UNPUBLISHED OPINION CLAYTON AUSTIN HELM, Appellant. CHE, J. ⎯ Clayton Helm appeals the trial court's entry of a new Qualified Domestic Relations Order Military (2022 QDRO). Clayton1 is a retired member of the U.S. military. Clayton and Laurie Helm married on September 30, 2001. The marriage was dissolved on September 30, 2014. The decree of dissolution awarded Laurie half of the marital portion of Clayton's military pension. In 2015, the trial court entered an agreed Military Retired Pay Division Order (2015 order) di


CourtListener opinion 10499144

retirement benefits: 's military pension, the trial court found The marital portion of the uniformed services retired pay of [Clayton] (hereafter military pension or retired pay) is subject to marital property division. [Laurie] is entitled to a share of [Clayton's] military retirement benefits, as set out in the Decree. [Laurie's] entitlement to retired pay accrues upon the retirement of [Clayton]. The remaining portion of [Clayton's] military retired pay is the sole and separate property of [Clayton]. [F]or the purposes of calculating the marital portion, the parties were married on September 30, 2001 and separated on September 30, 2014.


CourtListener opinion 10499144

pension: 2 QDRO). Clayton1 is a retired member of the U.S. military. Clayton and Laurie Helm married on September 30, 2001. The marriage was dissolved on September 30, 2014. The decree of dissolution awarded Laurie half of the marital portion of Clayton's military pension. In 2015, the trial court entered an agreed Military Retired Pay Division Order (2015 order) directing distribution of Clayton's disposable military retired pay. Clayton then retired from the military in 2019. In 2021, Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) determined the 2015 order did not support payments of Clayton's disposable military reti


CourtListener opinion 10499144

domestic relations order: is insufficient to support a COMMUNITY PROPERTY award . . . We have terminated the community property award and an audit will be performed."5 CP at 129. On July 8, 2022, Laurie filed a CR 60 motion to correct a scrivener's error and enter a new qualified domestic relations order. Laurie sent a setting order for the motion hearing to Clayton. In her motion, she appeared to argue that the 2015 order did not meet DFAS's current requirements for military retirement orders and needed to be updated in order for DFAS to resume its payments to her. On August 5, Clayton filed his response to Laurie's motion. The record contains a CR 2A


CourtListener opinion 10501406

CourtListener opinion 10501406 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1686 MDA 2023. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10501406 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 10501406


CourtListener opinion 10501406

pension: vehicle maintenance? 10. Did the trial court err at law and abuse its discretion when it improperly calculated the income of Father for purposes of child support because it failed to consider the direct benefits he received from the personal use of his pension? 11. Did the trial court err at law and abuse its discretion when it improperly calculated the income of Father for purposes of child support because it failed to consider the lack of the earning capacity of Mother? Did the trial court err at law and abuse its discretion when it improperly calculated the net proceeds she received from settlement of


CourtListener opinion 10501406

domestic relations order: ___________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S20017-24 The record provides the following background. Prior to the instant litigation, Father had been paying Mother $867 per month in child support pursuant to a domestic relations order entered in August 2020. In March 2023, Mother sought an upward modification. She believed that Father experienced a substantial change in circumstances – namely, an increase of his income from two sources: 1) additional income from gas leases; and 2) additional income from his self-owned business. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4352(a). Moreover, Mother sought a m


CourtListener opinion 10501406

survivor benefits: ttorneys' fees and costs. After buying a home and making other real estate investments, approximately $250,000 remained from the settlement. Mother said she cannot receive social security disability because she received too much income in child support and survivor benefits.2 Mother receives survivor benefits, amounting to $2,800 per month, because the father of Mother's other children is deceased. Father exercises partial physical custody – approximately 5 overnights out of 14 during the school year, and 50/50 during the summer months. Upon consideration of the testimony and evidence, the trial court departed from the


CourtListener opinion 10505856

CourtListener opinion 10505856 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10505856 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 10505856

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 10505856

domestic relations order: ilings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. Regarding the appellant's argument that the March 2016 order striking the survivor annuity provision of the 2001 Domestic Relations Order (DRO) merely corrected an inadvertent error or mistake in the original DRO, that argument is without merit. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-7. Because the appellant retired from the Federal service prior to correcting the DRO, OPM is barred by statute from processing the amended DRO, and the statute contains no provision for amendment due to an inadvertent error or mi


CourtListener opinion 10505856

survivor benefits: nd A. Limon, Vice Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Member FINAL ORDER The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which affirmed the final decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) granting his former spouse a court-ordered survivor annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). On petition for review, the appellant restates 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to


CourtListener opinion 10506545

CourtListener opinion 10506545 Extracted case name: N.A. v. N. Extracted reporter citation: 671 S.W.2d 880. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10506545 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 10506545

