CourtListener opinion 4535263

pension: . The next month, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. [4] In February 2018, Husband and Wife entered into a mediated settlement agreement, which provided in relevant part as follows: 24. Qualified Domestic Relations Order/Military Pension Division Order (QDRO/MPDO) [("QDRO provision")]. Wife Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 2 of 22 shall be entitled to receive fifty percent (50%) of Husband's accrued vested monthly benefit from his Military Reserve Annuity Retirement from the date of marriage through the value determined as of June 14, 2017. Wife sh


CourtListener opinion 4535263

domestic relations order: s of service. Appellant's Br. at 6. The next month, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. [4] In February 2018, Husband and Wife entered into a mediated settlement agreement, which provided in relevant part as follows: 24. Qualified Domestic Relations Order/Military Pension Division Order (QDRO/MPDO) [("QDRO provision")]. Wife Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 2 of 22 shall be entitled to receive fifty percent (50%) of Husband's accrued vested monthly benefit from his Military Reserve Annuity Retirement from the date of marriage through the value determined as of June


CourtListener opinion 4535737

CourtListener opinion 4535737 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thompson. Extracted reporter citation: 64 P.3d 92. Docket: 35888-7-III In re the Marriage of: Kulesza .... The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4535737 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 4535737

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 4535737

QDRO: A Retirement Plan with the agreement that she will be responsible for payment of all the taxes on the distribution and the community debt that is to be paid from a portion of the IRA proceeds. Upon final decree of dissolution being entered and a subsequent QDRO being completed, wife shall withdraw from the IRA account a minimum of $70,000 in order to pay the outstanding community debts of the parties. A comprehensive list shall be updated and attached to this agreement. These debts must be paid as soon as possible and no later than one month from the date of completion of the QDRO. Any remaining funds shall b


CourtListener opinion 4535737

retirement benefits: toward a parenting plan. The parties did not sign any settlement agreement, however, until February 1, 2016. The settlement agreement, captioned CR 2A Mediated Agreement, read in part: Wife shall be awarded [one hundred percent] of husband's VanGuard IRA Retirement Plan with the agreement that she will be responsible for payment of all the taxes on the distribution and the community debt that is to be paid from a portion of the IRA proceeds. Upon final decree of dissolution being entered and a subsequent QDRO being completed, wife shall withdraw from the IRA account a minimum of $70,000 in order to pay the outstanding


CourtListener opinion 4535737

domestic relations order: esza pocketed $40,716. He could have paid additional community debits, including a debt to U.S. Bank in the amount of $4,450 and a debt owed to Citibank in the sum of $1,230, but he chose otherwise. On February 12, 2016, Jerrie Anthony signed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as required under the parties' agreement and the dissolution decree so that the holder of the VanGuard IRA retirement account would assign the account to Anthony. Konrad Kulesza told her she must pay $300 for the QDRO to be prepared, and, on February 12, she went to Kulesza's attorney's office and paid the sum. The trial court entered the QDRO o


CourtListener opinion 4535852

CourtListener opinion 4535852 Extracted case name: PAMELA A. DOBBINS v. MARK J. DOBBINS HUMPHREY. Extracted reporter citation: 190 A.3d 244. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4535852 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 4535852


CourtListener opinion 4535852

QDRO: * Chief Justice Saufley participated in the appeal but resigned before this opinion was certified. Justice Alexander also participated in the appeal but retired before this opinion was certified. 1 The parties and the court refer to the court's order as a "qualified domestic relations order" or "QDRO." However, the court's 2009 order is entitled "Court Order Acceptable for Processing Under the Federal Employees Retirement System" (COAP), which is required by 5 C.F.R. §§ 838.101-.1121 (2020). See 5 U.S.C.S. § 8467(a)(1) (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 116-140); see also 2 Brett R. Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property § 6:14 at 104-06 (4th ed.


CourtListener opinion 4535852

retirement benefits: BINS HUMPHREY, J. [¶1] Mark J. Dobbins appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Bangor, Jordan, J.) granting Pamela A. Dobbins's motion to enforce the terms of a 2007 divorce judgment and a 2009 court order acceptable for processing (COAP) federal retirement benefits.1 Mark argues that the language in the * Chief Justice Saufley participated in the appeal but resigned before this opinion was certified. Justice Alexander also participated in the appeal but retired before this opinion was certified. 1 The parties and the court refer to the court's order as a "qualified domestic relations order" or "QDRO." However, th


CourtListener opinion 4535852

pension: [¶2] Pamela and Mark were married in 1976. On July 26, 2006, Pamela filed a complaint for divorce against Mark.2 The court (R. Murray, J.) entered a final divorce judgment on October 17, 2007, which stated, in relevant part, that [Mark] is the owner of pension/retirement plans through the United States Postal Service. The court finds that said pension/retirement accounts are marital property and orders that said pension/retirement accounts be divided equally between the parties. The Court further orders that the necessary [COAP] shall be prepared by [Pamela's] counsel and shall be filed with the Court and f


CourtListener opinion 4535852

ERISA: o 2 Brett R. Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property § 6:14 at 104-06 (4th ed. 2019) (discussing COAPs and the distribution of federal retirement benefits). A QDRO is an order allocating retirement benefits pursuant to a private retirement plan governed by ERISA, see 29 U.S.C.S. § 1056(d) (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 116-140), from which Mark's federal retirement plan is exempt, see 29 U.S.C.S. § 1003(b)(1) (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 116-140). Although a COAP has the same procedural effect as a QDRO, a COAP is required before the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will distribute federal retirement be


CourtListener opinion 4538382

CourtListener opinion 4538382 Extracted reporter citation: 673 N.W.2d 261. Docket: 20190300. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4538382 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 4538382


CourtListener opinion 4538382

QDRO: The district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered judgment. The judgment stated Myron Axtman's Hess pension account "shall be divided equally between the parties as of the date of commencement of this action for divorce" through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). If Myron Axtman's Hess pension account could not be equally divided by a QDRO, the court suggested the issue should be dealt with by motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. Myron Axtman filed a proposed QDRO on March 26, 2019. The proposed QDRO did not address the pension payments Myron Axtman received during the pendency of the divorce. The same day, Amy A


CourtListener opinion 4538382

retirement benefits: r, we stated we would have preferred the court's correction have been made under Rule 60(b), but the correction was proper under Rule 60(a). Id. The facts of this case are analogous to the facts in Roth and Gruebele. The judgment stated Myron Axtman's "Hess Retirement account shall be 6 divided equally between the parties as of the date of commencement of this action for divorce by use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order." The amended judgment ordered Myron Axtman pay Amy Axtman half of the pension payments he had received since the commencement of the divorce action. As expressed in the original judgment, the court inten


CourtListener opinion 4538382

pension: 60(a) without providing proper notice. We affirm. I This is an appeal from a divorce action that was commenced in 2017. The only issue was division of the parties' marital property. Included as part of the parties' marital property was Myron Axtman's Hess pension. The pension benefits commenced on February 1, 2015, at which time Myron Axtman began receiving $2,891.60 per month. The district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered judgment. The judgment stated Myron Axtman's Hess pension account "shall be divided equally between the parties as of the date of commencement of this action for


CourtListener opinion 4538382

401(k): ny and evidence, and construed the language of the stipulation to find a mistake from omission and to enter the amended judgment." Id. at ¶ 19. In Roth, 2006 ND 119, ¶ 11, 715 N.W.2d 149, the district court issued a memorandum opinion awarding 65% of Roth's 401(k) to Hoffer and 35% to Roth. At trial, evidence was introduced valuing the 401(k) at $68,352.41 with an outstanding loan of $11,233.77 against the account. Id. at ¶ 11. The judgment, which was prepared by Hoffer, stated the 401(k) had a value of $53,620.91 with an $11,233.77 loan against it, leaving a net value of $42,387.14. Id. at ¶ 2. The judgment awarded


CourtListener opinion 4539763

CourtListener opinion 4539763 Extracted reporter citation: 673 N.W.2d 261. Docket: 20190300. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4539763 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 4539763


CourtListener opinion 4541435

CourtListener opinion 4541435 Extracted reporter citation: 783 A.2d 807. Docket: 1324 MDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4541435 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 4541435


