CourtListener opinion 1066005

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 1066005

QDRO: ial court (1) erred in its application of the parol evidence rule to, and its interpretation of, the provisions of a property settlement agreement dealing with pension and retirement plans and, in so doing, (2) entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) inconsistent with the substantive provisions of a final divorce decree adopting that agreement, in contradiction to the provisions of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). II. Separating on July 21, 1995, the parties were divorced by an agreed final decree dated November 1, 1999, which incorporated a property settlement agreement (PSA) dated and signed that same d


CourtListener opinion 1066005

retirement benefits: Kathy Gear Owens for appellee. I. The issue here for resolution is whether the trial court (1) erred in its application of the parol evidence rule to, and its interpretation of, the provisions of a property settlement agreement dealing with pension and retirement plans and, in so doing, (2) entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) inconsistent with the substantive provisions of a final divorce decree adopting that agreement, in contradiction to the provisions of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). II. Separating on July 21, 1995, the parties were divorced by an agreed final decree dated November 1, 1999, which incor


CourtListener opinion 1066005

pension: appellant. Kathy Gear Owens for appellee. I. The issue here for resolution is whether the trial court (1) erred in its application of the parol evidence rule to, and its interpretation of, the provisions of a property settlement agreement dealing with pension and retirement plans and, in so doing, (2) entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) inconsistent with the substantive provisions of a final divorce decree adopting that agreement, in contradiction to the provisions of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). II. Separating on July 21, 1995, the parties were divorced by an agreed final decree dated November


CourtListener opinion 1066005

valuation/division: g of the disputed language can only be interpreted to mean that . . . [wife] . . . is to receive a pro rata share of . . . [husband's] . . . annuity at the time of his retirement." By a QDRO entered January 20, 2005, the trial court awarded wife 50% of the marital portion of the FERS retirement as received by husband. This appeal followed. III. Initially we note that the power of a circuit court to enter equitable distribution orders involving pensions, subsequent to the finality of a divorce decree, is limited by the provisions of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). Such orders may only be entered "to effectuate the expressed int


CourtListener opinion 10660972

CourtListener opinion 10660972 Extracted reporter citation: 298 F.3d 156. Docket: consistent with this Memorandum and Order. I. Backg. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10660972 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 10660972


CourtListener opinion 10660972

QDRO: e Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division states: "The Wife shall receive one-half (1/2) of the pension benefit earned from the date of the marriage, September 13, [1982] until July 12, 1991, paid to her directly from the pension fund by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which shall be prepared by the Wife's attorney." (ECF No. 30-1 at 14.) On March 7, 1995, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning a portion of Robbins's pension benefit to Sanchez. (ECF No. 30 at 2.) The QDRO states that Sanchez "shall receive fifty (50%) percent of the ‘marital benefit' which fo


CourtListener opinion 10660972

pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TRUSTEES OF THE PENSION FUND OF LOCAL NO. ONE, I.A.T.S.E., Plaintiff, 23-CV-124 (JPO) -v- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENNIS ROBBINS, et al., Defendants. J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: Plaintiff Trustees of the Pension Fund of Local No. One, I.A.T.S.E. (the "Fund") brings this interpleader action against Defendants Dennis Robbins and Mary Ellen Sanchez to resolve competi


CourtListener opinion 10660972

domestic relations order: Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division states: "The Wife shall receive one-half (1/2) of the pension benefit earned from the date of the marriage, September 13, [1982] until July 12, 1991, paid to her directly from the pension fund by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order which shall be prepared by the Wife's attorney." (ECF No. 30-1 at 14.) On March 7, 1995, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning a portion of Robbins's pension benefit to Sanchez. (ECF No. 30 at 2.) The QDRO states that Sanchez "shall receive fifty (50%) percent of the ‘marital benefit' which fo


CourtListener opinion 10660972

valuation/division: om Robbins's motion for summary judgment and are undisputed. Robbins and Sanchez were married in September 1982, and they were divorced in September 1992. (ECF No. 30 at 2.) Robbins holds a pension plan administered by the Fund, part of which is subject to equitable distribution as marital property. (Id.) Specifically, the settlement agreement between Robbins and Sanchez that was entered by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division states: "The Wife shall receive one-half (1/2) of the pension benefit earned from the date of the marriage, September 13, [1982] until July 12, 1991, paid to her directly from the pension f


CourtListener opinion 1066209

CourtListener opinion 1066209 Extracted reporter citation: 486 U.S. 330. Docket: 1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066209 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 1066209


CourtListener opinion 1066209

QDRO: the trial court valued husband's medical practice at $70,000 and, pursuant to the parties' agreement to divide all marital property equally, ordered husband to pay wife $35,000. Upon 4 Fahey is inapposite. In that case, we found that a modification of a qualified domestic relations order was precluded solely by the dictates of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), the statutory provision which limits a court's authority to modify any order affecting any pension plan or retirement benefits. See Fahey, 24 Va. App. at 256-57, 481 S.E.2d at 497. The sole issue addressed in Fahey is not presented here. - 7 - wife's motion for reconsideration of the final de


CourtListener opinion 1066209

retirement benefits: umbering or disposing of any marital asset without the prior consent of both parties or leave of this Court." Notwithstanding the entry of the court's pendente lite decree, husband transferred marital funds in several investment accounts to his individual retirement account where the funds lost earnings because of a decrease in the applicable rate of interest. In order to arrive at an accurate valuation of the funds which had been transferred from the marital accounts to husband's separate account, the parties entered a consent order on April 21, 1997, stating that, "[f]or the purposes of equitable distribution, the pl


CourtListener opinion 1066209

pension: Fahey is inapposite. In that case, we found that a modification of a qualified domestic relations order was precluded solely by the dictates of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), the statutory provision which limits a court's authority to modify any order affecting any pension plan or retirement benefits. See Fahey, 24 Va. App. at 256-57, 481 S.E.2d at 497. The sole issue addressed in Fahey is not presented here. - 7 - wife's motion for reconsideration of the final decree, the court set aside the final decree on April 3, 1998, "in order to give the parties and the [c]ourt time to resolve certain issues." At a hearing on Ma


CourtListener opinion 1066209

domestic relations order: court valued husband's medical practice at $70,000 and, pursuant to the parties' agreement to divide all marital property equally, ordered husband to pay wife $35,000. Upon 4 Fahey is inapposite. In that case, we found that a modification of a qualified domestic relations order was precluded solely by the dictates of Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), the statutory provision which limits a court's authority to modify any order affecting any pension plan or retirement benefits. See Fahey, 24 Va. App. at 256-57, 481 S.E.2d at 497. The sole issue addressed in Fahey is not presented here. - 7 - wife's motion for reconsideration of the final de


CourtListener opinion 1066234

CourtListener opinion 1066234 Extracted reporter citation: 486 U.S. 330. Docket: 1797-98-1 DIANE HARRIS RAGSDALE FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066234 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 1066234


CourtListener opinion 1066315

CourtListener opinion 1066315 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066315 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 1066315

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 1066315

QDRO: , Judge David D. Masterman (Condo & Masterman, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Richard J. Colten (Surovell, Jackson, Colten & Dugan, P.C., on brief), for appellee. R. Keith Hastie (husband) appeals the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), which he alleges materially increased the amount to be paid from his pension to Ellen D. Hastie (wife). Husband contends on appeal that the QDRO effected a substantive change to the divorce decree and, under Rule 1:1, the trial court did not have the authority to modify the decree. For the reasons that follow, we r


CourtListener opinion 1066315

pension: Jackson, Colten & Dugan, P.C., on brief), for appellee. R. Keith Hastie (husband) appeals the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), which he alleges materially increased the amount to be paid from his pension to Ellen D. Hastie (wife). Husband contends on appeal that the QDRO effected a substantive change to the divorce decree and, under Rule 1:1, the trial court did not have the authority to modify the decree. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand the case to the trial court for entry of a proper QDRO in accordance with the provisions of Code


CourtListener opinion 1066315

domestic relations order: AX COUNTY Thomas S. Kenny, Judge David D. Masterman (Condo & Masterman, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Richard J. Colten (Surovell, Jackson, Colten & Dugan, P.C., on brief), for appellee. R. Keith Hastie (husband) appeals the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), which he alleges materially increased the amount to be paid from his pension to Ellen D. Hastie (wife). Husband contends on appeal that the QDRO effected a substantive change to the divorce decree and, under Rule 1:1, the trial court did not have the authority to modify the decree. For the reasons that follow


