CourtListener opinion 4461567

pension: were both in their early 70s and retired. Both were living on social security and retirement assets. At the divorce trial, Judith was able to provide a calculation from the administrator of her public employment retirement plan for the percentage of her pension payment that was community versus separate property. The administrator determined it was 67.6 percent separate property and 32.4 percent community property. Her retirement plan included a small defined contribution component, worth $11,872, to which she contributed before and during the marriage. The court characterized it as commingled and, therefore,


CourtListener opinion 4461567

401(k): c employment retirement plan for the percentage of her pension payment that was community versus separate property. The administrator determined it was 67.6 percent separate property and 32.4 percent community property. Her retirement plan included a small defined contribution component, worth $11,872, to which she contributed before and during the marriage. The court characterized it as commingled and, therefore, community property. Andre had worked for 32 years for Williams Companies, which provided a pension benefit and later a 401(k) plan. Contributions were made to both during the 8½ years of his marriage preceding his


CourtListener opinion 4461826

CourtListener opinion 4461826 Extracted reporter citation: 148 S.W.3d 124. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4461826 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 4461826

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 4461826

QDRO: amus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable John R. Milliard, presiding judge of the 328th District Court of Fort Bend County, to vacate his first amended qualified domestic relations order signed October 31, 2019. Relator has also filed a motion for temporary relief, asking our court to issue an injunction against the plan administrator pending our decision on the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. With certain exceptions, to obtain mandamus relief a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relat


CourtListener opinion 4461826

domestic relations order: is court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable John R. Milliard, presiding judge of the 328th District Court of Fort Bend County, to vacate his first amended qualified domestic relations order signed October 31, 2019. Relator has also filed a motion for temporary relief, asking our court to issue an injunction against the plan administrator pending our decision on the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. With certain exceptions, to obtain mandamus relief a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relat


CourtListener opinion 4462756

CourtListener opinion 4462756 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4462756 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 4462756

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 4462756

QDRO: rred by assigning him one hundred percent of the marital debt, awarding wife "over eighty-five percent of" the marital property, evenly dividing the marital portion of the parties' retirement accounts, and ordering him to bear the costs of preparing the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") for dividing the retirement account funds that he had transferred during the pendency of the suit. The trial court properly considered the statutory factors in dividing the parties' assets and debts, and this Court affirms. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by deciding that fairness required that wife not be burdened by a debt


CourtListener opinion 4462756

retirement benefits: eper County. In four assignments of error, he claims that the trial court erred by assigning him one hundred percent of the marital debt, awarding wife "over eighty-five percent of" the marital property, evenly dividing the marital portion of the parties' retirement accounts, and ordering him to bear the costs of preparing the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") for dividing the retirement account funds that he had transferred during the pendency of the suit. The trial court properly considered the statutory factors in dividing the parties' assets and debts, and this Court affirms. The trial court did not abu


CourtListener opinion 4462756

pension: it and his cigar, gun, pocketknife, and straight razor collections worth approximately $4000. The parties had several retirement accounts. Wife had a single defined contribution account worth approximately $65,000. Husband had a Virginia Retirement System pension that was in pay status—because husband had already retired—that was paying $3200 per month. He also had two defined contribution plans worth approximately $120,000. While the case was pending, husband transferred the funds from his defined contribution plans to his investment -3- accounts. The trial court awarded both parties fifty percent of the mari


CourtListener opinion 4462756

401(k): tely $5400. The trial court also awarded husband the parties' joint checking account with $4400 in it and his cigar, gun, pocketknife, and straight razor collections worth approximately $4000. The parties had several retirement accounts. Wife had a single defined contribution account worth approximately $65,000. Husband had a Virginia Retirement System pension that was in pay status—because husband had already retired—that was paying $3200 per month. He also had two defined contribution plans worth approximately $120,000. While the case was pending, husband transferred the funds from his defined contribution plans to his inv


CourtListener opinion 4464840

CourtListener opinion 4464840 Docket: for. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4464840 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 4464840


CourtListener opinion 4464840

QDRO: Reserve Bank. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the court divided the retirement accounts. It awarded husband fifty percent of the marital share of wife's thrift savings plan and her pension plan, and the court ordered wife's attorney to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") for each plan reflecting the distribution. Wife's attorney prepared and filed the QDROs, which the court entered on August 31, 2018. The court also divided husband's VCU pension and 403(B) plan as follows: The marital share of [husband's] VCU pension and his 403[(B)] plan shall be divided equally with a [fifty] percent share to each party wi


CourtListener opinion 4464840

retirement benefits: Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 403(B) plan. Wife maintained a thrift savings plan and a pension plan with her employer, the Federal Reserve Bank. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the court divided the retirement accounts. It awarded husband fifty percent of the marital share of wife's thrift savings plan and her pension plan, and the court ordered wife's attorney to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") for each plan reflecting the distribution. Wife's attorney prepared and filed the QDROs, which the court entered on August 31, 2018. The court also di


CourtListener opinion 4464840

pension: F CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Lynn S. Brice, Judge Reginald M. Barley for appellant. Jeremiah M. Yourth (Owens & Owens PLC, on brief), for appellee. Hampton H. Jackson, Jr. ("husband") appeals a March 15, 2019 Approved Domestic Relations Order ("ADRO") for a pension plan administered by the Virginia Retirement System ("VRS"), following his divorce from Crystal N. Jackson ("wife"). He contends that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the ADRO. He also asserts wife did not prove that he had an interest in VRS. Finally, he argues that the court abused its discretion by requiring him to pay wife's attorney's fees


CourtListener opinion 4464840

domestic relations order: nk. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the court divided the retirement accounts. It awarded husband fifty percent of the marital share of wife's thrift savings plan and her pension plan, and the court ordered wife's attorney to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") for each plan reflecting the distribution. Wife's attorney prepared and filed the QDROs, which the court entered on August 31, 2018. The court also divided husband's VCU pension and 403(B) plan as follows: The marital share of [husband's] VCU pension and his 403[(B)] plan shall be divided equally with a [fifty] percent share to each party wi


CourtListener opinion 4468162

CourtListener opinion 4468162 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 19CA011472 Appellant v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4468162 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 4468162


CourtListener opinion 4468162

QDRO: rs. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE DIVISION OF THE HUSBAND'S SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. {¶4} Husband argues that the trial court incorrectly ordered him to prepare a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) "that awards one-half of the entire portion of his social security benefits to [Wife] * * * offset by [Wife's] social security benefits." The United States Code provides that Social Security benefits "shall not * * * be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process * * *." 42 U.S.C. 407(a). In light of that language, the Oh


CourtListener opinion 4468162

retirement benefits: pousal support." But that is very point that Husband's argument is making. The trial court framed most of its analysis in terms of spousal support. Indeed, under R.C. 3105.18(C), the trial court was obligated to consider Husband's present payments from the retirement accounts, which are in payout status, as income for purposes of determining his support obligation. At the end of the day, however, it appears that Husband is correct: the trial court did not award support to wife based on this analysis, but awarded her an ownership interest in husband's separate property. This amounted to a property division, not spousal suppo


CourtListener opinion 4468162

pension: n about one of his bank accounts. It, therefore, did not require Wife to pay Husband for his one-half interest in the marital home. For spousal support, instead of requiring Husband to make payments to Wife, it awarded her one-half of Husband's pre-marital pension benefits. It also ordered Husband to pay all of Wife's attorney fees. Husband has appealed, assigning three errors. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE DIVISION OF THE HUSBAND'S SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. {¶4} Husband argues that the trial court incorrectly ordered him to prepare a qualified domestic rel


CourtListener opinion 4468162

domestic relations order: aled, assigning three errors. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE DIVISION OF THE HUSBAND'S SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. {¶4} Husband argues that the trial court incorrectly ordered him to prepare a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) "that awards one-half of the entire portion of his social security benefits to [Wife] * * * offset by [Wife's] social security benefits." The United States Code provides that Social Security benefits "shall not * * * be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process * * *." 42 U.S.C. 407(a). In light of that language,


