CourtListener opinion 10762979

retirement benefits: ummary [1] Following the trial court's dissolution of the marriage between Leesa A. Gatton (Wife) and Robert D. Gatton (Husband), Wife argues that the trial court erred in its treatment of Husband's pension and in failing to include Husband's individual retirement account (IRA) in the marital estate. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History 1 [2] Husband and Wife were married in March 2010. No children were born of the marriage. Husband filed a petition to dissolve the marriage on December 20, 2022. The parties filed a stipulated inventory of all assets and liabilities that existed at th


CourtListener opinion 10762979

pension: mber 18, 2024 Page 1 of 21 Crone, Senior Judge. Case Summary [1] Following the trial court's dissolution of the marriage between Leesa A. Gatton (Wife) and Robert D. Gatton (Husband), Wife argues that the trial court erred in its treatment of Husband's pension and in failing to include Husband's individual retirement account (IRA) in the marital estate. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History 1 [2] Husband and Wife were married in March 2010. No children were born of the marriage. Husband filed a petition to dissolve the marriage on December 20, 2022. The parties filed a sti


CourtListener opinion 10762979

401(k): ns, she refinanced for more money than was owing on the existing mortgage so that she could pay off a car loan and contribute to the payment of her daughter's wedding. Husband received no proceeds from any of these refinancings. Husband also cashed in his 401(k) in 2020 to assist the parties in paying taxes. 34. Prior to the parties' marriage, the parties purchased the marital residence in Wife's name in 2008. At least some of Wife's inheritance of $20,000.00 was used to assist in the purchase of that residence and in Husband's conversion of a porch into a master bedroom. The Court was not presented informat


CourtListener opinion 10763079

CourtListener opinion 10763079 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Morgan. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-23-1923 NOTICE: This order was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10763079 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 10763079

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 10763079

retirement benefits: n for reconsideration, asserting that Valencia had "sat on her rights" and that the defense of laches applied. He maintained that Valencia failed to timely seek a QILDRO and that he was not responsible for ensuring that Valencia received her portion of his retirement benefits. He also argued that "even if Valencia is to be awarded retroactive pay," the circuit court miscalculated the amount of the retroactive award by failing to account for taxes. According to Alexsei, the correct amounts—after accounting for taxes—were $21,411 (for the monthly pension amounts) and $72,843 (for the COLA distribution). ¶ 16 Valencia responde


CourtListener opinion 10763079

pension: ton (Alexsei) filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage to Valencia Norton (Valencia) in the circuit court of Cook County. In the judgment for dissolution of marriage entered in 2018, the circuit court awarded 50% of the marital portion of Alexsei's pension to Valencia. Alexsei subsequently retired from government employment and collected pension benefits commencing in October 2021. 1-23-1923 ¶3 In May 2022, the circuit court entered a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO), which addressed Valencia's right to receive a portion of Alexsei's accrued benefits in a public employee retirement sy


CourtListener opinion 10763079

domestic relations order: warded 50% of the marital portion of Alexsei's pension to Valencia. Alexsei subsequently retired from government employment and collected pension benefits commencing in October 2021. 1-23-1923 ¶3 In May 2022, the circuit court entered a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO), which addressed Valencia's right to receive a portion of Alexsei's accrued benefits in a public employee retirement system (see 40 ILCS 5/1-119(a)(6) (West 2022)). While Valencia received monthly payments of her portion of Alexsei's pension after the June 2022 effective date of the QILDRO, she argued that she was entitled to a retroactive awar


CourtListener opinion 10763079

valuation/division: ot appealable. ¶2 Alexsei Norton (Alexsei) filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage to Valencia Norton (Valencia) in the circuit court of Cook County. In the judgment for dissolution of marriage entered in 2018, the circuit court awarded 50% of the marital portion of Alexsei's pension to Valencia. Alexsei subsequently retired from government employment and collected pension benefits commencing in October 2021. 1-23-1923 ¶3 In May 2022, the circuit court entered a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO), which addressed Valencia's right to receive a portion of Alexsei's accrued benefits in a public


CourtListener opinion 1076460

CourtListener opinion 1076460 Extracted reporter citation: 748 S.W.2d 424. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1076460 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 1076460


CourtListener opinion 1076460

QDRO: nd argued that both the bonus and the stock options should be considered marital property, subject to division. The trial court agreed, and ordered that the $15,000 bonus be divided equally between the parties when it was received. The court also entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to divide the unvested stock options equally. The wife argued on appeal that those unvested assets were not marital property, and thus were not subject to division. In the alternative, she argued that the trial court erred in dividing the $15,000 before income taxes, ultimately leaving her a lesser share than the husband. Both parties cite the case


CourtListener opinion 1076460

retirement benefits: t for divorce on April 24, 1996, after sixteen years of marriage to Adrienne Vivian Holmes Brandon. Both parties worked at well-paying jobs during the marriage, and they had accumulated a considerable amount of property, which included real estate, stocks, retirement accounts, furniture, jewelry, vehicles, farming equipment and livestock. The parties stipulated to grounds during a hearing on September 24, 1997. The trial court issued a final decree granting the divorce to both parties on January 12, 1998. The court awarded the parties their respective bank accounts, pensions, and 401(k) accounts. The husband was awarded t


CourtListener opinion 1076460

pension: he $19,000 borrowed from her 401(k)), made improvements to her mother's house, and invested $50,000 in a financial services company that she had started in anticipation of a possible downsizing by Atmos. Her 401(k) was worth over $66,000, her United Cities pension was worth over $37,000, and her Atmos energy stocks and vested stock options were worth about $14,700. Mr. Brandon had a 401(k) account at CNA worth over $41,000, a CNA pension valued at over $19,000, and a Traveler's Insurance Company pension valued at almost $29,000. The farming equipment he owned was worth over $20,000, and his livestock was likew


CourtListener opinion 1076460

401(k): vestock. The parties stipulated to grounds during a hearing on September 24, 1997. The trial court issued a final decree granting the divorce to both parties on January 12, 1998. The court awarded the parties their respective bank accounts, pensions, and 401(k) accounts. The husband was awarded the marital home (which was built on land he had jointly owned with his brother), his pickup truck, farming equipment, land and livestock. The wife was awarded a residence she had purchased, using $19,000 she had borrowed from her 401(k) as a down payment, and her Lexus. The court placed a valuation on each item of pr


CourtListener opinion 1076772

CourtListener opinion 1076772 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1076772 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 1076772


CourtListener opinion 1076772

QDRO: l share was erroneously calculated, and that the effect of Social Security payments upon his pension was not considered. We find these contentions to be without merit. While the court's final decree calculated the present value of husband's pension, the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which the court subsequently entered did not rely upon present value. That order calculated the marital share of husband's pension as a fraction of the total pension, based upon the parties' final separation date of February 1992. Specifically, the court awarded wife a pro rata portion of the marital share, defined as: one-half (1/2) of the fr


CourtListener opinion 1076772

retirement benefits: er; Gardner, Gardner, Barrow & Sharpe, on brief), for appellee. Robert W. Gore (husband) appeals the final decree of divorce and equitable distribution entered by the circuit court. Husband contends that the trial court erred in (1) valuing the parties' retirement benefits, (2) awarding attorney's fees to Sylvia S. Gore (wife), (3) requiring husband to pay wife the value of a lost engagement ring, (4) awarding wife one-half the face value of savings bonds, and (5) awarding wife $375 in monthly spousal support. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly


CourtListener opinion 1076772

pension: support. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. Pensions Husband contends that wife's expert erred in valuing his pension, that the present value calculation used post-separation * Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. salary increases, that the marital share was erroneously calculated, and that the effect of Social Security payments upon his pension was not considered. We find these contentions to be without merit. While the cou


