CourtListener opinion 11134084

ERISA: roval In her fourth issue, Wife contends that the trial court erred by issuing the QDRO because it had purportedly not been preapproved by the administrator of her retirement plan. Citing Section 1056(d)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Wife asserts that this preapproval was required and that Husband's failure to obtain it "render[ed] the QDRO legally defective." See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). But the relied-upon statute does not support Wife's assertion. Rather, ERISA Section 1056(d)(3)(G) provides merely that upon receipt of a domestic relations order, "the plan administrator shall


CourtListener opinion 11134084

alternate payee: rt Wife's assertion. Rather, ERISA Section 1056(d)(3)(G) provides merely that upon receipt of a domestic relations order, "the plan administrator shall determine whether such order is a qualified domestic relations order and notify the participant and each alternate payee of such determination" within a reasonable time. Id. § 1056(d)(3)(G)(i)(II). While ERISA Section 1056 contemplates that no amounts will be paid to an alternate payee until the plan administrator (or a court of competent jurisdiction) has determined that a purported QDRO is, in fact, "qualified," the statute does not require the plan 9 administrator t


CourtListener opinion 11137484

CourtListener opinion 11137484 Docket: 370181 Ontonagon Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11137484 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 11137484

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 11137484

QDRO: t * * * B. It is agreed that Karl Johnson's Ford-UAW Retirement Plan benefits will be divided with 38% ($1051.20) of the monthly benefit awarded to Doris Johnson for the duration of Karl Johnson's lifetime and 62% awarded to Karl Johnson, pursuant to a QDRO. -2- C. Karl Johnson is currently retired and has elected the survivor option under the Ford-UAW Retirement Plan. Doris Johnson is currently and shall remain designated as the surviving spouse for purposes of all of the plan's post-retirement survivor annuity benefit and she shall be entitled to any and all post-retirement surviving spouse benefits u


CourtListener opinion 11137484

retirement benefits: said property to Karl Johnson." Because the property distribution was inequitable, the consent judgment required Karl to pay Doris an equalization payment of $80,095.69 on or before the date of the closing on the sale of the marital home. Regarding Doris's retirement plan, the consent judgment awarded her 100% of her retirement account from the Ohio education system and 100% of her retirement account from the Michigan education system. The consent judgment required Karl to pay Doris monthly spousal support in the amount of $1,051.20. Regarding Karl's retirement plan, spousal support, and Doris's health insurance, the consent


CourtListener opinion 11137484

pension: ts under the Plan. D. Karl Johnson shall provide any and all cooperation and assistance necessary to maintain Doris Johnson's current coverage under the Ford-UAW health insurance plan. * * * 11. Alimony. The parties understand that Karl Johnson's Ford Pension will reduce his monthly benefit payment on or about March 1, 2016. The parties will attempt to have the entirety of Doris Johnson's portion paid to her directly after this date, but if the Plan will not allow this, Karl Johnson will pay to Doris Johnson any portion of her $1,051.20 which she no longer receives directly from the Plan. . . . In the even


CourtListener opinion 11137484

survivor benefits: f Karl Johnson's lifetime and 62% awarded to Karl Johnson, pursuant to a QDRO. -2- C. Karl Johnson is currently retired and has elected the survivor option under the Ford-UAW Retirement Plan. Doris Johnson is currently and shall remain designated as the surviving spouse for purposes of all of the plan's post-retirement survivor annuity benefit and she shall be entitled to any and all post-retirement surviving spouse benefits under the Plan. D. Karl Johnson shall provide any and all cooperation and assistance necessary to maintain Doris Johnson's current coverage under the Ford-UAW health insurance plan. * * * 11.