CourtListener opinion 4541435

QDRO: licensed actuary who has testified in Berks County, among others, regarding the issue of valuation of pension benefits, including PSERS. Wife's expert, William Ehrich, Esquire, is an attorney whose practice focuses on the preparation of ADRO's, DRO's, and QDRO's for the purposes of distributing pension benefits. The parties stipulated that both Mr. Cramer and Mr. Ehrich were "expert[s] in regard to pension evaluations." N.T. Divorce Hearing, 12/5/18-12/27-18, at 6. As the trial court noted, the Master found a significant discrepancy of an amount nearly $100,000.00 among the numerous, final valuations present


CourtListener opinion 4541435

retirement benefits: the parties. Carney v. Carney, 167 A.3d 127, 131 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citations omitted). Wife's PSERS account is a defined benefit pension plan. Section 3501(c) of the Divorce Code speaks to the calculations that must be made when valuing a defined benefit retirement plan for purposes of equitable distribution according to either an immediate offset or a deferred distribution method: (c) Defined benefit retirement plans.--Notwithstanding subsections (a), (a.1) and (b): (1) In the case of the marital portion of a defined benefit retirement plan being distributed by means of a deferred distribution, the defined benefit


CourtListener opinion 4541435

pension: .R.A.P. 341(c), denying Husband's Exceptions to the Master's Report and Recommendation for Equitable Distribution which, inter alia, deferred valuation and distribution of Kelly J. Musket's ("Wife") Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS") pension. We affirm. The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history herein as follows: The parties in the above-captioned divorce, [Husband] and [Wife] were married on June 26, 2006. Husband initiated divorce proceedings on September 23, 2015. This appeal arises out of this [c]ourt's order of July 15, 2019, designating our order of May 2


CourtListener opinion 4541435

valuation/division: entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County on May 23, 2019, made final for purposes of appeal by the Order entered on July 15, 2019, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 341(c), denying Husband's Exceptions to the Master's Report and Recommendation for Equitable Distribution which, inter alia, deferred valuation and distribution of Kelly J. Musket's ("Wife") Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS") pension. We affirm. The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history herein as follows: The parties in the above-captioned divorce, [Husband] and [Wife] were married on June 26, 2006. Husba


CourtListener opinion 4541756

CourtListener opinion 4541756 Extracted reporter citation: 479 S.W.2d 2. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4541756 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 4541756

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 4541756

QDRO: he petition did state a claim, and retransferred to the court of appeals for resolution of the issues on appeal); Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.W.3d 530, 531 (Mo. banc 2003) (following this Court's grant of transfer from the court of appeals, this Court determined a qualified domestic relations order was appealable and retransferred for the court of appeals to consider the merits); Williams v. Williams, 41 S.W.3d 877, 878 (Mo. banc 2001) (retransferring to the court of appeals for a determination on the merits after the court of appeals transferred the case to this Court due to a conflict between the districts); Paulson v. Dir. of Revenue, 724 S.W.2d 51


CourtListener opinion 4541756

domestic relations order: n did state a claim, and retransferred to the court of appeals for resolution of the issues on appeal); Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.W.3d 530, 531 (Mo. banc 2003) (following this Court's grant of transfer from the court of appeals, this Court determined a qualified domestic relations order was appealable and retransferred for the court of appeals to consider the merits); Williams v. Williams, 41 S.W.3d 877, 878 (Mo. banc 2001) (retransferring to the court of appeals for a determination on the merits after the court of appeals transferred the case to this Court due to a conflict between the districts); Paulson v. Dir. of Revenue, 724 S.W.2d 51


CourtListener opinion 4544345

CourtListener opinion 4544345 Docket: 347143 Oakland Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4544345 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 4544345

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 4544345

QDRO: hat he was recently granted social security disability in the amount of $2,614 per month, which is now his only income. Defendant testified that he and plaintiff divided all pensions and retirement accounts equally upon their divorce through the entry of five Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's). Defendant expects to begin receiving approximately $500 per month from EDS and Boeing pensions and currently has approximately $300,000 in a 401(k) account that he has not drawn upon. He has $4,500 in combined checking and savings accounts. Defendant does not own a home but instead rents a house in Royal Oak with a partner. He also no longer ow


CourtListener opinion 4544345

retirement benefits: tions. With respect to income, assets, and bills, defendant testified that he was recently granted social security disability in the amount of $2,614 per month, which is now his only income. Defendant testified that he and plaintiff divided all pensions and retirement accounts equally upon their divorce through the entry of five Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's). Defendant expects to begin receiving approximately $500 per month from EDS and Boeing pensions and currently has approximately $300,000 in a 401(k) account that he has not drawn upon. He has $4,500 in combined checking and savings accounts. Defendant does n


CourtListener opinion 4544345

pension: er week providing caregiving, and makes between $20 and $100 per week selling flowers during the summer months. Plaintiff stated that she receives $184 per month from a Hewlett Packard 401(k) and expects to receive approximately $100 per month from the Boeing pension. Plaintiff received the parties' marital home in the divorce and defendant received an $8,000 Genworth annuity and plaintiff's IRA, worth $26,000, as payment for his share of the home. She still lives in the marital home that she was awarded in the divorce and which she refinanced with a mortgage in her name.1 She has approximately $60,000 in equity in th


CourtListener opinion 4544345

401(k): retirement accounts equally upon their divorce through the entry of five Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's). Defendant expects to begin receiving approximately $500 per month from EDS and Boeing pensions and currently has approximately $300,000 in a 401(k) account that he has not drawn upon. He has $4,500 in combined checking and savings accounts. Defendant does not own a home but instead rents a house in Royal Oak with a partner. He also no longer owns a vehicle, but borrows and drives one of his live-in partner's vehicles and pays around $50 monthly for gas. He pays $775 per month in rent, $400 per month


CourtListener opinion 4544348

qualified_domestic_relations_order erisa pension preemption

CourtListener opinion 4544348 Docket: 344636 St. Joseph Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4544348 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 4544348


CourtListener opinion 4544348

QDRO: other ancillary benefits associated with said Plan. If Defendant predeceases Plaintiff, then her benefit is to be paid to her estate, or if none, then to the children of the parties' marriage. Plaintiff may not take a refund of employee contributions. The QDRO/EDRO shall be prepared by Defendant's attorney and Defendant shall bear all the fees and costs associated with same. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, except as otherwise stated herein, each party shall have as their sole and separate property, to hold free and clear of any right, claims, title or interest of the other, any and all benefit, righ


CourtListener opinion 4544348

retirement benefits: benefits of the pension plan. During the hearing, the mediator remarked that defendant was "going to get the marital share of that pension . . . and any other pension benefits that [plaintiff] has . . . ." Plaintiff's counsel agreed that "whatever pension and retirement benefits [plaintiff] has for this employment that he's had during the marriage, [defendant] would be entitled to her marital share of it." Plaintiff's counsel also remarked that "if it turns out that there is some other kind of benefit associated with that pension or retirement benefit, such as a cost of living increase, or something like that, [defendant] would be


CourtListener opinion 4544348

pension: PER CURIAM. Defendant, Jacqueline Gray, appeals by delayed leave granted the order of the trial court determining that the parties' Consent Judgment of Divorce did not award her a surviving spouse's annuity as part of her share of plaintiff Kenneth Gray's pension benefit. We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This appeal involves the division of plaintiff's pension benefits as part of a judgment of divorce. The parties married in 1992, and in 2016 plaintiff filed for divorce. During mediation, the parties agreed to a settlement concerning the distribution of their marital property, including the division of the parti


CourtListener opinion 4544348

ERISA: court used the terms Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP) and qualified domestic relationship order (QDRO) interchangeably. As this Court has previously discussed, retirement plans must comply with the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974, 29 USC 1001 et seq., which precluded pension plan participants from assigning or alienating their benefits under plans that were subject to the act. Roth v Roth, 201 Mich App 563, 567; 506 NW2d 900 (1993), citing 29 USC 1056(d)(1) and 26 USC 401(a)(13). ERISA also contained a preemption provision, designed to establish the regulation of pension pl


CourtListener opinion 4544656

CourtListener opinion 4544656 Extracted reporter citation: 644 F.3d 1350. Docket: 1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4544656 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 4544656


CourtListener opinion 4544656

QDRO: strator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 129 S. Ct. 865 (2009). In Kennedy, the Supreme Court ruled that the plan administrator had properly disregarded the ex-wife's waiver of her right to plan benefits in a divorce decree that was not a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and properly paid her benefits precisely because the deceased participant had affirmatively designated her as his beneficiary according to the plan's terms. Id. at 288-90, 299- 304, 129 S. Ct. at 868-69, 875-78. Kennedy stands for the proposition that, absent a QDRO to the contrary, a participant's affirmative designation of a spouse as a beneficia