CourtListener opinion 1076772

domestic relations order: s erroneously calculated, and that the effect of Social Security payments upon his pension was not considered. We find these contentions to be without merit. While the court's final decree calculated the present value of husband's pension, the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which the court subsequently entered did not rely upon present value. That order calculated the marital share of husband's pension as a fraction of the total pension, based upon the parties' final separation date of February 1992. Specifically, the court awarded wife a pro rata portion of the marital share, defined as: one-half (1/2) of the fr


CourtListener opinion 10770632

CourtListener opinion 10770632 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hoster. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10770632 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 10770632

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 10770632

QDRO: after [Tiffany] has fully vacated and established her residence outside the former marital residence." The court did not enter a finding under Rule 304(a). ¶9 On March 12, 2024, Tiffany filed a Motion for Entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and a Motion to Modify Order of February 14, 2024. On March 13, 2024, Tiffany filed a second motion seeking to modify and vacate the same order. On March 28, 2024, the circuit court denied her motions, and Tiffany appealed. 3 ¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 11 On appeal, Tiffany claims the court misapplied the law when it (1) ordered the sale of the former m


CourtListener opinion 1077613

CourtListener opinion 1077613 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1077613 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 1077613


CourtListener opinion 1077613

QDRO: FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PETERSBURG James F. D'Alton, Jr., Judge (Beverly D. Crawford; El-Amin & Crawford, on brief), for appellant. (James Edward Sheffield, on brief), for appellee. Eunice P. Todd (wife) appeals from the circuit court's qualified domestic relations order and final decree awarding a divorce to James E. Todd (husband). Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. Wife contends that the commissioner abused his discretion by refusing to allow her to submit additional eviden


CourtListener opinion 1077613

domestic relations order: IRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PETERSBURG James F. D'Alton, Jr., Judge (Beverly D. Crawford; El-Amin & Crawford, on brief), for appellant. (James Edward Sheffield, on brief), for appellee. Eunice P. Todd (wife) appeals from the circuit court's qualified domestic relations order and final decree awarding a divorce to James E. Todd (husband). Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. Wife contends that the commissioner abused his discretion by refusing to allow her to submit additional eviden


CourtListener opinion 10776130

CourtListener opinion 10776130 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10776130 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 10776130

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 10776130

QDRO: nt for the period ending September 2014, which listed the value as $157,308.43. Additionally, the trial court found that there was evidence of substantial communication between counsel for the parties, as well as the attorney who was retained to prepare the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), regarding the type and value of the petitioner's retirement accounts. Accordingly, the trial court concluded: The evidence does not establish that [the petitioner] deceived [the respondent] about the value of her retirement account or that [the respondent] solely relied on the value listed on the May 1, 2015 financial affidavit as the basis for


CourtListener opinion 10776130

retirement benefits: modification of an alimony award." Id. at 528-29. In this case, the parties signed a mediated final divorce decree on May 1, 2015. On the same day, the petitioner submitted a financial affidavit, in which she represented that one of her assets was a 401(k) retirement account valued at $157,000 — the same value as that set forth in her prior financial affidavit, submitted on January 28, 2015. As part of the distribution of marital property set forth in the final decree, the respondent was awarded $55,000 of the petitioner's retirement account. He was also awarded alimony in the amount of $700 per month for a period of approxima


CourtListener opinion 10776130

401(k): warrant modification of an alimony award." Id. at 528-29. In this case, the parties signed a mediated final divorce decree on May 1, 2015. On the same day, the petitioner submitted a financial affidavit, in which she represented that one of her assets was a 401(k) retirement account valued at $157,000 — the same value as that set forth in her prior financial affidavit, submitted on January 28, 2015. As part of the distribution of marital property set forth in the final decree, the respondent was awarded $55,000 of the petitioner's retirement account. He was also awarded alimony in the amount of $700 per month for a


CourtListener opinion 10776130

domestic relations order: period ending September 2014, which listed the value as $157,308.43. Additionally, the trial court found that there was evidence of substantial communication between counsel for the parties, as well as the attorney who was retained to prepare the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), regarding the type and value of the petitioner's retirement accounts. Accordingly, the trial court concluded: The evidence does not establish that [the petitioner] deceived [the respondent] about the value of her retirement account or that [the respondent] solely relied on the value listed on the May 1, 2015 financial affidavit as the basis for


CourtListener opinion 10776214

CourtListener opinion 10776214 Extracted reporter citation: 889 A.2d 1251. Docket: 1161 WDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10776214 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 10776214


CourtListener opinion 10776214

QDRO: rital by the parties in this case: First, she will receive [Husband's] entire 401k savings plan after the plan considers the loan currently secured by the 401k or loan against the 401k with the understanding that the net that will be rolled over to her by Qualified Domestic Relations Order will be about $201,000. . . . * * * . . . [T]he parties agree that they will make arrangements through counsel to divide the marital artwork and furnishings with the intention of getting that accomplished on or before August 30th, at which time [W]ife is to have vacated [Husband's pre-marital] home on East Drive [(the Marital Residence)]. . . . I


CourtListener opinion 10776214

401(k): ited the terms of the MSA on the record. Of relevance to this appeal, the parties agreed to the following: So Plaintiff/Wife shall receive the following assets identified as marital by the parties in this case: First, she will receive [Husband's] entire 401k savings plan after the plan considers the loan currently secured by the 401k or loan against the 401k with the understanding that the net that will be rolled over to her by Qualified Domestic Relations Order will be about $201,000. . . . * * * . . . [T]he parties agree that they will make arrangements through counsel to divide the marital artwork a


CourtListener opinion 10776214

domestic relations order: he parties in this case: First, she will receive [Husband's] entire 401k savings plan after the plan considers the loan currently secured by the 401k or loan against the 401k with the understanding that the net that will be rolled over to her by Qualified Domestic Relations Order will be about $201,000. . . . * * * . . . [T]he parties agree that they will make arrangements through counsel to divide the marital artwork and furnishings with the intention of getting that accomplished on or before August 30th, at which time [W]ife is to have vacated [Husband's pre-marital] home on East Drive [(the Marital Residence)]. . . . I


CourtListener opinion 10776214

valuation/division: ance for which he will be solely responsible and indemnify [Wife]. * * * [Husband] will also receive sole and exclusive ownership of the silver saddle, which is a show saddle, which the parties estimate to have significant value. . . . Finally, as to equitable distribution, [Husband] will pay an additional sum of $25,000 on top of the life insurance equity that [Wife] is to receive as soon as practical. Our understanding is that's going to happen this week so that [Wife] has an aggregate of $50,000 cash in her possession and available to her by the end of the week. * * * As to alimony and alimony pendente lite, the p


CourtListener opinion 10776873

CourtListener opinion 10776873 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McCausland. Extracted reporter citation: 335 P.3d 984. Docket: 57522-1-II property. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10776873 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 10776873


CourtListener opinion 10776873

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


CourtListener opinion 10776873

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


CourtListener opinion 10776873

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


CourtListener opinion 10776873

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


CourtListener opinion 10777836

CourtListener opinion 10777836 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10777836 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 10777836


CourtListener opinion 10777836

QDRO: County from 1991 to 2000. The divorce decree incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA), which awarded Latimer one-half of Walker's PERS retirement benefit and provided that Latimer's share would be secured by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that allowed Latimer to elect Option 2. The QDRO provided that Latimer \is entitled to a portion of the Participant's


CourtListener opinion 10777836

retirement benefits: ., Advance Opinion c2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA LAURA J. WALKER, N/K/A LAURA J. No. 86548 LATIMER, Appellant, vs. FILED r EGAN KIRK WALKER, JAN 09 2025 Respondent. Appeal from a district court post-divorce-decree order regarding retirement benefits. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; William A. Maddox, Sr. Judge. Affirrned in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Dietrich Law Group and Raymond S. Dietrich, Las Vegas, for Appellant. Smith Jain Stutzman and Kimberly A. Stutzman and Radford J. Smith, Henderson, for Respondent. Public Employees' Retirement System of Nevada and Ian