CourtListener opinion 1066315

valuation/division: e marital share of husband's military retirement pension. The language of the divorce decree provided the following: [Wife] be and she hereby is awarded and allocated forty percent (40%) of the marital portion of the [husband's] retirement pension, said marital portion being sixty point one percent (60.1%) of the total pension, payable monthly as received, to- wit, an award to the [wife] of One Hundred Two Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-six Dollars and Forty cents ($102,496.40), payable in the amount of $575.04 each month until paid in full; . . . . (Emphasis added). The fixed sum of $102,496.40 constituted wife's


CourtListener opinion 10665194

CourtListener opinion 10665194 Extracted case name: IUE-CWA v. GMC. Extracted reporter citation: 521 U.S. 591. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10665194 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 10665194

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 10665194

QDRO: Cintas Partners' Plan ("Plan") at any time from December 13, 2013, through April 19, 2024, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. Doc. 78-21, PageID 1540. C. Notice Results and Final Approval. Pursuant to this Court's order (Doc. 74), Plaintiffs, through their settlement administrator, Analytics, LLC, mailed notice to over 116,089 class


CourtListener opinion 10665194

retirement benefits: ard of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expense and Named Plaintiffs Case Contribution Awards (Doc. 79) remains under advisement. I. BACKGROUND A. Nature of the Suit and Procedural Background. This case is about the alleged acts and omissions of a retirement plan's administrators. Plaintiffs initiated this suit against Defendants pursuant to §§ 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109 and 1132, alleging that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs in their management of the Cintas Partners' Plan ("Plan"). Specifically, Plaintiffs contend


CourtListener opinion 10665194

ERISA: Suit and Procedural Background. This case is about the alleged acts and omissions of a retirement plan's administrators. Plaintiffs initiated this suit against Defendants pursuant to §§ 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109 and 1132, alleging that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs in their management of the Cintas Partners' Plan ("Plan"). Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was


CourtListener opinion 10665194

401(k): for the named Plaintiffs did not impair the class's interests in this case. Plaintiffs prosecuted this case for over five years to obtain relief for the rest of the class. Class counsel have "extensive experience in ERISA class action litigation involving defined contribution plans." Doc. 78-1, at ¶¶ 46–54. And Counsel have shown their adequacy through "conduct[ing] an extensive pretrial investigation, litigat[ing] this case through an appeal, and attend[ing] a mediation session and court conferences." Doc. 70 (citing Doc. 78-1, at ¶¶ 46–54). The Court finds that Plaintiffs, through their counsel, have adequately protected t


CourtListener opinion 1066770

CourtListener opinion 1066770 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066770 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 1066770


CourtListener opinion 1066770

QDRO: of divorce is not final because it states "and this cause shall be ended 120 days from this date to permit the parties to submit QDROS." The April 26, 2004 order divides the retirement and pension funds and retains jurisdiction of the case merely to enter the QDRO. It was a final and appealable order. See Rule 1:1; Daniels v. Truck & Equip. Corp., 205 Va. 579, 585 139 S.E.2d 31, 35 (1964). -2- Background On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). T


CourtListener opinion 1066770

retirement benefits: y husband, as the parties had agreed that wife would remain at home to care for the children while they were young. Wife resumed employment in 1998 and contributed financially to the marriage since that time. The marital assets included the marital home, a retirement plan, and two pension plans. The net equity in the property was $34,462.27, which the court divided equally between the parties. The court also equally divided the marital share of the retirement and pension plans. Support "After considering all elements enumerated in Virginia Code § 20-107.1, on which evidence was introduced," the trial court ordered hus


CourtListener opinion 1066770

pension: on to dismiss wife's appeal. Husband asserts the April 26, 2004 decree of divorce is not final because it states "and this cause shall be ended 120 days from this date to permit the parties to submit QDROS." The April 26, 2004 order divides the retirement and pension funds and retains jurisdiction of the case merely to enter the QDRO. It was a final and appealable order. See Rule 1:1; Daniels v. Truck & Equip. Corp., 205 Va. 579, 585 139 S.E.2d 31, 35 (1964). -2- Background On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party prevailing below. See McGuir


CourtListener opinion 10668307

CourtListener opinion 10668307 Extracted case name: ELECTRONICALLY FILED v. HUB PARKING TECHNOLOGY USA. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10668307 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 10668307


CourtListener opinion 10668307

QDRO: endant was to distribute a lump sum payment of the proceeds of the 401(k) in the $121,000.00 to his ex-wife, Plaintiff. On March 22, 2022, a Domestic Relations Order was sent to HUB and HUB then had two years to evaluate the Order and determine it if was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). During the evaluation period, on July 25, 2022, Third-Party Defendant wrongfully withdrew the entire amount of his 401(k), which, according to Plaintiff, was in breach of HUB's fiduciary duty as Plan Administrator. Third-Party Defendant Murphy was subsequently Ordered in his divorce proceedings to pay Plaintiff the $121,000.00 he wrongfully wit


CourtListener opinion 10668307

ERISA: v. HUB PARKING TECHNOLOGY USA, INC., Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff. v. BRANDON MURPHY, Third-Party Defendant Memorandum Order on Motion to Dismiss This is an action brought under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Pending before this Court is Third-Party Defendant Brandon Murphy's Motion to Dismiss the Third-Party Amended Complaint filed by HUB Parking Technology USA, Inc. (HUB), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 12(b)(6), on the basis that the equitable claims advanced by Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff HUB against Third-Party Defendant Murphy, ar


CourtListener opinion 10668307

401(k): ndant/Third-Party Plaintiff HUB Parking Technology USA, Inc., the Plan Administrator for HUB Technology USA (Third-Party Defendant's former employer) for alleged unauthorized distribution of the proceeds of Third-Party Defendant's Retirement Savings Plan (401(k)) in the amount of $121,000.00, which was the subject of a Domestic Relations Order (DRO). Under a Marriage Settlement Agreement in the divorce proceedings in state court, Third-Party Defendant was to distribute a lump sum payment of the proceeds of the 401(k) in the $121,000.00 to his ex-wife, Plaintiff. On March 22, 2022, a Domestic Relations Order was


CourtListener opinion 10668307

domestic relations order: Plan Administrator for HUB Technology USA (Third-Party Defendant's former employer) for alleged unauthorized distribution of the proceeds of Third-Party Defendant's Retirement Savings Plan (401(k)) in the amount of $121,000.00, which was the subject of a Domestic Relations Order (DRO). Under a Marriage Settlement Agreement in the divorce proceedings in state court, Third-Party Defendant was to distribute a lump sum payment of the proceeds of the 401(k) in the $121,000.00 to his ex-wife, Plaintiff. On March 22, 2022, a Domestic Relations Order was sent to HUB and HUB then had two years to evaluate the Order and determine it if w


CourtListener opinion 1066851

CourtListener opinion 1066851 Extracted reporter citation: 265 F. Supp. 63. Docket: 0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066851 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 1066851

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 1066851

QDRO: § 20-121.1 does not provide grounds for reinstatement" of wife's case. He asserts the attempted reconciliation between the parties eliminated "any cause of action that might have otherwise existed as set forth" in wife's bill of complaint. As part of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered January 11, 2001, wife's case was "removed from the active docket of th[e] Court and placed among the ended causes herein." Because "complete relief ha[d] not been obtained" in the case, as the order did not address all the issues raised in the bill of complaint, the trial court permissibly reinstated wife's case pursuant to Code § 20-121.1. A


CourtListener opinion 1066851

domestic relations order: does not provide grounds for reinstatement" of wife's case. He asserts the attempted reconciliation between the parties eliminated "any cause of action that might have otherwise existed as set forth" in wife's bill of complaint. As part of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered January 11, 2001, wife's case was "removed from the active docket of th[e] Court and placed among the ended causes herein." Because "complete relief ha[d] not been obtained" in the case, as the order did not address all the issues raised in the bill of complaint, the trial court permissibly reinstated wife's case pursuant to Code § 20-121.1. A


