CourtListener opinion 5126331

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 5126331

QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

retirement benefits: time." ARFLP 72(b)(1)(B). Beyond that, however, "the master may determine any issues under A.R.S. Title 25 that could be presented to the assigned judge." Id. ¶25 The superior court did not err. It ordered the special master to "equitably divide the parties' retirement accounts pursuant to the terms of the Decree and all subsequent, relevant orders." The family court rules contemplate the appointment of special masters, and the court complied with those rules. Indeed, Father stipulated to the special master's appointment to "determine the community interest" in several retirement assets, including the IRA discussed in the next se


CourtListener opinion 5126331

domestic relations order: rom his IRA to Mother as recommended by the special master. As a threshold matter, however, Mother contends we lack jurisdiction to hear that issue because Father's pro per notice of appeal listed only the March 2020 dissolution decree and not the August 2020 Domestic Relations Order ("DRO"), which apportioned this sum. We disagree. 8 KELLY v. KELLY Opinion of the Court ¶27 Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 8(c)(3) requires an appellant to file a notice of appeal "[d]esignat[ing] the judgment or portion of the judgment from which the party is appealing." Arizona courts disfavor technical challenges to a notice of appeal, an


CourtListener opinion 5126331

valuation/division: prejudiced an opposing party." See Hill v. City of Phoenix, 193 Ariz. 570, 572-73, ¶ 10 (1999). ¶28 We have jurisdiction here. First, the dissolution decree and DRO were components of the same judgment or determination—to discern and divide the separate and community property. See Desert Palm Surgical Grp., P.L.C. v. Petta, 236 Ariz. 568, 577, ¶ 19 (App. 2015) (concluding notice of appeal conferred jurisdiction when the non-specified orders "were all part of the same determination on the same claims"). The dissolution decree (1) ordered "the parties shall arrange to have any necessary [DRO] prepared by" the special master, (2) e


CourtListener opinion 5128056

CourtListener opinion 5128056 Extracted reporter citation: 217 A.3d 289. Docket: 477 M.D. 2020 : Bedford Pa. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5128056 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 5128056


CourtListener opinion 5128056

QDRO: y objections filed by the Corrections Respondents and dismiss Rodeheaver's Amended Petition. I. BACKGROUND In his Amended Petition, Rodeheaver avers that DOC illegally seized $2,500.28 that was paid to Rodeheaver from a retirement annuity plan pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)1 as a result of his mother's death.2, 3 (Amended Petition ¶¶ 1-2, 6.) According to Rodeheaver, he first filed a grievance with DOC regarding these funds, which DOC denied, citing DOC's internal policy, DC-ADM 005.4 (Amended Petition ¶ 3.) He avers that the funds, which he characterizes as retirement funds, were exempt from attachment or execution on


CourtListener opinion 5128056

retirement benefits: an order entered by a court in a criminal proceeding" or similar language to that effect. Accordingly, in consideration of this clear statutory language, we cannot agree that Act 84 imparts unfettered authority upon DOC to seize funds from a judgment debtor's retirement account or annuity plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in consideration of Corrections Respondents' second argument regarding the character of the funds, we agree with DOC that the funds in question are not protected by Section 8124 of the Judicial Code. 6 Section 8124(b)(1)(vii) specifically provides that only the pension or annuity plan granted or paid to a


CourtListener opinion 5128056

pension: r a plan." Jago v. Jago, 217 A.3d 289, 293 (Pa. Super. 2019) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 846 (1997)); see also Section 1056(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d) (relating to assignment of pension plan benefits). "The QDRO provisions address the rights of divorced and separated spouses, and their dependent children, which are the traditional concern of domestic relations law." Jago, 217 A.3d at 294 (quoting Boggs, 520 U.S. at 849). 2 Rodeheaver avers that the Family Court of Mineral County, West Virginia, issued the QDRO on October 16, 2017, and it


CourtListener opinion 5128056

ERISA: the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan." Jago v. Jago, 217 A.3d 289, 293 (Pa. Super. 2019) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 846 (1997)); see also Section 1056(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d) (relating to assignment of pension plan benefits). "The QDRO provisions address the rights of divorced and separated spouses, and their dependent children, which are the traditional concern of domestic relations law." Jago, 217 A.3d at 294 (quoting Boggs, 520 U.S. at 849). 2 Rodeheaver avers that the Family Court of Mineral County, W


CourtListener opinion 5128799

CourtListener opinion 5128799 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 615 MDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5128799 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 5128799

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 5128799

domestic relations order: ikhail G. Kurmanov. We affirm. The trial court opinion provides the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows: The instant appeal arises from an order generated during a December 14, 2020 contempt hearing for violation of a child support/domestic relations order. At that hearing, Appellee was ordered to pay $150.00 per month, every month, until the purge amount was paid in full. Appellant filed a Motion of Contempt on February 12, 2021, and subsequently filed an Amended Motion of Contempt on March 20, 2021. An Order dated April 1, 2021 directed that the Motion of Contempt be listed by the Domestic Relations Office


CourtListener opinion 5129655

CourtListener opinion 5129655 Extracted reporter citation: 454 P.3d 1092. Docket: 48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5129655 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 5129655


CourtListener opinion 5129655

QDRO: arding Terry's retirement accounts, the Decree read: Terr[y] shall provide an accounting of his Fidelity/BP account for the period of January 2015 to the present, to Xiomara or her counsel of record within 30 days of the signing of this Judgement [sic]. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or similar order which will divide the parties' community interest shall be submitted to the Court within 60 days after the signing of this Judgement [sic]. The QDRO shall equally divide the portion of the account which was acquired from the date of the marriage until the date of the signing of this Judgement [sic]. The Decree also stated that Te


CourtListener opinion 5129655

retirement benefits: erry") and Xiomara Robirds. Terry appeals from the district court's decision on intermediate appeal, which affirmed the decision of the magistrate court to (1) set aside a stipulated judgment regarding property distribution and (2) characterize all of Terry's retirement accounts as community property, to be divided equally as of the date of divorce. On appeal, Terry argues that the district court erred in affirming the magistrate court's rulings and in failing to award Terry attorney fees on intermediate appeal. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the decision of the district court. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A.


CourtListener opinion 5129655

401(k): e parties' property and ascertaining the composition of the marital estate, especially as it concerned the ConocoPhillips and Halliburton accounts. Terry asserts that because he testified that the ConocoPhillips and Halliburton accounts are employer sponsored 401(k) accounts funded by contributions of his earnings from employment, which ended prior to the marriage, the accounts, including any passive income generated by those accounts, are necessarily his separate property with no further proof required. We disagree. Notwithstanding Terry and Xiomara's divergent legal positions, the law for making such determinations


CourtListener opinion 5129655

domestic relations order: ry's retirement accounts, the Decree read: Terr[y] shall provide an accounting of his Fidelity/BP account for the period of January 2015 to the present, to Xiomara or her counsel of record within 30 days of the signing of this Judgement [sic]. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or similar order which will divide the parties' community interest shall be submitted to the Court within 60 days after the signing of this Judgement [sic]. The QDRO shall equally divide the portion of the account which was acquired from the date of the marriage until the date of the signing of this Judgement [sic]. The Decree also stated that Te


CourtListener opinion 5129937

CourtListener opinion 5129937 Extracted case name: DEBORAH P. LINN v. MARK A. LINN. Extracted reporter citation: 350 S.W.3d 99. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5129937 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 5129937

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 5129937

QDRO: that Husband had the ability to comply with the divorce decree and had sufficient assets from which to pay as ordered, but willfully failed to comply. She asked the court to find Husband in civil contempt and sought reimbursement for fees associated with the qualified domestic relations order that was prepared to divide Husband's 401k plan,4 premium payments on his life insurance plan, and alimony Husband stipulated that he owed $61,575.00 in alimony arrearages, but this appears to be a typographical error. 2 Section 36-5-121(f)(2)(B) states: In all cases where a person is receiving alimony in futuro and the alimony recipient lives with a


CourtListener opinion 5129937

retirement benefits: .00 when the parties divorced, until July 2015, when it increased to $258,000.00. Beginning in approximately 2018, his income decreased to around $70,000.00 annually. He also received two government loans in 2020. Husband owns no real property, but has a 401k retirement account, which, as of November 2020, was valued at approximately $477,121.00, but could not be accessed without penalty until June 14, 2021. Husband's assets include an unencumbered thirty-foot boat; a few thousand dollars in his checking and savings accounts; and a Hyundai, which is financed as a leased vehicle. His monthly personal expenses are approximately $6,0