CourtListener opinion 10780794

CourtListener opinion 10780794 Extracted case name: AFTUCK v. AFTUCK. HODGES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10780794 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 10780794

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 10780794

QDRO: proceeds to cover the mortgage that the Husband took out in his own name"). Wife cites to Mermann v. Tillitski, 297 Ga. 881, 883 (778 SE2d 191) (2015), which found that even where the wife failed to follow the divorce decree's mandate that she prepare a qualified domestic relations order ("QRDO") within 30 days of the signing of a settlement agreement, nothing in the agreement suggested this meant she would forfeit earnings in the husband's IRA accruing after the 30-day period to provide the QRDO had run. Here, however, the pertinent issue is whether the Decree prohibited Husband from changing share allocations prior to any transfer to


CourtListener opinion 10780794

retirement benefits: See Morgan v. Morgan, 288 Ga. 417, 419 (2) (704 SE2d 764) (2011) (finding trial court improperly modified divorce decree and did more than merely clarify or construe imprecise language when it supplied a "missing percentage allocation of Husband's military retirement benefits" in Wife's favor where parties had a mutual misunderstanding of how Husband's Navy retirement account would function); 10 Roquemore v. Burgess, 281 Ga. 593, 595 (642 SE2d 41) (2007) (concluding trial court improperly modified divorce settlement agreement by requiring payment of agreed- upon sum from proceeds of sale of marital residence, where plain


CourtListener opinion 10780794

domestic relations order: to cover the mortgage that the Husband took out in his own name"). Wife cites to Mermann v. Tillitski, 297 Ga. 881, 883 (778 SE2d 191) (2015), which found that even where the wife failed to follow the divorce decree's mandate that she prepare a qualified domestic relations order ("QRDO") within 30 days of the signing of a settlement agreement, nothing in the agreement suggested this meant she would forfeit earnings in the husband's IRA accruing after the 30-day period to provide the QRDO had run. Here, however, the pertinent issue is whether the Decree prohibited Husband from changing share allocations prior to any transfer to


CourtListener opinion 10781865

CourtListener opinion 10781865 Extracted reporter citation: 647 F.3d 221. Docket: 32 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10781865 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 10781865


CourtListener opinion 10781865

QDRO: P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI*, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2019 Appellant, Tina M. Jago ("Wife"), appeals from the order entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, which vacated a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") the court had previously entered upon joint petition of Wife and Geoffrey H. Jago ("Husband") and denied the parties' amended joint petition for entry of an amended QDRO.1 We affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. The parties married on June 21, 1997, and are still married. Husband is a participant in a JetBlu


CourtListener opinion 10781865

retirement benefits: he parties' amended joint petition for entry of an amended QDRO.1 We affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. The parties married on June 21, 1997, and are still married. Husband is a participant in a JetBlue Airways Retirement Plan ("Plan").2 On June 21, 2018, ____________________________________________ 1 Husband did not file a notice of appeal, and he is not a party to this appeal. 2 The parties do not dispute and the record makes clear the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., governs this Plan. ____________________________________ * Reti


CourtListener opinion 10781865

pension: granting an interest in the benefits of the participant's retirement plan to a non-participant. Id. at 851, 117 S.Ct. at 1765, 138 L.Ed.2d at ___ (citing 29 U.S.C.A. § 1056(d)(1)). "The purpose of the proscription, in ERISA, on alienation and assignment of pension funds is to protect the participant from [the participant's] own financial improvidence." Richardson v. Richardson, 774 A.2d 1267, 1270 (Pa.Super. 2001). ERISA's anti-alienation provision is compulsory and has few limited statutory exceptions. Boggs, supra at 851, 117 S.Ct. at 1765, 138 L.Ed.2d at ___ (citing 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1056(d)(2), (3)(A)). ERISA


CourtListener opinion 10781865

ERISA: ("Plan").2 On June 21, 2018, ____________________________________________ 1 Husband did not file a notice of appeal, and he is not a party to this appeal. 2 The parties do not dispute and the record makes clear the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., governs this Plan. ____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S26018-19 the couple filed a "Verified Joint Petition for QDRO." In the petition, the parties sought to transfer $400,000.00 from the Plan to an individual retirement account ("IRA") in Wife's name. The petition


CourtListener opinion 10781926

CourtListener opinion 10781926 Extracted reporter citation: 633 A.2d 589. Docket: 208 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10781926 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 10781926


CourtListener opinion 10781926

QDRO: January 22, 2009. In that petition, Wife requested that the trial court order Husband to sign the QDROs she prepared, as required by the Order and the Amended Order.4 Petition to Enforce Order of Court, 1/22/2009. On May 1, 2009, the trial court entered a QDRO as an order of court (2009 QDRO). The 2009 QDRO, which was signed by Husband and Wife, provided that Wife's portion of the retirement benefit would be calculated ____________________________________________ 4 "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 particip


CourtListener opinion 10781926

retirement benefits: A22026-19 Berrington, 633 A.2d 589 (Pa. 1993). In Berrington, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that in a deferred distribution of a defined benefit pension, the spouse not participating may not be awarded any portion of the participant-spouse's retirement benefits which are based on post- separation salary increases, incentive awards or years of service. Any retirement benefits awarded to the non-participant spouse must be based only on the participant-spouse's salary at the date of separation. 633 A.2d at 594 (emphasis added).2 On January 28, 2005, the Pennsylvania legislature passed subsection (c) of secti


CourtListener opinion 10781926

pension: BER 15, 2019 John William Getty (Husband) appeals from the order entered December 17, 2018, which denied his petition for declaratory judgment. We affirm. This case involves the application of an important1 change in Pennsylvania law with respect to how pension plans are valued in divorce cases. Specifically, on January 28, 2005, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted legislation that overruled our Supreme Court's holding in Berrington v. ____________________________________________ 1 Among the amicus participants in Berrington, infra, were the following entities: the Pennsylvania Chapter of American Academy of M


CourtListener opinion 10781926

valuation/division: e employee spouse in the value of the pension." 23 Pa.C.S. § 3501 (comment to subsec. (c)). In other words, the pension was to be valued using the employee-spouse's salary as of the date of retirement, not as of the date of separation as in Berrington. The marital portion of the pension would be calculated by the use of a coverture fraction. See Smith v. Smith, 938 A.2d 246 (Pa. 2007). Moreover, on June 15, 2005, the legislature again amended subsection 3501(c) to provide that it was applicable to all proceedings pending on or after January 28, 2005. ____________________________________________ 2 The author of this opin


CourtListener opinion 10781946

CourtListener opinion 10781946 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 3315 EDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10781946 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 10781946

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 10781946

domestic relations order: nter such an order after conducting a conference on the petition. Here, the trial court conducted a hearing on Father's petition. At the hearing, Mother testified that she did not directly receive the support payments for Jessica, but that, pursuant to a domestic relations order requested by Father, Jessica had been receiving the support checks directly -3- J-S30002-19 since 1998. The trial court took the matter under advisement and, following a review of the certified record, issued an order denying Father's petition. See Order, 10/22/18. Upon review, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. Rather, it re


CourtListener opinion 10781956

CourtListener opinion 10781956 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 180 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10781956 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 10781956

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 10781956

retirement benefits: The trial court thus concluded that Husband alone should bear responsibility for the taxes deducted as a result of the early liquidation of the accounts. Id. at 4, 12. The trial court properly considered the tax ramifications in assessing the value of the retirement accounts, and we decline Husband's invitation to overturn its well-supported findings and conclusions. -6- J-A24038-19 Husband further argues that the trial court's refusal to assign some shared responsibility for the taxes he paid is inequitable and fails to account for the fact that Husband's liquidation of the accounts was not voluntary and a result of