CourtListener opinion 1066851

valuation/division: hased by husband after the agreement had been executed with funds from his separately held account was husband's separate property. The parties' agreement purports to be "a full and complete settlement of all property rights between them and their right to equitable distribution . . . ." Accordingly, because husband purchased the apartment using his separate funds after the execution of the agreement, the apartment, too, remains his separate property. Education Costs Wife argues "the trial court erred in interpreting the term ‘children' in paragraph 6.3 of the Agreement and in refusing to admit parol evidence to explain its


CourtListener opinion 1066858

CourtListener opinion 1066858 Extracted reporter citation: 265 F. Supp. 63. Docket: 0269-04-3 SHAHNAZ A. AHMED FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066858 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 1066858


CourtListener opinion 1066988

CourtListener opinion 1066988 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066988 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 1066988

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 1066988

QDRO: CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Frederick B. Lowe, Judge (Aysel Jafarace, pro se, on brief). (Jerrold G. Weinberg; Michael L. Donner, Sr.; Weinberg & Stein, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Aysel Jafarace appeals the trial judge's entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND The parties were divorced by final decree entered on January 8, 2001. The trial judge "affirmed and ratified" the parties' "written Separation and Property Settlement Agr


CourtListener opinion 1066988

retirement benefits: parties shall divide the husband's BP Employee Savings Plan and BP Retirement Accumulation Plan. Paragraph ten of the agreement, entitled "Retirement," is as follows: Wife shall receive at the time of Husband's retirement one-half the value of Husband's retirement plan as of July 31, 1989. Such benefits shall be payable to Wife monthly as received by Husband at the rate of 25 percent of the net cash benefit actually received by Husband until Wife receives her total share. Wife shall be responsible for any taxes due on her portion of the retirement. At Husband's option, Husband may pay Wife her portion of the retirem


CourtListener opinion 1066988

pension: orporated [it] into th[e January 8, 2001] Decree." In the decree, the trial judge ordered both parties "to fully comply with the terms of the Agreement" and reserved jurisdiction in the decree to enter orders to enforce the terms of the Agreement concerning pension and retirement assets. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. The agreement provides that the parties shall divide the husband's BP Employee Savings Plan and BP Retirement Accumulation Plan. Paragraph ten of the agreement, entitled "Retirement," is as follows: Wife shall receive at the time of Husband's retir


CourtListener opinion 1066988

alternate payee: y order wife objected to and appeals from is the QDRO for the Retirement Accumulation Plan. -2- date of distribution because the failure of [husband's] attorney, who drafted the agreement, to provide [wife] with normal gains and losses usually given to the Alternate Payee." Therefore, the only issue before this Court is whether the trial judge erred in including in the QDRO the value specified in the Agreement. See Rule 5A:18. See also Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998) ("The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court."). DISC


CourtListener opinion 1066991

CourtListener opinion 1066991 Extracted case name: ALICE KAYE BEASON v. C.A. BEASON. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: E2002-01425-COA-R3-CV These. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1066991 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 1066991


CourtListener opinion 1066991

QDRO: nd Husband were divorced the first time in 1989, Wife admittedly made no claim for any of Husband's Tier II benefits and was awarded none. The parties then remarried in 1992 and were divorced for the second time in 1996. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") eventually was entered in the second divorce which awarded Wife 100% of Husband's Tier II benefits. After Husband became disabled, Wife began receiving all of his Tier II benefits which had accumulated during Husband's 31 years of employment with the railroad. Husband claims he then realized for the first time the true effect of the QDRO and filed a Tenn.


CourtListener opinion 1066991

retirement benefits: Consolidated Appeals from the Chancery Courts for Knox County No. 124417-2 Daryl Fansler, Chancellor No. 96068-2 Sharon Bell, Chancellor FILED MAY 2, 2003 No. E2002-01425-COA-R3-CV These appeals involve an equitable distribution of the Tier II railroad retirement benefits of C.A. Beason ("Husband"). When Alice Beason ("Wife") and Husband were divorced the first time in 1989, Wife admittedly made no claim for any of Husband's Tier II benefits and was awarded none. The parties then remarried in 1992 and were divorced for the second time in 1996. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") eventually was entered in the secon


CourtListener opinion 1066991

pension: J. Mikel Dixon, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellant Alice Kaye Beason. Brent R. Watson and Suzanne N. Price, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellee C.A. Beason. OPINION Background These consolidated appeals concern the division of Husband's Tier II pension benefits under the federal Railroad Retirement Act and applicable Tennessee law. At the outset, a brief description of how the Railroad Retirement Act operates is in order. In Norton v. Norton, No. 02A01-9609-CV-00222, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 666 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 1997), appeal granted and remanded, this Court stated the following with regard to the def


CourtListener opinion 1066991

domestic relations order: hen Alice Beason ("Wife") and Husband were divorced the first time in 1989, Wife admittedly made no claim for any of Husband's Tier II benefits and was awarded none. The parties then remarried in 1992 and were divorced for the second time in 1996. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") eventually was entered in the second divorce which awarded Wife 100% of Husband's Tier II benefits. After Husband became disabled, Wife began receiving all of his Tier II benefits which had accumulated during Husband's 31 years of employment with the railroad. Husband claims he then realized for the first time the true effect of the QDRO and filed


CourtListener opinion 1067123

CourtListener opinion 1067123 Docket: for the filing of the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067123 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 1067123


CourtListener opinion 1067123

QDRO: TY Horace A. Revercomb, III, Judge Larry A. Pochucha (Bowen, Champlin, Carr & Rockecharlie, on brief), for appellant. No brief or argument for appellee. Holly James-Dietrich, wife, appeals an order of the trial court denying her motion for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). On appeal, wife contends: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award Charles P. Dietrich, husband, a percentage of her retirement benefits earned on dates prior to the marriage of the parties and following the separation of the parties; and (2) an equitable distribution award of a retirement account that is part marital and part separate p


CourtListener opinion 1067123

retirement benefits: mes-Dietrich, wife, appeals an order of the trial court denying her motion for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). On appeal, wife contends: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award Charles P. Dietrich, husband, a percentage of her retirement benefits earned on dates prior to the marriage of the parties and following the separation of the parties; and (2) an equitable distribution award of a retirement account that is part marital and part separate property is void ab initio. We hold that the trial court did not err by refusing to enter wife's proffered QDRO and that, pursuant to Rule 1:1, the trial


CourtListener opinion 1067123

pension: the court to enter a QDRO. However, for the reasons asserted by husband, the court found that the -2- entry of the proposed QDRO would impermissibly modify the provision of the May 10, 1999 order regarding husband's interest in wife's military retirement pension. Therefore, the court refused to enter wife's proposed QDRO. Wife appealed that decision to this Court. Rule 1:1 reads in pertinent part: "All final judgments, orders, and decrees, irrespective of terms of court, shall remain under the control of the trial court and subject to be modified, vacated, or suspended for twenty-one days after the date of ent


CourtListener opinion 1067123

domestic relations order: A. Revercomb, III, Judge Larry A. Pochucha (Bowen, Champlin, Carr & Rockecharlie, on brief), for appellant. No brief or argument for appellee. Holly James-Dietrich, wife, appeals an order of the trial court denying her motion for entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). On appeal, wife contends: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award Charles P. Dietrich, husband, a percentage of her retirement benefits earned on dates prior to the marriage of the parties and following the separation of the parties; and (2) an equitable distribution award of a retirement account that is part marital and part separate p


CourtListener opinion 10671899

CourtListener opinion 10671899 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: 121. The FCR evaluated motions to dismiss. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10671899 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 10671899

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 3/5, 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 10671899

ERISA: See ECF Nos. 69, 70, 75, 83, 90, 126. Because all other Defendants have been terminated at this juncture, the Court ORDERS that this civil action is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED on this 23rd day of April 2024. 4U.S. Bank's Motion preempted a liberally construed ERISA claim from Yan's pleadings. See ECF No. 127 at 23 ("To the extent Plaintiff intended to plead an ERISA fiduciary claim irrespective of a supposed violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(H)(i), that claim fails as a matter of law as well."). Yan's pleadings passingly reference "ERISA guidelines" and "concealment of facts in relation to documents required by