CourtListener opinion 5129937

401(k): ufficient assets from which to pay as ordered, but willfully failed to comply. She asked the court to find Husband in civil contempt and sought reimbursement for fees associated with the qualified domestic relations order that was prepared to divide Husband's 401k plan,4 premium payments on his life insurance plan, and alimony Husband stipulated that he owed $61,575.00 in alimony arrearages, but this appears to be a typographical error. 2 Section 36-5-121(f)(2)(B) states: In all cases where a person is receiving alimony in futuro and the alimony recipient lives with a third person, a rebuttable presumption is r


CourtListener opinion 5129937

domestic relations order: and had the ability to comply with the divorce decree and had sufficient assets from which to pay as ordered, but willfully failed to comply. She asked the court to find Husband in civil contempt and sought reimbursement for fees associated with the qualified domestic relations order that was prepared to divide Husband's 401k plan,4 premium payments on his life insurance plan, and alimony Husband stipulated that he owed $61,575.00 in alimony arrearages, but this appears to be a typographical error. 2 Section 36-5-121(f)(2)(B) states: In all cases where a person is receiving alimony in futuro and the alimony recipient lives with a


CourtListener opinion 5132400

CourtListener opinion 5132400 Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5132400 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 5132400


CourtListener opinion 5132400

QDRO: the "timing or amount of payments . . . exceed the authority granted under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4)." Turner, 47 Va. App. at 80 (quoting Hastie v. -5- Hastie, 29 Va. App. 776, 781 (1999)); see Fahey v. Fahey, 24 Va. App. 254, 257 (1997) (reversing an amended qualified domestic relations order that divided a retirement account based on its present increased value, rather than using an earlier valuation date expressed in the equitable distribution order, because the court lacked "authority to substantively modify its order simply to redress [the] changed circumstance" of the account's increased value). Here, the 2004 equitable distribution or


CourtListener opinion 5132400

retirement benefits: nson and Greene, on briefs), for appellant. Joseph E. Blackburn, Jr. (Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Michael R. Crawley, Sr. ("husband") contests the circuit court's jurisdiction to recalculate the marital share of retirement benefits owed to his former wife, Patricia Paige Crawley ("wife"). For the following reasons, we hold that the court properly exercised its jurisdiction under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) and affirm. BACKGROUND Husband and wife married in 1987 and divorced in April 1999. While married, both parties were employed and accrued retirement benefits. Wife had a milita


CourtListener opinion 5132400

pension: he court properly exercised its jurisdiction under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) and affirm. BACKGROUND Husband and wife married in 1987 and divorced in April 1999. While married, both parties were employed and accrued retirement benefits. Wife had a military pension, and husband had a pension with the Richmond Retirement System ("RRS") through his employment with the city's fire department. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. The 1999 divorce decree reserved the issue of equitable distribution. In January 2004, the court entered an agreed order for equitable distribut


CourtListener opinion 5132400

domestic relations order: g or amount of payments . . . exceed the authority granted under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4)." Turner, 47 Va. App. at 80 (quoting Hastie v. -5- Hastie, 29 Va. App. 776, 781 (1999)); see Fahey v. Fahey, 24 Va. App. 254, 257 (1997) (reversing an amended qualified domestic relations order that divided a retirement account based on its present increased value, rather than using an earlier valuation date expressed in the equitable distribution order, because the court lacked "authority to substantively modify its order simply to redress [the] changed circumstance" of the account's increased value). Here, the 2004 equitable distribution or


CourtListener opinion 5133423

CourtListener opinion 5133423 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5133423 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 5133423


CourtListener opinion 5133423

QDRO: r payment because Richard had been terminated from his position as a marshal and earned no other income. The court also deferred resolving the vacation and sick pay issue. Also in June 2015, the district court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Richard's PERS benefits and a QDRO dividing Eleni's PERS benefits. The QDRO dividing Richard's PERS benefits recognized Richard as the participant in PERS and Eleni as the alternate payee. It \assign[ed] to Eleni[ the right to receive a portion of


CourtListener opinion 5133423

retirement benefits: GORE, No. 73977 Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. FILE ELENI KILGORE, Respondent/Cross-Appellant. OCT 0 3 2019 BY ct Appeal and cross-appeal from orders resolving a motion to allocate omitted assets and modifying a divorce decree as it relates to PERS retirement benefits. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Cheryl B. Moss, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Betsy Allen and Betsy Allen, Las Vegas, for Appellant/Cross-Respondent. Page Law Office and Fred Page, Las Vegas, for Respondent/Cross-Appellant. BEFORE PICKERING, PARRAGUIRRE and CADISH, JJ. OPINION By the Court, PARRAGUIRRE,


CourtListener opinion 5133423

pension: Eleni Kilgore's divorce. Specifically, we consider whether the district court abused its discretion or otherwise erred when it concluded that Eleni was entitled to her community SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ICI -41-0 1 property share of Richard's pension benefits even though Richard had not yet retired, reduced this amount to judgment, and ordered Richard to pay Eleni a monthly amount it deemed fair. We also consider whether the district court erred when it concluded that Richard's vacation and sick pay were omitted from the divorce decree and thereafter divided them equally between Richard and Eleni.


CourtListener opinion 5133423

alternate payee: 15, the district court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Richard's PERS benefits and a QDRO dividing Eleni's PERS benefits. The QDRO dividing Richard's PERS benefits recognized Richard as the participant in PERS and Eleni as the alternate payee. It \assign[ed] to Eleni[ the right to receive a portion of


CourtListener opinion 5133718

CourtListener opinion 5133718 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5133718 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 5133718

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 5133718

domestic relations order: urcios to the low term of two years for corporal injury to a child and a consecutive term of one year for the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon. The court also imposed concurrent terms of 364 days in jail each for the battery of Doe 1 and the violation of a domestic relations order and stayed terms for the remaining convictions under section 654. Thus, the total unstayed term was three years in prison. II. DISCUSSION As we have said, Turcios's only contention on appeal is that the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury, a claim we review de novo. (People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 568.) Turcios mainta


CourtListener opinion 5137000

CourtListener opinion 5137000 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Mansell. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: for six months. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5137000 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 5137000

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 5137000

QDRO: ocket for six months "for entry of the appropriate Approved Domestic Relations Orders for the purpose of the division of retirement benefits, and any amendments thereto that may be necessary to effectuate the parties' agreement." The pension division order, a qualified domestic relations order, was, in fact, entered the same day as the final decree. Husband suggests that the orders remained interlocutory because the circuit court reserved the right to extend support after ten years, but this does not render the orders non-final. -6- "bi-weekly," rather than "per month." Dorn, 222 Va. at 290-91. The Supreme Court found the record supported an "


CourtListener opinion 5137000

retirement benefits: ity to trial courts to have continuing authority and jurisdiction in divorce matters for the limited purpose of making additional orders "necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to this section," including orders to affect or divide any retirement plans. Code § 20-109(B) grants trial courts authority to modify awards of spousal support upon a material change in circumstances. -5- Rule 1:1" in order to retain jurisdiction. Ruffin, 263 Va. at 563.4 By the time husband filed a motion for modification, over a year after the final decree and pension order were entered, the circuit court had lost jurisdicti


CourtListener opinion 5137000

pension: Kyle J. Burcham (Heather Larson Pedersen; Pedersen Law, PLLC, on brief), for appellee. Michael Yourko ("husband") appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his motion for modification of a final decree and equitable distribution order, and a military pension division order. Husband assigns error to the circuit court's refusal to modify these orders. The parties to this divorce negotiated an agreement regarding the division of husband's military retirement pay. A year later husband challenged the orders complaining that aspects of the agreement to divide his military retirement pay were violative of fede


CourtListener opinion 5137000

domestic relations order: es agreed to a monthly support level, but in drafting the agreement mistakenly wrote that the payments would be made 4 Here, the final decree did allow for the case to be retained on the court's docket for six months "for entry of the appropriate Approved Domestic Relations Orders for the purpose of the division of retirement benefits, and any amendments thereto that may be necessary to effectuate the parties' agreement." The pension division order, a qualified domestic relations order, was, in fact, entered the same day as the final decree. Husband suggests that the orders remained interlocutory because the circuit court reserved t


CourtListener opinion 5137352

CourtListener opinion 5137352 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hunt. Extracted reporter citation: 745 P.2d 830. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5137352 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 5137352


CourtListener opinion 5137352

QDRO: d for various ailments that arose after the divorce. Johnson's final retirement benefit was reduced by amounts Johnson received under that award. ¶5 Zoric next attempted to secure her portion of Johnson's military retirement in October 2008, when she filed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).2 In keeping with the 1984 divorce decree, the trial court awarded Zoric a share of Johnson's 1. Contrary to the implication of Johnson's brief, the divorce court expressly found that "neither party has superior possession by way of morality over the other." 2. The Retirement Equity Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98‐397, 98 Stat. 1426 (1986) (codified as