CourtListener opinion 10781956

domestic relations order: responsible for all assessed taxes[.] 2. The learned trial court erred by utilizing the gross amount of the retirement and/or investment accounts for purposes of equitable distribution when [Husband] while under the specter of unmerited and unwarranted domestic relations orders and ____________________________________________ 2 Husband filed his concise statement of errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) on January 31, 2019. The trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on March 15, 2019. -3- J-A24038-19 eventual imprisonment for purported contempt of said Orders was forced to liquidate certain retirement and/or investmen


CourtListener opinion 10781956

valuation/division: affidavit on March 26, 2015, stating that the marriage was irretrievably broken pursuant to Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. § 3301(d). Wife filed a counter-affidavit of non-opposition to divorce on April 14, 2015. Following a hearing, an equitable distribution master issued a report and recommendation on April 11, 2017. Both parties objected to the report and recommendation and requested a hearing de novo. The trial court conducted a de novo hearing on April 4, 2018. At the hearing, counsel agreed that the equitable distribution proceeding would be conducted on a "case-stated basis" on documentary exhibits a


CourtListener opinion 10782215

CourtListener opinion 10782215 Extracted case name: J.P. v. J.S. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 3292 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10782215 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 10782215


CourtListener opinion 10782215

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


CourtListener opinion 10782215

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


CourtListener opinion 10783480

CourtListener opinion 10783480 Extracted reporter citation: 552 P.3d 235. Docket: 20230789-CA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10783480 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 10783480


CourtListener opinion 10783480

QDRO: he district court should use the "Woodward formula" to determine how to divide their retirement accounts, and in the final divorce decree, the court ordered that this is how the accounts should be divided. Id. ¶ 4. But when the husband's attorney prepared the qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) 9 and sent it to the wife's attorney, it became clear that the parties had very different ideas about what that formula entailed and how it would actually be applied to the accounts in question. See id. ¶¶ 5–8. The wife accordingly filed both an objection to the QDRO and a rule 60(b) motion, asking the district court to set aside the divorce decr


CourtListener opinion 10783480

retirement benefits: hat it could. Our decision in Granger v. Granger, 2016 UT App 117, 374 P.3d 1043, is perhaps the clearest example. There, the parties in a divorce action had stipulated that the district court should use the "Woodward formula" to determine how to divide their retirement accounts, and in the final divorce decree, the court ordered that this is how the accounts should be divided. Id. ¶ 4. But when the husband's attorney prepared the qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) 9 and sent it to the wife's attorney, it became clear that the parties had very different ideas about what that formula entailed and how it would actually be


CourtListener opinion 10783480

domestic relations order: t court should use the "Woodward formula" to determine how to divide their retirement accounts, and in the final divorce decree, the court ordered that this is how the accounts should be divided. Id. ¶ 4. But when the husband's attorney prepared the qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) 9 and sent it to the wife's attorney, it became clear that the parties had very different ideas about what that formula entailed and how it would actually be applied to the accounts in question. See id. ¶¶ 5–8. The wife accordingly filed both an objection to the QDRO and a rule 60(b) motion, asking the district court to set aside the divorce decr


CourtListener opinion 10784062

CourtListener opinion 10784062 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1686 MDA 2023. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10784062 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 10784062


CourtListener opinion 10784062

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


CourtListener opinion 10784062

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


CourtListener opinion 10784062

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


CourtListener opinion 10786491

CourtListener opinion 10786491 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of Charles R. Hook. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 24CA0459 City and County of Denver District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10786491 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 10786491


CourtListener opinion 10786491

retirement benefits: d the district court signed it, finding her indigent for purposes of obtaining a state-paid transcript. ¶4 Throughout the marriage — as well as after the decree was entered — Hook worked for the City of Denver and participated in the Denver Employees Retirement Plan (DERP). Relevant to this appeal, as part of the property division, the district court ordered that the pension be divided pursuant to the deferred distribution method authorized in In re Marriage of Hunt, 909 P.2d 525, 531-32 (Colo. 1995). In other words, the marital portion of Hook's eventual benefit would be calculated by dividing the number of


CourtListener opinion 10786491

pension: Rhoads Hook, Pro Se *Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024. ¶1 This appeal concerns the efforts of Respondent, Paula S. Rhoads Hook, to secure access to benefits from the pension of Petitioner, Charles R. Hook, which benefits were allotted to her in the permanent orders upon the entry of a decree of legal separation in 2006. While Rhoads Hook has raised the issue at various times over the years, for reasons we will explain, we have jurisdiction in this appeal over only one order: a February 3, 2024, order denying Rhoads


CourtListener opinion 10786491

domestic relations order: tioner reaches retirement age, the administrator of that plan will be instructed to divide that benefit 50/50." The court neglected to inform the pro se parties about the necessity of submitting to the pension plan administrator a document known as a "Domestic Relations Order" (DRO). A DRO is a court order that must be submitted to the plan administrator to effectuate the court-ordered distribution. Denver Rev. Mun. Code § 18-418(b). A DRO must be entered by the court "either upon the entry of the decree and permanent orders, or within one hundred eighty (180) days thereafter." Id. at § 18-418(b)(2). The court file 1


CourtListener opinion 10786491

valuation/division: s of obtaining a state-paid transcript. ¶4 Throughout the marriage — as well as after the decree was entered — Hook worked for the City of Denver and participated in the Denver Employees Retirement Plan (DERP). Relevant to this appeal, as part of the property division, the district court ordered that the pension be divided pursuant to the deferred distribution method authorized in In re Marriage of Hunt, 909 P.2d 525, 531-32 (Colo. 1995). In other words, the marital portion of Hook's eventual benefit would be calculated by dividing the number of months of the marriage by the total number of months Hook was a pl


CourtListener opinion 10787754

CourtListener opinion 10787754 Extracted case name: DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION WALKER LOGAN HAGIUS. Extracted reporter citation: 232 P.3d 573. Docket: 86293-6-I/2 Henery. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10787754 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 10787754

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 10787754

QDRO: assets and the party to whom each asset was awarded. The list included Fidelity IRA account #9194, with a balance of $326,981.73, and designated it as property awarded to Hagius, "with the net present value as of the Date of Separation, to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO]." 1 The court explained in additional findings that it had previously "found and ruled orally that whether any transfer payment would be required depended 1 In listing the Fidelity IRA and awarding it to Hagius, the order parenthetically references the supporting trial exhibit, "Ex. 77, Bal: $326,981.73." 2 No. 86293-6-I/3 on a final valuati


CourtListener opinion 10787754

retirement benefits: dered Henery to make an equalizing transfer payment to Hagius. Nine months later, Hagius filed a motion to enforce the dissolution orders. Hagius sought to require Henery to sign documents necessary to transfer ownership of real property and an individual retirement account (IRA) awarded to him; to disburse the required transfer payment; and to pay accrued interest. After a commissioner granted the motion in part, but denied the request for interest, the superior court revised the commissioner's order and ordered Henery to transfer 100 percent of the value of the IRA account and pay interest on the transfer payment. The su


CourtListener opinion 10787754

401(k): idelity IRA and awarding it to Hagius, the order parenthetically references the supporting trial exhibit, "Ex. 77, Bal: $326,981.73." 2 No. 86293-6-I/3 on a final valuation of the two retirement accounts awarded to [Hagius] (Fidelity IRA #9194 and Schwab 401(k))." Then, based on the parties' post-trial supplemental submissions, the court adopted final values reflected in a spreadsheet, "Exhibit A," attached to both the court's findings and the decree. The spreadsheet indicates a lower balance for the same Fidelity IRA account, $296,982. The court explained that it had discounted the value of the account by $3


CourtListener opinion 10787754

domestic relations order: d the party to whom each asset was awarded. The list included Fidelity IRA account #9194, with a balance of $326,981.73, and designated it as property awarded to Hagius, "with the net present value as of the Date of Separation, to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO]." 1 The court explained in additional findings that it had previously "found and ruled orally that whether any transfer payment would be required depended 1 In listing the Fidelity IRA and awarding it to Hagius, the order parenthetically references the supporting trial exhibit, "Ex. 77, Bal: $326,981.73." 2 No. 86293-6-I/3 on a final valuati