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 10506545

QDRO: ffirm in this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. A December 2019 agreed divorce decree in case number DF-19-09267 provided, among other things, that: (1) Mr. Payne would receive portions of three of Ms. Eley's retirement accounts, pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) that the court would enter either upon or after entering the decree; (2) Mr. Payne would be required to "pay 100% for cost of QDRO drafting and submission"; and (3) to "effect an equitable division of the estate of the parties and as a part of the division, each party shall be responsible for his or her own attorney's fees, expenses, and co


CourtListener opinion 10506545

domestic relations order: this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. A December 2019 agreed divorce decree in case number DF-19-09267 provided, among other things, that: (1) Mr. Payne would receive portions of three of Ms. Eley's retirement accounts, pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) that the court would enter either upon or after entering the decree; (2) Mr. Payne would be required to "pay 100% for cost of QDRO drafting and submission"; and (3) to "effect an equitable division of the estate of the parties and as a part of the division, each party shall be responsible for his or her own attorney's fees, expenses, and co


CourtListener opinion 1051974

CourtListener opinion 1051974 Docket: 93-212 No. E2007-00750-COA-R3-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1051974 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 1051974


CourtListener opinion 1051974

QDRO: No. 93-212 No. E2007-00750-COA-R3-CV Filed February 29, 2008 Charles D. Susano, Jr., J., dissenting. The parties in this case have struggled mightily for many years to fashion a court order that the plan administrator would find legally acceptable as a qualified domestic relations order under the applicable federal statutory scheme. Apparently, their efforts to date have been unsuccessful. The trial court and the majority opinion place a great deal of emphasis and significance on the proposed qualified domestic relations order of November 21, 1995. I do not. It seems to me that all of the proposed qualified domestic relations orders are to


CourtListener opinion 1051974

domestic relations order: 2 No. E2007-00750-COA-R3-CV Filed February 29, 2008 Charles D. Susano, Jr., J., dissenting. The parties in this case have struggled mightily for many years to fashion a court order that the plan administrator would find legally acceptable as a qualified domestic relations order under the applicable federal statutory scheme. Apparently, their efforts to date have been unsuccessful. The trial court and the majority opinion place a great deal of emphasis and significance on the proposed qualified domestic relations order of November 21, 1995. I do not. It seems to me that all of the proposed qualified domestic relations orders are to


CourtListener opinion 1052106

CourtListener opinion 1052106 Extracted case name: ANTHONY JOSEPH ZIOBROWSKI v. MARCY HAYS ZIOBROWSKI. Extracted reporter citation: 902 S.W.2d 918. Docket: M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1052106 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 1052106


CourtListener opinion 1052106

QDRO: divorce does not mean that we ignore the change in the value of money over time. To award Ms. Ziobrowski only $338.30 in 2007 dollars is to ignore the trial court's statement of its overall intent: "The court intends an equal division of these assets." The QDRO signed by the trial court to implement its 1995 decree gives Ms. Ziobrowski half of Mr. Ziobrowski's "accrued vested benefit as of September 27, 1995, or the next closest valuation date . . . ." This appears to be an appropriate implementation of the final decree, and so I would affirm. In the alternative, I would award Ms. Ziobrowski half of the present da


CourtListener opinion 1052106

retirement benefits: 59-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 20, 2007 DISSENT ________________________ HOLLY M. KIRBY, J., DISSENTING: I must respectfully dissent from the majority's interpretation of the 1995 final decree of divorce to award only $338.30 per month out of the monthly retirement benefit to Ms. Ziobrowski. In its discussion of the language used in the final decree, the majority notes that the trial court observed that the value of certain assets, including the GM retirement plan, were "not discernible," and that it went on to amend Ms. Ziobrowski's "one-half of the $676.60 monthly benefit payable on account of the old General Motors retire


CourtListener opinion 1052106

pension: wo techniques for valuing and distributing pensions. The first technique is the present value method; the second is the retained jurisdiction or deferred distribution method. The present value method requires the court to place a present cash value on the pension interest acquired during the marriage . . . . Once the court computes the present cash value of the pension rights, it awards the pension to the employee spouse and then awards the other spouse marital property of equal value. If the marital estate is insufficient to make an offsetting award, then the court may make an award payable in installments. Th


CourtListener opinion 1052107

CourtListener opinion 1052107 Extracted case name: ANTHONY JOSEPH ZIOBROWSKI v. MARCY HAYS ZIOBROWSKI. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1052107 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 1052107


CourtListener opinion 1052107

QDRO: eal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. 95160 Russ Heldman, Judge No. M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 20, 2007 This appeal involves a final decree of divorce that was entered in 1995, and a proposed qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") entered pursuant to that decree in 2006. The former husband claims that the proposed QDRO allows his former wife to receive a greater share of his monthly retirement benefit than the trial court awarded to the wife when it divided the parties' marital property. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme


CourtListener opinion 1052107

retirement benefits: l decree of divorce that was entered in 1995, and a proposed qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") entered pursuant to that decree in 2006. The former husband claims that the proposed QDRO allows his former wife to receive a greater share of his monthly retirement benefit than the trial court awarded to the wife when it divided the parties' marital property. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which and DAVID R. FARMER , J., joined, AND HOLLY M. KIRBY ,


CourtListener opinion 1052107

pension: o this appeal, valued and divided the parties' marital property as follows: 5. MARITAL ESTATE. The court finds the marital property of the parties to be as follows: ... Saturn Retirement $7,652.98 Saturn Individual Savings Plan (net value) $3,625.19 GM Pension Benefit Not discernable Household furnishings Not discernable Ziobrowski vs. Westra (cause of action) Not discernable ... 7. PROPERTY DIVISION. The home of the parties shall be sold. From the proceeds of the sale . . . all indebtedness of the parties . . . shall be paid. . . . Thereafter, the next $11,493.77 shall be paid to wife. This amount represe


CourtListener opinion 1052107

domestic relations order: AYS ZIOBROWSKI Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. 95160 Russ Heldman, Judge No. M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 20, 2007 This appeal involves a final decree of divorce that was entered in 1995, and a proposed qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") entered pursuant to that decree in 2006. The former husband claims that the proposed QDRO allows his former wife to receive a greater share of his monthly retirement benefit than the trial court awarded to the wife when it divided the parties' marital property. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right;


CourtListener opinion 1052155

CourtListener opinion 1052155 Extracted case name: WILLIAM EDWARD HARGROVE v. MERRIELLEN HARGROVE. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: W2007-00538-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1052155 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 1052155

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 1052155

QDRO: as part of her marital property award. Id. at *2. The divorce did not include an MDA; rather, the trial court provided in the judgment that the parties were to divide equally the stock in the husband's retirement package. Id. Thereafter, the court issued the QDRO described as the "Stock Bonus Plan, Stock Savings and Retirement Income Plan, and Employee Stock Ownership Plan." Id. at *3. The wife then filed a petition for declaratory relief requesting the court declare her rights under the final divorce decree, and also claimed that she was entitled to the retirement package, including the pension. The trial court hea


CourtListener opinion 1052155

retirement benefits: nd not have to place any additional pressure . . . . We will leave visitation in his discretion. Also, the judge's order declared that Husband had fully satisfied the $15,000.00 constituting Wife's one-half interest in the marital home. As to the disputed retirement accounts, the judge found that Wife was entitled to "[t]he Boilermakers National Pention [sic] Trust and that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be entered within 60 days"; however, Wife "is not entitled to the Boilermakers National Annuity Trust." II. ISSUES PRESENTED Appellant has timely filed her notice of appeal and presents the following three issu


CourtListener opinion 1052155

pension: provided that Husband would be the primary residential parent and Wife would be responsible for the child every other weekend and during certain holidays. As to property division, the Marital Dissolution Agreement required Husband to transfer one-half of his pension plan to Wife. Concerning the marital home, Wife agreed to execute a quitclaim deed to Husband conveying her interest to Husband simultaneously with Husband paying her $15,000. After a contempt hearing, the court modified the parenting schedule; found that Wife was entitled to one-half of Husband's pension, but not one-half of Husband's annuity; and found th


CourtListener opinion 1052155

domestic relations order: that Husband had fully satisfied the $15,000.00 constituting Wife's one-half interest in the marital home. As to the disputed retirement accounts, the judge found that Wife was entitled to "[t]he Boilermakers National Pention [sic] Trust and that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be entered within 60 days"; however, Wife "is not entitled to the Boilermakers National Annuity Trust." II. ISSUES PRESENTED Appellant has timely filed her notice of appeal and presents the following three issues for review: 1. Whether the lower court erred in ordering the modification of the residential sharing schedule contained in the permane


CourtListener opinion 1052604

CourtListener opinion 1052604 Extracted case name: MARY KAY THOMPSON v. CLAYTON THOMPSON. Extracted reporter citation: 879 S.W.2d 856. Docket: M2005-02762-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1052604 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 1052604


CourtListener opinion 1052604

QDRO: xty-two (62) and Seven Hundred Seventy Three ($773.00) Dollars per month thereafter. ... (iii) Commencement Date and Form of Payment to Wife: Wife may elect to commence her share of the benefits as soon as administratively feasible following the date the QDRO is approved by the Plan Administrator, or at the earliest date permitted under the terms of the Plan, if later. Benefits will be payable to Wife in any form or permissible option otherwise permitted under the terms and provisions of the GM Plan, other than a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity with her current spouse as the beneficiary. ... (ix) A QD