CourtListener opinion 10671899

401(k): o the acquisition, establishment, conduct, or control of an enterprise." See Delta Truck & Tractor, Inc. v. J.I. Case Co., 855 F.2d 241, 242 (5th Cir. 1988). Rather, he merely asserts that U.S. Bank acted improperly by providing certain information as his 401(k) administrator in the underlying divorce proceeding. See ECF No. 60 at 24. Yan says he was never informed of a court order for U.S. Bank to divulge this information, a fact which he contends supports RICO liability for U.S. Bank. See id. at 26. But a release of spousal support funds is not a RICO violation. Indeed, time and again the Fifth Circuit has a


CourtListener opinion 10671899

alternate payee: ant plan" and "may be a ‘spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant.'" Miletello v. R M R Mechs., Inc., 921 F.3d 493, 495 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(K)). As U.S. Bank's Motion notes, Yan was not identified as an alternate payee under the family court's orders. See ECF No. 127 at 23. Nor do the pleadings set forth any other facts that would suggest U.S. Bank violated a duty to Yan or otherwise failed to comply with applicable laws.4 Because the pleadings contain no facts that suggest U.S. Bank improperly distributed funds or otherwise deviated from its fiduciary obligations, Y


CourtListener opinion 1067269

CourtListener opinion 1067269 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067269 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 1067269

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 1067269

QDRO: F. Wilson, pro se. No brief or argument for appellee. Husband, John F. Wilson, and wife, Georgia Anne Wilson, were divorced by final decree entered in March 1991. Husband appeals the trial court's decision to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) amending the final decree of divorce. He appeals a separate order requiring him to pay past due child support and argues that he should be granted restitution for amounts he overpaid. Husband further contends that the trial court erred (1) in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear wife's petition for an award of attorney's fees incurred on a previo


CourtListener opinion 1067269

pension: gh 1994. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part. I. ENTRY OF QDRO The final decree of divorce entered in March 1991 provided, in part: [Husband] will pay thirty percent (30%) of the marital share of his Federal Reserve pension each month if, as and when he begins receiving the pension. Marital share is defined as that portion of the total interest, the right to which was earned during the marriage and before the last separation and is represented by the fraction having a numerator of 16 (representing the years during the marriage which [husband's] service was credited tow


CourtListener opinion 1067269

domestic relations order: and a denominator (T), presently unascertained, to reflect the total number of years to be credited towards [husband's] retirement. The complete formula is .30 x 16/T x pension. After the divorce, husband resigned from the Federal Reserve. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) outlined in the final decree did not qualify as a QDRO under federal law and, as such, did not effectuate the terms of the final decree with respect to husband's pension. Accordingly, in December 1992, the trial court entered an order which provided, in part: [T]he pension benefits awarded to [wife] in the Final Decree are her property in which


CourtListener opinion 1067283

CourtListener opinion 1067283 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067283 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 1067283


CourtListener opinion 1067283

QDRO: als from a final decree granting a divorce to Dawn D. Webb (wife). He contends the trial court erred when it imputed income to him in its award of child support and in its award of spousal support to wife. He also contends that the trial court erred in its Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), when it calculated the value of the marital shares of husband's retirement plan on a date different than the parties' separation date. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part. As the parties are fully conversant with the record, and this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, we recite only those facts necess


CourtListener opinion 1067283

retirement benefits: t imputed income to him in its award of child support and in its award of spousal support to wife. He also contends that the trial court erred in its Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), when it calculated the value of the marital shares of husband's retirement plan on a date different than the parties' separation date. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part. As the parties are fully conversant with the record, and this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, we recite only those facts necessary to the disposition of this appeal. BACKGROUND Under familiar principles, we view


CourtListener opinion 1067283

pension: ourt was required to use February 15, 2001, the date the trial court determined to be the date of the parties' separation, as the valuation date of the marital share of his retirement plan. Code § 20-107.3(G) defines a marital share of a retirement plan or pension as that amount accrued from the date of marriage to the date of separation. 1 See Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 19 Va. App. 77, 86, 448 S.E.2d 666, 672 (1994) (valuation of pension funds controlled by Code § 20-107.3(G)); Mann v. Mann, 22 Va. App. 459, 464, 470 S.E.2d 605, 607 1 In addition to the monetary award made pursuant to rights and interests of the par


CourtListener opinion 1067283

domestic relations order: final decree granting a divorce to Dawn D. Webb (wife). He contends the trial court erred when it imputed income to him in its award of child support and in its award of spousal support to wife. He also contends that the trial court erred in its Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), when it calculated the value of the marital shares of husband's retirement plan on a date different than the parties' separation date. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part. As the parties are fully conversant with the record, and this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, we recite only those facts necess


CourtListener opinion 10675548

CourtListener opinion 10675548 Extracted reporter citation: 920 F.3d 278. Docket: Entry No. 20-1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10675548 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 10675548


CourtListener opinion 10675548

QDRO: effective unless in writing and received by the Participant's Employer, and in no event shall it be effective as of any date prior to such receipt. The former Spouse of a Participant shall be treated as a surviving Spouse to the extent provided under a qualified domestic relations order as described in Section 414(p) of the Code. (Docket Entry No. 19-1, at 38). Charlene Taylor was not married when she died. Charlene Taylor and Jerome Taylor were long divorced, and she did not remarry. Transocean has not provided evidence of a qualified domestic relations order that allows Jerome Taylor to be treated as Charlene Taylor's surviving


CourtListener opinion 10675548

retirement benefits: rry. Transocean has not provided evidence of a qualified domestic relations order that allows Jerome Taylor to be treated as Charlene Taylor's surviving spouse. Indeed, the divorce decree divested Jerome Taylor of any right to Charlene Taylor's "individual retirement accounts, simplified employee pensions, annuities, and other variable annuity life insurance benefits." (Docket Entry No. 20-1, at 3). The only basis for treating Jerome Taylor as a beneficiary of the plan is Charlene Taylor's beneficiary designation form. Charlene Taylor filled out the beneficiary designation form while she was still married to Jerome Taylor.


CourtListener opinion 10675548

pension: ignation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset is revoked automatically upon divorce." Id. at 143. In that case, David A. Egelhoff had designated his wife, Donna Rae Egelhoff, as a beneficiary of his work-sponsored life insurance policy and pension plan. David and Donna Egelhoff later divorced. Two months after that, David died. David had not modified his life insurance policy after the divorce, so the life insurance proceeds were paid to Donna. Id. at 144. David's children sued Donna, arguing that they were entitled to recover the life insurance proceeds, "because the Washington statute disquali


CourtListener opinion 10675548

ERISA: funds, asserting that Transocean had correctly paid the benefits to the estate and later erroneously paid the same benefits to Jerome Taylor. (Docket Entry No. 20-1, at 120). Transocean filed this lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), seeking "an equitable lien on specifically identifiable funds in the amount of $137,902.35 within [the estate's] possession." (Docket Entry No. 1, at 5). Transocean and Thure (on behalf of the estate) have filed cross motions for summary judgment. (Docket Entries No. 19, 20). Based on the motions, the responses, the parties' arguments, and the appli


CourtListener opinion 1067569

CourtListener opinion 1067569 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067569 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 1067569


CourtListener opinion 1067569

QDRO: Court in its Order of March 25, 2003? II. Did the Trial court err in finding the Husband [in] contempt of court for not paying the lump sum payment to the Wife [Margaret A. Goodwin] ordered to be paid by the Court Order dated March 25, 2003, because the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QUADRO) required by said Order was not entered by the Court on or before June 20, 2003, or June 27, 2003? * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.