CourtListener opinion 4470045

CourtListener opinion 4470045 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Moody. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4470045 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 4470045


CourtListener opinion 4470045

QDRO: COURT-ORDERED RETIREMENT, HEALTH BENEFITS AND LIFE INSURANCE UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT BENEFITS 4 (1997). Because "government plans" are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq, the OPM does not accept qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) from state courts. HANDBOOK at 5. Instead, it accepts court orders that are written in conformity with the OPM's regulations. A court order can affect several types of retirement benefits paid by the OPM. HANDBOOK at 5. The court determines the percent or fraction of the employee's annuity that the former spouse shall receive. 2 52455-4-II THE


CourtListener opinion 4470045

retirement benefits: owed to federal employees and their former spouses based entirely on orders from state courts. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MGMT., RI 38-116, A HANDBOOK FOR ATTORNEYS ON COURT-ORDERED RETIREMENT, HEALTH BENEFITS AND LIFE INSURANCE UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT BENEFITS 4 (1997). Because "government plans" are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq, the OPM does not accept qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) from state courts. HANDBOOK at 5. Instead, it accepts court orders that are written in conformity with the OPM's regulations. A court order can affect several


CourtListener opinion 4470045

pension: he former spouse shall receive. 2 52455-4-II THE COURT: What if I sign an order directing them to [send an accounting]? [John]: I don't think so. You're a state judge. THE COURT: So they just don't care, but they'll take my state order and divide the pension— [John]: Right. THE COURT: —pursuant to [Employee Income Security Act] ERISA? [Glenna]: What's ERISA? THE COURT: It's an Employment Division allowance that the federal government will recognize state orders. It elevates our state orders to a federal level in order to be able to divide pensions. [John]: I don't know if they follow ERISA. THE COURT: T


CourtListener opinion 4470045

ERISA: PERSONNEL MGMT., RI 38-116, A HANDBOOK FOR ATTORNEYS ON COURT-ORDERED RETIREMENT, HEALTH BENEFITS AND LIFE INSURANCE UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT BENEFITS 4 (1997). Because "government plans" are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq, the OPM does not accept qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) from state courts. HANDBOOK at 5. Instead, it accepts court orders that are written in conformity with the OPM's regulations. A court order can affect several types of retirement benefits paid by the OPM. HANDBOOK at 5. The court determines the percent or fraction


CourtListener opinion 4486810

CourtListener opinion 4486810 Extracted reporter citation: 465 S.W.3d 217. Docket: 2017-25242 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pamela Paredez. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4486810 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 4486810

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 4486810

QDRO: ———— PAMELA K. PAREDEZ, Appellant V. DARREN J. HUSSEY, Appellee On Appeal from the 311th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2017-25242 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pamela Paredez appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to sign a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for a defined contribution plan owned by her former husband, Darren Hussey. In six issues, Paredez contends that the parties' divorce decree entitles her to QDROs awarding her half of the funds in Hussey's defined contribution, stock option, profit-sharing, bonus, and employer- based savings retirement plans from the date of their divorce until t


CourtListener opinion 4486810

retirement benefits: d by her former husband, Darren Hussey. In six issues, Paredez contends that the parties' divorce decree entitles her to QDROs awarding her half of the funds in Hussey's defined contribution, stock option, profit-sharing, bonus, and employer- based savings retirement plans from the date of their divorce until the date Hussey retires. We affirm. Background After almost thirteen years of marriage, Hussey and Paredez divorced on March 20, 1995. Although they have now been divorced for almost 25 years, Hussey and Paredez have spent the past several years in litigation over Paredez's claim that the parties' divorce decr


CourtListener opinion 4486810

pension: dez: Fifty (50%) percent of any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of Respondent's past, present, or future employment, including without limitation, the Respondent's Retirement 2 Fund, Provident Fund, and SPIF Fund with Shell Oil Company per Qualified Domestic Relations Orders; however, exclu


CourtListener opinion 4486810

401(k): . HUSSEY, Appellee On Appeal from the 311th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2017-25242 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pamela Paredez appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to sign a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for a defined contribution plan owned by her former husband, Darren Hussey. In six issues, Paredez contends that the parties' divorce decree entitles her to QDROs awarding her half of the funds in Hussey's defined contribution, stock option, profit-sharing, bonus, and employer- based savings retirement plans from the date of their divorce until the date Hussey retires. We affi


CourtListener opinion 4493521

CourtListener opinion 4493521 Docket: 04-19-00818-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4493521 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 4493521

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 4493521

QDRO: or lack of jurisdiction because of an untimely notice of appeal. On January 2, 2020, appellant filed a response stating he is seeking a restricted appeal. A review of the clerk's record reflects appellant filed his notice of appeal within six months after the Qualified Domestic Relations order was signed, did not participate in the underlying proceeding, and did not file a postjudgment motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(7), 26.1(c). We therefore retain this appeal on this court's docket. On December 5, 2019, appellant filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Cost in this court, and it does not appear that appellant filed the st


CourtListener opinion 4493521

domestic relations order: jurisdiction because of an untimely notice of appeal. On January 2, 2020, appellant filed a response stating he is seeking a restricted appeal. A review of the clerk's record reflects appellant filed his notice of appeal within six months after the Qualified Domestic Relations order was signed, did not participate in the underlying proceeding, and did not file a postjudgment motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(7), 26.1(c). We therefore retain this appeal on this court's docket. On December 5, 2019, appellant filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Cost in this court, and it does not appear that appellant filed the st


CourtListener opinion 4501793

CourtListener opinion 4501793 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1284 WDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4501793 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 4501793


CourtListener opinion 4501793

domestic relations order: filing of the petition, but the record supports the trial court's finding that these obstacles emerged only after years of Father's virtual non-participation in the care and custody of Child. Id. at 17-23, 63-64. Further, even though Father complied with a domestic relations order to pay child support to Mother, payment of support in absence of a parent-child relationship or emotional bond is insufficient to establish that Father performed his parental duties. Id. at 27; N.T. 9/11/18 at 107-08; Shrives, supra. The record supports the trial court's conclusion that Father failed to perform his parental duties for at least six mon


CourtListener opinion 4501795

CourtListener opinion 4501795 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 352 WDA 2019 Appellant :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4501795 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 4501795


CourtListener opinion 4501795

retirement benefits: ould result in Husband incurring taxes upon withdrawal. The court also considered the fact that the assets awarded to Wife, contrary to Husband's assertion, were not "cash assets." Appellant Husband's Brief, at 13. The marital estate consisted primarily of retirement accounts and real property. The marital home and vacation home were both awarded to Wife, and she will incur substantial taxes and expenses if the properties are sold in -9- J-A26028-19 order to generate cash. We find no error or abuse of discretion. See Carney v. Carney, 167 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2017). In his third issue, Husband argues the court erred in


CourtListener opinion 4501795

401(k): o increase her sole and separate estate throughout her future employment. Wife is 51 and Husband is 56. The [m]aster is going to be awarding alimony to Husband for a 4[-]year period so that when he reaches age 60 he will be able to draw down on the IRA or 401(k) funds he will be receiving in equitable distribution without penalty. Hopefully he will have improved his earnings by working full time. Plus, when the alimony ends, he will continue receiving child support for [A.G.] and [J.G] until they graduate from [h]igh [s]chool. While the [m]aster is mindful that Wife will be solely responsible for children's c


CourtListener opinion 4501795

domestic relations order: to the following factors in support of its decision to reduce Husband's award: (1) the master's analysis presumed, in error, that Husband would incur a penalty if he withdrew money from the funds he would receive in equitable distribution via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order; and (2) Husband chose to be unemployed or under- employed for a significant part of the parties' marriage, which the master had acknowledged. The trial court also noted Husband had received nearly $100,000 in APL as of the time of trial, over $85,000 from two years' worth of Wife's severance payments from the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, and would c