CourtListener opinion 1052604

retirement benefits: ent: B. DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN: Husband is a participant under the General Motors Corporation defined benefit pension plan (General Motors Pension Plan "GM Plan"). For the purposes of marital property division, Wife is hereby granted a portion of Husband's retirement benefits under the GM Plan as designated below.... (I) Amount of Wife's Benefits: Effective as of such Assignment Date, Wife shall be assigned a portion of Husband's retirement benefits in an amount equal to Fifty Percent (50%) of the Marital Portion of the Husband's Accrued Benefit under the GM Plan as of the Husband's benefit commencement date, or the Wife's


CourtListener opinion 1052604

pension: ppellant to pay $1,210 per month in child support. Of particular interest in this case are the following provisions of the Marital Dissolution Agreement: B. DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN: Husband is a participant under the General Motors Corporation defined benefit pension plan (General Motors Pension Plan "GM Plan"). For the purposes of marital property division, Wife is hereby granted a portion of Husband's retirement benefits under the GM Plan as designated below.... (I) Amount of Wife's Benefits: Effective as of such Assignment Date, Wife shall be assigned a portion of Husband's retirement benefits in an amount equal


CourtListener opinion 1052604

domestic relations order: be payable to Wife in any form or permissible option otherwise permitted under the terms and provisions of the GM Plan, other than a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity with her current spouse as the beneficiary. ... (ix) A QDRO Shall Issue: A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be prepared and submitted to these plans and accounts according to the terms of this agreement... ... 11. ALIMONY. Husband shall pay Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars per month beginning November 1, 2003 and continuing until Wife's remarriage, death, or Husband's death, whichever is earlier. Alimony


CourtListener opinion 1052985

CourtListener opinion 1052985 Extracted case name: NANCY LEE BARLOW LONG v. BOBBY RAY LONG. Extracted reporter citation: 907 S.W.2d 815. Docket: M2004-01697-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1052985 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 1052985

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 1052985

QDRO: e Court." The Court thus entered a judgment against husband for $27,133.61, found the husband to be in willful contempt, and ordered him to be imprisoned until he purged the contempt. The Court further ordered that if the husband failed to pay the judgment, a QDRO would be entered awarding the wife that amount from the husband's retirement. The wife's attorney was awarded a judgment for fees in the amount of $6,300.00. The husband has appealed and these issues are raised: 1. Whether the trial court erred in finding husband in civil contempt for failure to pay child support? 2. Whether the trial court erred in fa


CourtListener opinion 1053068

CourtListener opinion 1053068 Extracted reporter citation: 854 S.W.2d 87. Docket: W2005-00038-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1053068 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 1053068


CourtListener opinion 1053068

QDRO: e and deliver a letter to the parties' financial advisor instructing the refund of $425 to Husband; (6) refused and actively prevented Husband from retrieving his personal property from the marital home after the MDA was executed; and, (7) refused to sign the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") dividing the parties' retirement accounts. After Husband filed his original contempt petition, Wife complied with some of her obligations under the MDA. Three issues, however, remained contested at the November 18, 2004 hearing. These were Wife's alleged refusal to execute the letter to the financial advisor, her alleged refusal to execute the QDRO


CourtListener opinion 1053068

retirement benefits: ng the refund of $425 to Husband; (6) refused and actively prevented Husband from retrieving his personal property from the marital home after the MDA was executed; and, (7) refused to sign the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") dividing the parties' retirement accounts. After Husband filed his original contempt petition, Wife complied with some of her obligations under the MDA. Three issues, however, remained contested at the November 18, 2004 hearing. These were Wife's alleged refusal to execute the letter to the financial advisor, her alleged refusal to execute the QDRO, and her alleged refusal to permit Husband to ret


CourtListener opinion 1053068

domestic relations order: ver a letter to the parties' financial advisor instructing the refund of $425 to Husband; (6) refused and actively prevented Husband from retrieving his personal property from the marital home after the MDA was executed; and, (7) refused to sign the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") dividing the parties' retirement accounts. After Husband filed his original contempt petition, Wife complied with some of her obligations under the MDA. Three issues, however, remained contested at the November 18, 2004 hearing. These were Wife's alleged refusal to execute the letter to the financial advisor, her alleged refusal to execute the QDRO


CourtListener opinion 1053833

CourtListener opinion 1053833 Extracted case name: TINA M. LUNSFORD v. ROBERT W. LUNSFORD. Extracted reporter citation: 900 S.W.2d 23. Docket: M2004-00662-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1053833 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 1053833

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 1053833

QDRO: ed beneficiary of the death benefit at the time of Mr. Lunsford died, the trial court determined the intent of the parties evidenced by their marital dissolution agreement was to divest Tina Lunsford of any interest in his retirement plan. The trial court, by qualified domestic relations order, directed the death benefit be paid to the contingent beneficiaries and Tina M. Lunsford appealed. Because of the specific language of the marital dissolution agreement, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded DONALD P. HARRIS, SR. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM B. C