CourtListener opinion 1067569

pension: entered its own written statement. It reads as follows: The Court, on June 20, 2003, entered an interim Order finding the Defendant, JAMES LEE MARTIN, in contempt of court for failing to pay to the Complainant a lump sum payment of $335,000 representing pension proceeds. In its interim Order, the 1 We deny appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal. -2- Court directed that the matter be further heard on June 27, 2003, permitting the Defendant to appear and attempt to purge the contempt or provide reason why the money had not been paid. Issues of post-judgment interest and attorneys fees were also reserved fo


CourtListener opinion 1067569

domestic relations order: ntempt of court. On appeal, husband presents two questions: I. Did the Trial court err in ruling on June 20 and June 27, 2003, that the Court Order of March 25, 2003 did not require the lump sum payment provided therein to be made pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QUADRO) which was ordered to be prepared for submission and approval by the Court in its Order of March 25, 2003? II. Did the Trial court err in finding the Husband [in] contempt of court for not paying the lump sum payment to the Wife [Margaret A. Goodwin] ordered to be paid by the Court Order dated March 25, 2003, because the Qualified Domestic Re


CourtListener opinion 1067580

CourtListener opinion 1067580 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067580 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 1067580

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 1067580

QDRO: Benjamin N. A. Kendrick, Judge David D. Masterman (Cheryl K. Graham; Condo & Masterman, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Stephen G. Cochran (Cochran & Rathbun, P.C., on brief), for appellee. William J. Fahey appeals an order which amended an existing qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relating to the distribution of Mr. Fahey's Keogh plan. By unpublished opinion dated July 23, 1996, a panel of this Court concluded that the court was without jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a


CourtListener opinion 1067580

domestic relations order: N. A. Kendrick, Judge David D. Masterman (Cheryl K. Graham; Condo & Masterman, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Stephen G. Cochran (Cochran & Rathbun, P.C., on brief), for appellee. William J. Fahey appeals an order which amended an existing qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relating to the distribution of Mr. Fahey's Keogh plan. By unpublished opinion dated July 23, 1996, a panel of this Court concluded that the court was without jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a


CourtListener opinion 1067580

valuation/division: hout jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a decree of the trial court entered July 26, 1993, which reserved equitable distribution for subsequent adjudication. Thereafter, on July 28, 1994, the parties executed a property settlement agreement (agreement) which was incorporated into a consent order dated August 31, 1994. Mr. Fahey owned three Keogh accounts, valued by the agreement at $214,000, and the terms of the agreement required him to \promptly arrange to transfer to [Mrs.


CourtListener opinion 1067582

CourtListener opinion 1067582 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067582 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 1067582


CourtListener opinion 10676175

CourtListener opinion 10676175 Extracted reporter citation: 283 F.3d 436. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10676175 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 10676175

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 10676175

QDRO: ded term life policy. This obligation was to continue for as long as Mr. Robles was ordered to pay child support under the Decree. At the time of his death, Mr. Robles was still obligated to continue paying child support to Ms. Bell. 6. The Decree was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under ERISA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C). Specifically, a. The Decree adequately identified the names of the parties to the decree and their mailing addresses by providing addresses of the parties' counsel. b. The Decree identified the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid to Ms. Bell by the plan as it states that


CourtListener opinion 10676175

ERISA: re properly characterized as a finding of fact is adopted as such, and any finding of fact more properly characterized as a conclusion of law is adopted as such. 1. This action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq. and is brought by Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") as an interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. John Robles was married to Ms. Bell. In 2012 Mr. Robles and Ms. Bell executed a mediated divorce settlement agreement and a Texas state court issued a Final


CourtListener opinion 10676175

domestic relations order: ife policy. This obligation was to continue for as long as Mr. Robles was ordered to pay child support under the Decree. At the time of his death, Mr. Robles was still obligated to continue paying child support to Ms. Bell. 6. The Decree was a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under ERISA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C). Specifically, a. The Decree adequately identified the names of the parties to the decree and their mailing addresses by providing addresses of the parties' counsel. b. The Decree identified the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid to Ms. Bell by the plan as it states that


CourtListener opinion 10676650

CourtListener opinion 10676650 Extracted reporter citation: 925 F.2d 866. Docket: 1-1. MetLife again. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10676650 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 10676650


CourtListener opinion 10676650

QDRO: etition. ECF No. 6. She later moved for leave to file this Petition. ECF No. 8. MetLife opposed the Motion for Leave. ECF No. 12. On April 14, 2023, in the same Probate case, McAtamney filed a Cross-Claim for Declaratory Judgment and Original Petition for Qualified Domestic Relations Order. No. 4:23-cv- 01447, ECF No. 1-1. MetLife again filed a Notice of Removal. No. 4:23-cv-01447, ECF No. 1. MetLife subsequently filed an Unopposed Motion to Consolidate, and the court consolidated the two actions on April 27, 2023. On April 20, 2023, Graves filed a Motion to Remand. ECF No. 7. On May 1, 2023, McAtamney filed a Motion to Remand. No. 4:23


CourtListener opinion 10676650

ERISA: e because "when the federal statute completely pre-empts the state-law cause of action, a claim which comes within the scope of that cause of action, even if pleaded in terms of state law, is in reality based on federal law." Id. at 207-08 (cleaned up). "ERISA is one of these statutes" that can completely displace a state-law cause of action. Id. at 208. ERISA aims "to provide a uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans," and thus "includes expansive pre-emption provisions . . . , which are intended to ensure that employee benefit plan regulation would be exclusively a federal concern." Id. (clean


CourtListener opinion 10676650

domestic relations order: CF No. 6. She later moved for leave to file this Petition. ECF No. 8. MetLife opposed the Motion for Leave. ECF No. 12. On April 14, 2023, in the same Probate case, McAtamney filed a Cross-Claim for Declaratory Judgment and Original Petition for Qualified Domestic Relations Order. No. 4:23-cv- 01447, ECF No. 1-1. MetLife again filed a Notice of Removal. No. 4:23-cv-01447, ECF No. 1. MetLife subsequently filed an Unopposed Motion to Consolidate, and the court consolidated the two actions on April 27, 2023. On April 20, 2023, Graves filed a Motion to Remand. ECF No. 7. On May 1, 2023, McAtamney filed a Motion to Remand. No. 4:23


CourtListener opinion 1067700

CourtListener opinion 1067700 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067700 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 1067700


CourtListener opinion 1067700

QDRO: Markle, Isaacs, & Levy, P.L.C., on brief), for appellant. (Mark B. Sandground, Sr.; Lutisha E. Brown; Sandground West & New, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Gwen Mae Smith appeals an order of the circuit court denying her motion for entry of an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). She presents these two questions on appeal: 1. Does the June 6, 2003 [circuit court] judgment contravene the expressed intent of both parties to divide the Government Retirement annuity that the Appellee is entitled to receive by 50%? 2. Does the Circuit Court of Fairfax County have the authority to modify a Qualified Domestic Relations Orde


CourtListener opinion 1067700

domestic relations order: saacs, & Levy, P.L.C., on brief), for appellant. (Mark B. Sandground, Sr.; Lutisha E. Brown; Sandground West & New, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Gwen Mae Smith appeals an order of the circuit court denying her motion for entry of an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). She presents these two questions on appeal: 1. Does the June 6, 2003 [circuit court] judgment contravene the expressed intent of both parties to divide the Government Retirement annuity that the Appellee is entitled to receive by 50%? 2. Does the Circuit Court of Fairfax County have the authority to modify a Qualified Domestic Relations Orde


CourtListener opinion 10677062

CourtListener opinion 10677062 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: Entry No. 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10677062 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 10677062


CourtListener opinion 10677062

QDRO: id not respond. This court heard arguments on October 3, 2023, and granted the motion to dismiss. The court explained its reasons in detail on the record and sets them out briefly below. Jackson did not seek to enter a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) until 2023, after the death of her ex-husband. Although the Fifth Circuit has not ruled directly on this topic, there is a consensus among courts, both in this district and beyond, that "a surviving spouse annuity vests on the date of the participant's death and a proposed QDRO entered posthumously is not enforceable." Stahl v. Exxon Corp., 212 F. Supp


CourtListener opinion 10677062

pension: HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 13, 2023 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION § TAWANDA A. JACKSON, § § Plaintiff, § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-3023 § CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND § SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, § et al., § § Defendants. § FINAL JUDGMENT Tawanda Jackson sued the Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas Pension Fund and the Estate of Van LaPeal Jackson. (Docket Entry No. 1). Tawanda Jackson and Van LaPeal Jackson divorced in September 5, 1989. In July 2023, Tawanda Jackson sued the Fund and the Estate in state court, assert