CourtListener opinion 4501795

valuation/division: y market account.1 The parties married in 1998 and separated in 2015. They have three minor children and one adult child. Since the parties separated, they have engaged in extensive litigation over various issues, including custody, support, alimony and equitable distribution. Following a hearing, the master issued a report and recommendation, dated April 17, 2018. The master found that Wife, age 51, an attorney for U.S. Steel, has been fully employed throughout the marriage and has been the primary wage earner during the marriage. Husband, who is 56, has an associate's degree in management information systems; he held var


CourtListener opinion 4502558

CourtListener opinion 4502558 Extracted reporter citation: 938 A.2d 246. Docket: 1457 MDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4502558 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 4502558

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 4502558

QDRO: .: FILED JANUARY 29, 2020 Appellant, Earl A. Swartz ("Husband"), and Cross-Appellant, Brenda L. Swartz ("Wife"), appeal from the order entered in the Union County Court of Common Pleas, which granted in part and denied in part Husband's motion to amend a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and J-S02029-20 J-S02030-20 procedural history of this case. Thus, we have no reason to restate them.1 At No. 1457 MDA 2019, Husband raises the following issue for our review: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN DETERMINING THAT [WIFE] IS


CourtListener opinion 4502558

retirement benefits: pinion. Order affirmed. Judge Musmanno joins this memorandum. President Judge Emeritus Bender concurs in the result Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 01/29/2020 ____________________________________________ defined benefit retirement plan being distributed by means of deferred distribution, defined benefit plan shall be allocated between its marital and non-marital portions solely by use of coverture fraction). "Thus, the non- employee spouse is permitted to enjoy increases in value occasioned by continued employment of the worker." Smith v. Smith, 595 Pa. 80, 102, 938 A.2d 246, 259 (2007) (


CourtListener opinion 4502558

pension: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN DETERMINING THAT [WIFE] IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF [HUSBAND'S] SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING [WIFE]'S PRO RATA SHARE OF [HUSBAND'S FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ("FERS")] PENSION WHEN THE PARTIES' MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS SILENT AS TO ANY SUCH ADJUSTMENTS? (Husband's Brief at 1). At No. 1488 MDA 2019, Wife raises the following issue for our review: DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR BY GRANTING HUSBAND'S MOTION TO AMEND [THE QDRO] FILED IN EXCESS OF FIVE (5) YEARS FOLLOWING THE ENTRY OF THE [QDRO], THEREBY VIOLATING THE VALI


CourtListener opinion 4502558

domestic relations order: ANUARY 29, 2020 Appellant, Earl A. Swartz ("Husband"), and Cross-Appellant, Brenda L. Swartz ("Wife"), appeal from the order entered in the Union County Court of Common Pleas, which granted in part and denied in part Husband's motion to amend a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and J-S02029-20 J-S02030-20 procedural history of this case. Thus, we have no reason to restate them.1 At No. 1457 MDA 2019, Husband raises the following issue for our review: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN DETERMINING THAT [WIFE] IS


CourtListener opinion 4502837

CourtListener opinion 4502837 Extracted reporter citation: 97 S.W.3d 179. Docket: 05-18-00968-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4502837 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 4502837

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 4502837

QDRO: (iii) because of "[Mother's] lack of clarity in her pleadings, [Mother's] desire to share [Father's] personal financial information with parties not involved in the case, and [Mother's] desire to divest [Father] of his separate property through two sets of QDRO fees." Father provides no legal authority or analysis to demonstrate how any of the foregoing establish that the court abused its discretion in making the attorney's fees award. See TEX. R. APP. –17– P. 33.1; see also Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10, 21 (Tex. 2002) (attorney's fees award within sound discretion of trial court). Moreover, because Father


CourtListener opinion 4504238

CourtListener opinion 4504238 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4504238 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 4504238


CourtListener opinion 4504238

QDRO: usal support and for other relief. The motion sought a modification of spousal support due to an injury that left wife partially disabled. The motion also alleged that husband was refusing to provide wife the necessary information to allow her to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to divide husband's pension in accordance with the Agreement. It contended that husband had begun drawing $2,700 per month from his pension, but none of those funds were being distributed to wife as required under the Agreement. On May 6, 2015, wife filed a petition for rule to show cause. Wife contended that husband was in arrears on his spo


CourtListener opinion 4504238

retirement benefits: paration and property settlement agreement (the "Agreement") dated August 23, 2005. The Agreement provided that wife would receive one-half the marital share of husband's pension: Husband is an employee of ABC, Inc. Husband will be eligible for monthly retirement benefits under the ABC, Inc. pension plan * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. based upon employment with ABC, Inc. The parties agree that a court of competent jurisdiction shall enter an order which directs the plan providers of the ABC, Inc. pension to pay directly to Wife such amount as is equal to one-half (½) of


CourtListener opinion 4504238

pension: y A. Saffer; Surovell Isaacs & Levy, PLC, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. Ronald P. Ferry ("husband") appeals from the trial court's order that, in relevant part, ordered him to pay Sandra M. Beard ("wife") her marital share of his pension payments, awarded wife attorney's fees, and denied husband's request for attorney's fees. For the following reasons, this Court affirms. I. BACKGROUND Husband and wife were divorced on August 26, 2005. The issue of spousal support was submitted to the trial court, which awarded wife $650 per month for ten years. The final decree also incorporate


CourtListener opinion 4504238

domestic relations order: rt and for other relief. The motion sought a modification of spousal support due to an injury that left wife partially disabled. The motion also alleged that husband was refusing to provide wife the necessary information to allow her to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to divide husband's pension in accordance with the Agreement. It contended that husband had begun drawing $2,700 per month from his pension, but none of those funds were being distributed to wife as required under the Agreement. On May 6, 2015, wife filed a petition for rule to show cause. Wife contended that husband was in arrears on his spo


CourtListener opinion 4504752

CourtListener opinion 4504752 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JACOB R. BROWN AND ABBY S. BROWN Upon the Petition of JACOB R. BROWN. Extracted reporter citation: 737 N.W.2d 97. Docket: 19-0705. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4504752 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 4504752


CourtListener opinion 4504752

QDRO: ree overnights every other weekend and one mid-week overnight per week.3 The parties were awarded essentially equal amounts of the marital estate. The court ordered that Abby's Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pension be divided by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and Jake be named the contingent annuitant for fifty percent of Abby's post- retirement death benefit and the beneficiary for one-hundred percent of Abby's pre-retirement death benefit. As to spousal support, upon its understanding that Jake agreed to the same, the court awarded Abby $1000.00 in transitional spousal support per month for five ye


CourtListener opinion 4504752

retirement benefits: tion and an award of spousal support is appropriate. But we find the district court's award inadequate. We modify the decree to award Abby spousal support in the amount of $650.00 per month for three years from the time of the entry of the decree. 15 E. Retirement Benefits Finally, Abby challenges the award of a portion of her pre- and post- retirement death benefits to Jake as inequitable. During trial, Jake testified that he and Abby had agreed to divide her IPERS account by using a QDRO and he submitted to the court his proposed language, which included listing him as "surviving spouse for pre-retirement benefits as


CourtListener opinion 4504752

pension: ion, the court awarded Jake three overnights every other weekend and one mid-week overnight per week.3 The parties were awarded essentially equal amounts of the marital estate. The court ordered that Abby's Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pension be divided by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and Jake be named the contingent annuitant for fifty percent of Abby's post- retirement death benefit and the beneficiary for one-hundred percent of Abby's pre-retirement death benefit. As to spousal support, upon its understanding that Jake agreed to the same, the court awarded Abby $1000


CourtListener opinion 4504752

domestic relations order: ghts every other weekend and one mid-week overnight per week.3 The parties were awarded essentially equal amounts of the marital estate. The court ordered that Abby's Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pension be divided by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and Jake be named the contingent annuitant for fifty percent of Abby's post- retirement death benefit and the beneficiary for one-hundred percent of Abby's pre-retirement death benefit. As to spousal support, upon its understanding that Jake agreed to the same, the court awarded Abby $1000.00 in transitional spousal support per month for five ye