CourtListener opinion 1053833

retirement benefits: ugh Tina M. Lunsford was the designated beneficiary of the death benefit at the time of Mr. Lunsford died, the trial court determined the intent of the parties evidenced by their marital dissolution agreement was to divest Tina Lunsford of any interest in his retirement plan. The trial court, by qualified domestic relations order, directed the death benefit be paid to the contingent beneficiaries and Tina M. Lunsford appealed. Because of the specific language of the marital dissolution agreement, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded DONALD P. HARRIS, SR. J., d


CourtListener opinion 1053833

pension: orce was granted between these parties on April 16, 2002. Mr. Lunsford died on July 29, 2003. At the time of his death, he was an employee of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA). As a YMCA employee, he was a participant in the YMCA Retirement Fund, a pension plan formulated in compliance with the provisions of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In an application to participate in the YMCA Retirement Fund, dated October 12, 1998, Mr. Lunsford designated Tina Lunsford as the primary beneficiary of the pre-retirement death benefit provided by the fund, and she remained the designated primary b


CourtListener opinion 1053833

ERISA: his death, he was an employee of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA). As a YMCA employee, he was a participant in the YMCA Retirement Fund, a pension plan formulated in compliance with the provisions of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In an application to participate in the YMCA Retirement Fund, dated October 12, 1998, Mr. Lunsford designated Tina Lunsford as the primary beneficiary of the pre-retirement death benefit provided by the fund, and she remained the designated primary beneficiary at his death. Named as contingent beneficiaries on the application were his three minor childre


CourtListener opinion 10547867

CourtListener opinion 10547867 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McCausland. Extracted reporter citation: 335 P.3d 984. Docket: 57522-1-II property. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10547867 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 10547867


CourtListener opinion 10547867

QDRO: ourt determined that Walsh was entitled to 100 percent of the GHP Pension and 401k salary deferral plan accumulated prior to January 1, 2005 and after March 14, 2010, appearing to conclude that such property was separate. In 2017, the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) transferring the aforementioned award, which had appreciated to $244,083, to Reynolds. In 2022, the trial court redetermined that the parties had $471,656.68 of community-like property interest in the GHP Pension and the 401k salary deferral plan and awarded Reynolds 50 percent of that interest. Walsh's expert Kessler relied on the 2012 decree o


CourtListener opinion 10547867

pension: distribution order, which determined the present value of the parties' interest in the aforementioned assets based on expert testimony presented by the parties. IV. CHALLENGED DISTRIBUTIONS In 2012, the trial court awarded Reynolds 50 percent of the GHP Pension and the 401k salary deferral plan—$163,064.39—accumulated from January 1, 2005 to March 14, 2010. The trial court determined that Walsh was entitled to 100 percent of the GHP Pension and 401k salary deferral plan accumulated prior to January 1, 2005 and after March 14, 2010, appearing to conclude that such property was separate. In 2017, the trial cou


CourtListener opinion 10547867

401(k): er, which determined the present value of the parties' interest in the aforementioned assets based on expert testimony presented by the parties. IV. CHALLENGED DISTRIBUTIONS In 2012, the trial court awarded Reynolds 50 percent of the GHP Pension and the 401k salary deferral plan—$163,064.39—accumulated from January 1, 2005 to March 14, 2010. The trial court determined that Walsh was entitled to 100 percent of the GHP Pension and 401k salary deferral plan accumulated prior to January 1, 2005 and after March 14, 2010, appearing to conclude that such property was separate. In 2017, the trial court issued a q


CourtListener opinion 10547867

domestic relations order: mined that Walsh was entitled to 100 percent of the GHP Pension and 401k salary deferral plan accumulated prior to January 1, 2005 and after March 14, 2010, appearing to conclude that such property was separate. In 2017, the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) transferring the aforementioned award, which had appreciated to $244,083, to Reynolds. In 2022, the trial court redetermined that the parties had $471,656.68 of community-like property interest in the GHP Pension and the 401k salary deferral plan and awarded Reynolds 50 percent of that interest. Walsh's expert Kessler relied on the 2012 decree o


CourtListener opinion 1054856

CourtListener opinion 1054856 Extracted case name: GLORIA J. BEVILL v. ELLIS M. BEVILL. Extracted reporter citation: 60 S.W.3d 721. Docket: E2004-00190-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1054856 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 1054856