CourtListener opinion 5137352

retirement benefits: rable David M. Connors Attorneys: Raymond B. Rounds, Ogden, for Appellant Bryce M. Froerer, Ogden, for Appellee ‐‐‐‐‐ Before Judges Voros, Davis, and Christiansen. VOROS, Associate Presiding Judge: ¶1 This appeal involves the allocation of the military retirement benefit of an employee spouse pursuant to a 1984 divorce decree. Mark Lawrence Johnson, a retiree from the United States Air Force, seeks review of the amount of his military retirement the trial court awarded to his ex‐wife, Elizabeth Ann Zoric. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND ¶2 Johnson and Zoric were married f


CourtListener opinion 5137352

pension: veyed those statements to Johnson and, as a result, he "made substantial changes in his life financially." ¶4 In 1999, Johnson retired and began receiving military retirement benefits. At that time he was a Master Sergeant at a pay grade of E‐7. His military pension was thus calculated based on a pay grade of E‐7. In September 2000, Johnson received a veteran's disability award for various ailments that arose after the divorce. Johnson's final retirement benefit was reduced by amounts Johnson received under that award. ¶5 Zoric next attempted to secure her portion of Johnson's military retirement in October 2008, when


CourtListener opinion 5137352

alternate payee: 1987). A QDRO instructs "the trustee of a retirement plan and specifies how distributions should be made, to whom, and when. Although a QDRO cannot order the payment of a benefit which is not allowed under a particular plan, it can order partial payment to an alternate payee (an ex‐spouse, for example)." Id. 20100705‐CA 2 actual monthly military retirement benefit. The court calculated her share based on Johnson's actual retirement benefit, which was based on Johnson's salary at the time of retirement, less the disability reduction. The trial court also calculated Zoric's share based on Johnson's gross monthly retirement bene


CourtListener opinion 5138161

CourtListener opinion 5138161 Extracted reporter citation: 270 P.3d 556. Docket: 20140179-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5138161 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 5138161


CourtListener opinion 5138161

QDRO: ays of [Husband] receiving any retirement distribution. [Husband] shall not pay [Wife] directly once the plan administrator implements the division of the USPHS Pension. A. Wife's Pensions ¶6 Following the entry of the divorce decree, Husband proposed a qualified domestic relations order that would require the plan administrator to pay Husband one half of each of Wife's gross pension payments. Wife objected, contending that the decree defined the amount to be paid to Husband as "gross retirement pay less authorized deductions," such as taxes and disability, and that only her net payments should be subject to division. Husband responded that


CourtListener opinion 5138161

retirement benefits: es eligible to receive a pension. ¶4 With respect to Husband's pension through USPHS, the stipulated decree provided, All of [Husband's] years of employment with USPHS accrued during the marriage, and [Husband] is currently receiving the payments of the retirement benefits from the USPHS Pension. The "disposable retired pay" amount of the USPHS pension benefit shall be divided equally pursuant 20140179-CA 2 2016 UT App 146 Thayer v. Thayer to Johnson v. Johnson, 2012 UT App 22[,] and 10 U.S.C.A. § 104(a)(4)(C).[ 2] "Disposable retired pay" is defined as gross retirement pay less authorized deductions, including amou


CourtListener opinion 5138161

pension: . Admin. 11-201(6). Thayer v. Thayer BACKGROUND ¶2 Husband and Wife married in April 1978. The parties' stipulated decree of divorce was entered in September 2013. During the marriage, both parties earned retirement pay through their employers. Wife has a pension plan through her employment as a teacher in Alaska and should become eligible in the future to receive a pension from her employment as a teacher in Utah. Husband has a pension plan through his employment with the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (USPHS). I. The Divorce Decree ¶3 At the time of the divorce, Wife was "not yet receivi


CourtListener opinion 5138161

domestic relations order: usband] receiving any retirement distribution. [Husband] shall not pay [Wife] directly once the plan administrator implements the division of the USPHS Pension. A. Wife's Pensions ¶6 Following the entry of the divorce decree, Husband proposed a qualified domestic relations order that would require the plan administrator to pay Husband one half of each of Wife's gross pension payments. Wife objected, contending that the decree defined the amount to be paid to Husband as "gross retirement pay less authorized deductions," such as taxes and disability, and that only her net payments should be subject to division. Husband responded that


CourtListener opinion 5138195

CourtListener opinion 5138195 Extracted reporter citation: 656 P.2d 431. Docket: 20140196-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5138195 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 5138195


CourtListener opinion 5138195

QDRO: inal decree of divorce, later signed on October 18, 2013. Following the court's order, contentions between Husband and Wife over issues unrelated to this appeal continued for months. ¶5 On January 28, 2014, Husband's counsel sent Wife's counsel a copy of the qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO3), which he proposed to file with the district court to implement division of the retirement account. In an email accompanying the document, Husband's counsel explained that ‚the retirement will be divided according to the Woodward formula‛ and, for the first time, he provided a mathematical calculation showing ‚how *he+ arrived at the amount set


CourtListener opinion 5138195

retirement benefits: strict court in a divorce proceeding. Troy M. Granger (Husband) cross-appeals, challenging the court's denial of his request for attorney fees. We reverse and remand to the district court for further fact finding regarding the distribution of Husband's 401(k) retirement account and for entry of 1. This Amended Opinion replaces the Opinion issued April 7, 2016, Granger v. Granger, 2016 UT App 67. In response to a petition for rehearing filed by Cindy D. Granger, paragraph 27 was added with the subsequent paragraph re-numbered as paragraph 28. Granger v. Granger appropriate findings to support its decision on the issue of attorne


CourtListener opinion 5138195

pension: , 872 P.2d 1057, 1058 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (‚Generally, we do not consider mooted questions on appeal. Whether to consider a mooted controversy is a matter of judicial policy and not law.‛ (citation omitted)). ANALYSIS ¶12 Generally, there are two types of pension plans: a defined benefit pension plan and a defined contribution retirement plan. The retirement account at issue is not a defined benefit plan like the pension at issue in Woodward. Instead it is a defined contribution plan, specifically a 401(k) retirement account that Husband had paid into before and during the marriage. In Oliekan v. Oliekan, 2006 UT Ap


CourtListener opinion 5138195

401(k): the district court in a divorce proceeding. Troy M. Granger (Husband) cross-appeals, challenging the court's denial of his request for attorney fees. We reverse and remand to the district court for further fact finding regarding the distribution of Husband's 401(k) retirement account and for entry of 1. This Amended Opinion replaces the Opinion issued April 7, 2016, Granger v. Granger, 2016 UT App 67. In response to a petition for rehearing filed by Cindy D. Granger, paragraph 27 was added with the subsequent paragraph re-numbered as paragraph 28. Granger v. Granger appropriate findings to support its decision on t


CourtListener opinion 5138637

CourtListener opinion 5138637 Extracted case name: A.S. v. R.S. Extracted reporter citation: 392 P.3d 985. Docket: 20170606-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5138637 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 5138637

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 5138637

QDRO: ur practice in cases where [multiple] parties share a last name, we refer to the parties by their first name[s] with no disrespect intended by the apparent informality." Smith v. Smith, 2017 UT App 40, ¶ 2 n.1, 392 P.3d 985. Potts v. Potts relations orders (QDRO) 2 to effectuate the property distribution of the retirement accounts. Kathleen filed the QDRO related to her retirement account in 1995, but Duane waited until 2000 to file his corresponding QDRO. As it turned out, just before Duane filed, the Utah Retirement Systems' rules regarding retirement benefits changed, providing Duane with the advantage of new di


CourtListener opinion 5138637

retirement benefits: EN, Judge: ¶1 This case involves not the benefit of the doubt, but some doubt as to the benefit. After separating in 1992, the court entered a decree of divorce based in part on Duane 1 and Kathleen's stipulation. The decree awarded a portion of each party's retirement benefits to the other party. The decree directed the parties to cooperate in obtaining qualified domestic 1. "As is our practice in cases where [multiple] parties share a last name, we refer to the parties by their first name[s] with no disrespect intended by the apparent informality." Smith v. Smith, 2017 UT App 40, ¶ 2 n.1, 392 P.3d 985. Potts v. Potts relatio


CourtListener opinion 5138637

pension: te of Utah. Pursuant to the decree of divorce, each party was awarded a Woodward share of the other's retirement benefits: 50% of the retirement benefits that accrued during their marriage. See Woodward v. Woodward, 656 P.2d 431, 433 (Utah 1982) (holding that pension benefits accrued during the marriage are marital property subject to equitable distribution). The decree directed the parties to cooperate in obtaining QDROs to effectuate the property distribution of the retirement accounts. ¶3 In March 1995, Kathleen filed her proposed qualified domestic relations order (1995 QDRO) for the court's signature and then subm