CourtListener opinion 4544656

retirement benefits: rgia ________________________ (June 26, 2020) Before JORDAN, TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges. HULL, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellant Wanda Crowder's ex-husband, Marvin Crowder, was a Delta Air Lines, Inc. employee who participated in his employer's retirement plan, the Delta Family-Care Savings Plan ("the Plan"). Before he died, Wanda and Marvin Crowder divorced. After Mr. Crowder's death, the Plan's Recordkeeper, Fidelity Workplace Services, LLC ("Fidelity"), disbursed his plan benefits to his sister, Chappie Prince, as his designated beneficiary. Wanda Crowder appealed Fidelity's decision denying her own claim


CourtListener opinion 4544656

ERISA: enefits under the Plan's terms. Wanda Crowder filed this action against the Plan, the Plan Administrator, and Fidelity, alleging claims of wrongful denial of benefits and breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding, under de novo review, that the Plan Administrator's benefits determination was not wrong. On appeal, Crowder argues the defendants misinterpreted the Plan's terms and breached their fiduciary duties. After careful review and with the benefit of oral arg


CourtListener opinion 4544656

401(k): Wanda Crowder's ERISA claims. I. BACKGROUND For over thirty years, Mr. Crowder worked for Delta. As a Delta employee, Marvin Crowder participated in Delta's retirement plan, and died in 2016. We first review the pertinent terms of the Plan. A. Delta's Defined Contribution Retirement Plan Delta's Plan is a qualified, defined contribution plan governed by ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. § 401; 29 U.S.C. § 1002(34). The Plan Administrator is the Administrative Committee of Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("the Committee"). In Section 12.05, the Plan gives the Committee: (1) the discretionary authority to interpre


CourtListener opinion 4544765

CourtListener opinion 4544765 Extracted reporter citation: 644 F.3d 1350. Docket: 1:18-cv-04083-ODE WANDA CROWDER. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4544765 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 4544765


CourtListener opinion 4544765

retirement benefits: e: 19-12342 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 2 of 20 Before JORDAN, TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges. HULL, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellant Wanda Crowder's ex-husband, Marvin Crowder, was a Delta Air Lines, Inc. employee who participated in his employer's retirement plan, the Delta Family-Care Savings Plan ("the Plan"). Before he died, Wanda and Marvin Crowder divorced. After Mr. Crowder's death, the Plan's Recordkeeper, Fidelity Workplace Services, LLC ("Fidelity"), disbursed his plan benefits to his sister, Chappie Prince, as his designated beneficiary. Wanda Crowder appealed Fidelity's decision denying her own claim


CourtListener opinion 4548033

CourtListener opinion 4548033 Extracted case name: B.W. v. R.F. Extracted reporter citation: 991 N.E.2d 684. Docket: 2018-0700. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4548033 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 4548033

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 4548033

QDRO: ete and untimely produced; (3) awarding permanent alimony despite Wife's failure to provide evidence to support such award; (4) ordering him to bear the cost of a therapeutic reunification process for Wife and the children; and (5) ordering him to prepare any qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) or "other vehicles" necessary to divide the parties' assets. Wife, on cross-appeal, argues that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to consider, or hold a rehearing to address, the issue of Husband's remainder interest in his parents' irrevocable trust; (2) failing to award her any of the appreciation to, or interest on, her share of the parties'


CourtListener opinion 4548033

domestic relations order: timely produced; (3) awarding permanent alimony despite Wife's failure to provide evidence to support such award; (4) ordering him to bear the cost of a therapeutic reunification process for Wife and the children; and (5) ordering him to prepare any qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) or "other vehicles" necessary to divide the parties' assets. Wife, on cross-appeal, argues that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to consider, or hold a rehearing to address, the issue of Husband's remainder interest in his parents' irrevocable trust; (2) failing to award her any of the appreciation to, or interest on, her share of the parties'


CourtListener opinion 4548033

valuation/division: n if it had not found the agreement invalid in its entirety, the agreement's waiver-of-maintenance provision was "unconscionable and therefore unenforceable." On October 31, 2018, the court issued a final divorce decree. After choosing a February 2015 asset valuation date, the court awarded Husband the marital residence, awarded Wife the entirety of her Roth IRA, and equitably divided the remaining assets between them. To effectuate the equitable division, Husband was ordered to pay Wife $1,011,359.88. Additional facts will be recited below as needed to address specific issues raised by the parties. On appeal, Husband argu


CourtListener opinion 4549162

CourtListener opinion 4549162 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: WD-20-005 Appellee Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4549162 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 4549162


CourtListener opinion 4549162

domestic relations order: ive arguments for why appellee should be held in contempt, which we will address in turn: (1) appellee violated Wood County Court of Common Pleas Local Rule 6.08, which sets forth certain requirements that must be met when filing a motion to modify a prior domestic relations order; (2) appellee withdrew an estimated $45,000 from their sons' college accounts and did not report that amount as income; (3) appellee gave false testimony that S.S. graduated from high school in 2015; (4) appellee intentionally put the wrong dates on a June 25, 2019 motion to continue which confused appellant and caused her to miss a hearing; and (5) app


CourtListener opinion 4551692

CourtListener opinion 4551692 Extracted reporter citation: 159 U.S. 651. Docket: 29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4551692 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 4551692

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 4551692

QDRO: bution between the parties. [Husband] also has a Defined Contribution Plan, the value of which is subject to equitable distribution between the parties in the amount of [$10,041.84]. These plans shall be divided equally between the [Wife] and [Husband], by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. The parties agree to divide equally the costs of hiring an outside firm to prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. 2 On August 26, 1996, in apparent compliance with this language in the divorce decree requiring the preparation of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs"), Wife's attorney submitted, and the trial court entered, two order


CourtListener opinion 4551692

retirement benefits: r") addressed Husband's Ohio Police and Fire ("OPF") pension.1 Recognizing that a public pension could not be divided by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") or equivalent at that time, the order provided: [I]n the event that [Husband's] retirement benefits become subject to direct assignment via a [QDRO] (or the equivalent thereof) at a future date, the parties hereby agree to submit to the administrator of the Pension Fund, a [QDRO], as set forth in Attachment "A", which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Order, in order to effectuate the direct distribution of a portion of [Hu


CourtListener opinion 4551692

pension: ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 1994-10-2283 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: July 29, 2020 CALLAHAN, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Appellant, William H. Kalbaugh, appeals various orders related to the division of his pension benefits. I. {¶2} Mr. Kalbaugh ("Husband") and Deborah Kalbaugh ("Wife") divorced in 1995. Their divorce decree addressed the division of Husband's pension as follows: [Husband] has a pension plan with the Police and Fireman's Disability and Pension Fund of Ohio with a value of [$68,496.38]. [Wife] has a Social Security Old Age Benefit Plan with a


CourtListener opinion 4551692

alternate payee: the validity or merit of an appeal." In re S.J. at ¶ 10. {¶14} The October 25, 2018, DOPO was similar to the DOPO that Husband appealed in C.A. No. 29184, but the latter contained additional information related to the calculation of payments to Wife, the alternate payee. Consistent with Sullivan, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an amended DOPO while Husband's appeal from the September 25, 2018, DOPO was pending in this Court. The October 25, 2018, DOPO is therefore void and must be vacated. {¶15} Husband's third assignment of error is sustained. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSE


CourtListener opinion 4552475

CourtListener opinion 4552475 Extracted reporter citation: 159 U.S. 651. Docket: 29184 29185 Appellee 29219 29328 v. WILLIAM H. KALBAUGH. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4552475 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 4552475


CourtListener opinion 4552847

CourtListener opinion 4552847 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: of years. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4552847 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 4552847


CourtListener opinion 4552847

QDRO: e house shall immediately be placed for sale." The parties further stipulated, with regard to Gregory's pension under the Federal Employees Retirement System ("FERS"), that "[t]he FERS shall be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO if/when the law changes." The pension was listed in the stipulated schedule of Marital Assets and Liabilities as follows: PROPERTY ITEM VALUE/DEBT *** Federal Employees Retirement System Pension (H) $58,461.41 {¶4} As it pertains to the house and Gregory's pension, the trial court ordered as follows in the final divorce decree: IT IS FURTHER ORD