CourtListener opinion 1054856

QDRO: ermitted visits. Husband remitted approximately $900 to cover the additional cost. In February, 2001, Husband retired from Erlanger Medical Center. Subsequently, on November 1, 2001, Wife sought an injunction from the trial court to direct Husband to sign a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that would entitle Wife to one-half of the Erlanger Medical Center retirement fund per the divorce judgment. The trial court entered an appropriate order and Wife subsequently received approximately $140,000, or one-half of the retirement fund, in June, 2002. After his retirement, Husband went to work for Walgreens Pharmacy on a full-time basis. In April or


CourtListener opinion 1054856

retirement benefits: had been disabled for at least 15 years due to severe osteoarthritis. She alleged that it was anticipated her condition would continue to prevent her from obtaining gainful employment. The complaint further states that the parties had, among other assets, a retirement plan in Husband's name that was associated with his employment at Erlanger Medical Center, and various investments, including IDS/American Express security accounts. Husband responded by denying all allegations of wrongdoing set forth in Wife's complaint, save for Wife's allegation of irreconcilable differences. He asked that the parties be declared divorced. Th


CourtListener opinion 1054856

pension: onsidered, the two most important 1 Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(d)(1)(E) sets forth the following as factors for the court's consideration: (i) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party including income from pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other sources; (ii) The relative education and training of each party, the ability and opportunity of each party to secure such education and training, and the necessity of a party to secure further education and training to improve such party's earning capacity to a reasonable level; (iii) The duration of t


CourtListener opinion 1054856

domestic relations order: isits. Husband remitted approximately $900 to cover the additional cost. In February, 2001, Husband retired from Erlanger Medical Center. Subsequently, on November 1, 2001, Wife sought an injunction from the trial court to direct Husband to sign a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that would entitle Wife to one-half of the Erlanger Medical Center retirement fund per the divorce judgment. The trial court entered an appropriate order and Wife subsequently received approximately $140,000, or one-half of the retirement fund, in June, 2002. After his retirement, Husband went to work for Walgreens Pharmacy on a full-time basis. In April or


CourtListener opinion 10555724

CourtListener opinion 10555724 Docket: 589. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10555724 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 10555724


CourtListener opinion 10555724

QDRO: had not included an equal- izing judgment for wife. But the general judgment included an equalizing judgment of $261,905.89.1 After the filing of the notice of appeal, the court entered a limited judgment that included a qualified domes- tic relations order (QDRO), ORS 238.465, directing the divi- sion of husband's PERS account pursuant to the terms of the general judgment. Husband's first assignment of error focuses on the court's award to wife of $261,905.89, as an equalizing judgment: "The trial court erred by dividing the parties' property in a manner that was not ‘just and proper in all the circum- stances'


CourtListener opinion 10555724

retirement benefits: upport and the award to wife of an equalizing judgment. He con- tends, further, that the trial court lacked authority, after the filing of husband's notice of appeal, to enter a supplemen- tal judgment allocating his Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) retirement account. We conclude that the trial court did not err in entering the supplemental judgment implementing an order allocating husband's PERS account. However, we conclude that, because of a lack of explanation by the trial court, it is not possible to for us to review the trial court's equalizing award to wife. We therefore reverse and remand the general judgment fo


CourtListener opinion 10555724

valuation/division: id- eration of equalizing award and otherwise affirmed; supple- mental judgment affirmed. Cite as 334 Or App 500 (2024) 501 EGAN, J. Husband appeals from general and supplemental judgments dissolving the parties' 28-year marriage, assign- ing error to the property division, specifically to the trial court's award to wife of property in lieu of spousal support and the award to wife of an equalizing judgment. He con- tends, further, that the trial court lacked authority, after the filing of husband's notice of appeal, to enter a supplemen- tal judgment allocating his Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) retirement account


CourtListener opinion 1055810

CourtListener opinion 1055810 Extracted case name: STEVEN D. ELLIOTT v. GINGER W. ELLIOTT. Extracted reporter citation: 950 S.W.2d 956. Docket: M2003-00492-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1055810 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 1055810

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 1055810

QDRO: ax consequences for the exercise of their own options.1 The parties later discovered that Home Depot's employee stock option plan would not permit Mr. Elliott to transfer one-half of his stock options to Ms. Ecton. Accordingly, Ms. Ecton's lawyer prepared a qualified domestic relations order or "QDRO" under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-397, 98 Stat. 1426 ("REA"). The REA permits the assignment of pension plan benefits to non-plan participants if done pursuant to a QDRO. The QDRO reiterated the division of the stock options contained in the MDA and specifically provided that Ms. Ecton rather than Mr. Elliott would be liable for


CourtListener opinion 1055810

retirement benefits: es arising from the exercise of her half of the options. The trial court signed and entered the QDRO on January 14, 2002, but both Home Depot and its broker of record, Smith Barney, refused to honor it. Because Mr. Elliott's stock options were not part of a retirement plan, Home Depot and Smith Barney concluded that they could not be transferred under a QDRO. Moreover, under Home Depot's employee stock option plan, Mr. Elliott could not 1 The MDA specifically assigned Mr. Elliott responsibility for the taxes on the options he exercised after the parties' separation but prior to the entry of the MDA. -2- transfer his opt