CourtListener opinion 5138637

domestic relations order: the marriage are marital property subject to equitable distribution). The decree directed the parties to cooperate in obtaining QDROs to effectuate the property distribution of the retirement accounts. ¶3 In March 1995, Kathleen filed her proposed qualified domestic relations order (1995 QDRO) for the court's signature and then submitted the signed order to Utah Retirement Systems (URS). The 1995 QDRO ordered URS to divide Kathleen's share of Duane's retirement based upon the rules in existence at that 2. A qualified domestic relations order instructs "the trustee of a retirement plan and specifies how distributions should be made, t


CourtListener opinion 5138864

CourtListener opinion 5138864 Extracted reporter citation: 294 P.3d 600. Docket: 20170956-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5138864 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 5138864


CourtListener opinion 5138864

QDRO: "appropriate Qualified Domestic 20170956-CA 24 2019 UT App 147 McQuarrie v. McQuarrie Relations Order[6] securing [Janette's] interest in said retirement plan," but Melvin was "ordered to try and have the account divided equally without the necessity of a QDRO." In its recommendation, the court commissioner found that "the payment of half of [Melvin's] 401(k) account ha[d] been satisfied . . . by [his] payment to [Janette] in the amount of $8,885.52." The district court approved the commissioner's determination. ¶56 Janette challenges the court's decision. She starts by claiming Melvin's "401(k) had a balance of


CourtListener opinion 5138864

retirement benefits: will be at an end." The Decree states that "[Melvin's] payment of the first deed of trust, the real property taxes, and the homeowner's insurance constitutes a part of the property settlement." Janette also received an award of "one-half of [Melvin's] 401(k) retirement benefits accrued during the parties' marriage." ¶6 As "part of the property settlement agreed upon by the parties," the Decree ordered Melvin to permanently "employ [Janette] with one of his companies" and, as a benefit of that employment, the company was required to "pay for [Janette's] health insurance premiums for as long as [she] require[d] medical insurance."


CourtListener opinion 5138864

401(k): e items will be at an end." The Decree states that "[Melvin's] payment of the first deed of trust, the real property taxes, and the homeowner's insurance constitutes a part of the property settlement." Janette also received an award of "one-half of [Melvin's] 401(k) retirement benefits accrued during the parties' marriage." ¶6 As "part of the property settlement agreed upon by the parties," the Decree ordered Melvin to permanently "employ [Janette] with one of his companies" and, as a benefit of that employment, the company was required to "pay for [Janette's] health insurance premiums for as long as [she] require[d]


CourtListener opinion 5138864

domestic relations order: was entered. Her brief cites an account summary for the period of October 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008, that lists a "total value" of $37,612.62 on October 1, 2008, and a "total value" of $28,904.27 on December 31, 2008. But because the 6. "A qualified domestic relations order [(QDRO)] instructs the trustee of a retirement plan and specifies how distributions should be made, to whom, and when." Potts v. Potts, 2018 UT App 169, ¶ 1 n.2, 436 P.3d 263 (quotation simplified). 20170956-CA 25 2019 UT App 147 McQuarrie v. McQuarrie Decree was not entered until November 28, 2008, the account summary does not reveal the account's balan


CourtListener opinion 5138903

CourtListener opinion 5138903 Extracted case name: LLC v. BBRD. Extracted reporter citation: 907 P.2d 264. Docket: 20170541-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5138903 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 5138903


CourtListener opinion 5138903

QDRO: o disrespect by the apparent informality. 20170541-CA 2 2019 UT App 106 Janson v. Janson 15. [Jeffrey's] Alliant Technical Systems Pension plan which will be divided pursuant to the Woodward formula. 16. The parties will share equally the cost of any qualified domestic relation order. ¶5 On January 12, 2017, Deidre moved to set aside the Stipulation on the ground that there was not a meeting of the minds regarding various provisions in the agreement. She asserted that she "did not receive [Jeffrey's] financial disclosures until the morning of mediation and was not able to consult with her attorney prior to mediation." She asserted that


CourtListener opinion 5138903

retirement benefits: pay Jeffrey $13,178 from her share of the parties' bank accounts to equalize the vehicle equity disparity. ¶4 The parties had a number of retirement funds and accounts. Regarding the retirement, the parties agreed as follows: 12. [Deidre] has the following retirement accounts: Utah Retirement in the amount of approximately $72,440; General Electric in the approximate amount of $100,435; Roth IRA in the approximate amount of $18,252; FDIC in the approximate amount of $16,719 and $17,431; and Utah Pension in the amount of $15,281. 13. [Jeffrey] has the following retirement accounts: Fidelity in the approximate amount of


CourtListener opinion 5138903

pension: following retirement accounts: Utah Retirement in the amount of approximately $72,440; General Electric in the approximate amount of $100,435; Roth IRA in the approximate amount of $18,252; FDIC in the approximate amount of $16,719 and $17,431; and Utah Pension in the amount of $15,281. 13. [Jeffrey] has the following retirement accounts: Fidelity in the approximate amount of $22,012; Bernstein in the approximate amount of $18,305. 14. The above retirement accounts will be divided equally between the parties. In addition [Deidre] has a premarital IRA in the approximate amount of $17,682 which is her sepa


CourtListener opinion 5138903

401(k): ement funds that can be "presently valued" should be equally divided. 20170541-CA 7 2019 UT App 106 Janson v. Janson ¶15 As a general matter, equitable division of a defined benefit plan is accomplished by the Woodward formula 4 and equitable division of a defined contribution plan is accomplished by dividing the value contributed during the marriage. Granger v. Granger, 2016 UT App 117, ¶ 23, 374 P.3d 1043. While Deidre's pension fund had a "partial lump sum" payout option—which was listed as the "approximate value" 5 in the Stipulation—it also had a monthly payment option. Because pension funds are presumptively divided accordi


CourtListener opinion 5138908

CourtListener opinion 5138908 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 20170916-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5138908 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 5138908

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 5138908

domestic relations order: filing of a petition to modify before allowing changes to divorce decrees. First, rule 106(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure states generally that, "[e]xcept as provided in Utah Code Section 30-3-37, proceedings to modify a divorce decree or other final domestic relations order shall be commenced by filing a petition to modify." Second, Utah Code section 30-3-10.4(1) states specifically that, "[o]n the petition of 20170916-CA 5 2019 UT App 104 Ross v. Ross one or both of the parents, . . . the court may, after a hearing, modify or terminate an order that established joint legal or physical custody" if certain conditions are met


CourtListener opinion 5139167

CourtListener opinion 5139167 Extracted reporter citation: 392 P.3d 985. Docket: 20180732-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5139167 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 5139167

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 5139167

QDRO: is Opinion, in which JUDGE GREGORY K. ORME concurred. JUDGE JILL M. POHLMAN dissented, with opinion. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge: ¶1 Kevin Scott Peck appeals the district court's denial of several motions aimed at correcting an alleged clerical error in a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered by the court. We affirm the district court's determination that the QDRO reflected the parties' intent but reverse the court's dismissal of Kevin's 1 rule 60(b) motion on timeliness grounds and remand for further proceedings. 1. "As is our practice in cases where both parties share a last name, we refer to the parties by their first name wit


CourtListener opinion 5139167

retirement benefits: , 427 P.3d 1165 (defining a QDRO as "the document that would permit [an alternate payee] to access [the plan participant's] retirement funds"); Bailey v. Bailey, 745 P.2d 830, 832 (Utah 1987) (explaining that a QDRO "furnishes instructions to the trustee of a retirement plan and specifies how distributions should be made"); Potts v. Potts, 2018 UT App 169, ¶ 1 n.2, 436 P.3d 263 ("A [QDRO] instructs the trustee of a retirement plan and specifies how distributions should be made, to whom, and when." (quotation simplified)); see also Johnson v. Johnson, 2014 UT 21, ¶ 17 n.28, 330 P.3d 704 (rejecting the assertion that a QDRO must


CourtListener opinion 5139167

pension: e, we refer to the parties by their first name with no (continued…) Peck v. Peck BACKGROUND ¶2 Kevin married Reggie Ann Peck on June 15, 2001, and the parties divorced on July 15, 2003. Their decree of divorce awarded Kevin all interest in his retirement pension. ¶3 After a short separation, the parties began cohabiting and then remarried on October 22, 2004. The parties divorced a second time on November 19, 2010. The parties' second decree of divorce, which was based on the parties' stipulation, referenced the prior marriage, stating that the parties "had previously been married to each other on June 15, 2001, t