CourtListener opinion 4505692

CourtListener opinion 4505692 Extracted reporter citation: 573 U.S. 122. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4505692 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 4505692

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 4505692

QDRO: g jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), this court affirms. I. Sieloff represented Lerbakken in his dissolution in Minnesota. The court's decree awarded Lerbakken all of his ex-wife's IRA and half of her 401(k). The court ordered Lerbakken to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Lerbakken refused, which leaves him with only a domestic relations order. Two months after the decree, the court ordered an attorney's lien against Lerbakken for Sieloff's legal services. The court expressly permitted Sieloff to recover the unpaid fees from Lerbakken's interests in his ex-wife's IRA and 401(k). The unpaid fees exceed the total of


CourtListener opinion 4505692

retirement benefits: Circuit ____________ Submitted: November 14, 2019 Filed: February 7, 2020 ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge. A state court awarded Brian A. Lerbakken part of his ex-wife's Individual Retirement Account and her 401(k) in a dissolution decree. Lerbakken filed for bankruptcy, claiming that his interests in the IRA and 401(k) are exempt as "retirement funds." Sieloff & Associates, P.A., a creditor, objected to the exemptions. The bankruptcy court disallowed them, ruling that Lerbakken's interests in the IRA and 401(k) are not retirement funds. In re Lerbakken


CourtListener opinion 4505692

ERISA: s for the 401(k),4 Lerbakken did not have a QDRO on January 23, 2018. He cannot access his interest in the account without a QDRO. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), (3)(A). See also 26 U.S.C. §§ 72(t)(2)(C), 414(p)(1)(A), 401(a)(13)(A)- (B). "The QDRO provisions of ERISA do not suggest that an alternate payee [what Lerbakken would be] has no interest in the plans until [he] obtains a QDRO, they merely prevent [him] from enforcing [his] interest until the QDRO is obtained." See 3 Because Lerbakken's conditional interest in the IRA is not "retirement funds," this court need not address the "covered account" requirement. Se


CourtListener opinion 4505692

401(k): itted: November 14, 2019 Filed: February 7, 2020 ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge. A state court awarded Brian A. Lerbakken part of his ex-wife's Individual Retirement Account and her 401(k) in a dissolution decree. Lerbakken filed for bankruptcy, claiming that his interests in the IRA and 401(k) are exempt as "retirement funds." Sieloff & Associates, P.A., a creditor, objected to the exemptions. The bankruptcy court disallowed them, ruling that Lerbakken's interests in the IRA and 401(k) are not retirement funds. In re Lerbakken, Order, BKY 18


CourtListener opinion 4506340

CourtListener opinion 4506340 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: A-19-343. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4506340 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 4506340


CourtListener opinion 4506340

retirement benefits: rier's name had appeared had been closed. Higgins also had a 401K account through TD Ameritrade established prior to the marriage, which he asked the court to award to him. Higgins did not provide any other testimony or any documentation with respect to this retirement account, but according to Currier, Higgins was putting a total of $1,500 per month into two different 401K accounts, which Currier felt was "money that could have been put towards school and the investment of educating [her] and allowing [her] to get a job and contribute to the household." The district court received an exhibit containing pay statements for Higgins


CourtListener opinion 4506340

pension: and that between May 20, 2016, and July 31, 2017, Higgins deposited $21,000. The court awarded Currier $10,500, which is half of that amount. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-366(8) (Reissue 2016), the general rule is that amounts added to and interest accrued on pension or retirement accounts which have been earned during the marriage are part of the marital estate, but contributions before marriage or after dissolution are not assets of the marital estate. Stanosheck v. Jeanette, 294 Neb. 138, 881 N.W.2d 599 (2016). Investment earnings accrued during the marriage on the nonmarital portion of a retirement account may be cl


CourtListener opinion 4506340

401(k): ermination that all of the funds in that account should be awarded to [him] since it was all accumulated on [a] premarital asset." He indicated that the only other TD Ameritrade account on which Currier's name had appeared had been closed. Higgins also had a 401K account through TD Ameritrade established prior to the marriage, which he asked the court to award to him. Higgins did not provide any other testimony or any documentation with respect to this retirement account, but according to Currier, Higgins was putting a total of $1,500 per month into two different 401K accounts, which Currier felt was "money that cou


CourtListener opinion 4506340

domestic relations order: y 20, 2016, to July 31, 2017, during which time Higgins deposited $21,000 into the account. The court awarded Currier $10,500, representing half of the amount deposited during the parties' marriage and ordered that it be transferred to her through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court awarded the parties any other retirement plans that either might have. The court awarded Currier $303, half of the balance in the U.S. Bank account at the time the complaint was filed. The court also awarded her $3,570, a sum representing "50% of the [2016 income tax] refund that accumulated from May 20, 2016 to December 31, 2016." The court also


CourtListener opinion 4507314

CourtListener opinion 4507314 Extracted reporter citation: 217 A.3d 301. Docket: 949 WDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4507314 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 4507314


CourtListener opinion 4507314

QDRO: ., and PELLEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2020 James A. Lemmo (Husband) appeals from the order entered in the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his petition for special relief, which sought modification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).1 Husband contends the trial court abused its discretion when it found it lacked jurisdiction to amend the QDRO. For the reasons below, we affirm. Husband and Cindy D. Lemmo (Wife) were married on April 16, 1988, and separated on July 28, 2006. A divorce decree was entered on May 11, 2009. A Divorce Master considered the equitable division of t


CourtListener opinion 4507314

retirement benefits: .B. Subsequently, on October 4, 2010, the parties stipulated to a QDRO drafted by Wife, which contained the following language: 7. (a) The marital property component of [Wife's] retirement benefit equals the Coverture Fraction[2] multiplied by [Wife's] retirement benefit on the effective date of the parties [sic] separation, July 28, 2006. (b) The Coverture Fraction is a fraction with a value less than or equal to one. The numerator is the amount of [Wife's] service, as defined by SERS, for the period of time from April 16, 1988 (date 2A "coverture fraction" is the method used to "calculate the marital portion of a pe


CourtListener opinion 4507314

pension: ed the equitable division of the parties' * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 "A QDRO is an 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 [a pension] plan." Getty v. Getty, 2019 WL 5157011, 208 EDA 2019, 4 n.4 (Pa. Super. Oct. 15, 2019) (citation omitted). J-S03025-20 marital property, including both Husband's and Wife's State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) benefits, and filed a report and recommendation on May 20, 2010. Thereafter, on June 10, 2010, the trial court entered an order based on t


CourtListener opinion 4507314

domestic relations order: LEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2020 James A. Lemmo (Husband) appeals from the order entered in the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his petition for special relief, which sought modification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).1 Husband contends the trial court abused its discretion when it found it lacked jurisdiction to amend the QDRO. For the reasons below, we affirm. Husband and Cindy D. Lemmo (Wife) were married on April 16, 1988, and separated on July 28, 2006. A divorce decree was entered on May 11, 2009. A Divorce Master considered the equitable division of t


CourtListener opinion 4507624

CourtListener opinion 4507624 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 346520 Midland Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4507624 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 4507624


CourtListener opinion 4507624

QDRO: e providing that plaintiff would receive 50% of defendant's pension as of November 27, 2016, through an Eligible Domestic Relations Order (EDRO). The trial court also ordered that defendant receive 50% of plaintiff's pension as of November 27, 2016, through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). II. ANALYSIS Defendant argues that the trial court clearly erred by refusing to tailor its property division determination to defendant's testimony that he anticipated retiring at age 48. By extension, defendant also argues that the trial court's decision to distribute the pensions according to the 50/50 method rather than the offset method was


CourtListener opinion 4507624

retirement benefits: plans, which are both marital assets, should be applied evenly to the parties. Defendant's argument that he should be able to retire at 48 and receive a full pension at the same time is akin to arguing that he should be entitled to all of the benefits of his retirement plan and plaintiff should be entitled to none. Defendant does not wish to be bound by the restrictions contained in plaintiff's plan, yet, defendant does not contest that both plans are marital assets that should be distributed equally. Moreover, the corollary of defendant's contention that it would be inequitable for him to have to wait 12 years to collect his