CourtListener opinion 11138373

CourtListener opinion 11138373 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11138373 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 11138373


CourtListener opinion 11138373

QDRO: education, and increased operational costs." S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 3205, in 2018 Senate Journal, at 1363. 10 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-397, a former spouse may request entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). The QDRO, like a HiDRO, "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan" provided by the participant's private employer. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). Interpreting the application of a Q


CourtListener opinion 11138373

retirement benefits: lliam's ERS retirement benefit, with payments to commence at "the earliest date when [William] shall be qualified to retire." William subsequently qualified to retire on April 1, 1999. In 2008, having not received any payments for her share of William's retirement benefit, Barbara moved to enforce the original division order. In 2012, the family court granted Barbara's motion and awarded her 31% of William's pension as valued on the date which he qualified to retire. In 2017, 2 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Barbara moved for further relief, alleging that William had failed to


CourtListener opinion 11138373

pension: to retire on April 1, 1999. In 2008, having not received any payments for her share of William's retirement benefit, Barbara moved to enforce the original division order. In 2012, the family court granted Barbara's motion and awarded her 31% of William's pension as valued on the date which he qualified to retire. In 2017, 2 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Barbara moved for further relief, alleging that William had failed to disclose information regarding the value of his retirement benefits and further failed to make any payments pursuant to the 2012 order. In 2019, th


CourtListener opinion 11138373

ERISA: a divorce action award and promptly paid." S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 1058, in 2015 Senate Journal, at 1274. The committee further noted that the new provision would "help align [HRS] chapter 88 . . . to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act [(ERISA)]." Id. Under ERISA, by way of amendment through the Retirement Equity 3 William rejects this conclusion. He argues that, because Act 30 amending HRS § 88-93.5 "specified that the Act would take effect in the future – on July 1, 2020," the statute should be read only to apply prospectively. [App. at 7-8, SC Dkt. 1:9-11] This contention is belied by the l


CourtListener opinion 11138920

CourtListener opinion 11138920 Extracted case name: LLC v. E. Extracted reporter citation: 295 U.S. 735. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11138920 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 11138920


CourtListener opinion 11138920

QDRO: ortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, and maintenance. Husband also continued to work and continued to contribute funds to his retirement plans. -2- counsel had not yet determined who would be responsible for drafting a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") for husband's retirement accounts. On December 9, 2023, before either husband or wife had signed any of the written PSA drafts and before a final decree of divorce had been entered by the circuit court, husband died.2 Two days later, and seemingly unaware of husband's recent death, counsel for husband and counsel for wife discussed logistics for the


CourtListener opinion 11138920

retirement benefits: , Judge Jack R. Corkery (John H. Taylor; FloranceGordonBrown, P.C., on brief), for appellants. Benjamin P. Kyber (Kevin W. Mottley; The Mottley Law Firm PLC, on brief), for appellee. This case concerns a dispute over title to real property and certain retirement accounts. William Fisher and Daniel Fisher (collectively the "Fishers")—both of whom are the sons of the late Daniel E. Fisher ("husband") from a previous marriage—appeal from the order of the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond dismissing their counterclaim and granting summary judgment for Elizabeth J. Smith ("wife"). The Fishers argue that equitable es


CourtListener opinion 11138920

survivor benefits: agreement. Evidence of wife's purported delay in executing the PSA is not a material fact precluding summary judgment because it did not "affect the outcome of the case" as the way that the marital residence was titled would cause it to pass directly to the surviving spouse as long as they were still married at the time of husband's death—and they had not signed a property settlement agreement stating that they had agreed to otherwise handle the ownership of the marital residence. Brizzolara, 274 Va. at 188. Thus, for all of these reasons and given that there were no material facts genuinely in dispute, the circuit court d


CourtListener opinion 11139198

CourtListener opinion 11139198 Docket: 370312 Wayne Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11139198 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 11139198


CourtListener opinion 11139198

QDRO: or until the Plaintiff retired from his current employment, at which time, spousal support to the Defendant shall terminated [sic] (retroactive to the date of retirement, if applicable) and thereafter be forever barred. The second is the pension provision/Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) clause, which states in part: -2- The Alternate Payee [Defendant] may elect benefits any time after Participant [Plaintiff] is eligible to retire even though the Participant has not retired at the time of the Alternate Payee's election. * * * By way of illustration and not by way of limitation, the Plaintiff shall continue to designate the