CourtListener opinion 5139167

alternate payee: ill be divided according to the formula set forth in the case of Woodward v. Woodward." It also provided that the division would be accomplished by the entry of a QDRO. ¶4 In early 2016, Reggie submitted a QDRO for approval, which stated, "The Member and the Alternate Payee were married on June 15, 2001. The Member and the Alternate Payee were divorced on November 19, 2010." The QDRO further stated that "[t]he Alternate Payee is awarded 50% of the Member's benefits accrued during the marriage." Kevin did not object to the QDRO, and the court signed it on May 12, 2016. 2 (…continued) disrespect intended by the apparent informa


CourtListener opinion 5139293

CourtListener opinion 5139293 Extracted case name: E.M.R. v. C.A.F. Extracted reporter citation: 789 A.2d 254. Docket: 473 MDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5139293 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 5139293


CourtListener opinion 5139293

QDRO: $750.00 for legal fees. 3. Deed for the marital property to be executed by [Husband]. 4. The two (2) remaining vehicles on the marital residence to be removed at the cost of [Husband], with [Wife] assuring that access to all vehicles is free and clear. 5. QDRO to be executed by the parties as outlined by the Master's report from October of 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event that [Husband] complies with the above items, the contempt disposition hearing in the above-captioned matter shall be dismissed. J-A28031-21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in the event that the above items have not been complied with, cou


CourtListener opinion 5139447

CourtListener opinion 5139447 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of NARAYANAN KARUPPIAH and ROSALIN THURAIRAJAH. Extracted reporter citation: 216 Cal.App.2d 260. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5139447 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 5139447


CourtListener opinion 5139447

QDRO: e financial burden upon her when it ordered sanctions as required by section 271. Not so. The court clarified with Husband's counsel that the prior court order was to pay any sanction award from the distribution of community property funds pursuant 17 to a qualified domestic relations order and those funds had not yet been distributed. The court determined community property funds were available from which the sanction award to Husband could be satisfied. Based on the record before us, we conclude the trial court acted well within its discretion. III We Do Not Consider Issues Raised For the First Time in Reply In her reply brief, Wife app


CourtListener opinion 5139447

retirement benefits: Code unless otherwise stated. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3 A "Husband and Wife married in a civil ceremony in January 2004. Wife entered the marriage without assets; Husband entered owning a house (that became the family home) and investment and retirement accounts." (Karuppiah I, supra, D070286.) The couple had a child in 2006. However, the marriage fell apart over a three-year period when Husband and Wife did not live as a married couple even though they resided in the same house. "Husband filed a petition for dissolution in San Diego Superior Court in February 2011." (Ibid.) Between June 2014 and February 2016 Hu


CourtListener opinion 5139447

domestic relations order: l burden upon her when it ordered sanctions as required by section 271. Not so. The court clarified with Husband's counsel that the prior court order was to pay any sanction award from the distribution of community property funds pursuant 17 to a qualified domestic relations order and those funds had not yet been distributed. The court determined community property funds were available from which the sanction award to Husband could be satisfied. Based on the record before us, we conclude the trial court acted well within its discretion. III We Do Not Consider Issues Raised For the First Time in Reply In her reply brief, Wife app


CourtListener opinion 5139447

valuation/division: al and "[i]n March 2016 the court entered a judgment dissolving Husband and Wife's marriage. As part of the judgment, the court confirmed a home and several investment and retirement accounts as Husband's sole and separate premarital property, subject to some community property reimbursements to Wife. The court also found other investment and retirement accounts were Husband's premarital assets; however, because the parties disagreed about whether there were any community property contributions to these accounts, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer on the matter. The judgment included a provision ordering each party,


CourtListener opinion 5140215

CourtListener opinion 5140215 Extracted reporter citation: 169 A.3d 632. Docket: 595 WDA 2021 Appellant :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5140215 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 5140215


CourtListener opinion 5140215

QDRO: 2002." The 2005 Letter Agreement, which "amends and restates" the 2002 Letter Agreement, contained identical language and attached the 2002 Letter Agreement as an exhibit. See id.; see also Matlock v. Matlock, 664 A.2d 551, 514 (Pa. Super. 1995) (holding qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and property settlement agreement (PSA) combine to form one agreement -7- J-S32002-21 where QDRO was attached to PSA as exhibit and PSA specifically refers to QRDO as exhibit). The matter sub judice is readily distinguishable. In addition to the fact that, with respect to the 2008 GSA, the Service Authorization lacks the "incorporated by re


CourtListener opinion 5140215

domestic relations order: e 2005 Letter Agreement, which "amends and restates" the 2002 Letter Agreement, contained identical language and attached the 2002 Letter Agreement as an exhibit. See id.; see also Matlock v. Matlock, 664 A.2d 551, 514 (Pa. Super. 1995) (holding qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and property settlement agreement (PSA) combine to form one agreement -7- J-S32002-21 where QDRO was attached to PSA as exhibit and PSA specifically refers to QRDO as exhibit). The matter sub judice is readily distinguishable. In addition to the fact that, with respect to the 2008 GSA, the Service Authorization lacks the "incorporated by re


CourtListener opinion 5141542

CourtListener opinion 5141542 Extracted case name: MINDIOLA v. MINDIOLA. Extracted reporter citation: 176 A.3d 1124. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0271 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5141542 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 5141542


CourtListener opinion 5141542

QDRO: ft Savings Plan 4) Father's Edward Jones Traditional IRA. IT IS ORDERED that Mother is entitled to one half of the community interest in each of the above accounts. The Court then appointed a special master to provide qualified domestic relation orders ("QDRO") to distribute the accounts. Yet the record includes no QDRO for the accounts. As a result, we cannot determine whether the military pension was correctly apportioned. Thus, the record shows no abuse of discretion. D. The Court Did Not Err in Determining Child Support. ¶32 Father argues the court failed to adhere to the child support guidelines by declin


CourtListener opinion 5141542

pension: edetermine the community debt and its proper allocation as well as reimbursements, waste, and attorney's fees, and Mother's 401(k).5 ¶30 Father asserts that the court breached federal law by granting Mother one-half of the community interest in Father's Navy Pension Plan. 5 This court was not presented with the entire record, but because Father failed to provide transcripts from evidentiary hearings, we presume they support the order. Cullison v. City of Peoria, 120 Ariz. 165, 168, n.2 (1978). 8 MINDIOLA v. MINDIOLA Decision of the Court A community acquires a right in unvested pension benefits upon performance u


CourtListener opinion 5141542

401(k): to challenge the evidence was at the trial, which he voluntarily failed to attend. Likewise, we decline Father's request for remand to redetermine the community debt and its proper allocation as well as reimbursements, waste, and attorney's fees, and Mother's 401(k).5 ¶30 Father asserts that the court breached federal law by granting Mother one-half of the community interest in Father's Navy Pension Plan. 5 This court was not presented with the entire record, but because Father failed to provide transcripts from evidentiary hearings, we presume they support the order. Cullison v. City of Peoria, 120 Ariz. 165, 168, n


CourtListener opinion 5141542

valuation/division: 2(C)(7) (The court's parenting plan must include "[a] procedure for communicating . . . about the child, including methods and frequency."). The court did not err by selecting the software. C. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Equitably Dividing the Community Property. ¶27 The court must divide the community property equitably, though not necessarily in kind. A.R.S. § 25-318(A). We review the court's characterization of property de novo and its apportionment for an abuse of discretion. Davies v. Beres, 224 Ariz. 560, 562, ¶ 6 (App. 2010). Father disputes many aspects of the court's allocation, and we address each argume


CourtListener opinion 5515838

CourtListener opinion 5515838 Extracted reporter citation: 152 S.W.3d 556. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 5515838 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 5515838

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 5515838

QDRO: ng any owed on the Island home. Husband has no money in any retirement account. His Conservator has $25,000 in a checking account which shall remain his. 2. Wife shall pay to Conservator for the use and benefit of Husband $250,000 from her 401k by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 3. At Husband's death, should Wife survive him, Husband or his Conservator shall transfer all Husband's assets to Wife as set forth in the QDRO and shall constitute a claim against his estate. Thereafter, Wife and Conservator entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement ("MDA"). Conservator signed the MDA first, Wife signed next, and it was filed wit


CourtListener opinion 5515838

retirement benefits: the Island home and all its contents, his vehicles, boat, motorcycle and any other personal property in his or his Conservator's possession. Husband shall be responsible for all his debts, including any owed on the Island home. Husband has no money in any retirement account. His Conservator has $25,000 in a checking account which shall remain his. 2. Wife shall pay to Conservator for the use and benefit of Husband $250,000 from her 401k by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 3. At Husband's death, should Wife survive him, Husband or his Conservator shall transfer all Husband's assets to Wife as set forth in the Q