CourtListener opinion 4552847

retirement benefits: anuary 9, 2013, via regular U.S. mail at 2597 Townline Rd., Madison, Ohio 44057—the parties' previous marital residence. 2. A COAP is a form of qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") used to effectuate a judicial division of rights in a federal pension retirement plan. 3 {¶7} The COAP explains that "this Order creates and recognizes the existence of a former spouse's right to receive a portion of the employee's benefits payable under [FERS]. Such benefits may represent a portion of the Employee Annuity, a Refund of Employee Contributions or may award a Survivor Annuity to the former spouse. It is intended to const


CourtListener opinion 4552847

pension: is the time from the date of marriage on February 25, 1978, to the date of trial on April 23, 2001. Relevant herein, the parties also stipulated that "the house shall immediately be placed for sale." The parties further stipulated, with regard to Gregory's pension under the Federal Employees Retirement System ("FERS"), that "[t]he FERS shall be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO if/when the law changes." The pension was listed in the stipulated schedule of Marital Assets and Liabilities as follows: PROPERTY ITEM VALUE/DEBT *** Federal Employees Retirement System Pension (H) $


CourtListener opinion 4552847

401(k): v. Reising, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2010-CA 92, 2012-Ohio-1097, ¶24. {¶42} The Sixth District case of Borton v. Borton, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-10-003, 2011-Ohio-143, is similar to the facts at hand. There, "the divorce decree established that the First Energy 401(k), ‘shall be divided equally between the parties on a 50/50 basis, and the parties stipulated a value of $102,000 as of May 6, 2003.'" Id. at ¶17. Husband contended "that any amount in excess of $51,000 accrue solely to his benefit and not be shared equally between the parties." Id. The Borton Court held as follows: We note simply that the divorce entry


CourtListener opinion 4556236

CourtListener opinion 4556236 Extracted reporter citation: 813 F.2d 1574. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4556236 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 4556236


CourtListener opinion 4556236

QDRO: Angelo, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2012-T-0094, 2013-Ohio-5265, the trial court issued a divorce decree ordering that one half of Mr. Angelo's vested interest in a pension asset "accrued from May 21, 1988 to November 9, 2002" be transferred to Ms. Angelo by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. at ¶1-2. The original QDRO did so. Id. at ¶3. The trial court subsequently issued an amended QDRO that omitted the words "accrued from May 21, 1988" and instead stated "as of November 9, 2002." Id. at ¶5. {¶43} Mr. Angelo filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(A), which the trial court granted. Id. at ¶8-9. This cour


CourtListener opinion 4556236

retirement benefits: ion for contempt for financial obligations under the decree and sought funds from Mr. Bittner's investment accounts. Id. at ¶7. The trial court ultimately issued an amended QDRO to assign Ms. Bittner a portion of the total account balance for the "employee retirement plan." Id. at ¶10. Based on the name of the plan utilized in the amended QDRO, Fidelity Investments also split the 401(K) plan between the parties. Id. at ¶60. {¶51} Mr. Bittner filed a motion pursuant to Civ.R. 60(A) relating to the above issue and others, which the trial denied. Id. at ¶16, 32. The Fifth District reversed a portion of the trial court's d


CourtListener opinion 4556236

pension: 60(A) to be applicable in the context of divorce proceedings. {¶42} For instance, in Angelo v. Angelo, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2012-T-0094, 2013-Ohio-5265, the trial court issued a divorce decree ordering that one half of Mr. Angelo's vested interest in a pension asset "accrued from May 21, 1988 to November 9, 2002" be transferred to Ms. Angelo by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. at ¶1-2. The original QDRO did so. Id. at ¶3. The trial court subsequently issued an amended QDRO that omitted the words "accrued from May 21, 1988" and instead stated "as of November 9, 2002." Id. at ¶5. {¶43} Mr. Ang


CourtListener opinion 4556236

401(k): are of Mr. Shaver's pension." Id. at ¶20. {¶50} Finally, Mr. Bloom cites Bittner v. Bittner, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 16 CAF 10 0043, 2017-Ohio-7498. In that case, the parties' agreed judgment entry/decree of divorce provided awarded Mr. Bittner all of his 401(K) plan, while Ms. Bittner was to share equally in his profit-sharing plan. Id. at ¶4-5. Subsequently, Fidelity Investments administratively merged the plans. Id. at ¶61. Ms. Bittner filed a motion for contempt for financial obligations under the decree and sought funds from Mr. Bittner's investment accounts. Id. at ¶7. The trial court ultimately issued an


CourtListener opinion 4556565

CourtListener opinion 4556565 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4556565 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 4556565

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 4556565

domestic relations order: d in case No. F16906174 that charged defendant with count 1, stalking in violation of a restraining order, from January 19 through February 9, 2016 (§ 646.9, subd. (b)); count 2, criminal threats, on February 9, 2016 (§ 422); count 3, misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations order, from January 19 through February 9, 2016 (§ 273.6, subd. (a)); and committing the following offenses from April 29 to May 1, 2016: count 4, stalking in violation of a restraining order; count 5, criminal threats; and count 6, misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations order. It was further alleged defendant had one prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (


CourtListener opinion 4556792

CourtListener opinion 4556792 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JODIE LYNN DICKEY AND WILLIAM MARK DICKEY Upon the Petition of JODIE LYNN DICKEY. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 19-0097. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4556792 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 4556792

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 4556792

QDRO: ent Accounts. The parties have separate 401(k) retirement accounts. Based on the present value of these accounts minus premarital value, the district court divided the accounts by ordering the husband to transfer $52,000 from his 401(k) to the wife via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Rather than use the present value, the husband asserts the accounts are most equitably divided using the percentage formula set forth in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1996).1 We find use of the formula unnecessary in this case, as it involves a defined contribution plan with a known account balance and a known premarital value


CourtListener opinion 4556792

retirement benefits: rection 6 that the wife receive the 232 bank shares. Resolving this uncertainty and the husband's argument is not necessary, as the property division in section VI replaces the district court's order that the wife receive 232 bank shares. V. Treatment of Retirement Accounts. The parties have separate 401(k) retirement accounts. Based on the present value of these accounts minus premarital value, the district court divided the accounts by ordering the husband to transfer $52,000 from his 401(k) to the wife via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Rather than use the present value, the husband asserts the account


CourtListener opinion 4556792

pension: t to value or equitably divide without using the formula set forth in that case. 545 N.W.2d at 257; see also In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 248 (Iowa 2006) ("[I]t is normally desirable to divide a 1Benson applied the following formula to divide pension benefits: A fraction is first computed, the numerator being the number of years during the marriage [the employee spouse] accrued benefits under the pension plan . . . and the denominator being the total number of years [the employee spouse's] benefits accrued prior to maturity (i.e., receipt of payments upon retirement). This fraction represents the


CourtListener opinion 4556792

401(k): of the parties, declining to award spousal support to either party, and declining to award attorney fees to either party. As part of the property division, the district court ordered the husband to transfer numerous shares of bank stock and portions of his 401(k) to the wife and also ordered the husband to pay a property division equalization payment to the wife. The husband appeals. The wife does not cross-appeal, but she requests appellate attorney fees. The husband claims the district court erred by (1) including assets in the marital estate that were not owned by the parties, (2) ordering the transfer of


CourtListener opinion 45572

CourtListener opinion 45572 Extracted reporter citation: 151 F.3d 396. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 45572 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 45572


CourtListener opinion 45572

QDRO: not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Plan's fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties toward the Plan when, inter alia, they misallocated under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). VACATED and REMANDED. I. Galvan and Stanley Davis, an SBC employee and Plan participant, divorced in 1995. As part of that process, Galvan acquired an interest in Davis' Plan benefits pursuant to a QDRO, entitling her to fifty percent of his accrued benefits as of 16 March 1995. In November 2000, Davis accepted an early-retirement payment from


CourtListener opinion 45572

pension: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT August 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-51214 LAURA GALVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SBC PENSION BENEFIT PLAN; SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; UNIDENTIFIED CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE SBC PENSION BENEFIT PLAN; UNIDENTIFIED FIDUCIARIES OF THE SBC PENSION BENEFIT PLAN, each individually; MELLON FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (5:04-CV-333) Before BARKSDALE,


CourtListener opinion 45572

ERISA: BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Laura Galvan appeals the dismissal, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, of her claims arising under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (ERISA). She contends: SBC Pension Benefit Plan, SBC Communications, Inc. (the Plan's sponsor and coordinator), and Mellon Financial Corporation (the Plan's outside claims administrator) wrongfully deprived her of Plan benefits; and the * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent exc