CourtListener opinion 1055810

pension: t to transfer one-half of his stock options to Ms. Ecton. Accordingly, Ms. Ecton's lawyer prepared a qualified domestic relations order or "QDRO" under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-397, 98 Stat. 1426 ("REA"). The REA permits the assignment of pension plan benefits to non-plan participants if done pursuant to a QDRO. The QDRO reiterated the division of the stock options contained in the MDA and specifically provided that Ms. Ecton rather than Mr. Elliott would be liable for the taxes arising from the exercise of her half of the options. The trial court signed and entered the QDRO on January 14, 2002, b


CourtListener opinion 1055810

domestic relations order: ences for the exercise of their own options.1 The parties later discovered that Home Depot's employee stock option plan would not permit Mr. Elliott to transfer one-half of his stock options to Ms. Ecton. Accordingly, Ms. Ecton's lawyer prepared a qualified domestic relations order or "QDRO" under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-397, 98 Stat. 1426 ("REA"). The REA permits the assignment of pension plan benefits to non-plan participants if done pursuant to a QDRO. The QDRO reiterated the division of the stock options contained in the MDA and specifically provided that Ms. Ecton rather than Mr. Elliott would be liable for


CourtListener opinion 1055968

CourtListener opinion 1055968 Extracted case name: MORGAN SUSANNE FOXX v. STEVEN C. BOLDEN. Extracted reporter citation: 60 S.W.3d 721. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1055968 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 1055968


CourtListener opinion 1055968

QDRO: . In its Final Order, the Trial Court accepted Husband's proposal and awarded both parties one-half of $32,500, or $16,250 each. With regard to the Pension, the Trial Court, again accepting Husband's proposal, stated only that the Pension was not subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), apparently assigning no value to the Pension. With regard to Wife's survivor benefit, the Trial Court accepted Husband's proposed value and concluded this benefit had a present day value to Wife of $43,000. The Trial Court awarded Husband all of the equity in the marital residence totaling $132,000. Wife was awarded her entire thrift account value


CourtListener opinion 1055968

retirement benefits: re married, Husband already had contributed $6,878.17 to the Annuity and its total value was $10,223.82. By May of 1999, Husband had contributed a total of $22,020.96 and the value of the Annuity was $65,400.91. In addition to the Annuity portion of Husband's retirement plan, there is a separate monthly pension benefit ("Pension") which is funded solely by TVA and is based on Husband's years of service and earnings. The monthly benefit received by Husband from the Annuity is $454 and the monthly benefit received from the Pension is $1,179, resulting in a total combined monthly retirement benefit of $1,633.00.1 1 Husband elec


CourtListener opinion 1055968

pension: the Trial Court granted the parties a divorce, divided the marital property, and awarded Husband $25,000 in attorney fees. Wife appeals claiming, among other things, that the Trial Court erred when it failed to classify any of Husband's TVA funded retirement pension as marital property and equitably distribute it. Wife also claims the award of attorney fees to Husband was an abuse of discretion. We agree with Wife regarding the pension and, therefore, vacate the judgment as to the marital property division and remand this case to the Trial Court to determine how much of Husband's TVA funded retirement pension is marita


CourtListener opinion 1055968

domestic relations order: inal Order, the Trial Court accepted Husband's proposal and awarded both parties one-half of $32,500, or $16,250 each. With regard to the Pension, the Trial Court, again accepting Husband's proposal, stated only that the Pension was not subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), apparently assigning no value to the Pension. With regard to Wife's survivor benefit, the Trial Court accepted Husband's proposed value and concluded this benefit had a present day value to Wife of $43,000. The Trial Court awarded Husband all of the equity in the marital residence totaling $132,000. Wife was awarded her entire thrift account value


CourtListener opinion 10564468

CourtListener opinion 10564468 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Smid. Extracted reporter citation: 983 N.W.2d 572. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10564468 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 10564468


CourtListener opinion 10564468

QDRO: 22 hearing. The record on appeal likewise does not contain a transcript of that hearing. There is also no order in the record issued after the July 2022 hearing 7. Wayne characterizes the circuit court's ruling as similar to a transfer between spouses to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). He thus requests that if this Court upholds the "HSA claw back" then "the matter should be remanded to order the transfer of HSA funds to be performed via a QDRO." But the court did not order that Wayne access his HSA funds for the cash equalization payment or transfer HSA funds to Regina. -20- #30321 giving Wayne the authorization he claims