CourtListener opinion 5515838

401(k): debts, including any owed on the Island home. Husband has no money in any retirement account. His Conservator has $25,000 in a checking account which shall remain his. 2. Wife shall pay to Conservator for the use and benefit of Husband $250,000 from her 401k by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 3. At Husband's death, should Wife survive him, Husband or his Conservator shall transfer all Husband's assets to Wife as set forth in the QDRO and shall constitute a claim against his estate. Thereafter, Wife and Conservator entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement ("MDA"). Conservator signed the MDA


CourtListener opinion 5515838

domestic relations order: ed on the Island home. Husband has no money in any retirement account. His Conservator has $25,000 in a checking account which shall remain his. 2. Wife shall pay to Conservator for the use and benefit of Husband $250,000 from her 401k by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 3. At Husband's death, should Wife survive him, Husband or his Conservator shall transfer all Husband's assets to Wife as set forth in the QDRO and shall constitute a claim against his estate. Thereafter, Wife and Conservator entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement ("MDA"). Conservator signed the MDA first, Wife signed next, and it was filed wit


CourtListener opinion 58537

CourtListener opinion 58537 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 06-40570. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 58537 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 58537


CourtListener opinion 58537

QDRO: Taliaferro's pension benefits and demanded that his account be frozen. Goodyear promptly advised Ms. Parsons's attorney that ERISA did not allow payment of child support obligations from a pension benefit check without a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), as defined by ERISA. Goodyear supplied Ms. Parsons's counsel with guidelines describing the elements of a QDRO. In May 2002 and December 2003, Goodyear received additional orders from the Smith County court directing it to withhold Mr. Taliaferro's pension benefits to pay his child support obligations. Each time, Goodyear responded that the documents we


CourtListener opinion 58537

pension: ted States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler USDC No. 6:05-CV-195 Before JONES, Chief Judge and GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Taliaferro was married and divorced twice. Both of his ex-wives seek to obtain his pension benefits from his former employer, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company ("Goodyear"). Goodyear argues that the pension plan is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), and is withholding payment. Goodyear believes it has not yet received a court order sufficient under ERISA to permit it to distribute Mr. Taliaferro's benefits to either Ma


CourtListener opinion 58537

ERISA: o was married and divorced twice. Both of his ex-wives seek to obtain his pension benefits from his former employer, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company ("Goodyear"). Goodyear argues that the pension plan is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), and is withholding payment. Goodyear believes it has not yet received a court order sufficient under ERISA to permit it to distribute Mr. Taliaferro's benefits to either Mabel Parsons, his first ex-wife, or Marcia Taliaferro, his second ex-wife. When Ms. Taliaferro sued Goodyear for payment in state court, Goodyear removed the action to federal court. Th


CourtListener opinion 58537

domestic relations order: claimed an interest in Mr. Taliaferro's pension benefits and demanded that his account be frozen. Goodyear promptly advised Ms. Parsons's attorney that ERISA did not allow payment of child support obligations from a pension benefit check without a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), as defined by ERISA. Goodyear supplied Ms. Parsons's counsel with guidelines describing the elements of a QDRO. In May 2002 and December 2003, Goodyear received additional orders from the Smith County court directing it to withhold Mr. Taliaferro's pension benefits to pay his child support obligations. Each time, Goodyear responded that the docum


CourtListener opinion 6105001

CourtListener opinion 6105001 Extracted reporter citation: 193 S.W.3d 495. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6105001 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 6105001


CourtListener opinion 6105001

QDRO: ecree on February 20, 2019. The parties' marital dissolution agreement ("MDA") was incorporated by reference into the final decree. In connection with the MDA's awarding Wife a total of $450,000.00 from Husband's state retirement program, the parties signed a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), which was subsequently entered by the trial court. Husband was a participant in "employer sponsored retirement plans" that were funded through the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association ("TIAA") and had two separate annuity contracts via a TIAA and a College Retirement Equities Fund ("CREF"). Per the terms of the QDRO, two accounts were set u


CourtListener opinion 6105001

retirement benefits: with the MDA's awarding Wife a total of $450,000.00 from Husband's state retirement program, the parties signed a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), which was subsequently entered by the trial court. Husband was a participant in "employer sponsored retirement plans" that were funded through the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association ("TIAA") and had two separate annuity contracts via a TIAA and a College Retirement Equities Fund ("CREF"). Per the terms of the QDRO, two accounts were set up in Wife's name that consisted of a TIAA account with a transferred amount of $165,158.75 and a CREF account with a transferre


CourtListener opinion 6105001

domestic relations order: ebruary 20, 2019. The parties' marital dissolution agreement ("MDA") was incorporated by reference into the final decree. In connection with the MDA's awarding Wife a total of $450,000.00 from Husband's state retirement program, the parties signed a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), which was subsequently entered by the trial court. Husband was a participant in "employer sponsored retirement plans" that were funded through the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association ("TIAA") and had two separate annuity contracts via a TIAA and a College Retirement Equities Fund ("CREF"). Per the terms of the QDRO, two accounts were set u


CourtListener opinion 6105001

valuation/division: represent the total amount owed to Wife per the parties' MDA.1 Regarding these annuities, the QDRO provided: Upon finalization of this Order and pursuant to the terms of said annuities, the current values of [Husband's] TIAA annuity accumulations for the Marital Portion defined below shall be awarded as the [Wife's] sole and exclusive property to be applied to TIAA annuities pro rata subject to the terms and limitations of said annuities. .... [Wife's] annuities will be issued with the same investment allocation as [Husband's] applied pro rate[sic]. [Wife] must change the investment allocation once his or her annui


CourtListener opinion 6111740

CourtListener opinion 6111740 Extracted case name: M.B. v. R.B. Extracted reporter citation: 161 S.W.2d 769. Docket: 18-FD-2643 OPINION This is an. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6111740 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 6111740

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 6111740

QDRO: . Each party shall agree to appear at a designated time for purposes of executing all documents necessary to effectuate the Final Decree of Divorce. Such documents shall include but not limited to Special Warranty Deed, Deed of Trust to Secure Assumption, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Quitclaim Deeds, Assignments of Escrow Funds, assignments of insurance coverage, utility deposits, certificates of title to automobile, power of attorney necessary to transfer automobile, signature cards on custodial accounts, stock transfer certificates, trust agreements, security agreements collateral pledge agreements, assignments of interest, and


CourtListener opinion 6111740

domestic relations order: ty shall agree to appear at a designated time for purposes of executing all documents necessary to effectuate the Final Decree of Divorce. Such documents shall include but not limited to Special Warranty Deed, Deed of Trust to Secure Assumption, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Quitclaim Deeds, Assignments of Escrow Funds, assignments of insurance coverage, utility deposits, certificates of title to automobile, power of attorney necessary to transfer automobile, signature cards on custodial accounts, stock transfer certificates, trust agreements, security agreements collateral pledge agreements, assignments of interest, and


CourtListener opinion 6111740

valuation/division: ki house and a security agreement regarding Edward's business with UCC filing. The language of the MSA clearly shows that the parties intended that additional documents would be drafted and signed by the parties in order to effectuate their agreement for property division. The MSA was not a final conveyance of any property. Exhibit A merely restates and complies with the final decree language. The trial court did not significantly alter the parties' written agreement or deviate from their intent as manifested in the MSA. Davis, 2014 WL 890899 at *9. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in attaching Exhibit A to


CourtListener opinion 6111749

CourtListener opinion 6111749 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McDonald. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: entry neither was memorialized as a signed order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6111749 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 6111749

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 6111749

QDRO: Badiyan 50% of Shakouri's retirement benefits in his EDS/Hewlett Packard retirement plan and 100% of funds in any 401K plan arising out of Shakouri's employment with other employers. The decree stated that the divisions were "more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to 2 be signed by the Court," however the trial court did not issue the orders at the time it entered the divorce decree. In March 2020, Badiyan filed a petition to enter the QDROs. In August 2020, after a hearing, the trial court entered two QDROs to effectuate division of the retirement benefits as specified in the 2011 divorce decree. Shakouri ap


CourtListener opinion 6111749

retirement benefits: , C.J.; Bassel and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Shahram Shakouri appeals the trial court's issuance of two qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs). The QDROs relate to the division and distribution of retirement benefits set out in the 2011 divorce decree between Shakouri and his ex-wife Fariba Badiyan. Shakouri contends that (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the QDROs, (2) the QDROs substantively changed the division of property ordered in the divorce decree, (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for continuance, and (4) that B