CourtListener opinion 45572

alternate payee: t reply to Galvan's satisfaction, and further communication between them failed to resolve her concerns. (Among 2 other things, Galvan filed an action in state court, but dismissed the Plan in order to exhaust administrative remedies.) Therefore, as an alternate payee under the Plan, Galvan filed a benefits claim with SBC, which it received on 22 March 2004, approximately three years after Galvan's initial 2001 contact with SBC. In this administrative claim, Galvan asserted: the QDRO entitled her to part of Davis' early-retirement payment; and the Plan's fiduciaries breached various duties in their communications w


CourtListener opinion 4557243

CourtListener opinion 4557243 Extracted case name: J.P. v. J.S. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 3292 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4557243 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 4557243


CourtListener opinion 4557243

domestic relations order: motion; and (3) issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of 5/24/19 custody order. ____________________________________________ Rule 1701 refers to Pa.R.C.P. 1930.2, further explained infra, which provides that "where reconsideration from a domestic relations order has been timely granted, a reconsidered decision or an order directing additional testimony must be entered within 120 days of the entry of the order granting reconsideration or the motion shall be deemed denied." Pa.R.A.P. 1701 – Official Note (emphasis added). Moreover, the note states that the "date from which the appeal period will be measured following


CourtListener opinion 4557243

valuation/division: taking appeal, trial court must vacate order and grant reconsideration; the mere scheduling of a hearing on the matter is insufficient). Since the order was not vacated and no appeal was filed within 30 days of the entry of the final, appealable order of equitable distribution, this appeal must be quashed as untimely. Id. at 62 (emphasis added). The Karschner Court cited to Schoff for the proposition that the court must vacate the order in addition to granting reconsideration; however, Schoff espoused no such requirement. Schoff states: "Since reconsideration was not expressly granted within 30 days from the court's September 2


CourtListener opinion 4561527

CourtListener opinion 4561527 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 20A-DC-441 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4561527 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 4561527


CourtListener opinion 4561527

QDRO: at 72 (emphasis original). 2 The term "court order acceptable for processing," used by the United States Office of Personnel Management, is essentially synonymous with what is more commonly referred to in Indiana as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DC-441 | August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 10 [5] On July 11, 2018, Michael filed a motion to set aside the COAP and a motion to stay the distributions to Pamela. On March 29, 2019, following a hearing, the trial court entered an order holding, in relevant part, as follows: 1. The Court has jurisdicti


CourtListener opinion 4561527

retirement benefits: eir respective shares of Michael's FERS benefit: By court order your marital share of your former spouse's retirement benefit is 80% of 199 months of service during the marriage divided by 337 months of Federal service or 47.24% of your former spouse's retirement benefit. The marital shares times your former spouse's gross annuity benefit of $7,180 provides for a $3,391.83 monthly payment for you. This includes the FERS Supplement of $1377; which may end at any time reducing your share of your former spouse's retirement annuity. Id. at 72 (emphasis original). 2 The term "court order acceptable for processing," used


CourtListener opinion 4561527

pension: between Pamela and Michael; it later entered an amended decree following Michael's motion to correct errors. During and after the parties' marriage, Michael was employed as an air traffic controller for the FAA. Part of his compensation was a retirement pension. [3] In the amended dissolution decree, the trial court held that Michael's FAA pension was a marital asset but that the parties did not, at that time, know the value of the pension. The trial court ordered that Pamela would receive "80% of [Michael's] pension as of 12/31/06[.]"1 Tr. Ex. Vol. p. 56. On February 9, 1 There was some debate over the


CourtListener opinion 4561527

domestic relations order: retirement annuity. Id. at 72 (emphasis original). 2 The term "court order acceptable for processing," used by the United States Office of Personnel Management, is essentially synonymous with what is more commonly referred to in Indiana as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DC-441 | August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 10 [5] On July 11, 2018, Michael filed a motion to set aside the COAP and a motion to stay the distributions to Pamela. On March 29, 2019, following a hearing, the trial court entered an order holding, in relevant part, as follows: 1. The Court has juri


CourtListener opinion 4561989

CourtListener opinion 4561989 Extracted reporter citation: 575 A.2d 550. Docket: 991 WDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4561989 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 4561989

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 4561989

QDRO: ties agree that the Court will decide how to distribute this asset with the provisions as stated. The parties agree that if the contribution formula is enhanced to account for prior service or if the benefit is enhanced that reflects prior service, that a QDRO[1] or DRO[2] will be entered to pay ___ % (as the court determines for equitable distribution[)] of the marital value to Wife. . . . The parties agree also to QDRO or DRO any other U.S. Air benefit created after the date of separation that is based in any part on service during the marriage. Coverture to be calculated using the appropriate number of


CourtListener opinion 4561989

retirement benefits: ired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A03024-19 April 1983, during the marriage and after the separation and divorce, until his retirement in May 2015. Id. at 47. US Air entered bankruptcy in August 2002, which adversely affected its pilots' retirement plan. N.T., 1/23/07, at 103, 105–106; N.T., 3/1/07, at 119, 153–154. As part of its restructuring, US Air negotiated and entered multiple agreements with its pilots. Specifically, Letter of Agreement ("LOA") 85, known as Pilots' Defined Contribution Plan, terminated the existing US Air retirement benefits plan as of March 31, 2003, and created a defined con


CourtListener opinion 4561989

pension: me the [QDROs] were prepared and submitted and the docket clearly [reflects] that. Why this remains a problem for Wife appears to be that she has the unrealistic expectation that she is entitled to a share of Husband's post-separation contributions to his pension. This is not the law in Pennsylvania. Wife has incurred counsel fees of over $34,000 in pursuing matters which were resolved in 2008. She has received her 401(k) award, is receiving her share of the US Airways pension . . . and knew that the Target benefit Plan had replaced the Savings Plan. . . . Husband's Brief at 58–59 (citing Master's Report and


CourtListener opinion 4561989

401(k): uring, US Air negotiated and entered multiple agreements with its pilots. Specifically, Letter of Agreement ("LOA") 85, known as Pilots' Defined Contribution Plan, terminated the existing US Air retirement benefits plan as of March 31, 2003, and created a defined contribution plan ("DC Plan"), which had an effective date of April 1, 2003, and was funded entirely by US Airways. LOA 85 at 2; Summary Plan Description, 1/1/05, at 1; N.T., 12/9/15, at 84– 85, 90–94. The previous plan was a defined benefit plan known as the "Target Plan for Pilots of US Airways, Inc." ("Target Plan") and was discontinued during the US Airways ban


CourtListener opinion 4563638

CourtListener opinion 4563638 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1411 MDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4563638 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 4563638


CourtListener opinion 4563638

pension: the parties' equitable distribution for their divorce. Wife claims that the court erred when it ordered deferred distribution of Husband's ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A11019-20 pension—resulting in her receiving half of each monthly distribution—rather than requiring an immediate offset wherein she would be paid half of the present value of the pension from the marital estate. She also claims the court erred when it ordered that Husband pay only $350 in monthly alimony, and when it did not remand to the divorce master to allow Wife an


CourtListener opinion 4563638

domestic relations order: County Civil Division at No(s): CI-15-06601 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2020 In these cross-appeals, Marietta Ost, Wife, and David E. Ost, Husband, contest aspects of the domestic relations order entered on August 20, 2019, which set forth the parties' equitable distribution for their divorce. Wife claims that the court erred when it ordered deferred distribution of Husband's ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A11019-20 pension—resulting in her receiving half of each monthl


CourtListener opinion 4563638

survivor benefits: ermine which method would best effectuate economic justice between the parties. Conner, 217 A.3d at 312 (emphasis added, citations omitted). Here, the trial court found that because the FERS pension is already in pay status and Wife waived her right to a survivor annuity, the deferred distribution method will achieve a more equitable result. The court recognized that sharing both the TSP and FERS pension spreads the risk between both parties. The court stated that it "does not find it to be equitable that Husband should lose the TSP and be forced to have [to] wait on a monthly payment of $3488 so that Wife can have $4


CourtListener opinion 4563638

valuation/division: ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2020 In these cross-appeals, Marietta Ost, Wife, and David E. Ost, Husband, contest aspects of the domestic relations order entered on August 20, 2019, which set forth the parties' equitable distribution for their divorce. Wife claims that the court erred when it ordered deferred distribution of Husband's ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A11019-20 pension—resulting in her receiving half of each monthly distribution—rather than requiring an immediate offset wherein she would be pa