CourtListener opinion 11139198

pension: bility and was placed on a no work medical leave. Since that time, plaintiff states he has not returned to work in any capacity and his only income consists of Social Security Disability benefits, while defendant has already begun receiving her portion of his pension under the consent judgment. In June of 2023, defendant moved to enforce the spousal support provision and collect arrearages. Plaintiff responded in a countermotion asserting that his obligation should have terminated upon his permanent withdrawal from the workforce in 2020, which he contended satisfied the retirement condition set forth in the consent ju


CourtListener opinion 11139198

alternate payee: l support to the Defendant shall terminated [sic] (retroactive to the date of retirement, if applicable) and thereafter be forever barred. The second is the pension provision/Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) clause, which states in part: -2- The Alternate Payee [Defendant] may elect benefits any time after Participant [Plaintiff] is eligible to retire even though the Participant has not retired at the time of the Alternate Payee's election. * * * By way of illustration and not by way of limitation, the Plaintiff shall continue to designate the Defendant only (and none other) as his pre-retirement surviving


CourtListener opinion 11139198

domestic relations order: the Plaintiff retired from his current employment, at which time, spousal support to the Defendant shall terminated [sic] (retroactive to the date of retirement, if applicable) and thereafter be forever barred. The second is the pension provision/Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) clause, which states in part: -2- The Alternate Payee [Defendant] may elect benefits any time after Participant [Plaintiff] is eligible to retire even though the Participant has not retired at the time of the Alternate Payee's election. * * * By way of illustration and not by way of limitation, the Plaintiff shall continue to designate the


CourtListener opinion 11139362

CourtListener opinion 11139362 Extracted case name: M.J. v. HIGHLAND COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11139362 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 11139362

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 11139362

domestic relations order: bstention under Burrus and its progeny appropriate," because the substance of the claims revolved around the state courts' underlying domestic-relations decisions, and the relief requested would require the district court "to modify or nullify state-court domestic relations orders on their merits." Id. at *3 (citing Greenberg v. Slatery, No. 22- 5886, 2023 WL 2771640, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2023)). Consistent with Edelstein and Danforth, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on the Burrus abstention doctrine and its progeny. Plaintiff freely admits that the "relief sought would necessarily require the Court to revie


CourtListener opinion 11139373

CourtListener opinion 11139373 Extracted case name: M.J. v. CLINTON COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11139373 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 11139373


CourtListener opinion 11139639

CourtListener opinion 11139639 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ROZANNE MARIE BIRD AND JAMES ROY BIRD Upon the Petition of ROZANNE MARIE BIRD. Extracted reporter citation: 733 N.W.2d 683. Docket: 25-0324. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11139639 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 11139639

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 11139639

QDRO: unt using the percentage method normally applicable to cases involving IPERS. See In re Marriage of Scheppele, 524 N.W.2d 678, 680 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (modifying decree, where present value of IPERS account was not ascertainable on the record, to order a QDRO using the percentage method to divide the future benefits when received). Given that neither party provided the district court with a valuation for this account, that the only number ascertainable for the IPERS was Rozanne's modest monthly payment, and the division of the other assets and respective incomes of the parties, we conclude the district cou


CourtListener opinion 11139639

retirement benefits: 341995, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. May 29, 2014) (coming to a similar conclusion). And we affirm the division of the two funds given the length of the marriage and totality of property division. Lastly, James argues that the court erred by excluding Rozanne's retirement account from the marital estate. But we are unable to find such exclusion in the record, and James does not point to any provision in the decree to demonstrate that the district court exempted Rozanne's IPERS from the marital estate. Rather, the district court awarded Rozanne her IPERS account as part of the divisible marital estate, citing to the party's respe


CourtListener opinion 11139639

pension: ames challenges only the division of three accounts, specifically the Eaton Fund, which is a 401(k) from James's previous employer, the Thrivent Mutual Fund IRA (Thrivent Fund), which is a traditional IRA account funded with a lump sum payment from James's pension, and Rozanne's IPERS.1 1There is limited information about Rozanne's IPERS account in the record. Rozanne testified that rather than a lump sum, she elected a monthly payment, wherein she receives $230.03 per month. 3 At the time of trial, the value of the Eaton Fund was $137,061.28, and the value of the Thrivent Pension Fund was $377,290.76.2 Neither