CourtListener opinion 6111749

pension: rty made in the divorce decree. Next, Shakouri claims that the QDROs impermissibly altered the division of property set out in the divorce decree. We disagree. A court rendering a final divorce decree may render an enforceable QDRO "permitting payment of pension, retirement plan, or other employee benefits divisible . . . to an alternate payee or other lawful payee." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.101(a); Marshall, 99 S.W.3d at 156. The June 2011 divorce decree awarded Badiyan 50% of Shakouri's EDS/Hewlett Packard retirement benefits and 100% of the funds in any other of Shakouri's retirement plans. The two QDROs con


CourtListener opinion 6111749

401(k): and granted two motions for new trial. The 2011 divorce decree divided Shakouri's two retirement accounts. Specifically, the decree awarded Badiyan 50% of Shakouri's retirement benefits in his EDS/Hewlett Packard retirement plan and 100% of funds in any 401K plan arising out of Shakouri's employment with other employers. The decree stated that the divisions were "more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to 2 be signed by the Court," however the trial court did not issue the orders at the time it entered the divorce decree. In March 2020, Badiyan filed a petition to enter the QDR


CourtListener opinion 6112301

CourtListener opinion 6112301 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6112301 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 6112301


CourtListener opinion 6112301

QDRO: ion plan in which husband participated and that PWC's pension program was not an ERISA plan, but rather, had been established by PWC as a "non-qualified" retirement plan. As a result of this decision by PWC, the plan was not subject to division by way of a QDRO, meaning that, when the pension benefits eventually are paid out, all of them must be paid first to husband. Consequently, husband will be required to pay taxes on the entire amount of the payments even though some portion of the payments will represent wife's interest in the marital share of the pension. It is undisputed that a portion of husband's pen


CourtListener opinion 6112301

retirement benefits: transferred funds to pay the mortgage on the marital home, various taxes, the parties' life insurance premiums and legal fees, and tuition and other expenses related to the children. Husband's employment also entitled him to participate in the PWC Partner Retirement Plan (pension), which is designed to provide him continued income after retirement. The firm requires husband to retire at age sixty, but he and wife had discussions with their financial advisor about the possibility of him retiring at fifty-five. Provided the firm has sufficient assets at the time, the pension will afford husband an annuity upon his retirem


CourtListener opinion 6112301

pension: to pay the mortgage on the marital home, various taxes, the parties' life insurance premiums and legal fees, and tuition and other expenses related to the children. Husband's employment also entitled him to participate in the PWC Partner Retirement Plan (pension), which is designed to provide him continued income after retirement. The firm requires husband to retire at age sixty, but he and wife had discussions with their financial advisor about the possibility of him retiring at fifty-five. Provided the firm has sufficient assets at the time, the pension will afford husband an annuity upon his retirement. It is


CourtListener opinion 6112301

ERISA: ntending the trial court failed "to account for the fact that Husband will bear 100 percent of the taxes on the pension payments." The evidence established that PWC had a pension plan in which husband participated and that PWC's pension program was not an ERISA plan, but rather, had been established by PWC as a "non-qualified" retirement plan. As a result of this decision by PWC, the plan was not subject to division by way of a QDRO, meaning that, when the pension benefits eventually are paid out, all of them must be paid first to husband. Consequently, husband will be required to pay taxes on the entire amoun


CourtListener opinion 6113868

CourtListener opinion 6113868 Extracted reporter citation: 423 S.W.3d 493. Docket: 13-20-00118-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6113868 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 6113868


CourtListener opinion 6113868

QDRO: rom the 343rd District Court of Aransas County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Hinojosa, Tijerina, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Appellant Sharon H. Windham appeals the trial court's order denying her petition to enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) reflecting her interest in appellee William M. Windham Jr.'s retirement benefits as awarded in the parties' divorce decree. See TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. § 9.102. In two issues, which we treat as one, Sharon argues that the trial court's order improperly amends, modifies, or alters the express terms of the divorce decree. We reverse and remand. I. B


CourtListener opinion 6113868

retirement benefits: Tijerina, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Appellant Sharon H. Windham appeals the trial court's order denying her petition to enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) reflecting her interest in appellee William M. Windham Jr.'s retirement benefits as awarded in the parties' divorce decree. See TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. § 9.102. In two issues, which we treat as one, Sharon argues that the trial court's order improperly amends, modifies, or alters the express terms of the divorce decree. We reverse and remand. I. BACKGROUND Sharon and William divorced in 2000 after twenty-two years of marriage. The


CourtListener opinion 6113868

pension: post-divorce enforcement order. Beshears v. Beshears, 423 S.W.3d 493, 500 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.). A trial court that renders a final divorce decree "retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to render an enforceable [QDRO] permitting payment of pension, retirement plan, or other employee benefits . . . to an alternate payee or other lawful payee." TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.101(a). The trial court also retains "jurisdiction to amend the order to correct the order or clarify the terms of the order to effectuate the division of property ordered by the court." Id. § 9.1045(a). However, after its plenary pow


CourtListener opinion 6113868

401(k): divorce decree awarded Sharon a fixed sum as reflected by the value of his retirement plan at the time of divorce. 8 8 William does not state what that fixed sum is or how it should be calculated. 5 Retirement plans are commonly classified as either a defined contribution plan or a defined benefit plan. See Reiss v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439, 440 n.1 (Tex. 2003) (citing Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 445 n.1 (Tex. 2003)). In a defined contribution plan, the employee has a separate account similar to that of a savings account into which the employee and employer make contributions. Smith v. Smith, 22 S.W.3d 140, 148–49


CourtListener opinion 617924

CourtListener opinion 617924 Extracted reporter citation: 389 F.3d 386. Docket: 10-1862-cv. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 617924 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 617924


CourtListener opinion 617924

QDRO: judgment interest were available in this case, the district court noted that the plan document specifically recognizes the right of a beneficiary to recover accumulated earnings where a portion of his account has been segregated for some time pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that is ultimately declared invalid. The existence of this provision, along with general fairness considerations, led the court to conclude that "implicit in the Plan's terms is the commonly held notion that there is a time value to the extended period that Milgram has been without money the Plan owed him." We agree. The Plan argues that the di


CourtListener opinion 617924

retirement benefits: 47.93 more than she was entitled to receive under the settlement. Milgram did not discover the error immediately. Shortly after the accounts were segregated, he terminated his membership in the plans and rolled the remaining balances over to an Individual Retirement Account. Breen withdrew the balance of her account in September 1998. It was only in June of 1999 that Milgram, at his lawyer's insistence, 4 reviewed his plan account statements and discovered the overpayment to Breen. By that time, none of the erroneously transferred funds remained in the Plan. In October 1999 Orthopedic, acting as plan administrator, deman


CourtListener opinion 617924

pension: APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2011 (Argued: September 12, 2011 Decided: November 29, 2011) Docket Nos. 10-1862-cv (L), 10-1893 (con) ROBERT W. MILGRAM, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, — v.— THE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PENSION PLAN, Defendant-Appellant, — v.— ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES OF 65 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, BINGHAMTON, NEW YORK, P.C., as plan administrator of the Orthopedic Associates Defined Contribution Pension Plan; MICHAEL MCCLURE, M.D.; CHARLES W. CARPENTER, M.D.; KAMLESH S. DESAI, M.D.; LAURENCE U. SCHENK, M.D.; DOUGLASS R. KERR, M.D.; ROBERT M. SEDOR, JR., CFP, RCF, U


CourtListener opinion 617924

ERISA: H, Circuit Judges. * The Clerk of Court is respectfully instructed to amend the official caption in this case to conform to the listing of the parties above. Plaintiff-appellee Robert Milgram filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)-(3), seeking to recover funds that were erroneously removed from his pension fund account and credited to that of his former wife, Norah Breen. Following a bench trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Gary L. Sharpe, Judge) entered judgment against defendant The Orthopedic Associates Defi


CourtListener opinion 619740

CourtListener opinion 619740 Extracted reporter citation: 389 F.3d 386. Docket: 10-1862-cv. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 619740 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 619740

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 619740


CourtListener opinion 619740

retirement benefits: 47.93 more than she was entitled to receive under the settlement. Milgram did not discover the error immediately. Shortly after the accounts were segregated, he terminated his membership in the plans and rolled the remaining balances over to an Individual Retirement Account. Breen withdrew the balance of her account in 4 September 1998. It was only in June of 1999 that Milgram, at his lawyer's insistence, reviewed his plan account statements and discovered the overpayment to Breen. By that time, none of the erroneously transferred funds remained in the Plan. In October 1999 Orthopedic, acting as plan administrator, deman