CourtListener opinion 4507624

pension: I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff and defendant were married for more than 19 years before filing for divorce in 2016. The parties reached a settlement agreement to all aspects of their divorce, apart from "the manner and method" for distributing plaintiff's pension with Midland County and defendant's pension with Midland Public Schools. During a pro confesso hearing, defendant called a certified public accountant, Amy Hebert, to testify. Hebert testified that there were two primary differences between the parties' pension plans. First, defendant's plan, unlike plaintiff's plan, included a 3% cost-of-living adjustment,


CourtListener opinion 4507624

alternate payee: ween the parties' pension plans. First, defendant's plan, unlike plaintiff's plan, included a 3% cost-of-living adjustment, which meant that defendant's monthly pension amount would gradually increase each year. Second, defendant's plan permitted plaintiff as alternate payee to receive benefits before defendant retired. However, defendant could not receive pension benefits under plaintiff's plan until she retired. Plaintiff is eligible to retire when she is 60 years old, and defendant is eligible to retire when he is 48 years old. Both parties were 45 years old at the time of the hearing. Hebert stated that if defendant chose t


CourtListener opinion 4508136

CourtListener opinion 4508136 Extracted reporter citation: 7 N.E.3d 327. Docket: 19A-DC-827 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4508136 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 4508136

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 4508136

QDRO: the Chase account. Husband further testified that he did not have additional cash in a bank account or at his house and that he had not transferred cash or assets to anyone. Husband asked the trial court to issue a qualified domestic relations order "QDRO" to award Wife the portion of his PSP to which she was entitled. [12] Regarding his gross weekly wage for child support purposes, Husband testified that he was a third shift team leader at GM and that he had earned overtime Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-827 | February 18, 2020 Page 6 of 16 pay at GM in the past. However, Hus


CourtListener opinion 4508136

pension: 's PSP through a QDRO was not specific enough. As the sole authority in support of her argument, Wife directs us to Evans v. Evans, 946 N.E.2d 1200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). There, the trial court ordered the entry of a QDRO against the husband's employment pension plan to "adequately compensate [the wife] for her 50% interest in the net marital assets of the parties." Id. at 1202. After the husband's employer twice rejected proposed QDROs because they violated ERISA and the terms of the husband's pension plan, the trial court issued an order implementing an alternate property distribution. This Court affirm


CourtListener opinion 4508136

ERISA: of a QDRO against the husband's employment pension plan to "adequately compensate [the wife] for her 50% interest in the net marital assets of the parties." Id. at 1202. After the husband's employer twice rejected proposed QDROs because they violated ERISA and the terms of the husband's pension plan, the trial court issued an order implementing an alternate property distribution. This Court affirmed the trial court's order as a clarification of its prior order, not an alteration, where the original plan was legally impossible to implement. [32] However, the facts in this case are distinguishable from


CourtListener opinion 4508136

domestic relations order: g time credit he was awarded in the provisional order; and (3) valued Husband's GM PSP at $52,925. The dissolution order also awarded Wife 49% of the marital couverture value of Husband's PSP and ordered the division of Husband's PSP through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared by Husband's counsel. Lastly, the trial court found that the presumption favoring an equal division of the marital estate was just and reasonable. The following month, Wife filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied in part.2 Wife now appeals the denial. Decision [19] Wife appeals the trial court's denial of her motion


CourtListener opinion 4511120

CourtListener opinion 4511120 Extracted case name: DORIS MPOYI v. RICHARD T. MPOYI. Extracted reporter citation: 363 S.W.3d 479. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4511120 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 4511120


CourtListener opinion 4511120

QDRO: sion DORIS MPOYI v. RICHARD T. MPOYI Appeal from the Chancery Court for Rutherford County No. 09-0934DR J. Mark Rogers, Judge ___________________________________ No. M2018-01816-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________ Ex-Husband appeals from a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), which was entered several years after the final decree of divorce. Ex-Husband complains that the QDRO grants his ex-wife benefits that she was not entitled to under the final decree of divorce. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed W. NEAL MCBRAYER, J., delivere


CourtListener opinion 4511120

retirement benefits: on behalf of the appellee, Doris Mpoyi. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In 2009, Doris Mpoyi filed for divorce from Richard T. Mpoyi. In May 2010, the chancery court entered a final decree of divorce. Among other things, the decree classified and divided the parties' retirement accounts. With respect to Dr. Mpoyi's retirement accounts, the decree provided as follows: The Husband shall receive his 401(k) retirement through Great-West Retirement Services with an approximate balance in the amount of Eight Thousand Three Hundred Forty Eight and 23/100 Dollars ($8,348.23). The 1 Under the rules of this Court, as a memorandum opinion, th


CourtListener opinion 4511120

pension: n one day (October 11, 2018), my retirement revenues have been reduced by $56,559.47. I strongly believe that this needs to be corrected. A QDRO allows an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a private pension plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d) (2018); see also Pruitt v. Pruitt, 293 S.W.3d 537, 543 n.8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008); Custer v. Custer, 776 S.W.2d 92, 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). It is used to carry out orders "relat[ing] to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participan


CourtListener opinion 4511120

401(k): 010, the chancery court entered a final decree of divorce. Among other things, the decree classified and divided the parties' retirement accounts. With respect to Dr. Mpoyi's retirement accounts, the decree provided as follows: The Husband shall receive his 401(k) retirement through Great-West Retirement Services with an approximate balance in the amount of Eight Thousand Three Hundred Forty Eight and 23/100 Dollars ($8,348.23). The 1 Under the rules of this Court, as a memorandum opinion, this opinion may not be published, "cited[,] or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case." Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10. Husb


CourtListener opinion 4511569

CourtListener opinion 4511569 Extracted reporter citation: 690 N.E.2d 535. Docket: E-19-017 Appellant Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4511569 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 4511569


CourtListener opinion 4511569

QDRO: tem. {¶ 21} Continuing jurisdiction over pension disbursements under R.C. 3105.89 is separate from the property division order under R.C. 3105.171. See e.g. Walsh at ¶ 27 10. ("Nothing in the provision that gave the court continuing jurisdiction over the QDRO authorized it to alter the final decree of divorce."). Significantly, the trial court in this case struck the OPERS payment from the consent decree entirely, and substituted a non- pension, cash payment in its place. As in Walsh, while the trial court attempted to reach the intended result of the property division order – in this case a lump sum payment


CourtListener opinion 4511569

retirement benefits: s - - that was my understanding is that the 110,000 would go into a drop account and then he would draw money from there. If he drew it all or he drew it monthly, you know, I wasn't privy to that. I just knew that he was going to get 110,000 out of my retirement account. She also acknowledged that the purpose of consulting with an expert was "to see if he could get a lump sum of my retirement." 4. {¶ 8} After considering the testimony and existing authority, the trial court found either mutual mistake or unilateral mistake, preventing formation of a valid agreement between the parties regarding property division. The


CourtListener opinion 4511569

pension: Court decided Walsh v. Walsh, 157 Ohio St.3d 322, 2019-Ohio-3723, 136 N.E.3d 460.3 {¶ 14} In Walsh, the parties intended, as a term of the divorce decree, that the wife receive direct payment from the government, as her portion of her husband's military pension. However, the rules governing military pensions required a marriage lasting at least 10 years before the military could issue direct payment to the service-member's spouse. Walsh at ¶ 8, citing 10 U.S.C. 1408(d)(2). The parties married in 1994 and separated after six years, but more than 13 years passed before the divorce filing. Walsh at ¶ 2. Based on


CourtListener opinion 4511569

alternate payee: 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104167, 2017-Ohio-4177, ¶ 9, quoting Hines v. Hines, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-10-15, 2010-Ohio-4807, ¶ 11 (Emphasis added.). An order under R.C. 3105.81 governs a "benefit or lump sum payment * * * from a public retirement program to an alternate payee," requiring a specific form created under R.C. 3105.90 by the state retirement system. {¶ 21} Continuing jurisdiction over pension disbursements under R.C. 3105.89 is separate from the property division order under R.C. 3105.171. See e.g. Walsh at ¶ 27 10. ("Nothing in the provision that gave the court continuing jurisdiction over the QDRO authorized