CourtListener opinion 10788744

CourtListener opinion 10788744 Extracted case name: KANE v. KANE. Docket: 1 CA-CV 23-0595 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10788744 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 10788744


CourtListener opinion 10788744

QDRO: r entry of the decree, Wife and Husband jointly selected a specialized attorney to assist the court by opining on the proper division 2 KANE v. KANE Decision of the Court of the Fidelity Account to implement the court's decree and proposing the necessary qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO") for that purpose. ¶6 Based on the parties' agreement, the court appointed a QDRO attorney, who prepared and filed a report and proposed order with the court on April 5, 2024. Ten days later, on April 15, 2024, and before Wife filed any objections to the report or proposed order, the court adopted the proposed order. The following day, April 16, 2


CourtListener opinion 10788744

retirement benefits: Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure ("ARFLP") 72.1 authorizes appointment of a professional with special expertise to aid the court with apportioning employment-related assets, including stock options and similar. The rule states: If a court order requires retirement benefits, stock options or other employment related benefits to be divided, the court may appoint an attorney or other professional with the appropriate expertise to recommend a division or to implement the division that the court has ordered. ARFLP 72.1(a). Such professionals may be authorized to divide specified assets and may also exercise discovery powers


CourtListener opinion 10788744

pension: from the court's rulings that it found Wife's evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption. Whitt, 257 Ariz. at 153 ¶ 8. ¶12 Moreover, Arizona law holds that both unvested stock options and RSUs are forms of compensation that are treated analogously to pension plans for property division purposes during dissolution. See Brebaugh, 211 Ariz. at 97–98 ¶¶ 6–7 (unvested stock options); Goodell v. Goodell, 257 Ariz. 536, 544 ¶ 32 (App. 2024) (RSUs). Thus, unvested stock options and RSUs "are community property insofar as the rights were acquired during marriage." Brebaugh, 211 Ariz. at 98 ¶ 8 (quoting Johnson v. Johnso


CourtListener opinion 10788744

401(k): dissolution. ¶3 Before trial, the parties filed a joint pre-trial statement that listed contested issues and their positions on them. The statement cited four main issues: (1) division of a "Fidelity Account," comprised of cash, an executive savings plan, a 401(K), and stock options (vested and unvested); (2) Wife's request for reimbursement for her community expenses; (3) Wife's request for an equalization payment for a gold/silver coin collection Husband had partially liquidated; and (4) Wife's request for an equalization payment for a vehicle to be awarded to Husband. ¶4 Following trial on all issues, the court i


CourtListener opinion 1079021

CourtListener opinion 1079021 Extracted reporter citation: 672 S.W.2d 765. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1079021 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 1079021


CourtListener opinion 1079021

QDRO: $500 over sixty months. This distribution would require Ms. Kinard to pay federal income tax on the retirement benefits, which would ordinarily not be taxed at retirement. We order that Ms. Kinard's portion of the retirement account be transferred to her by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. VI. THE SPOUSAL SUPPORT AWARD Ms. Kinard also takes issue with the trial judge's decision to award her $1,000 in rehabilitative spousal support for thirty-six months. She insists that she is entitled to permanent spousal support and that the amount of monthly spousal support ordered by the trial judge is far less than her monthly needs. We have determ


CourtListener opinion 1079021

retirement benefits: t Ms. Kinard asserts should have been classified as her separate property.7 The principal assets in the estate were the Kinards' house, a note payable to the Kinards from Drug Centers, Inc., the stock in Drug Centers, Inc., and Mr. Kinard's Drug Centers, Inc. retirement account. The parties disputed the value of the house, the Drug Centers note, and the Drug Centers stock, but the trial judge did not undertake to resolve this conflicting evidence. The trial judge adopted Mr. Kinard's proposed division of the marital estate with one exception. Instead of awarding Mr. Kinard all of his Drug Centers pension, the trial judge decided


CourtListener opinion 1079021

pension: , and the Drug Centers stock, but the trial judge did not undertake to resolve this conflicting evidence. The trial judge adopted Mr. Kinard's proposed division of the marital estate with one exception. Instead of awarding Mr. Kinard all of his Drug Centers pension, the trial judge decided that Ms. Kinard should receive thirty percent of the value of this asset. Recognizing that Mr. Kinard did not desire Ms. Kinard to share in his pension, the trial judge gave him the option of paying Ms. Kinard $500 for sixty months instead. Under this arrangement, and using Mr. Kinard's valuations 7 This property includes (1) rea


CourtListener opinion 1079021

domestic relations order: sixty months. This distribution would require Ms. Kinard to pay federal income tax on the retirement benefits, which would ordinarily not be taxed at retirement. We order that Ms. Kinard's portion of the retirement account be transferred to her by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. VI. THE SPOUSAL SUPPORT AWARD Ms. Kinard also takes issue with the trial judge's decision to award her $1,000 in rehabilitative spousal support for thirty-six months. She insists that she is entitled to permanent spousal support and that the amount of monthly spousal support ordered by the trial judge is far less than her monthly needs. We have determ


CourtListener opinion 10791304

CourtListener opinion 10791304 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of David J. Homoki. Extracted reporter citation: 252 P.3d 1182. Docket: 22CA2069 Arapahoe County District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10791304 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 10791304


CourtListener opinion 10791304

QDRO: husband. Conversely, the court allocated wife 25% of husband's Schwab account ending in "0521," with husband receiving the remaining 75%. The court classified the Schwab and Ameritrade accounts as retirement accounts and ordered their division using a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). ¶5 In determining maintenance, the district court used husband's monthly day-trading income of $8,333 and imputed wife a monthly income of $2,177. The court found that wife qualified for maintenance and ordered husband to pay her $1,520.32 per month for eighty-seven months. ¶6 Wife later filed a motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 59 seeking ame


CourtListener opinion 10791304

retirement benefits: e, with the remaining 25% of each account allocated to husband. Conversely, the court allocated wife 25% of husband's Schwab account ending in "0521," with husband receiving the remaining 75%. The court classified the Schwab and Ameritrade accounts as retirement accounts and ordered their division using a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). ¶5 In determining maintenance, the district court used husband's monthly day-trading income of $8,333 and imputed wife a monthly income of $2,177. The court found that wife qualified for maintenance and ordered husband to pay her $1,520.32 per month for eighty-seven mo


CourtListener opinion 10791304

domestic relations order: onversely, the court allocated wife 25% of husband's Schwab account ending in "0521," with husband receiving the remaining 75%. The court classified the Schwab and Ameritrade accounts as retirement accounts and ordered their division using a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). ¶5 In determining maintenance, the district court used husband's monthly day-trading income of $8,333 and imputed wife a monthly income of $2,177. The court found that wife qualified for maintenance and ordered husband to pay her $1,520.32 per month for eighty-seven months. ¶6 Wife later filed a motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 59 seeking ame


CourtListener opinion 10791304

valuation/division: nd) and Dahlia M. Homoki (wife), husband appeals the portions of the permanent orders concerning the marital property division and maintenance. Husband also appeals the district court's correction pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60(a) of a portion of the marital property division. We affirm the judgment in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings. I. Background ¶2 The parties married in 2007. (CF p. 22) In 2022, the district court dissolved their marriage and entered permanent orders. The marital estate consisted primarily of the marital home, which was valued at about $1.2 million, and multiple


CourtListener opinion 10794476

CourtListener opinion 10794476 Extracted reporter citation: 144 S.Ct. 1392. Docket: Entry. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10794476 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 10794476