CourtListener opinion 619740

pension: IT August Term, 2011 (Argued: September 12, 2011 Decided: November 29, 2011) Amended: December 23, 2011 Docket Nos. 10-1862-cv (L), 10-1893 (CON)* ROBERT W. MILGRAM, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, — v.— THE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PENSION PLAN, Defendant-Appellant, — v.— ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES OF 65 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, BINGHAMTON, NEW YORK, P.C., as plan administrator of the Orthopedic Associates Defined Contribution Pension Plan; MICHAEL MCCLURE, M.D.; CHARLES W. CARPENTER, M.D.; KAMLESH S. DESAI, M.D.; LAURENCE U. SCHENK, M.D.; DOUGLASS R. KERR, M.D.; ROBERT M. SEDOR, JR., CFP, RCF, U


CourtListener opinion 619740

ERISA: . BREEN. Defendants. B e f o r e: CALABRESI, WESLEY, and LYNCH, Circuit Judges. * The consolidated case was withdrawn by stipulation filed July 22, 2011. Plaintiff-appellee Robert Milgram filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)-(3), seeking to recover funds that were erroneously removed from his pension fund account and credited to that of his former wife, Norah Breen. Following a bench trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Gary L. Sharpe, Judge) entered judgment against defendant The Orthopedic Associates Defi


CourtListener opinion 6216832

CourtListener opinion 6216832 Extracted reporter citation: 652 A.2d 393. Docket: 558 WDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6216832 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 6216832


CourtListener opinion 6216832

QDRO: ees. Husband filed a response averring that after the divorce decree was entered, he intended to use funds from his retirement account to purchase a new home. Part of his retirement account was awarded to Wife in the Order and was to be distributed via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) drafted by Wife. When the QDRO was not processed in time for the purchase of his new home, he drew the down payment from the HELOC on the marital home. He averred that he and Wife jointly opened the HELOC during the marriage and that it had a $0 balance at the time of the equitable distribution trial. He claimed that he intended to pay the HELOC


CourtListener opinion 6216832

retirement benefits: paid from the proceeds. Wife requested that the trial court order Husband to pay her the full value of the HELOC and $10,000 in attorney's fees. Husband filed a response averring that after the divorce decree was entered, he intended to use funds from his retirement account to purchase a new home. Part of his retirement account was awarded to Wife in the Order and was to be distributed via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) drafted by Wife. When the QDRO was not processed in time for the purchase of his new home, he drew the down payment from the HELOC on the marital home. He averred that he and Wife jointly open


CourtListener opinion 6216832

domestic relations order: band filed a response averring that after the divorce decree was entered, he intended to use funds from his retirement account to purchase a new home. Part of his retirement account was awarded to Wife in the Order and was to be distributed via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) drafted by Wife. When the QDRO was not processed in time for the purchase of his new home, he drew the down payment from the HELOC on the marital home. He averred that he and Wife jointly opened the HELOC during the marriage and that it had a $0 balance at the time of the equitable distribution trial. He claimed that he intended to pay the HELOC


CourtListener opinion 6216832

valuation/division: vision at No(s): 18-90025-D BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 9, 2022 Sam E. Colton (Husband) and Katherine Colton (Wife) were involved in contentious divorce litigation that proceeded to an equitable distribution trial before a Master. The Master issued a Report and Recommendation (Report) dividing the marital assets, including the marital home. When neither party filed exceptions, the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County (trial court) entered a divorce decree and incorporated the Report into an equitable distribution order (Order). After the Order was rati


CourtListener opinion 6216834

CourtListener opinion 6216834 Extracted case name: ROBERT MARTIN THOMPSON v. CHRISTIE LEE THOMPSON. Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 823. Docket: represented by the numerator. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6216834 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 6216834


CourtListener opinion 6216834

QDRO: iled by the clerk's office, the judgment was not yet a final, non-appealable judgment. Thus, Rule 59.04 is the applicable rule, and we decline to address any argument for relief under Rule 60.02. 4 The order went on to state: Questions arose regarding the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that is anticipated to be required in order to implement the parties' announced agreement and the -4- This appeal followed. ISSUES Wife contends that the trial court erred by entering the Final Order which was contrary to the parties' announced understanding and which provided for an erroneous division of Wife's TCRS retirement benefits.5 H


CourtListener opinion 6216834

retirement benefits: llars, Judge ___________________________________ No. M2020-01293-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________ The sole issue on appeal in this divorce action pertains to the coverture formula employed to fund the husband's marital interest in the wife's retirement account via a deferred distribution method. On the morning the case was set for a final hearing, the parties and their attorneys appeared in open court and announced they had agreed to the division of the marital estate with the exception of the implementing language required to fund the husband's marital interest in the wife's retirement account. Because the wife


CourtListener opinion 6216834

pension: able framework for the division of Wife's unvested retirement benefits and limits Husband's award to his martial portion of Wife's retirement account. Husband takes the position that the standard coverture formula only applies to the marital share of unvested pension benefits because the coverture fraction7 requires the years of Wife's service accrued during the marriage to be divided by Wife's total years of service calculated on the date of her retirement. Husband further argues that application of the agreed-upon coverture percentage8 ensures an equitable division of the marital portion of Wife's retirement benefits.


CourtListener opinion 6216834

domestic relations order: e clerk's office, the judgment was not yet a final, non-appealable judgment. Thus, Rule 59.04 is the applicable rule, and we decline to address any argument for relief under Rule 60.02. 4 The order went on to state: Questions arose regarding the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that is anticipated to be required in order to implement the parties' announced agreement and the -4- This appeal followed. ISSUES Wife contends that the trial court erred by entering the Final Order which was contrary to the parties' announced understanding and which provided for an erroneous division of Wife's TCRS retirement benefits.5 H


CourtListener opinion 6226370

CourtListener opinion 6226370 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF GARY E. ERLANDSON AND SUSAN KAY ERLANDSON Upon the Petition of GARY E. ERLANDSON. Extracted reporter citation: 137 S. Ct. 1400. Docket: 20-1607. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 6226370 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 6226370


CourtListener opinion 6226370

QDRO: ion provision and remanded for entry of a substituted order. Id. at *7; see also Tekippe, 2017 WL 510985, at *2 (holding that the court could not "exercise its reservation of jurisdiction as set forth in the decree and order inclusion of a paragraph in the QDRO allowing [the husband] to name a successor alternate payee" because it would result in bifurcated property divisions). to that division. It is thus akin to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which we have characterized as a procedural device "entered to effectuate the property division in the dissolution decree." In re Marriage of Heath-Clark,


CourtListener opinion 6226370

retirement benefits: ithin the contemplation of the court at the time of the decree." In re Marriage of Sisson, 843 N.W.2d 866, 870–71 (Iowa 2014); see Iowa Code § 598.21C(1). The only change referenced in Susan's brief on appeal is that "[she] is not receiving any of [Gary's] retirement benefits." Susan does not 12 develop any supporting argument under the traditional modification standard, instead relying only on her contention that Gary's post-divorce election to receive disability benefits fell within the scope of the pension division order. In doing so, she essentially concedes the circumstances as they allegedly occurred were contemplat


CourtListener opinion 6226370

pension: nance' decree" authorized by Iowa Code section 598.28 (2010). 3 stipulation, the parties agreed Susan would receive the family home, any "real and personal property, household goods, and furnishings" then in her possession, and a "one-half interest in any pension plan, 401K plans and/or any other retirement plan." When Gary filed for divorce—three years after the stipulation was approved—Susan asked the district court to include those terms in its decree dissolving their marriage. She also made a request for spousal support. After a trial on Gary's dissolution petition, the district court granted Susan's reque


CourtListener opinion 6226370

401(k): authorized by Iowa Code section 598.28 (2010). 3 stipulation, the parties agreed Susan would receive the family home, any "real and personal property, household goods, and furnishings" then in her possession, and a "one-half interest in any pension plan, 401K plans and/or any other retirement plan." When Gary filed for divorce—three years after the stipulation was approved—Susan asked the district court to include those terms in its decree dissolving their marriage. She also made a request for spousal support. After a trial on Gary's dissolution petition, the district court granted Susan's request for spou


CourtListener opinion 625735

CourtListener opinion 625735 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 625735 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 625735

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 625735

QDRO: ceeds with the Court and would thereafter be dismissed from the action. 2 By statute, this anti-alienation provision does not apply to a certain class of orders known as "qualified domestic relations orders" ("QDROs"). 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). To qualify as a QDRO, an order must satisfy certain statutory requirements, such as clearly specifying an alternate payee, the amount of benefits to be paid to the alternate payee, the period to which 4 Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds. Contrary to the Fifth Circuit, the Court held that the ex-wife's waiver "did not constitute an assignment or alienation re