CourtListener opinion 4511740

CourtListener opinion 4511740 Extracted reporter citation: 466 S.W.3d 783. Docket: 04-19-00818-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4511740 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 4511740

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 4511740

QDRO: monthly child support and monthly cash medical support for K.R.C.; (2) an Order Clarifying Child Support Obligation, signed on July 23, 2019, ordering Schuch to pay $3,056.25 in child support arrears and $1,150.45 in medical support arrears; and (3) a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, signed on July 23, 2019, ordering that Schuch's monthly child support and monthly cash medical support be paid from the monthly annuity payment she receives. In addition, the supplemental clerk's record includes a Notice of Nonsuit of Party filed by Kelly Susekov. In that notice, Susekov stated she no longer desired to prosecute suit against Cooper. On


CourtListener opinion 4511740

domestic relations order: child support and monthly cash medical support for K.R.C.; (2) an Order Clarifying Child Support Obligation, signed on July 23, 2019, ordering Schuch to pay $3,056.25 in child support arrears and $1,150.45 in medical support arrears; and (3) a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, signed on July 23, 2019, ordering that Schuch's monthly child support and monthly cash medical support be paid from the monthly annuity payment she receives. In addition, the supplemental clerk's record includes a Notice of Nonsuit of Party filed by Kelly Susekov. In that notice, Susekov stated she no longer desired to prosecute suit against Cooper. On


CourtListener opinion 4512135

CourtListener opinion 4512135 Extracted reporter citation: 861 N.W.2d 449. Docket: A-19-436. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4512135 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 4512135

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 4512135

QDRO: nce Agency. The decree assigned Amy "50% of [David's] -1- Retirement Annuity of the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) plan together with any cost of living adjustment and early retirement subsidies pursuant to a [qualified domestic relations order] or Court Order Acceptable for Processing (hereinafter COAP)." The decree also provided that any salary adjustments that occur after the date of the divorce decree and before David's date of retirement shall be incorporated into the calculation of Amy's share of David's annuity. No appeal was taken from the decree. Subsequently, the district court entered


CourtListener opinion 4512135

retirement benefits: d's motion containing communications between him and David's previous attorney regarding the decree and COAP. This exhibit detailed the negotiations regarding the language of the decree and, specifically, the language of paragraph 12(b) concerning David's DIA retirement plan. Paragraph 12(b) in the decree first prepared by David's attorney specified that Amy would be awarded "50% of [David's] -2- Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) retirement plan." In response, Amy's attorney proposed revisions to paragraph 12(b), which David's attorney eventually incorporated into the decree that was entered by the court. According to Exhibi


CourtListener opinion 4512135

pension: argument was addressed in the case of Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743, 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998). There, the parties were divorced pursuant to a divorce decree providing that -4- the wife "‘should receive one-fourth of any payments received from the [husband's] pension and retirement plan by [the husband] at the time such payments are received.'" Id. at 745, 580 N.W.2d at 518. Several years later, the district court granted the wife's request to enter a QDRO consistent with the decree, distributing one-fourth of the pension, without offsetting post-decree accumulations to the pension. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court


CourtListener opinion 4512135

domestic relations order: . The decree assigned Amy "50% of [David's] -1- Retirement Annuity of the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) plan together with any cost of living adjustment and early retirement subsidies pursuant to a [qualified domestic relations order] or Court Order Acceptable for Processing (hereinafter COAP)." The decree also provided that any salary adjustments that occur after the date of the divorce decree and before David's date of retirement shall be incorporated into the calculation of Amy's share of David's annuity. No appeal was taken from the decree. Subsequently, the district court entered


CourtListener opinion 4513625

CourtListener opinion 4513625 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: WM-19-012 Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4513625 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 4513625


CourtListener opinion 4513625

domestic relations order: arent can communicate with a child ‘notwithstanding the inability to physically visit with the child.'" Id., quoting In re Adoptions of Doyle, 11th Dist. Ashtabula Nos. 2003-A-0071 and 2003-A-0072, 2004-Ohio-4197, ¶ 17. {¶ 28} Here, neither party put the domestic relations order in the record, so we only have the parents' testimony about their agreement. Mother testified that father agreed to "giving up visitation" in exchange for mother "giv[ing] up" child support and waiving father's child support arrears. Father testified that mother did not want him to have "contact visitation with the children" and that their agreement req


CourtListener opinion 4520574

CourtListener opinion 4520574 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4520574 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 4520574


CourtListener opinion 4520574

QDRO: ational fact finder's conclusion that half of the income from retirement accounts reported by Hector on his 2012 tax return—approximately $57,063—would have been delivered to Susana pursuant to the trial court's property division and in accordance with its qualified domestic relations orders if Hector had not wrongfully withdrawn the entirety of the retirement accounts while the divorce was still pending. Hector argues that no evidence was adduced to support an unequal division of assets considering the factors guiding the exercise of discretion in that context outlined in Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981), but the task before the


CourtListener opinion 4520574

retirement benefits: 2011-CM-3393) § OPINION In this dispute over the division of retirement funds in a divorce, Appellant Hector Gomez challenges a money judgment entered against him and in favor of his ex-wife, Appellee Susana Gomez. Their divorce decree had divided two retirement accounts held in Hector's name, but while the divorce was pending and in violation of a court order, Hector withdrew and spent all of the retirement funds. Susana filed suit to enforce the property division, TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. §§ 9.001-.014, and she also alleged fraud on the community, see id. § 7.009. The trial court entered judgment based on both grounds alleg


CourtListener opinion 4520574

pension: to being unemployed, he spent all of the withdrawn funds on rent, medical expenses, and other living expenses. Hector's 2012 federal tax return, filed as a married individual filing separately, covered a period while the divorce was pending and reported pension income of $114,127. Hector testified that he did not prepare the document, he did not think the reported pension income was accurate, and he asserted that he did not "take out that much." However, he admitted that he had never amended the return to correct the amount of pension income reported. A 2011 quarterly statement for one of the retirement accou


CourtListener opinion 4520574

domestic relations order: , the trial court awarded to Susana 50% of the two FedEx retirement accounts, together with any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on those amounts arising since the date of their marriage, as would be more particularly defined in a subsequent qualified domestic relations order. The trial court later issued two QDROs, informing the plans' trustees that Susana was entitled to receive 50% of Hector's accrued benefit under each plan. After the QDROs were filed with the plans' trustees, Susana learned that Hector had withdrawn all of the funds from the retirement accounts. Susana then filed a petition for enforcement of the trial


CourtListener opinion 4521088

CourtListener opinion 4521088 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Duckworth. Extracted reporter citation: 14 N.E.3d 854. Docket: 19A-DC-2123 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4521088 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 4521088


CourtListener opinion 4521088

QDRO: of the properties. The trial court accepted the values proposed by Wife. Each party was awarded certain vehicles and their individual Walmart 401Ks. The trial court ordered Husband to make an equalization payment to Wife in the sum of $11,548.97 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 3 of 13 Standard of Review [8] First, we observe that Wife has not filed an appellee's brief. When the appellee fails to submit a brief, we will not develop an argument on her behalf, but instead,


CourtListener opinion 4521088

401(k): arded two other properties owned by the parties. Both parties presented appraisal evidence concerning the value of the properties. The trial court accepted the values proposed by Wife. Each party was awarded certain vehicles and their individual Walmart 401Ks. The trial court ordered Husband to make an equalization payment to Wife in the sum of $11,548.97 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 3 of 13 Standard of Review [8] First, we observe that Wi