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 10794476

QDRO: ether the beneficiary's interest arises by inheritance, designation, appointment or otherwise, is exempt from all claims of creditors of the beneficiary or participant. This subsection does not apply to any of the following: □ 1. An alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in section 414(p) of the United States internal revenue code of 1986, as amended. The interest of any and all alternate payees is exempt from any and all claims of any □□□□□□□□ of the alternate payee. 2. Amounts contributed within one hundred twenty days before a debtor files for bankruptcy. □ 3. The assets of bankruptcy proceedings filed b


CourtListener opinion 10794476

retirement benefits: the beneficiary. This does not include money contributed to the plan within two years before a debtor files for bankruptcy. B. Any money or other assets payable to a participant in or beneficiary of, or any interest of any participant or beneficiary in, a retirement plan under section 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A or 409 or a deferred compensation plan under section 457 of the United States internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, whether the beneficiary's interest arises by inheritance, designation, appointment or otherwise, is exempt from all claims of creditors of the beneficiary or participant. This subsection


CourtListener opinion 10794476

pension: ompensation ! A. For the purposes of this section, "disposable earnings" means that remaining portion of a debtor's wages, salary compensation for his personal services, including bonuses and commissions, or otherwise, and includes payments pursuant to i a pension or retirement program or deferred compensation plan, after deducting from such earnings those amounts required by ARIZONA'S GENERAL ELECTION GUIDE 105 NOVEMBER 8, 2022 □ GENERAL ELECTION law to be withheld. B. Except as provided in subsection C, the maximum part of the disposable earnings of a debtor for any workweek whteh THAT is subject to proc


CourtListener opinion 10794476

alternate payee: of 1986, as amended, whether the beneficiary's interest arises by inheritance, designation, appointment or otherwise, is exempt from all claims of creditors of the beneficiary or participant. This subsection does not apply to any of the following: □ 1. An alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in section 414(p) of the United States internal revenue code of 1986, as amended. The interest of any and all alternate payees is exempt from any and all claims of any □□□□□□□□ of the alternate payee. 2. Amounts contributed within one hundred twenty days before a debtor files for bankruptcy. □ 3. T


CourtListener opinion 10795731

CourtListener opinion 10795731 Extracted case name: MR LINDA WHITE HESTER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DERWIN L. WEBB. Extracted reporter citation: 807 S.W.2d 476. Docket: 2024-CA-0484-MR LINDA WHITE HESTER APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10795731 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 10795731


CourtListener opinion 10795731

QDRO: son Circuit Court that KRS 413.090(1) applies is presumed to be correct. Appellant has not overcome the 2 Though KRS 413.090(1) was raised by the former husband in Satterfield, a panel of this Court did not apply it based on the husband's failure to file a qualified domestic relations order at the time of the decree which equitably estopped him from asserting the statute of limitations defense. -6- presumption that the circuit court properly applied the 15-year statute of limitations to Appellant's motion. Having determined that the 15-year statute of limitation applies to the matter before us, the next question is whether the Jefferson


CourtListener opinion 10795731

pension: 13.090(1). Appellant cites no case law or statutory law upon which a contrary conclusion may be drawn. Further, and as noted by Appellee, KRS 413.090(1) has been raised in other domestic relations proceedings, including a former spouse's motion to recover pension funds almost 20 years after the decree of dissolution. See Satterfield v. Satterfield, 608 S.W.3d 171 (Ky. App. 2020).2 Every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the decision of the trial court, and in order to warrant a reversal, error must affirmatively appear from the record. This presumption is one with which this court begins its exami


CourtListener opinion 10795731

domestic relations order: t Court that KRS 413.090(1) applies is presumed to be correct. Appellant has not overcome the 2 Though KRS 413.090(1) was raised by the former husband in Satterfield, a panel of this Court did not apply it based on the husband's failure to file a qualified domestic relations order at the time of the decree which equitably estopped him from asserting the statute of limitations defense. -6- presumption that the circuit court properly applied the 15-year statute of limitations to Appellant's motion. Having determined that the 15-year statute of limitation applies to the matter before us, the next question is whether the Jefferson


CourtListener opinion 1079647

CourtListener opinion 1079647 Extracted reporter citation: 676 S.W.2d 554. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1079647 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 1079647

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 1079647

QDRO: he property issues, I believe. MS. PLEMMONS: It is going to be paid in full as soon as the order is final, so I don't care if he wants to call it alimony, it doesn't matter. That is what it represents. It is a cash payment for her to have now versus a QDRO on the retirement. THE COURT: Well, it might be taxable if you call it alimony, income tax. You can call it a property division and it won't be taxable. There will be a lot of difference to her. MR. HYMAN: Well, we can call it -- that is fine. As noted later in this opinion, the parties also devoted very little attention at trial to the subject of


CourtListener opinion 1079647

valuation/division: y settlement. Thirty days after entry of the final judgment in this case, Mr. Martin will pay $20,000.00 as a lump sum rehabilitative alimony to Ms. Martin. And with that understanding, that is the only -- THE COURT: Well, really a property -- is it a property division? MS. PLEMMONS: Well -- MR. HYMAN: The personal property has already been divided and the real estate has already been equitably divided, that was sold a year and a half ago, so that takes care of all the property issues, I believe. MS. PLEMMONS: It is going to be paid in full as soon as the order is final, so I don't care if he wants to call it


CourtListener opinion 10799210

CourtListener opinion 10799210 Extracted case name: HOWIE v. HOWIE. Extracted reporter citation: 545 P.3d 931. Docket: 1 CA-CV 23-0587 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10799210 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 10799210


CourtListener opinion 10799210

QDRO: -9482 (the "9482 account"), a Roth IRA with IRA Services Trust, account number ending in -6620 (the "6620 account"), and a 401(k) account with Husband's employer (the "Broadcom 401k"). The superior court ordered that the 9482 account be divided by means of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), with each party "receiv[ing] one half of the value of the account, including any losses and gains that accrued up to" the issuance of the Decree. The court did not, however, order that any other retirement account be divided by QDRO, nor 4 HOWIE v. HOWIE Decision of the Court did the court order that any other account be valued as of the date


CourtListener opinion 10799210

retirement benefits: 47, ¶ 13. We do not reweigh evidence on appeal, Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 286, ¶ 31 (App. 2019), and will uphold the superior court's findings of fact absent clear error. Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Ariz. 49, 51 (App. 1996). I. Marital Property A. The Retirement Accounts 1. The Court's Ruling Dividing the Retirement Accounts Did Not Explain, and the Record Does Not Support, the Use of Different Valuation Dates and Methods of Division. ¶12 The parties had five retirement accounts during the marriage: an individual retirement account ("IRA") with Forge Trust, account number ending in -9911 (the "9911 account"), a Roth


CourtListener opinion 10799210

pension: ccounts should be divided by QDRO. Husband, by contrast, maintains that none of them should be divided by QDRO, asserting that ordering equalization payments instead will spare the parties the expense of QDRO preparation. ¶20 QDROs are often used to allocate pension and other retirement assets between spouses. A QDRO may not be necessary, however, when dividing certain types of retirement accounts. Welch v. Welch, 886 S.E.2d 921, 924 (N.C. App. 2023) (noting that husband's IRA could be divided by court order without a QDRO). Although a court is not required to order the division of retirement accounts by QDRO, see id.,


CourtListener opinion 10799210

401(k): oth IRA with Forge Trust, account number ending in -9923" (the "9923 account"), an IRA with IRA Services Trust, account number ending in -9482 (the "9482 account"), a Roth IRA with IRA Services Trust, account number ending in -6620 (the "6620 account"), and a 401(k) account with Husband's employer (the "Broadcom 401k"). The superior court ordered that the 9482 account be divided by means of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), with each party "receiv[ing] one half of the value of the account, including any losses and gains that accrued up to" the issuance of the Decree. The court did not, however, order that


CourtListener opinion 10801081

CourtListener opinion 10801081 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Scaletta. Extracted reporter citation: 880 N.W.2d 43. Docket: A-24-155. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10801081 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 10801081