CourtListener opinion 4565168

CourtListener opinion 4565168 Extracted case name: LOIS R. STILKEY v. ELIZABETH A. ZEMBKO. Extracted reporter citation: 18 A.3d 604. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4565168 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 4565168


CourtListener opinion 4565168

QDRO: ts memorandum of decision or otherwise gleaned from the record, are relevant to the defendant's claims on appeal. The defendant, an attorney, represented Stilkey in her 2003 divorce. As part of the dissolution action, Stilkey and her former husband executed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO),2 under which Stilkey received a 50 percent interest in his Iron Workers' Local 15 and 424 Annuity Fund. The QDRO contained confidential information, including Stilkey's Social Security number, date of birth, home address and telephone number. The defendant had access to all of the confidential information con- tained in the QDRO. Stilkey's QDRO fun


CourtListener opinion 4565168

retirement benefits: * LOIS R. STILKEY v. ELIZABETH A. ZEMBKO (AC 42410) DiPentima, C. J., and Keller and Flynn, Js.* Syllabus The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for statutory theft in connection with her actions in withdrawing certain funds from a retirement account belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant had pre- viously represented the plaintiff in her divorce proceedings, as a result of which the plaintiff received one half of her former husband's pension funds, which were subsequently placed in an individual retirement account. Through the defendant's representation of the plaintiff, she obtained confidentia


CourtListener opinion 4565168

pension: her actions in withdrawing certain funds from a retirement account belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant had pre- viously represented the plaintiff in her divorce proceedings, as a result of which the plaintiff received one half of her former husband's pension funds, which were subsequently placed in an individual retirement account. Through the defendant's representation of the plaintiff, she obtained confidential information about the plaintiff and used it to with- draw money from the account without the plaintiff's knowledge or permission over a period of three years. In the defendant's answer, she raise


CourtListener opinion 4565168

domestic relations order: dum of decision or otherwise gleaned from the record, are relevant to the defendant's claims on appeal. The defendant, an attorney, represented Stilkey in her 2003 divorce. As part of the dissolution action, Stilkey and her former husband executed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO),2 under which Stilkey received a 50 percent interest in his Iron Workers' Local 15 and 424 Annuity Fund. The QDRO contained confidential information, including Stilkey's Social Security number, date of birth, home address and telephone number. The defendant had access to all of the confidential information con- tained in the QDRO. Stilkey's QDRO fun


CourtListener opinion 4565171

CourtListener opinion 4565171 Extracted case name: NANCY GIORDANO v. RAY GIORDANO. Extracted reporter citation: 111 A.3d 551. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4565171 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 4565171


CourtListener opinion 4565171

QDRO: ' 8 At the dissolution hearing, the following exchange occurred between the defendant and his counsel on redirect examination: ‘‘Q. . . . [P]ursuant to paragraph 2.7, you are dividing your GE pension plan. Correct? ‘‘A. The base plan that is subject to a [qualified domestic relations order]? ‘‘Q. Yes. ‘‘A. Yes. ‘‘Q. Okay. And you understand that that's just the base plan and it does not include the supplemental pension plans? ‘‘A. That's correct. ‘‘Q. Okay.'' 9 At the dissolution hearing, counsel for both parties and the court engaged in the following colloquy: ‘‘[The Defendant's Counsel]: . . . So, just to be clear they're agreeing t


CourtListener opinion 4565171

pension: t additionally found the defendant in con- tempt for his failure to pay alimony, and this appeal followed. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court erred in interpreting the separation agreement to include his supplemental pension as a basis for a modification of alimony, which was based on his claim that the agreement unambiguously did not include that pension as part of gross annual compensation: the court correctly determined that the alimony provision was ambiguous, and correctly interpreted ‘‘gross annual compensation'' as including the supplemental pension; moreover, the l


CourtListener opinion 4565171

401(k): in cash, by check or by electronic transfer before any deductions, including, but not necessarily limited to, federal, state or municipal income taxes, social security, Medicare, insurance of any kind, or payments made voluntarily by the [defen- dant] to any defined contribution plan, e.g., a 401 (k) plan or qualified savings plan. ‘Gross annual compensa- tion' shall also include income voluntarily deferred by the [defendant] under a deferred compensation or simi- lar plan and . . . any payments from disability insur- ance. Any court of competent jurisdiction, upon the motion of either party, shall retain jurisdiction to modify al


CourtListener opinion 4565171

domestic relations order: he dissolution hearing, the following exchange occurred between the defendant and his counsel on redirect examination: ‘‘Q. . . . [P]ursuant to paragraph 2.7, you are dividing your GE pension plan. Correct? ‘‘A. The base plan that is subject to a [qualified domestic relations order]? ‘‘Q. Yes. ‘‘A. Yes. ‘‘Q. Okay. And you understand that that's just the base plan and it does not include the supplemental pension plans? ‘‘A. That's correct. ‘‘Q. Okay.'' 9 At the dissolution hearing, counsel for both parties and the court engaged in the following colloquy: ‘‘[The Defendant's Counsel]: . . . So, just to be clear they're agreeing t


CourtListener opinion 4566216

CourtListener opinion 4566216 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of DAVID MICHAEL. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4566216 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 4566216

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 4566216

QDRO: t provisionally awards them separate interests equal to one-half of benefits accrued or to be accrued under each of three relevant plans. It further orders the parties' interests in the plans should be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Sue and David were to agree upon a person experienced in preparing QDROs, who would prepare the orders and obtain approval from the respective plans. The family court retained jurisdiction over the preparation or amendment of any QDROs. It also retained jurisdiction to make orders and determinations to enforce the terms of the judgment, resolve disputes c


CourtListener opinion 4566216

retirement benefits: rt also made a series of related orders, including an order for David to pay spousal and child support, an order directing the parties to share uninsured medical expenses and childcare costs, and orders regarding the family home and Sue and David's respective retirement plans. Sue filed a motion for new trial in May 2016. The court issued a minute order denying that motion in early July, and David filed and served a notice of ruling a few days later. The family court entered the judgment of dissolution on October 12, 2016. Regarding the parties' pension and defined benefit plans, the judgment provisionally awards them separat


CourtListener opinion 4566216

pension: ion for new trial in May 2016. The court issued a minute order denying that motion in early July, and David filed and served a notice of ruling a few days later. The family court entered the judgment of dissolution on October 12, 2016. Regarding the parties' pension and defined benefit plans, the judgment provisionally awards them separate interests equal to one-half of benefits accrued or to be accrued under each of three relevant plans. It further orders the parties' interests in the plans should be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Sue and David were to agree upon a person experienced


CourtListener opinion 4566216

domestic relations order: benefit plans, the judgment provisionally awards them separate interests equal to one-half of benefits accrued or to be accrued under each of three relevant plans. It further orders the parties' interests in the plans should be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Sue and David were to agree upon a person experienced in preparing QDROs, who would prepare the orders and obtain approval from the respective plans. The family court retained jurisdiction over the preparation or amendment of any QDROs. It also retained jurisdiction to make orders and determinations to enforce the terms of the judgment, resolve disp


CourtListener opinion 4568648

CourtListener opinion 4568648 Extracted case name: MR DAVID FERRELL BYRD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM METCALFE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MIKE MCKOWN. Extracted reporter citation: 712 S.W.2d 947. Docket: 2019-CA-000540-MR DAVID FERRELL BYRD APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4568648 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 4568648


CourtListener opinion 4568648

QDRO: the value assigned by the Property Valuation Administration ("PVA"). The trial court further found that David was vested in a 401k plan through Walmart (the "401k") that was entirely marital in nature. The court instructed that Joanna's counsel obtain a qualified domestic relations order acceptable to the trustee of the 401k to present to the court for an equal division of the value of the 401k as of October 4, 2018, a date that was two years after the filing of the petition for dissolution and not the date of the divorce decree. Finally, the trial court found that David had sold thirteen hogs that had been acquired during the marriag


CourtListener opinion 4568648

401(k): chose to list the property for sale. The court further found that the fair market value of such property was $200,000.00 based on the value assigned by the Property Valuation Administration ("PVA"). The trial court further found that David was vested in a 401k plan through Walmart (the "401k") that was entirely marital in nature. The court instructed that Joanna's counsel obtain a qualified domestic relations order acceptable to the trustee of the 401k to present to the court for an equal division of the value of the 401k as of October 4, 2018, a date that was two years after the filing of the petition for d