CourtListener opinion 10677062

domestic relations order: to dismiss, and Jackson did not respond. This court heard arguments on October 3, 2023, and granted the motion to dismiss. The court explained its reasons in detail on the record and sets them out briefly below. Jackson did not seek to enter a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) until 2023, after the death of her ex-husband. Although the Fifth Circuit has not ruled directly on this topic, there is a consensus among courts, both in this district and beyond, that "a surviving spouse annuity vests on the date of the participant's death and a proposed QDRO entered posthumously is not enforceable." Stahl v. Exxon Corp., 212 F


CourtListener opinion 10677062

survivor benefits: n did not seek to enter a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) until 2023, after the death of her ex-husband. Although the Fifth Circuit has not ruled directly on this topic, there is a consensus among courts, both in this district and beyond, that "a surviving spouse annuity vests on the date of the participant's death and a proposed QDRO entered posthumously is not enforceable." Stahl v. Exxon Corp., 212 F. Supp. 2d 657, 669 (S.D. Tex. 2002) (collecting cases); see Guzman v. Commonwealth Edison Co., No. 99-CV-582, 2000 WL 1898846, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2000) (‘rights to survivor's benefits are fixed as the part


CourtListener opinion 10679660

CourtListener opinion 10679660 Extracted reporter citation: 281 F.3d 158. Docket: and RETURN it to the docket of the Honorable Lee Ye. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10679660 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 10679660

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 10679660

QDRO: dered Defendant's counsel to prepare a final divorce decree, circulate it "for approval as to form," then submit it for the judge's signature. Id. at 64. The State Court further stated that the divorce would "be effective this date for the purposes of the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order]." Id. at 60. Plaintiff has attached an unsigned draft of the proposed "Final Decree of Divorce" to his Complaint, but has not indicated whether a final divorce decree was entered. Defendant contends that the divorce proceedings are ongoing. Dkt. 5 at 10-11. On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant; Defe


CourtListener opinion 10679660

retirement benefits: entered into a "Rule 11 Agreement" dividing their community property and declaring that the marriage "will be dissolved on the ground of insupportability." Dkt. 1-1 at 13. The parties failed to come to an agreement as to how their marital residence and two retirement plans should be divided. Dkt. 13-1 at 9-10. Accordingly, on August 5, 2020, after a hearing, the State Court ruled from the bench that Defendant's retirement account was community property and ordered that Defendant could sell the marital residence. Id. at 53-54. The State Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant $2,500 in attorney's fees due to his re


CourtListener opinion 10679660

domestic relations order: endant's counsel to prepare a final divorce decree, circulate it "for approval as to form," then submit it for the judge's signature. Id. at 64. The State Court further stated that the divorce would "be effective this date for the purposes of the [Qualified Domestic Relations Order]." Id. at 60. Plaintiff has attached an unsigned draft of the proposed "Final Decree of Divorce" to his Complaint, but has not indicated whether a final divorce decree was entered. Defendant contends that the divorce proceedings are ongoing. Dkt. 5 at 10-11. On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant; Defe


CourtListener opinion 10679660

valuation/division: ms ("Defendant") filed a petition for divorce from Blayne D. Williams, Sr. ("Plaintiff") in the 353rd Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas ("State Court"). Dkt. 1 at ¶ 8. The parties subsequently entered into a "Rule 11 Agreement" dividing their community property and declaring that the marriage "will be dissolved on the ground of insupportability." Dkt. 1-1 at 13. The parties failed to come to an agreement as to how their marital residence and two retirement plans should be divided. Dkt. 13-1 at 9-10. Accordingly, on August 5, 2020, after a hearing, the State Court ruled from the bench that Defendant's retirement


CourtListener opinion 1067998

CourtListener opinion 1067998 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067998 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 1067998


CourtListener opinion 1067998

QDRO: pension; (4) in assigning husband only 25% of wife's pension and awarding her a monetary award of $105,000; (5) in finding as wife's separate property a contribution of $23,000 from her inheritance used to improve the marital home; (6) in conditioning the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on a * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. specific payment of the monetary award to wife; (7) in ordering interest to accrue on the amount of the monetary award if not timely paid; (8) in reserving wife's right to seek spousal support for a specified period; and (9) in barring husband's transfer, dispo


CourtListener opinion 1067998

pension: chanan (wife) a divorce on the basis of constructive desertion; (2) in failing to explain the factors upon which it based equitable distribution of the marital property; (3) in refusing to assign a present value to wife's Virginia Retirement System (VRS) pension; (4) in assigning husband only 25% of wife's pension and awarding her a monetary award of $105,000; (5) in finding as wife's separate property a contribution of $23,000 from her inheritance used to improve the marital home; (6) in conditioning the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on a * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designa


CourtListener opinion 1067998

domestic relations order: 4) in assigning husband only 25% of wife's pension and awarding her a monetary award of $105,000; (5) in finding as wife's separate property a contribution of $23,000 from her inheritance used to improve the marital home; (6) in conditioning the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on a * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. specific payment of the monetary award to wife; (7) in ordering interest to accrue on the amount of the monetary award if not timely paid; (8) in reserving wife's right to seek spousal support for a specified period; and (9) in barring husband's transfer, dispo


CourtListener opinion 1067998

valuation/division: answer and cross-bill. She denied any intentional assault on husband other than in her own attempts to defend herself against his abuse. In her cross-bill, wife requested a divorce a mensa et thoro pursuant to Code § 20-91(6). She sought spousal support, equitable distribution of the marital property, court costs and attorney's fees. - 2 - Husband denied wife's allegations and moved to dismiss the cross-bill. Following extensive evidentiary hearings, the trial court found that wife proved cruelty by husband and ordered the marriage dissolved on that basis. The trial court distributed the marital property in accordance w


CourtListener opinion 10680823

CourtListener opinion 10680823 Extracted reporter citation: 703 F.2d 170. Docket: entry. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10680823 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 10680823

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 10680823

QDRO: t purposes: All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. The Order also preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement as fair and reasonable; established a qualified settlement fund; scheduled a fairness hearing for final review of the settlement; approved


CourtListener opinion 10680823

ERISA: ore has authority to issue this recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Plaintiffs' motion be granted. I. Background This case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Plaintiffs James R. Blackmon, Justin M. Rozelle, Eric A. Myers and Jared Munson filed this action on behalf of themselves, the ZHI 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan ("the Plan"), and all other former and present participants in the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, who are the alleged Plan fiduciaries, breached their fid


CourtListener opinion 10680823

401(k): ted. I. Background This case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Plaintiffs James R. Blackmon, Justin M. Rozelle, Eric A. Myers and Jared Munson filed this action on behalf of themselves, the ZHI 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan ("the Plan"), and all other former and present participants in the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, who are the alleged Plan fiduciaries, breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan by: (1) selecting and retaining imprudent investments in the Plan; (2) causing the Plan to pay unreasonable investment management fees; and (


CourtListener opinion 10680823

alternate payee: he following Settlement Class for settlement purposes: All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. The Order also preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement as fair and reasonable; established a qualified settlement fund; scheduled a fairness hearing for final revi


CourtListener opinion 10680862

CourtListener opinion 10680862 Extracted reporter citation: 703 F.2d 170. Docket: entry. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10680862 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 10680862


CourtListener opinion 10680862

ERISA: rsigned therefore has authority to issue this order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Plaintiffs' motion be granted. I. Background This case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Plaintiffs James R. Blackmon, Justin M. Rozelle, Eric A. Myers and Jared Munson filed this action on behalf of themselves, the ZHI 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan ("the Plan"), and all other former and present participants in the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, who are the alleged Plan fiduciaries, breached their fid


CourtListener opinion 10680862

alternate payee: e following Settlement Class for settlement purposes: All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries. The Order also preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement as fair and reasonable; established a qualified settlement fund; scheduled a fairness hearing for final revi


CourtListener opinion 1068276

CourtListener opinion 1068276 Extracted case name: DEBORAH BOWERS SMITH v. RILEY DEAN SMITH A. Extracted reporter citation: 954 S.W.2d 730. Docket: W2002-00477-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1068276 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 1068276