CourtListener opinion 10564468

retirement benefits: l ownership. It further provides that jointly acquired or jointly held property, however or whenever acquired, will be treated as shared property. The Agreement states that upon dissolution of their marriage, neither party would make a claim to the other's retirement account and that Wayne would receive the $189,000 in equity he brought into the marriage and Regina would receive the $5,000 in cash she brought into the marriage. Thereafter, "all remaining property will be valued and divided equally regardless of either parties [sic] salary or contribution to the marriage." [¶5.] The Agreement refers to and includes separate


CourtListener opinion 10564468

401(k): nt unconscionable because, in his view, "Regina had reasonable disclosure of what the assets were" and "adequate knowledge of [his] property." As support, Wayne directs us to certain emails entered into evidence at trial, which he claims establish that his 401k balance was disclosed to Regina during a meeting they had with a financial planner. [¶28.] While Regina mentioned the parties' retirement accounts in a June 7 email to Wayne, this email does not refer to Regina and Wayne meeting with a financial planner, nor does the email show that Regina knew the balance of Wayne's 401k. Rather, the email refers to a


CourtListener opinion 10564468

domestic relations order: . The record on appeal likewise does not contain a transcript of that hearing. There is also no order in the record issued after the July 2022 hearing 7. Wayne characterizes the circuit court's ruling as similar to a transfer between spouses to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). He thus requests that if this Court upholds the "HSA claw back" then "the matter should be remanded to order the transfer of HSA funds to be performed via a QDRO." But the court did not order that Wayne access his HSA funds for the cash equalization payment or transfer HSA funds to Regina. -20- #30321 giving Wayne the authorization he claims


CourtListener opinion 10564958

CourtListener opinion 10564958 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10564958 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 10564958


CourtListener opinion 10564958

QDRO: IONS DIVISION Case No. DR98040692 The Lampe Law Office, LLC, and Stephen Otte, for appellant. Eric D. Bender, for appellee. HENDRICKSON, J. {¶ 1} Kevin Shaw, appellant, appeals the decision of the Butler County Domestic Relations Court setting aside a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that had been in place for over 20 years. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the lower court. I. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} Charles Shaw, plaintiff-appellee, and Sharon Shaw were married on August Butler CA2023-08-091 25, 1973. They had two children together: a son, Kevin, and a daughter. Charles and Sharon divorced i


CourtListener opinion 10564958

pension: 5, 1973. They had two children together: a son, Kevin, and a daughter. Charles and Sharon divorced in 1999. {¶ 3} They reached an agreement regarding the division of their property, which the trial court adopted.1 Regarding Charles's federal civil service pension, the decree provided the following: [Sharon] shall receive one half of [Charles]'s pension with the U.S. Postal Service. A separate qualified domestic relations order shall issue to effectuate this division, and the court reserves jurisdiction to correct any defect in wording. To implement this provision, in October 2000, the parties executed and fil


CourtListener opinion 10564958

domestic relations order: ION Case No. DR98040692 The Lampe Law Office, LLC, and Stephen Otte, for appellant. Eric D. Bender, for appellee. HENDRICKSON, J. {¶ 1} Kevin Shaw, appellant, appeals the decision of the Butler County Domestic Relations Court setting aside a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that had been in place for over 20 years. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the lower court. I. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} Charles Shaw, plaintiff-appellee, and Sharon Shaw were married on August Butler CA2023-08-091 25, 1973. They had two children together: a son, Kevin, and a daughter. Charles and Sharon divorced i


CourtListener opinion 10564994

CourtListener opinion 10564994 Extracted reporter citation: 806 S.W.2d 791. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10564994 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 10564994

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 10564994

QDRO: ain lots 4X and then 2X contrasts with the Phase Nine Plat's forward-looking language that lot 2X is "to be" dedicated to the City. Cf. Araujo v. Araujo, 493 S.W.3d 232, 237 (Tex. App.––San Antonio 2016, no pet.) (holding that divorce decree's language that a QDRO was "to be" entered after decree did not evidence a present intent to render a QDRO in the decree). 18 disputes the meaning the trial court placed on the word maintain. The Declaration does not define the term; thus, we must look to its ordinarily accepted meaning. Black's Law Dictionary defines maintain in three applicable ways: "1. To continue (som


CourtListener opinion 10565020

CourtListener opinion 10565020 Extracted reporter citation: 687 S.W.3d 285. Docket: sheet was not included in the record. See Baker. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10565020 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 10565020

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 10565020

QDRO: as moot. The record reflects that there were four principal documents considered by the trial court in making its October 2021 nunc pro tunc determination: a February 15, 1996 letter to counsel; the April 17, 1996 divorce decree; and two August 16, 1996 Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Both parties refer to the February 15, 1996 letter as the trial court's rendition. 1 Because both parties had the same surname at times relevant to this appeal, we will refer to them by their first names to avoid confusion. 2 During the interim, Gregory attempted to appeal from the trial court's interlocutory order, and we dismissed that appeal for