CourtListener opinion 11139639

401(k): , the value and award of appliances removed from a piece of property, financial accounts and investments, unsecured debts, and trial attorney fees. But on appeal, James challenges only the division of three accounts, specifically the Eaton Fund, which is a 401(k) from James's previous employer, the Thrivent Mutual Fund IRA (Thrivent Fund), which is a traditional IRA account funded with a lump sum payment from James's pension, and Rozanne's IPERS.1 1There is limited information about Rozanne's IPERS account in the record. Rozanne testified that rather than a lump sum, she elected a monthly payment, wherein she re


CourtListener opinion 11140323

CourtListener opinion 11140323 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of DENNIS STACEY and MARSHA STACEY. DENNIS STACEY. Extracted reporter citation: 208 Cal.App.4th 1074. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11140323 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 11140323


CourtListener opinion 11140323

QDRO: o issued an $1,039 per month earnings assignment order on Dennis's earnings for spousal support. Marsha's July 2018 Request for Order On July 2, 2018, Marsha filed a request for order to modify spousal support, set arrears, and for the court to either sign a qualified domestic relations order or designate her share of Dennis's retirement as spousal support. Marsha asked the court to either sign the prepared orders, which were attached to the request for order,7 or add her military retirement share to the spousal support until the appeal ended so she could garnish Dennis's wages for the entire amount. 7 The following proposed retirement orders w


CourtListener opinion 11140323

domestic relations order: n $1,039 per month earnings assignment order on Dennis's earnings for spousal support. Marsha's July 2018 Request for Order On July 2, 2018, Marsha filed a request for order to modify spousal support, set arrears, and for the court to either sign a qualified domestic relations order or designate her share of Dennis's retirement as spousal support. Marsha asked the court to either sign the prepared orders, which were attached to the request for order,7 or add her military retirement share to the spousal support until the appeal ended so she could garnish Dennis's wages for the entire amount. 7 The following proposed retirement orders w


CourtListener opinion 11141202

CourtListener opinion 11141202 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11141202 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 11141202


CourtListener opinion 11141202

QDRO: tary award, except as modifiable downward, as specifically provided for in this section, above. Hrg. Ex. D-2 at 6. Pursuant to the Divorce Agreement, Ms. Kirklin would retain her interest in two non- marital retirement accounts and Debtor would "[v]ia a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO')" transfer to an account of Ms. Kirklin's choice a flat amount of $74,305.39. Id. at 3-4. Furthermore, Debtor waived any interest in Ms. Kirklin's business, Potomac Medi Spa, LLC, and Ms. Kirklin waived any interest in Debtor's business, S&S Real Estate Consultants, LLC. Id. at 5. Finally, the Divorce Agreement also provided under a section enti


CourtListener opinion 11141202

retirement benefits: ary award is a one-time, non-modifiable monetary award, except as modifiable downward, as specifically provided for in this section, above. Hrg. Ex. D-2 at 6. Pursuant to the Divorce Agreement, Ms. Kirklin would retain her interest in two non- marital retirement accounts and Debtor would "[v]ia a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO')" transfer to an account of Ms. Kirklin's choice a flat amount of $74,305.39. Id. at 3-4. Furthermore, Debtor waived any interest in Ms. Kirklin's business, Potomac Medi Spa, LLC, and Ms. Kirklin waived any interest in Debtor's business, S&S Real Estate Consultants, LLC. Id. at 5. Fin


CourtListener opinion 11141202

domestic relations order: , except as modifiable downward, as specifically provided for in this section, above. Hrg. Ex. D-2 at 6. Pursuant to the Divorce Agreement, Ms. Kirklin would retain her interest in two non- marital retirement accounts and Debtor would "[v]ia a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (‘QDRO')" transfer to an account of Ms. Kirklin's choice a flat amount of $74,305.39. Id. at 3-4. Furthermore, Debtor waived any interest in Ms. Kirklin's business, Potomac Medi Spa, LLC, and Ms. Kirklin waived any interest in Debtor's business, S&S Real Estate Consultants, LLC. Id. at 5. Finally, the Divorce Agreement also provided under a section enti