CourtListener opinion 4568648

domestic relations order: assigned by the Property Valuation Administration ("PVA"). The trial court further found that David was vested in a 401k plan through Walmart (the "401k") that was entirely marital in nature. The court instructed that Joanna's counsel obtain a qualified domestic relations order acceptable to the trustee of the 401k to present to the court for an equal division of the value of the 401k as of October 4, 2018, a date that was two years after the filing of the petition for dissolution and not the date of the divorce decree. Finally, the trial court found that David had sold thirteen hogs that had been acquired during the marriag


CourtListener opinion 4568648

valuation/division: NE AND MCNEILL, JUDGES. CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE: David Ferrell Byrd ("David") appeals from the Metcalfe Circuit Court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment, arguing that the trial court made certain mistakes as to its award of maintenance, its property division, and its award of attorney's fees. Upon review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. BACKGROUND David and Joanna Byrd ("Joanna") were married in August of 1996, and Joanna filed a petition for dissolution on October 4, 2016. At the time of the filing of the petition for dissolution, Joanna was fifty years of age and listed her occupation as h


CourtListener opinion 4570686

CourtListener opinion 4570686 Extracted case name: D.C. v. J.A.C. Extracted reporter citation: 977 N.E.2d 951. Docket: 20A-DR-317 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4570686 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 4570686

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 4570686

QDRO: is improper. Therefore, the presumption should remain. *** 50. . . . In order to effectuate an equal division of property, [Husband] shall pay to [Wife] the sum of $168,506.14 within 60 days of this Decree. [Wife's] counsel shall prepare any necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or similar order, in order to transfer the equalization payment. [Husband] shall cooperate in all respects with the preparation of such order . . . . *** 53. The Court finds that an award of attorney fees is proper. The Court finds that [Wife] has prolonged the litigation in this case substantially and without cause. The bulk of testimony and evid


CourtListener opinion 4570686

domestic relations order: r. Therefore, the presumption should remain. *** 50. . . . In order to effectuate an equal division of property, [Husband] shall pay to [Wife] the sum of $168,506.14 within 60 days of this Decree. [Wife's] counsel shall prepare any necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Order, or similar order, in order to transfer the equalization payment. [Husband] shall cooperate in all respects with the preparation of such order . . . . *** 53. The Court finds that an award of attorney fees is proper. The Court finds that [Wife] has prolonged the litigation in this case substantially and without cause. The bulk of testimony and evid


CourtListener opinion 4571226

CourtListener opinion 4571226 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Fisher. Extracted reporter citation: 49 N.E.3d 1065. Docket: 20A-DR-338 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4571226 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 4571226


CourtListener opinion 4571226

QDRO: a Cathy Sue Valenti (Wife) was dissolved in September 2004, and, as part of their Marital Settlement Agreement (the Agreement), Wife was to receive a portion of Husband's pension plan to be effectuated pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In 2018, after Husband began receiving benefits, he filed a Motion for Clarification regarding the Agreement and QDRO, asserting that ambiguity existed and asking the court to issue an amended QDRO. The trial court denied Husband's motion and awarded attorney's fees to Wife. Husband appeals and raises two issues that we restate as: I. Did the tr


CourtListener opinion 4571226

retirement benefits: ellant's Appendix at 19. [4] In Paragraphs 19(h) and 21(h) of the Agreement, Wife and Husband, respectively, received as their separate property, the following asset: One-half (1/2) of the marital coverture value[ 1] of Husband's ITT Industries Salaried Retirement Plan. Said transfer of funds shall be accomplished by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared by Wife's counsel and approved by the Court[.] Id. at 25, 26. [5] At Paragraph 30, Husband and Wife agreed to execute "such additional documents as may be necessary to carry out the terms and intent of this Agreement[,]" and at Paragraph 32, the parties s


CourtListener opinion 4571226

pension: Case Summary [1] The marriage of Scott David Luce (Husband) and Cathy Sue Luce n/k/a Cathy Sue Valenti (Wife) was dissolved in September 2004, and, as part of their Marital Settlement Agreement (the Agreement), Wife was to receive a portion of Husband's pension plan to be effectuated pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In 2018, after Husband began receiving benefits, he filed a Motion for Clarification regarding the Agreement and QDRO, asserting that ambiguity existed and asking the court to issue an amended QDRO. The trial court denied Husband's motion and awarded attorney's fees to W


CourtListener opinion 4571226

alternate payee: 004, Husband and Wife submitted to the trial court a QDRO, which had been signed by each of them. Paragraph 7 of the QDRO provides for the portion of Husband's ITT Industries Salaried Retirement Plan (the Plan) to be paid to Wife and states: Amount of Alternate Payee's Benefit: This Order assigns to Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of fifty percent (50%) of the Marital Portion of the Participant's Accrued Benefit under the Plan as of the Participant's benefit commencement date, or the Alternate Payee's benefit commencement date, if earlier. The Marital Portion of the Participant's accrue


CourtListener opinion 4574826

CourtListener opinion 4574826 Extracted case name: N.A.M. v. M.P.W. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 2453 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4574826 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 4574826

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 4574826

QDRO: er the entry of a Qualified ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 While the parties divorced in 2009, for ease, we refer to them as Husband and Wife. J-A10020-20 Domestic Relations Order [("QDRO")2] involving [H]usband's Hayman-Carpenter Assocs. Inc. 401(k) profit sharing plan ("pension"). Relevantly, the Honorable Rhonda Lee Daniele 1 issued an Order dated February 28, 2017, appointing Pension Analysis Consultants ("PAC") to update an evaluation of [Husband's] pension and the parties' QDRO. The parties subsequently filed petitions for contem


CourtListener opinion 4574826

pension: Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 While the parties divorced in 2009, for ease, we refer to them as Husband and Wife. J-A10020-20 Domestic Relations Order [("QDRO")2] involving [H]usband's Hayman-Carpenter Assocs. Inc. 401(k) profit sharing plan ("pension"). Relevantly, the Honorable Rhonda Lee Daniele 1 issued an Order dated February 28, 2017, appointing Pension Analysis Consultants ("PAC") to update an evaluation of [Husband's] pension and the parties' QDRO. The parties subsequently filed petitions for contempt. 1 Judge Daniele moved to senior judge status in 2019 and this case was administratively


CourtListener opinion 4574826

401(k): ___________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 While the parties divorced in 2009, for ease, we refer to them as Husband and Wife. J-A10020-20 Domestic Relations Order [("QDRO")2] involving [H]usband's Hayman-Carpenter Assocs. Inc. 401(k) profit sharing plan ("pension"). Relevantly, the Honorable Rhonda Lee Daniele 1 issued an Order dated February 28, 2017, appointing Pension Analysis Consultants ("PAC") to update an evaluation of [Husband's] pension and the parties' QDRO. The parties subsequently filed petitions for contempt. 1 Judge Daniele moved to senior judge status in 2019 and


CourtListener opinion 4574826

alternate payee: )[.] This court also ordered [W]ife, within five days, to provide proof to the court, filed of record, of her having paid ____________________________________________ 2 "A QDRO . . . is a domestic relations order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under the [pension] plan." Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382, 395 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2015). -2- J-A10020-20 her portion of the outstanding fees. Id. This court cautioned [Wife] that a failure to provide proof of payment would result in the court sua sponte dismissing her petition for


CourtListener opinion 4577028

CourtListener opinion 4577028 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4577028 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 4577028


CourtListener opinion 4577028

QDRO: e Clients agree to give full, honest, and open disclosure of all information, whether requested or not. The Clients shall provide each other with any written authorizations requested which may be necessary to obtain information and documentation or to prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or other documents. The Clients understand that participation in the Collaborative Law Process and the settlement reached are based upon the assumption that both Clients have acted in good faith and have provided complete and accurate information to the best of their ability. Each Client will sign a sworn Financial Affidavit making full and fair disclosur


CourtListener opinion 4577028

domestic relations order: agree to give full, honest, and open disclosure of all information, whether requested or not. The Clients shall provide each other with any written authorizations requested which may be necessary to obtain information and documentation or to prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or other documents. The Clients understand that participation in the Collaborative Law Process and the settlement reached are based upon the assumption that both Clients have acted in good faith and have provided complete and accurate information to the best of their ability. Each Client will sign a sworn Financial Affidavit making full and fair disclosur