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 10801081

QDRO: WELCH, Judges. ARTERBURN, Judge. INTRODUCTION This appeal arises out of the dissolution of the marriage of Timothy N. Wehland and Sheila R. Wehland. Timothy appeals from an order nunc pro tunc entered by the district court for Saunders County correcting a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). For the reasons set forth below, we find that we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND The parties' marriage was dissolved by the district court in February 2014. The dissolution decree states, in relevant part: "[Sheila] shall receive, from [Timothy's] BSNF [sic] Railway 401(k), a marital equali


CourtListener opinion 10801081

retirement benefits: form and content" by Timothy's counsel, who also signed the document. On July 17, 2023, over 9 years later, Sheila filed a motion for an order nunc pro tunc. In her motion, Sheila states that she attempted to withdraw her equalization payment from Timothy's retirement plan, but that her request could not be granted until two deficiencies in the QDRO were revised or clarified. The plan administrator made the following requests: (1) Please modify Section 4 to state the legal name of the plan, which is "BNSF Railway Company Non-Salaried Employees 401(k) Retirement Plan". (2) In Section 7, please provide a date as of which the


CourtListener opinion 10801081

401(k): iction over this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND The parties' marriage was dissolved by the district court in February 2014. The dissolution decree states, in relevant part: "[Sheila] shall receive, from [Timothy's] BSNF [sic] Railway 401(k), a marital equalization payment in an amount of $50,634,000 [sic] via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding the same. [Sheila] shall be responsible for any fees associated with the -1- transfer or disbursement of the equalization payment." In 2014, Timothy filed an unopposed motion for an order nunc pro tunc, asking the court to modify the disso


CourtListener opinion 10801081

alternate payee: ied. The plan administrator made the following requests: (1) Please modify Section 4 to state the legal name of the plan, which is "BNSF Railway Company Non-Salaried Employees 401(k) Retirement Plan". (2) In Section 7, please provide a date as of which the Alternate Payee's assignment is effective. The parties may consider the date that the Plan establishes and funds a separate account for the Alternate Payee ("Segregation Date") as the Assignment Date. Sheila asked the court to enter an order nunc pro tunc to (1) correct the name of the retirement plan to "BNSF Railway Company Non-Salaried Employees 401(k) Retirement P


CourtListener opinion 10801321

CourtListener opinion 10801321 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Arugonda. Extracted reporter citation: 108 P.3d 779. Docket: 84401-6-I/2 the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10801321 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 10801321


CourtListener opinion 10801321

QDRO: 0 rulings under CR 60(a) as "substantive decisions" that amounted to "reversals of the trial court's orders." 7 Fourth, she contends that the trial court exceeded its authority under RAP 7.2(e) when it entered an amended final order of divorce and amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) because the trial court is required to obtain the permission of this court before it may enter orders that affect a decision under review. Finally, she asserts that the trial court entered an amended final order of divorce without properly providing her notice as required by CR 52(c). She 7 Id. at 5 min., 50 sec. - 22 - No. 84401-6-I/23 cont


CourtListener opinion 10801321

401(k): a 50/50 division of property, and modifying the equalization payment was intended to conform with this intent. 8 Arugonda also notes that the original underlying QDRO simply provided a valuation date, but did not specify the value the court assigned to the 401k account in question, and the July 20 CR 60 order corrected the QDRO by assigning the value that had been determined at trial. Here, the court's ultimate rulings on Arugonda's CR 60(a) motions were proper. The court's stated intent in the final divorce order was a 50/50 division of 8 Id. at 14 min., 45 sec. - 24 - No. 84401-6-I/25 property between


CourtListener opinion 10801321

domestic relations order: under CR 60(a) as "substantive decisions" that amounted to "reversals of the trial court's orders." 7 Fourth, she contends that the trial court exceeded its authority under RAP 7.2(e) when it entered an amended final order of divorce and amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) because the trial court is required to obtain the permission of this court before it may enter orders that affect a decision under review. Finally, she asserts that the trial court entered an amended final order of divorce without properly providing her notice as required by CR 52(c). She 7 Id. at 5 min., 50 sec. - 22 - No. 84401-6-I/23 cont


CourtListener opinion 10801321

valuation/division: n. 8, 2025), at 17 -3- No. 84401-6-I/4 this court, the parties continued to engage in posttrial litigation, however the trial judge appropriately refrained from entering further orders without the authorization of this court. ANALYSIS I. Transfers of Community Property Funds Ananthula first argues that the trial judge failed to consider various money transfers Arugonda made to family members in India, before and after the divorce petition had been filed, and that these transfers should be counted against Arugonda as waste or concealment of community assets. There are three series of transactions that Ananthula alleg


CourtListener opinion 10802945

CourtListener opinion 10802945 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10802945 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 10802945


CourtListener opinion 10802945

domestic relations order: ed annuity to provide the appellant with a maximum survivor annuity benefit equal to 55% of his basic annuity. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 15, 40, 177. They divorced, and, by letter dated June 25, 2004, OPM informed the appellant that it would honor a Domestic Relations Order providing her with a survivor annuity award computed based on 55% of her former spouse's annuity payment as of the date of his retirement. Id. at 37. The appellant began receiving former spouse annuity benefits effective September 1, 2002. Id. at 21. Then, when the appellant's former spouse passed away on September 7, 2020, the appellant began to receive su


CourtListener opinion 10802945

survivor benefits: sponse to the administrative judge's acknowledgment order. The appellant was married to a former Federal employee who retired from Federal service effective November 2, 1997, and who elected to receive a reduced annuity to provide the appellant with a maximum survivor annuity benefit equal to 55% of his basic annuity. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 15, 40, 177. They divorced, and, by letter dated June 25, 2004, OPM informed the appellant that it would honor a Domestic Relations Order providing her with a survivor annuity award computed based on 55% of her former spouse's annuity payment as of the date of his retirement. Id


CourtListener opinion 10804406

CourtListener opinion 10804406 Extracted reporter citation: 809 F.2d 626. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10804406 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 10804406


CourtListener opinion 10804406

QDRO: iary. DM moves for a declaratory judgment that she, as legal guardian of RM, is entitled to a portion of the life insurance proceeds to provide child support for RM, as mandated by the SGJ. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that the SGJ is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") which triggers the exception to the anti-assignment provision of ERISA, elevating Mr. McAlister's child support obligations above MM's designated beneficiary status.1 I. Statutory Background Congress enacted ERISA "to protect participants in private employee benefit plans." In re Gendreau, 122 F.3d 815, 817 (9th Cir. 1997). In pursuit of thi


CourtListener opinion 10804406

pension: elevat[ing] a plan participant's legal obligations, commonly to a former spouse or children of a previous marriage, over the participant's express wishes to provide for other individuals as designated beneficiaries." Trs. Of the Dirs. Guild of Am.-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 425 (9th Cir. 2000). QDROs are any orders relating "to the provision of child support, alimony, or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a plan participant . . . made pursuant to a State domestic relations law." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(B)(3)(ii). To qualify, a QDRO must spec


CourtListener opinion 10804406

ERISA: ipated in a group life insurance policy sponsored by his employer, Ryder Transportation Co., and administered by Securian (the "Securian Plan"). The Securian Plan is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), discussed below. Mr. McAlister's coverage under the Securian Plan began January 1, 2023. MM's Supp. (ECF No. 68) ("Ex. 9"). At the time of his death, the proceeds of the policy amounted to $59,000.00. The Securian Plan listed MM as the named beneficiary, and so she submitted a claim to Securian for the proceeds. DM, who was formerly married to Mr. M


CourtListener opinion 10804406

alternate payee: lan participant . . . made pursuant to a State domestic relations law." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(B)(3)(ii). To qualify, a QDRO must specify: (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and (iv) each plan to which such order applies. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)