CourtListener opinion 11141202

valuation/division: s a priority unsecured claim in the amount of $76,872.11 pursuant to § 507(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, based upon her belief that the claim constituted a domestic support obligation, and countered that Ms. Kirklin's claim only qualifies as a non-priority equitable distribution claim. Simultaneously, the Debtor moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ("Rule 12(b)(6)") to dismiss the adversary proceeding commenced by Ms. Kirklin seeking a declaration of nondischargeability for her claim pursuant to § 523(a)(5) as a domestic support obligation and/or § 523(a)(3) as a claim which Debtor did not schedule in tim


CourtListener opinion 11141213

CourtListener opinion 11141213 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11141213 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 11141213


CourtListener opinion 11145116

CourtListener opinion 11145116 Extracted reporter citation: 276 A.3d 221. Docket: 1694 MDA 2024. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11145116 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 11145116


CourtListener opinion 11145116

QDRO: of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 12 20957 BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BOWES, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2025 Appellant, Shan Ling, appeals from the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. We affirm. This Court previously provided the relevant background of the parties, as follows: Husband [Michael Lausch] and Wife [Shan Ling] met in Shanghai and were married there in 2000. . . . Husband and Wife subsequently moved to the United States, where their daughter was born in 2003. In


CourtListener opinion 11145116

retirement benefits: on for Enforcement of the Marital Transfer Order," in which she alleged Mr. Lausch had not complied with the order's requirement that he transfer $465,164.57 from his Campbell Soup Company-sponsored 401(k) retirement savings plan account to her Individual Retirement Account. The lower court issued upon Mr. Lausch a rule to show cause why it should not grant relief to Ms. Ling. Through counsel, Mr. Lausch filed an answer explaining that, in 2021, he was prepared to transfer the 401(k) funds pursuant to the court's marital transfer order, but, before he could do so, Ms. Ling filed an appeal to this Court challenging the di


CourtListener opinion 11145116

pension: r into my Roth IRA. Additionally, I submitted court evidence [] and an index table [] regarding the $600,000+ in fraudulent misappropriation and judicial errors from the 2017 hearing, seeking a freeze on the plaintiff's retirement funds— including 401(k), pension, and Roth IRA accounts—totaling $1.5 million, until these judgments are rectified. ... The May 2021 divorce judgment was based on the marital assets assessed during the 2017 hearing. Apart from the $600,000+ in misappropriated marital assets due to fraudulent judgment errors, [Mr. Lausch's counsel's] proposal in 2023 to transfer marital assets came


CourtListener opinion 11145116

401(k): ssue before the trial court in her June 26, 2024, "Petition for Enforcement of the Marital Transfer Order," in which she alleged Mr. Lausch had not complied with the order's requirement that he transfer $465,164.57 from his Campbell Soup Company-sponsored 401(k) retirement savings plan account to her Individual Retirement Account. The lower court issued upon Mr. Lausch a rule to show cause why it should not grant relief to Ms. Ling. Through counsel, Mr. Lausch filed an answer explaining that, in 2021, he was prepared to transfer the 401(k) funds pursuant to the court's marital transfer order, but, before he c


CourtListener opinion 11146319

CourtListener opinion 11146319 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Ramsey. Docket: 5-24-1179 Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11146319 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 11146319

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 11146319

QDRO: ion, and the personal property presently in her possession." ¶6 Amy's petition alleged that William was now retired and drawing his pension but was willfully and contemptuously refusing to abide by the terms of the MSA "by refusing to sign the requisite [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)] required for [Amy] to begin receiving her share of [William's] pension." On May 8, 2024, the court entered a rule to show cause order. On June 18, 2024, William filed an answer denying the majority of Amy's allegations. On June 25, 2 2024, the trial court granted the parties leave to file a memorandum of law "as to the issue of the time period