CourtListener opinion 4577028

valuation/division: Agreement on {Date} _____________________. 9. The parties have resolved all issues with regard to the dissolution of their marriage through their Collaborative Marital Settlement Agreement including parental responsibility and timesharing of their children, equitable distribution, child support, alimony, and attorneys' fees. 10. The Court should ratify and confirm the parties' Collaborative Marital Settlement Agreement. 11. The _____Petitioner _____Respondent wishes to be restored to her former name of _______________. The _____Petitioner _____Respondent has never been convicted of a felony, has never been adjudicated bankrupt, is


CourtListener opinion 4580132

CourtListener opinion 4580132 Docket: 28848 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4580132 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 4580132


CourtListener opinion 4580132

QDRO: this case, the Decree also awarded Lisa an interest in Brendan's Military retirement benefit, which was in payout status. Brendan was to pay Lisa her share directly until DFAS received a Military Retired pay Division Order, which was to be prepared by a QDRO group. Lisa was awarded 46.52% of Brendan's disposable military retired pay. This deviated from the 50% she was entitled to, as she is responsible for the Survivor Benefit Premium. The Decree further stated that "both parties shall cooperate in executing any [and] all documents required by the military to insure both parties receive all benefits t


CourtListener opinion 4580132

retirement benefits: conducting its own independent, de novo review, the trial court first addressed the retirement-pay issue. Reviewing the parties' divorce decree, the trial court noted: Relevant to this case, the Decree also awarded Lisa an interest in Brendan's Military retirement benefit, which was in payout status. Brendan was to pay Lisa her share directly until DFAS received a Military Retired pay Division Order, which was to be prepared by a QDRO group. Lisa was awarded 46.52% of Brendan's disposable military retired pay. This deviated from the 50% she was entitled to, as she is responsible for the Survivor Benefit Premium. Th


CourtListener opinion 4580132

pension: able retired pay. But the trial court's calculations fail to support that assertion. He also suggests that Lisa has not paid the "survivor benefit premium" as required. Under the terms of the divorce decree, however, Lisa's percentage of Brendan's military pension was reduced from 50 percent to 46.52 percent to account for her obligation to pay that premium. Thus, Lisa is paying the premium through this -12- reduction. Brendan further argues that this deduction of 3.48 percent does not cover the full cost of the premium. But Brendan consented to this percentage when he signed the agreed divorce decree containing


CourtListener opinion 4580132

survivor benefits: is entitled" minus certain listed deductions. After finding no evidence that any specified deductions applied, the trial court reasoned: * * * Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 indicates that Brendan's gross pay is $3071.00 per month. $199.95 is deducted for SBP, "Survivor Benefit" that Lisa is responsible for. Lisa's share was reduced from 50% to 46.52% to allow for that responsibility. Lisa's portion of the $3071.00 monthly benefit is $1428.02 per month, which is 46.52% of the gross pay. As Lisa's percentage has already been reduced because of the SBP payment, that amount is not deducted before applying the percentages.


CourtListener opinion 4581089

CourtListener opinion 4581089 Extracted reporter citation: 371 N.E.2d 214. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4581089 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 4581089


CourtListener opinion 4581089

QDRO: n. On December 10, 1999, the trial court issued a judgment that terminated the parties' marriage and approved their Separation Agreement, which included, inter alia, a provision that "[e]ach party shall get 50% of the General Electric Pension by means of a QDRO between the parties." {¶ 3} On July 31, 2003, appellant filed a motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities and sought to be designated residential parent of their minor child because appellee had "confessed to having sexual intercourse with the parties' [then emancipated] son, 2 We observe that appellant's brief does not comply with Appell


CourtListener opinion 4581089

retirement benefits: ently hospitalized in the Athens Mental Health Facility." The trial court designated appellant as W's residential parent and legal custodian, effective July 31, 2003. {¶ 4} On June 2, 2019, appellee filed a motion to implement the division of appellant's retirement benefits. Appellee pointed out that the December 10, 1999 decree required the division of appellant's General Electric retirement benefits from his date of employment to December 10, 1999. Appellee further stated that, since the filing of the decree, no action has been taken to implement the court's order. Thus, appellee sought an order: (1) to prohibit appella


CourtListener opinion 4581089

pension: and have three children. On December 10, 1999, the trial court issued a judgment that terminated the parties' marriage and approved their Separation Agreement, which included, inter alia, a provision that "[e]ach party shall get 50% of the General Electric Pension by means of a QDRO between the parties." {¶ 3} On July 31, 2003, appellant filed a motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities and sought to be designated residential parent of their minor child because appellee had "confessed to having sexual intercourse with the parties' [then emancipated] son, 2 We observe that appellant's brief does no


CourtListener opinion 4581089

alternate payee: pra. {¶ 14} We also disagree with appellant's contention that the ODRO constitutes a "new proceeding" and constitutes a "final judgment." "[A] QDRO is different from the usual court order. A QDRO is an order that ‘creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.'" State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355, 2010-Ohio-252, 922 N.E.2d 214, ¶ 18, citing Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(l), Title 29, U.S. Code, and


CourtListener opinion 4581811

CourtListener opinion 4581811 Extracted reporter citation: 25 N.E.3d 371. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4581811 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 4581811

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 4581811

QDRO: e trial court abused its discretion in failing to divide the marital debts and assets equally. She raises six issues with respect to this assigned error. A. Retirement Assets Wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered that a qualified domestic relations order should issue from husband's 401K for the exact sum of $19,690.14, rather than allow her to receive the benefits and gains on that sum until distribution. The trial court determined that the marital portion of husband's retirement account amounted to $51,409.18, and that the marital portion of wife's two retirement accounts were $10,517.98 and $1,510.9


CourtListener opinion 4581811

retirement benefits: qualified domestic relations order should issue from husband's 401K for the exact sum of $19,690.14, rather than allow her to receive the benefits and gains on that sum until distribution. The trial court determined that the marital portion of husband's retirement account amounted to $51,409.18, and that the marital portion of wife's two retirement accounts were $10,517.98 and $1,510.92. From these numbers, the trial court found that wife was entitled to $19,690.14 from husband's retirement account. R.C. 3107.171(A)(3)(a)(ii) states that marital property is the interest that either spouse currently has in "the retirement


CourtListener opinion 4581811

pension: an award for that either. In Weller v. Weller, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2001-G-2370, 2002-Ohio- 7125, the Eleventh District explained: [S]everal Ohio appellate districts have determined that accrued sick leave benefits resemble deferred bonus payments or pension plan accumulations and, as such, qualify as an interest in property subject to division as a marital asset under R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a)(ii). Herrmann v. Herrmann (Nov. 6, 2000), 12th Dist. Nos. CA99-01-006 and CA99-01-011, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5146, *9; Hartley v. Hartley (Apr. 24, 1998), 2d Dist. No. 16668, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1745, *3-4; Pearson v.


CourtListener opinion 4581811

401(k): arital debts and assets equally. She raises six issues with respect to this assigned error. A. Retirement Assets Wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered that a qualified domestic relations order should issue from husband's 401K for the exact sum of $19,690.14, rather than allow her to receive the benefits and gains on that sum until distribution. The trial court determined that the marital portion of husband's retirement account amounted to $51,409.18, and that the marital portion of wife's two retirement accounts were $10,517.98 and $1,510.92. From these numbers, the trial


CourtListener opinion 4582452

CourtListener opinion 4582452 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of JOANNE and. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4582452 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 4582452


CourtListener opinion 4582452

retirement benefits: y Richard, reserving jurisdiction as to the amount. They agreed each party would pay his or her own attorney's fees and costs through the date of the agreement. The parties elected to retain Elizabeth Strasen (Strasen) to divide the community portion of their retirement accounts. They also agreed each party would receive a distribution from their E-Trade account, they would divide certain investments equally, and Richard would pay Joanne $140,000 to "equalize" all breach of fiduciary duty claims each party had against the other. The September 2016 agreement required each party to sign any necessary documents to carry out the agre


CourtListener opinion 4582452

domestic relations order: not require a signature. Richard contended Joanne was simply attempting to stall the division of the account. He asked the court to appoint the clerk of the court or other agent to sign the necessary documents to divide the investments, to sign the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders prepared by Strasen, and to sign the necessary forms to divide the E-Trade account, on Joanne's behalf. Richard asked the trial court to sanction Joanne "in an amount that represents the portion of [his] attorneys' fees and costs incurred on these issues from September 28, 1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise noted.