CourtListener opinion 4521088

domestic relations order: roperties. The trial court accepted the values proposed by Wife. Each party was awarded certain vehicles and their individual Walmart 401Ks. The trial court ordered Husband to make an equalization payment to Wife in the sum of $11,548.97 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 3 of 13 Standard of Review [8] First, we observe that Wife has not filed an appellee's brief. When the appellee fails to submit a brief, we will not develop an argument on her behalf, but instead,


CourtListener opinion 4521478

CourtListener opinion 4521478 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DONNA SULLINS AND RAY SULLINS Upon the Petition of DONNA SULLINS. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 19-0043. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4521478 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 4521478

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 4521478

QDRO: 015 WL 4935620, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2015). This is the third, which while purporting to raise new issues, is an attack on prior rulings of the district court. Those prior rulings date back to mid-2017. At that time, Donna moved for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to implement the supreme court's 2006 opinion. Ray filed a resistance. Following a hearing at which Ray failed to appear, the district court entered a QDRO. Ray filed a motion stating he was "incapacitated" on the day of the hearing and wished to have the hearing rescheduled. The district court rescheduled the hearing, but meanwhile, Ray moved


CourtListener opinion 4521478

domestic relations order: 5620, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2015). This is the third, which while purporting to raise new issues, is an attack on prior rulings of the district court. Those prior rulings date back to mid-2017. At that time, Donna moved for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to implement the supreme court's 2006 opinion. Ray filed a resistance. Following a hearing at which Ray failed to appear, the district court entered a QDRO. Ray filed a motion stating he was "incapacitated" on the day of the hearing and wished to have the hearing rescheduled. The district court rescheduled the hearing, but meanwhile, Ray moved


CourtListener opinion 4527607

CourtListener opinion 4527607 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Cooper. Extracted reporter citation: 793 P.2d 810. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4527607 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 4527607

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 4527607

QDRO: sources of future income were monthly social security disability benefits, workers' compensation benefits, and the subject union disability benefits. Boharski, 257 Mont. at 73-76, 847 P.2d at 710-13. Distinguishing the maintenance obligation (and related qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) securing it10) as mechanisms for compelling performance of a legal duty of support, we essentially held that neither constituted a 10 As defined and where applicable under 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (Retirement Equity Act of 1984), a "qualified domestic relations order" is a means for diverting certain otherwise divisible retirement pension benefits from on


CourtListener opinion 4527607

retirement benefits: ana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, dissolving his marriage to Terri Elder (Terri) and equitably apportioning their marital estate. The narrow issue on appeal is: Whether the District Court erroneously characterized Sam's early disability retirement benefit as a divisible marital asset rather than the equivalent of post-dissolution employment income? ¶2 We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶3 Sam and Terri married in 2000, in Helena, Montana. Two children were born as issue of the marriage in 2001 and 2002, respectively. The parties


CourtListener opinion 4527607

pension: enefits compensate individuals who live past retirement age. . . . [They essentially] constitute deferred compensation for services [previously] rendered and function as a substitute for life savings. Like any joint savings accumulated during the marriage, pension and retirement benefits are subject to [equitable] distribution . . . upon divorce. Gragg, 12. S.W.3d at 418. ¶15 SRS members are eligible for normal "service retirement benefits" upon reaching 20 years of service without disability. Sections 19-2-303(35), (48), and 19-7-501, MCA. Vested SRS members without 20 years of service credit are eligible for


CourtListener opinion 4527607

domestic relations order: of future income were monthly social security disability benefits, workers' compensation benefits, and the subject union disability benefits. Boharski, 257 Mont. at 73-76, 847 P.2d at 710-13. Distinguishing the maintenance obligation (and related qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) securing it10) as mechanisms for compelling performance of a legal duty of support, we essentially held that neither constituted a 10 As defined and where applicable under 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (Retirement Equity Act of 1984), a "qualified domestic relations order" is a means for diverting certain otherwise divisible retirement pension benefits from on


CourtListener opinion 4527608

CourtListener opinion 4527608 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Debuff. Extracted reporter citation: 443 P.3d 418. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4527608 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 4527608


CourtListener opinion 4527608

QDRO: on of the double recovery issue. ¶9 Regarding the VOYA account, the District Court noted that Dean had cashed out the account and received a full distribution of the funds on December 26, 2017, instead of transferring Malinda's portion to her pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). He did this without Malinda's consent or the District Court's approval. Dean asserted that after the District Court issued the March 2016 Decree he learned that VOYA no longer sold variable annuities and that the annuity could not be divided as contemplated by the QDRO, therefore Dean's only option was to cash out the account, which had increas


CourtListener opinion 4527608

domestic relations order: double recovery issue. ¶9 Regarding the VOYA account, the District Court noted that Dean had cashed out the account and received a full distribution of the funds on December 26, 2017, instead of transferring Malinda's portion to her pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). He did this without Malinda's consent or the District Court's approval. Dean asserted that after the District Court issued the March 2016 Decree he learned that VOYA no longer sold variable annuities and that the annuity could not be divided as contemplated by the QDRO, therefore Dean's only option was to cash out the account, which had increas


CourtListener opinion 4527946

CourtListener opinion 4527946 Docket: 04-19-00818-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4527946 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 4527946


CourtListener opinion 4527946

QDRO: 1 The Honorable Jessica Crawford presided over the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship proceeding and signed the temporary orders and final order on June 3, 2019. The Honorable Dulce Madrigal signed the Order Clarifying Child Support and Qualified Domestic Relations Order on July 23, 2019.


CourtListener opinion 4527946

domestic relations order: norable Jessica Crawford presided over the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship proceeding and signed the temporary orders and final order on June 3, 2019. The Honorable Dulce Madrigal signed the Order Clarifying Child Support and Qualified Domestic Relations Order on July 23, 2019.


CourtListener opinion 4527947

CourtListener opinion 4527947 Extracted reporter citation: 466 S.W.3d 783. Docket: 04-19-00818-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4527947 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 4527947


CourtListener opinion 4527947

QDRO: 1 The Honorable Jessica Crawford presided over the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship proceeding and signed the temporary orders and final order on June 3, 2019. The Honorable Dulce Madrigal signed the Order Clarifying Child Support and Qualified Domestic Relations Order on July 23, 2019. 04-19-00818-CV BACKGROUND Kasey Schuch is K.R.C.'s biological mother; Kelly Susekov is K.R.C.'s maternal aunt. On June 8, 2018, Susekov filed a suit affecting the parent-child relationship seeking to be appointed sole managing conservator of K.R.C. In her petition, Susekov named Cooper as K.R.C.'s alleged father and asserted that C


CourtListener opinion 4527947

domestic relations order: norable Jessica Crawford presided over the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship proceeding and signed the temporary orders and final order on June 3, 2019. The Honorable Dulce Madrigal signed the Order Clarifying Child Support and Qualified Domestic Relations Order on July 23, 2019. 04-19-00818-CV BACKGROUND Kasey Schuch is K.R.C.'s biological mother; Kelly Susekov is K.R.C.'s maternal aunt. On June 8, 2018, Susekov filed a suit affecting the parent-child relationship seeking to be appointed sole managing conservator of K.R.C. In her petition, Susekov named Cooper as K.R.C.'s alleged father and asserted that C


CourtListener opinion 4528041

CourtListener opinion 4528041 Extracted case name: LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. HAYNES. Extracted reporter citation: 724 N.E.2d 410. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4528041 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 4528041


CourtListener opinion 4528041

QDRO: hat decree, Olic was awarded an interest in Mr. Olic's Ford-UAW retirement plan, and Haynes received an additional $5,000 fee from the division of the Olics' property. {¶ 5} In October 2010, Mr. Olic's counsel submitted a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to the Ford Motor Company to effectuate the transfer of Olic's marital share of Mr. Olic's retirement benefits to her. Ford rejected that QDRO in February 2011. Mr. Olic's counsel submitted a second QDRO to Haynes for his review and approval in April 2011. {¶ 6} During his disciplinary hearing, Haynes testified that he had no written evidence to confirm