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 1068276

QDRO: brooks & Gray, P.A.... 5. That the Plaintiff's Motion for Discretionary Costs is granted in the amount of $665.95 for court reporter fees. Defendant shall pay as alimony in solido said sum to Plaintiff's attorney of record, Middlebrooks & Gray, P.A. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order was entered on February 19, 2002. Mr. Smith filed Notice of Appeal on February 21, 2002. Pending appeal and pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P 62.03, Mr. Smith filed a Motion and Memorandum of Law to Stay Execution of Qualified Domestic Relations Order on March 13, 2002. The Motion to Stay Execution of Qualified Domestic Relations was heard on April 4, 2002. The M


CourtListener opinion 1068276

retirement benefits: is matter as the only sanction that's brought against Riley Dean Smith * * * IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: * * * 3. That Husband shall receive the real property located at 168 Pleasant Hill Road, Humbolt, Gibson County, Tennessee...one-half (½) of Jones Retirement Account ($144,407.36); one-half (½) of Phantom Stock ($109,158.50)... 4. That Wife shall be awarded...one-half (½) of Jones Retirement Account ($144,407.36); one-half (½) of Phantom Stock ($109,158.50)...2000 Dodge automobile... * * * 10. That Husband shall pay to Wife as alimony in futuro the sum of $3,000 per month, beginning September 1, 2001, and the


CourtListener opinion 1068276

pension: riate, and in determining the nature, amount, length of term, and manner of payment, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including: (A) The relative earning capacity, obligations, needs, and financial resources of each party, including income from pension, profit sharing or retirement plans and all other sources; (B) The relative education and training of each party, the ability and opportunity of each party to secure such education and training, and the necessity of a party to secure further education and training to improve such party's earning capacity to a reasonable level; (C)The duration of the marri


CourtListener opinion 1068276

domestic relations order: Gray, P.A.... 5. That the Plaintiff's Motion for Discretionary Costs is granted in the amount of $665.95 for court reporter fees. Defendant shall pay as alimony in solido said sum to Plaintiff's attorney of record, Middlebrooks & Gray, P.A. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order was entered on February 19, 2002. Mr. Smith filed Notice of Appeal on February 21, 2002. Pending appeal and pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P 62.03, Mr. Smith filed a Motion and Memorandum of Law to Stay Execution of Qualified Domestic Relations Order on March 13, 2002. The Motion to Stay Execution of Qualified Domestic Relations was heard on April 4, 2002. The M


CourtListener opinion 1068685

CourtListener opinion 1068685 Extracted case name: FLOYD MICHAEL WOODY v. JOY DARLENE WOODY. Docket: E2001-02078-COA-R3-CV In this case from the Chancery. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1068685 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 1068685


CourtListener opinion 1068685

QDRO: equally divide all stock in Mr. Woody's Roadway Services, Incorporated, Stock Retirement Income Plan, as of April 20, 1993. The total number of shares to be divided is 3,168. Each party will receive 1,584 shares. These shares will be distributed as per the Qualified Domestic Relations Order which will issue from this Court and be fully adopted as if fully set forth herein. Thereafter, in accord with the above provision, the Trial Court entered a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter "QDRO") which orders distribution to Ms. Woody of her designated share of the stock in the above referenced stock retirement income plan, which the QD


CourtListener opinion 1068685

pension: Chancellor FILED OCTOBER 29, 2002 No. E2001-02078-COA-R3-CV In this case from the Chancery Court of Hamblen County the Appellant, Floyd Michael Woody contends that the Trial Court erred in amending a final judgment for divorce to include one half of his pension fund as part of the marital property to be awarded the Appellee, Joy Darlene Woody. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed as modified. Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed as Modified; Cause Remanded HOUSTON M. GODDARD , P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P. FRANKS and CHARLES D. SUSA


CourtListener opinion 1068685

domestic relations order: vide all stock in Mr. Woody's Roadway Services, Incorporated, Stock Retirement Income Plan, as of April 20, 1993. The total number of shares to be divided is 3,168. Each party will receive 1,584 shares. These shares will be distributed as per the Qualified Domestic Relations Order which will issue from this Court and be fully adopted as if fully set forth herein. Thereafter, in accord with the above provision, the Trial Court entered a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter "QDRO") which orders distribution to Ms. Woody of her designated share of the stock in the above referenced stock retirement income plan, which the QD


CourtListener opinion 1068819

CourtListener opinion 1068819 Extracted case name: TERRY B. HARDIN v. TERESA DIANE HARDIN. Extracted reporter citation: 937 S.W.2d 823. Docket: M2001-01845-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1068819 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 1068819


CourtListener opinion 1068819

QDRO: r. Hardin commenced a monthly retirement benefit from the Ford Motor Company-UAW Retirement Plan on June 1, 1999. The monthly benefit is currently $831.11." The memo continues that if a benefit from the pension plan is required for the alternate payee, then a QDRO is required. The attachment regarding alternate payee benefits sets forth the requirements for such a QDRO. -2- We conclude the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of th Trial Court. The documentation from the Ford Motor Company clearly indicates that the husband is receiving benefits under a retirement plan provided by his employer. Ther


CourtListener opinion 1068819

retirement benefits: t Cantrell, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. C. Ronald Blanton and Joseph Y. Longmire, Hendersonville, Tennessee, for Appellee. OPINION In this divorce action, the Trial Court determined that the monthly payments received by the husband from the Ford Retirement Plan was a marital asset and declared the wife to have a 50% interest in the same and awarded her one-half of a lump sum payment already received by the husband in the amount of $6,000.00. The husband has appealed. The parties stipulated to a divorce pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §36-4-129. The husband testified that he applied to Ford Company for disability be


CourtListener opinion 1068819

pension: had health problems, including Hepatitis C, and was unable to work, and she filed an exhibit consisting of documentation provided to her attorney via a subpoena to the Ford Motor Company. The Trial Judge determined the Ford Retirement Plan was a retirement/pension plan and a marital asset. If the Trial Court is correct in its characterization of the monthly payment, then the payment constitutes marital property, subject to equitable division. Tenn. Code Ann. §36-4- 121(b)(1)(B), Cohen v. Cohen, 937 S.W.2d 823 (Tenn. 1996). (C.f., Gragg v. Gragg, 12 S.W.3d 412 (Tenn. 2000) (holding that true disability payments replac


CourtListener opinion 1068819

alternate payee: checked "disability". The information subpoenaed from Ford Motor Company and filed in evidence, consists of a cover letter to the attorney, a memo on Ford Motor Company letterhead regarding benefits information on husband, and attachment which is entitled, "Alternate Payee's Ford-UAW Pension Benefits". The memo regarding husband's benefits addresses three categories - health care, savings plans, and pension plans. Under the Pension Plans heading, the memo states "In response to your request for Pension data, please be advised that Mr. Hardin commenced a monthly retirement benefit from the Ford Motor Company-UAW Retirement Pla


CourtListener opinion 10688243

CourtListener opinion 10688243 Extracted reporter citation: 394 F.3d 213. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10688243 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 10688243


CourtListener opinion 10688243

QDRO: the term "spouse" in the Plan includes or excludes a bigamous spouse.4 The parties also agree that Virginia does not recognize 3 The Plan's definition of "spouse" concerns a circumstance in which a plan participant divorces his or her spouse pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. See Plan at 55. Because this case does not involve a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the Plan's definition of "spouse" is not helpful in resolving the issues at hand. 4 Federal courts in ERISA cases have consistently applied state law to determine whether a bigamous spouse is entitled to plan benefits. See, e.g., Crosby v. Crosby, 986 F.2d 79, 81–8


CourtListener opinion 10688243

pension: uirement . . . [with] the periods vary[ing] among the States and rang[ing] from six weeks to two years."). 7 In each of the four cases, the evidence offered to invalidate the allegedly bigamous marriage was clearly insufficient. First, in Roofers Local 149 Pension Fund v. Pack, No. 2:19-cv-10628, 2020 WL 2526091, at *6 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2020), the allegedly bigamous marriage was not invalidated because the only evidence adduced to invalidate the later- in-time marriage was the earlier-in-time spouse's deposition testimony that "he was still married to me." Second, in Teamsters Local 639 Empr' Pension Tr. v. Johns