CourtListener opinion 10804904

CourtListener opinion 10804904 Extracted case name: PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL EDWARD BIRDWELL v. TAMMY ANN O'DELL. Extracted reporter citation: 637 S.W.2d 456. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10804904 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 10804904

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 10804904

QDRO: uld have required the appellant to execute a waiver and release of Mr. Lunsford's retirement plan death benefit, it was not error to divest the appellant of any interest she might have in the benefit and award it to the contingent beneficiaries by way of a QDRO. Id. at *2-3 (emphasis added). Thus, the decision of the trial court was affirmed. Id. In another case one year later, however, this Court declined another invitation to distinguish Bowers on various grounds and instead found it controlling. In Shell v. Dills, No. E2005-02636-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 3193659, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2006), we considered


CourtListener opinion 10804904

retirement benefits: es a claim for breach of contract filed by the personal representative of a deceased husband's estate against his former wife, asserting that the former wife breached the parties' marital dissolution agreement by accepting the proceeds of the former husband's retirement account upon his death. The parties' marital dissolution agreement had provided that the retirement account would be "the sole and absolute property of the Husband" and that any "marital interest" the wife had was divested from her and vested in the husband. However, the wife remained the designated beneficiary of the account when the husband died six years later.


CourtListener opinion 10804904

pension: interest which he or she may have now, or in the future, to any retirement payment or annuity by virtue of his or her being the spouse of the other party, and by virtue of such other party's employment, or by virtue of any other retirement program, plan or pension system which may have included the other party in the past, or which may include such other party now, or which may include the other party in the future. To this end - 18 - both parties declare that it is each's (sic) intent that this provision have the same force and effect as if he or she had signed any waiver forms releasing his or her aforementio


CourtListener opinion 10804904

survivor benefits: rris, 713 S.W.2d 311 (Tenn. 1986). The issue in that case was whether, under the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System statutes, the decedent's first wife, as designated beneficiary of the retirement benefits, was entitled to priority over a non-designated surviving spouse. Id. at 312. The husband became a member of the retirement system in 1947 and designated his then-wife as beneficiary. Id. In 1965, he executed another form again naming his wife as beneficiary. Id. They divorced in 1982, and she remained the designated beneficiary thereafter. Id. However, "a detailed property settlement agreement had been entered into and


CourtListener opinion 10805735

CourtListener opinion 10805735 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10805735 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 10805735


CourtListener opinion 10805735

domestic relations order: its March 13, 2023 reconsideration decision, OPM affirmed its decision to include the appellant's FERS annuity supplement in the computation of his court-ordered apportionment. 0092 AF, Tab 5 at 10. Specifically, OPM explained that, because the April 1, 2014 Domestic Relations Order awarded the appellant's former spouse a "prorata share" of the appellant's FERS annuity, OPM was required by 5 U.S.C. § 8421(c) to include his FERS annuity supplement in the computation of the court-ordered division, regardless of the July 5, 2022 Amended Order expressly excluding the appellant's FERS annuity supplement from such computation. 3 Id. at 10-11


CourtListener opinion 10805735

survivor benefits: t no relief would be available to the appellant in the 0092 appeal that had not already been ordered in connection with the 0080 appeal. 0092 ID at 2 n.1 & 3. However, the annuity supplement at issue in this appeal, i.e., the 0092 appeal, is separate from the survivor annuity issue present in the 0080 appeal. Furthermore, the appellant has not received all the relief that he could have received if the matter had been adjudicated and he had prevailed, as his former spouse continues to receive a portion of his annuity supplement in contravention of the Amended Court Order. Thus, we find that this appeal is not moot. OPM improper


CourtListener opinion 10806016

CourtListener opinion 10806016 Docket: of deficiencies. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10806016 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 10806016


CourtListener opinion 10806016

QDRO: o assert a claim against McMaster-Carr for "improperly releas[ing] $700,000 from [p]laintiff's ex-wife's retirement fund to her without notice to [p]laintiff." (Id. p. 2.) Plaintiff claims he was entitled to some of the money in the retirement fund under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (Id. p. 2.) In her memorandum opinion and order, Judge Pascal noted a number of deficiencies in the original complaint: (1)"aside from making the conclusory statement that there was an ERISA violation, [ ] fails to plead specific facts identifying [McMaster-Carr's] actions that allegedly violated this Act"; (2) "[t]he general allegation of an E


CourtListener opinion 10806016

ERISA: the retirement fund under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (Id. p. 2.) In her memorandum opinion and order, Judge Pascal noted a number of deficiencies in the original complaint: (1)"aside from making the conclusory statement that there was an ERISA violation, [ ] fails to plead specific facts identifying [McMaster-Carr's] actions that allegedly violated this Act"; (2) "[t]he general allegation of an ERISA violation in the [original complaint] is ‘so vague [and] ambiguous' that [McMaster-Carr] would not be able to form a meaningful response"; (3) "[p]laintiff does not make a clear connection betwee


CourtListener opinion 10806016

alternate payee: . However, plaintiff summarizes his claims as follows: Plaintiff brings this Complaint seeking among other things, relief under 29 U.S.C. 203(d) et seg. in connection with defendants' refusal and failure to hold and protect a QDRO account $'s due the Alternate Payee, violating its fiduciary duties under ERISA, and equitable relief under ERISA, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (\ERISA\"); 29 U.S.C.


CourtListener opinion 10806016

domestic relations order: claim against McMaster-Carr for "improperly releas[ing] $700,000 from [p]laintiff's ex-wife's retirement fund to her without notice to [p]laintiff." (Id. p. 2.) Plaintiff claims he was entitled to some of the money in the retirement fund under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (Id. p. 2.) In her memorandum opinion and order, Judge Pascal noted a number of deficiencies in the original complaint: (1)"aside from making the conclusory statement that there was an ERISA violation, [ ] fails to plead specific facts identifying [McMaster-Carr's] actions that allegedly violated this Act"; (2) "[t]he general allegation of an E


CourtListener opinion 10806032

CourtListener opinion 10806032 Extracted reporter citation: 198 F.3d 327. Docket: of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10806032 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 10806032


CourtListener opinion 10806032

QDRO: e. Factual Background1 This bankruptcy arises out of the Debtor's repeated violations of her obligations to her ex- husband under a March 2021 divorce judgment. That judgment required Mr. and Mrs. Corben to separate their retirement assets pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Because Ms. Corben's retirement assets were greater than Mr. Corben's, the judgment required her to transfer approximately $155,000 of her retirement assets to him. At the time, the balance of her retirement account was more than three times that sum. Ms. Corben chose to violate the divorce judgment's plain terms. She transferred none of her retireme


CourtListener opinion 10806032

retirement benefits: those assets and used them to pay personal obligations of her own. As a result, by the time a hearing to address her actions was held in April 2024 before Justice Ariel Chesler of New York State Supreme Court, New York County, only $59,000 remained in her retirement account. At that hearing, the Debtor admitted she had made these unauthorized withdrawals and offered no justification for having done so. At the conclusion of the April 2024 hearing, Justice Chesler entered an order directing 1 A hearing on the three motions before the Court was held on November 14, 2024. At the outset of the hearing, the Court asked the part


CourtListener opinion 10806032

domestic relations order: ual Background1 This bankruptcy arises out of the Debtor's repeated violations of her obligations to her ex- husband under a March 2021 divorce judgment. That judgment required Mr. and Mrs. Corben to separate their retirement assets pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Because Ms. Corben's retirement assets were greater than Mr. Corben's, the judgment required her to transfer approximately $155,000 of her retirement assets to him. At the time, the balance of her retirement account was more than three times that sum. Ms. Corben chose to violate the divorce judgment's plain terms. She transferred none of her retireme


CourtListener opinion 10806050

CourtListener opinion 10806050 Extracted reporter citation: 198 F.3d 327. Docket: of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10806050 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.