CourtListener opinion 4528041

retirement benefits: ding. She paid him an initial retainer of $2,500, plus an additional $300 for a filing fee. On September 9, 2010, the domestic-relations court issued a decree granting Olic a divorce. As part of that decree, Olic was awarded an interest in Mr. Olic's Ford-UAW retirement plan, and Haynes received an additional $5,000 fee from the division of the Olics' property. {¶ 5} In October 2010, Mr. Olic's counsel submitted a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to the Ford Motor Company to effectuate the transfer of Olic's marital share of Mr. Olic's retirement benefits to her. Ford rejected that QDRO in February 2011. Mr. Olic's


CourtListener opinion 4530374

CourtListener opinion 4530374 Extracted reporter citation: 938 A.2d 246. Docket: 1879 MDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4530374 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 4530374

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 4530374

QDRO: W, J.: FILED: APRIL 30, 2020 Appellant, Susan M. Reis ("Wife"), appeals from the October 28, 2019 Order that denied her Petition to Enforce Divorce Decree, which requested that the court direct the entry of an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")1 almost three years after the entry of the original QDRO. Upon review, we agree with the trial court's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to amend the QDRO and, thus, we affirm. ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 "A QDRO is an order which creates or recognizes the rights of an alter


CourtListener opinion 4530374

retirement benefits: _________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 "A QDRO is an 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 [a retirement benefits plan]. To be ‘qualified,' the order must contain certain required information and may not alter the amount or form of plan benefits." Smith v. Smith, 938 A.2d 246, 248 (Pa. 2007) (citation and internal quotation mark omitted). J-S13017-20 A detailed recitation of the procedural and factual history is unnecessary to our disposition. Briefly, Wife and Ap


CourtListener opinion 4530374

pension: eet Metal Worker's Union Local 19 ("Union") for thirty-five years, sixteen of those years while married to Wife. Husband participated in the Union retirement plan, which was comprised of a Sheet Metal Workers Annuity ("Annuity"), and a Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund ("Pension"). Pursuant to the Union's "Rule of 85," when a Union member's age and years of service equals or exceeds the sum of 85, that individual is entitled to receive an unreduced early retirement benefit. Husband filed a Complaint in Divorce on December 5, 2011. On February 23, 2016, after considering a Special Master's Report and Recommenda


CourtListener opinion 4530374

alternate payee: equesting court approval of the Annuity QDRO and the Pension QDRO, the latter of which is at issue in the instant appeal. On the same day, the trial court approved and entered both on the record. The Pension QDRO, states, in relevant part: 7. Amount of Alternate Payee's Benefit: This Order assigns to the Alternate Payee 55.0% times the marital share fraction of the Participant's vested accrued benefit, as of the earlier of the Alternate Payee's benefit commencement date or the date the Participant permanently ceases to accrue benefits under the [Union Pension]. The numerator of the marital share fraction is the num


CourtListener opinion 4530942

CourtListener opinion 4530942 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4530942 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 4530942

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 4530942

domestic relations order: ill deny the petition. Ke has a pending in forma pauperis civil action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In his initial complaint, Ke alleged, inter alia, the existence of a civil rights conspiracy concerning the domestic relations order * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ("DRO") entered in his divorce case in Erie County, Pennsylvania. In particular, Ke asserted that counsel for the Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System conspired with his ex-wife's attorney to deprive Ke of 50% of his monthl


CourtListener opinion 4531948

CourtListener opinion 4531948 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4531948 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 4531948


CourtListener opinion 4531948

retirement benefits: nd District of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases between courts of appeals). relations order. She asserts that her former spouse, appellee Daniel Jude Leveille, failed to name her as the survivor beneficiary of his military retirement plan. In three issues, Murphy contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion and erred in concluding that she failed to invoke a deemed election for survivor benefit coverage. We affirm. Background Leveille and Murphy were married in 1987. In 2000, Leveille completed 20 years of creditable military service. On April 22, 2001, Leveille, a colo


CourtListener opinion 4531948

alternate payee: ayments made directly to [Murphy] by DFAS shall be a credit against this obligation. 8 A DRO "is a species of post-divorce enforcement order." In re N.T.P., 402 S.W.3d 13, 23 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.). Its purpose is to create or recognize an alternate payee's right, or to assign an alternate payee the right, to receive benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan. Id. 9 "Disposable retired pay" is the total monthly amount of retirement pay to which a member is entitled, less applicable exclusions. 10 U.S.C. § 1408(a)(4). 5 For purposes of this order, [Leveille] is specifically directed, on p


CourtListener opinion 4531948

domestic relations order: 2007, the trial court took judicial notice of the MSA and rendered a divorce, to be reduced to a writing at a later date. On November 10, 2007, Leveille married Rhonda Leveille. On January 18, 2008, the trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce and a Domestic Relations Order, effectuating a property division between Leveille and 2 The Survivor Benefit Plan is a Department of Defense sponsored program that allows an eligible servicemember to elect to provide an annuity, payable upon the servicemember's death, to a spouse, former spouse, or child. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 1447–1455. 2 Murphy. Murphy moved to modify the decree, ass


CourtListener opinion 4531948

survivor benefits: Daniel Jude Leveille, failed to name her as the survivor beneficiary of his military retirement plan. In three issues, Murphy contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion and erred in concluding that she failed to invoke a deemed election for survivor benefit coverage. We affirm. Background Leveille and Murphy were married in 1987. In 2000, Leveille completed 20 years of creditable military service. On April 22, 2001, Leveille, a colonel in the United States Air Force (Reserve) ("USAF"), submitted a Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan ("SBP") election to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (


CourtListener opinion 4534579

CourtListener opinion 4534579 Docket: 346790 Oakland Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4534579 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 4534579


CourtListener opinion 4534579

QDRO: 0 is used, the amount transferred to [plaintiff] shall include all growth and losses thereon between February 28, 2017 and the actual date of distribution to [plaintiff]. To the extent required to insure the tax-free nature of this rollover transaction, a qualified domestic relations order shall be utilized. Each party shall pay 50% of the cost of the QDRO preparation fee. * * * 33A. In the event a party refuses or fails to perform any requirement to effectuate this Agreement, and a party has to seek relief from the Court and prevails on the relief sought, the other party may be ordered to pay the attorney fees and costs reasonably in


CourtListener opinion 4534579

retirement benefits: reasonable and he complied with the judgment of divorce and the divorce settlement agreement. We affirm in part and remand in part. Plaintiff is entitled to trial court and appellate attorney fees for enforcing the Rasasri option transfer and Merrill Lynch retirement account provisions of the settlement agreement. On remand, however, the trial court must determine whether defendant violated the settlement agreement as to the Devanhalli property. Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees for that issue if and only if defendant violated the settlement agreement on that issue. This appeal will be decided without oral argument pursuan


CourtListener opinion 4534579

domestic relations order: the amount transferred to [plaintiff] shall include all growth and losses thereon between February 28, 2017 and the actual date of distribution to [plaintiff]. To the extent required to insure the tax-free nature of this rollover transaction, a qualified domestic relations order shall be utilized. Each party shall pay 50% of the cost of the QDRO preparation fee. * * * 33A. In the event a party refuses or fails to perform any requirement to effectuate this Agreement, and a party has to seek relief from the Court and prevails on the relief sought, the other party may be ordered to pay the attorney fees and costs reasonably in


CourtListener opinion 4535263

CourtListener opinion 4535263 Extracted reporter citation: 972 N.E.2d 359. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4535263 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 4535263

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 4535263

QDRO: rty years 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 4535263

retirement benefits: vor benefit coverage after Husband reaches retirement age, or "post- retirement." Appellee's Br. at 11. Nevertheless, Wife points out, and Husband agrees, that the agreement uses terminology that differs from that used by the DOD in describing Husband's retirement benefits, especially the optional survivor benefit coverage. The QDRO provision uses the following terms that do not appear in any relevant DOD document: "Military Reserve Annuity Retirement"; "pre-retirement survivor's benefit"; and "Military Reserve Survivor Pension." Thus, in order to determine whether the parties intended Wife's survivor benefit cover