CourtListener opinion 10688243

ERISA: INION Jimmy Ghadban ("Decedent") died on February 11, 2019 without designating a beneficiary to receive the funds in a 401(k) Plan he maintained with his employer, SYG Associates, Inc. ("SYG"), pursuant to the Employment Retirement Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq. Thereafter, Decedent's third wife, Plaintiff Eliza Bonner ("Plaintiff") claimed that she was Decedent's surviving "spouse" and hence entitled to the funds in Decedent's 401(k) Plan as the default beneficiary. The 401(k) Plan Administrators, Mary Kathryn Hamill, Susan Webb, and SYG (collectively, "Defendants"), disagreed wit


CourtListener opinion 10688243

401(k): A BONNER, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-1514 ) SYG ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Jimmy Ghadban ("Decedent") died on February 11, 2019 without designating a beneficiary to receive the funds in a 401(k) Plan he maintained with his employer, SYG Associates, Inc. ("SYG"), pursuant to the Employment Retirement Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq. Thereafter, Decedent's third wife, Plaintiff Eliza Bonner ("Plaintiff") claimed that she was Decedent's surviving "spouse" and hence entitled to the funds in Decedent's 401(k) Plan as the de


CourtListener opinion 1069501

CourtListener opinion 1069501 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1069501 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 1069501

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 1069501

QDRO: OUNTY L. A. Harris, Jr., Judge (Andrea R. Stiles; Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. (Torrence M. Harman; Harman & Harman, P.C., on brief), for appellee. John G. Myers, Jr., contends the trial judge erred in entering qualified domestic relations orders and a domestic relations order after more than twenty-one days had elapsed from the expiration of a sixty-day period reserved by the final divorce decree for entry of the orders. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rul


CourtListener opinion 1069501

pension: t to Code § 17.1-400(D). ** Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Background On March 9, 1998, the parties entered into an agreement which contained a specified distribution to the parties of husband's retirement, pension, profit sharing, deferred compensation assets, and IRA account. In part, Section F of the agreement states that \[t]he parties agree to the following distribution of such assets


CourtListener opinion 1069501

domestic relations order: A. Harris, Jr., Judge (Andrea R. Stiles; Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. (Torrence M. Harman; Harman & Harman, P.C., on brief), for appellee. John G. Myers, Jr., contends the trial judge erred in entering qualified domestic relations orders and a domestic relations order after more than twenty-one days had elapsed from the expiration of a sixty-day period reserved by the final divorce decree for entry of the orders. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rul


CourtListener opinion 10701570

CourtListener opinion 10701570 Extracted case name: ORDER REGARDING v. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO. Extracted reporter citation: 554 U.S. 105. Docket: generated by the 22. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10701570 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 10701570


CourtListener opinion 10701570

QDRO: . (See AR at 8, 14 ("Teresa Richardson is the 2 alternate payee for Participant Warren Richardson under [IBEW] Pacific Coast Pension 3 Fund."), 441.)2 4 Ms. Richardson and non-party Warren Richardson divorced in October 2001. (Id. 5 at 14.) Pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), Ms. Richardson 6 was awarded 100% of the pension benefits credited to Mr. Richardson, as a participant in 7 the Plan from November 1974 to March 1996. (Id.) In 2006, Ms. Richardson applied for 8 her pension and received her first check in May 2006, in the amount of $2,071.50. (Id.) 9 The Plan provides an actuarial reduction to a participant's


CourtListener opinion 10701570

retirement benefits: gust 22, 2016, 15 audit of QDROs. (Id. at 37.) Ms. Richardson's QDRO awards her a 100% share of the 16 community accrual. (Id. at 38.) At the time Ms. Richardson filed her application for 17 pension benefits, the Plan was providing heavily subsidized early retirement benefits to 18 Plan Participants, which were funded solely through employer contributions. (Id. at 443.) 19 Part 4(a) of Ms. Richardson's QDRO states that the benefits are to be calculated in the 20 form of an annuity under the Joint and Survivor provisions of the Plan or, if applicable, 21 under Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") 414(p)(4)(A)(ii) based upon the ag


CourtListener opinion 10701570

pension: 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 TERESA RICHARDSON, CASE NO. C19-0772JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING v. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 12 DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE IBEW PACIFIC COAST PENSION 13 PARTIES' TRIAL BRIEFS FUND, 14 Defendant. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Plaintiff Teresa Richardson brings an action under the Employee Retirement 17 Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., against Defendant 18 IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Fund ("IBEW" or "the Plan") related to IBEW's reduction 19 in her monthly pensi


CourtListener opinion 10701570

ERISA: ISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE IBEW PACIFIC COAST PENSION 13 PARTIES' TRIAL BRIEFS FUND, 14 Defendant. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Plaintiff Teresa Richardson brings an action under the Employee Retirement 17 Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., against Defendant 18 IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Fund ("IBEW" or "the Plan") related to IBEW's reduction 19 in her monthly pension benefit amount and IBEW's attempt to recoup its alleged 20 overpayment to Ms. Richardson. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) Essentially, Ms. 21 Richardson is appealing IBEW's decision to


CourtListener opinion 10704515

CourtListener opinion 10704515 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: and page numbers applied by the Court. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10704515 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 10704515


CourtListener opinion 10704515

retirement benefits: Defendants"), and John Does 1–30 breached fiduciary duties owed to beneficiaries of the Plan. 6 Id. at ¶ 3. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by: 7 (1) authorizing the Plan to pay unreasonably high fees for retirement plan services ("RPS"); (2) failing to objectively, reasonably, and adequately review the Plan's 8 investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (3) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the 9 availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better perform


CourtListener opinion 10704515

ERISA: ("Generac") until May 11, 2021, and is a participant and beneficiary of the Generac Power 2 Systems, Inc. Employees 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan"). Id. at ¶¶ 12–14. Plaintiff brought 3 this action, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), maintaining 4 that Defendants Generac, the Board of Directors of Generac Power Systems, Inc. (the "Board 5 Defendants"), and John Does 1–30 breached fiduciary duties owed to beneficiaries of the Plan. 6 Id. at ¶ 3. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by: 7 (1) authorizing the Plan to pay unreasonably h


CourtListener opinion 10704515

401(k): DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 DERECK CASE, individually, and as CASE NO. C21-752 RSM representative of a Class of Participants and 9 Beneficiaries of the Generac Power Systems, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' Inc. Employees 401(k) Savings Plan, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO 10 THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF Plaintiffs, WISCONSIN AND DENYING MOTION 11 TO STAY v. 12 GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue to the Eastern 17 District of Wisconsin. Dkt. #25. Additionally, De


CourtListener opinion 10704515

domestic relations order: a claim for benefits that is denied or ignored, in whole or in 14 part, you may file suit in federal court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In addition, if you disagree with the Plan's decision or lack thereof 15 concerning the qualified status of a domestic relations order, you may file suit in a federal court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 16 • If it should happen that Plan fiduciaries misuse the Plan's money, or if you 17 are discriminated against for asserting your rights, you may seek assistance from the U.S. Department of Labor, or you may file suit in a 18 federal court in the Eastern District of Wiscons


CourtListener opinion 1070670

CourtListener opinion 1070670 Extracted case name: THOMAS R. STUBBLEFIELD v. MONIQUE RUTH STUBBLEFIELD. Extracted reporter citation: 954 S.W.2d 730. Docket: E2001-01433-COA-R3-CV Husband. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1070670 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 1070670


CourtListener opinion 1070670

QDRO: t's determination, since this is the figure the husband himself proposed in his "Memorandum of Facts Regarding Plaintiff's Retirement Account", which the Court adopted. The counsel for wife asserts that whether the government could pay the wife directly via a QDRO is outside this record. The Court's amended Memorandum Opinion provided that if a QDRO was not available, then the husband is to make the payment directly to the wife. Nothing in the record indicates that the husband objected to the language of the Final Decree which awards the wife $234.85 per month, plus 15% of any future increase in benefits. This issu


CourtListener opinion 1070670

retirement benefits: coverage is $314.00 per month. The Court's Amended Opinion addressed the division of retirement income. Husband's pension was specifically held to be marital property, and the Court's Opinion adopted the husband's "Memorandum of Facts Regarding Plaintiff's Retirement Account" and awarded 15% of husband's benefit to the wife, which equals $234.85 per month. Our review of the Trial Court's finding of fact is de novo with a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. Rule 13(d). Trial courts have wide latitude to adjust and adjudicate an equitable division of marital property, guided