CourtListener opinion 11146319

retirement benefits: sary, stating, "now, and at the time of its original ruling" it "thoroughly examined the case law" proffered by the parties and was "not persuaded by the well-argued position set forth by the movant." On October 25, 2024, the circuit court issued a federal retirement benefits order that provided Amy with "fifty percent (50%) of [William's] gross monthly annuity under the Federal Employees Retirement System from the date of marriage, May 10, 1997, through the date on which the Judgment for Dissolution was entered, July 6, 2011." The order directed the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to issue Amy's portion


CourtListener opinion 11146319

pension: for rule to show cause prior to the appeal. ¶2 Respondent, Amy May, appeals the circuit court's post-dissolution order. On appeal, she argues that the circuit court's post-dissolution order failed to allocate her portion of petitioner William D. May Jr.'s pension and further argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider evidence related to the pension apportionment. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal. 1 ¶3 BACKGROUND ¶4 In 2011, William filed for divorce from Amy, after 14 years of marriage. A judgment of dissolution that incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA) and a joint p


CourtListener opinion 11146319

401(k): eal estate located at 601 North 35th Street, Herrin, Illinois, the 1995 Ford F-150 truck, the 1998 Dodge Dakota truck, the sixteen foot john boat, the twenty-one food Stratford boa[t], the Kodiak four-wheeler, one-half (1/2) of his pension, all of his 401(K) plan, and the personal property presently in his possession. 8. That Respondent, AMY MAY, shall be the sole owner, exclusive of any claim, right or interest of the Petitioner, WILLIAM D. MAY Jr., of the 2006 Chrysler Town and Country van, one-half (1/2) of the Petitioner's pension, and the personal property presently in her possession." ¶6 Amy's pe


CourtListener opinion 11149247

CourtListener opinion 11149247 Extracted reporter citation: 305 F.3d 439. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11149247 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 11149247


CourtListener opinion 11149247

QDRO: ion and Northern Trust, Inc. as Defendants, but those Defendants did not proceed to trial and are thus not included in this Order. receiving benefit payments or will be entitled to receive benefit payments in the future, and (ii) alternate payees under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who, as of November 11, 2013, were receiving benefit payments or will be entitled to receive benefit payments in the future. Excluded from the Class are (a) any person who was or is an officer, director, employee, or a shareholder of 5% or more of the equity of any AutoZone or is or was a partner, officer, director, or controlling person of AutoZo


CourtListener opinion 11149247

retirement benefits: No. 338 at PageID 22546–48 & 22555.) 3 Mr. Tobe was admitted as an expert in the stable value field without objection. (ECF No. 410 at PageID 23952.) Prior to trial, his opinions concerning the "spread" Prudential earned on the GIF, comparisons of other retirement plan's crediting rates to the crediting rate of the GIF, and proper benchmarking to measure the crediting rate of the GIF were excluded. (ECF No. 338 at PageID 22566–74.) The final witness was Defendants' damages expert Dr. Russell R. Wermers, Director of the Center for Financial Policy at the University of Maryland. (ECF No. 414 at PageID 24461.) He testi


CourtListener opinion 11149247

ERISA: LLIAMS; and RICK SMITH, individually and as members of the AUTOZONE, Inc. Investment Committee, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendants1 under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended Class Action Complaint on September 22, 2021, bringing one count against Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty to the AutoZone, Inc. 401(k) Plan ("Plan"). (ECF No. 85.) On December 7, 2022, this Court certified the following class: All persons, other than Defendants, who are or were participant


CourtListener opinion 11149247

401(k): IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION MICHAEL J. IANNONE, JR., and NICOLE A. JAMES, as plan participants, on behalf of the AUTOZONE, INC. 401(k) Plan, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 2:19-cv-02779-MSN-tmp AUTOZONE, INC., as plan sponsor; BILL GILES, BRIAN CAMPBELL, STEVE BEUSSINK; KRISTIN WRIGHT; MICHAEL WOMACK; KEVIN WILLIAMS; and RICK SMITH, individually and as members of the AUTOZONE, Inc. Investment Committee, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION


CourtListener opinion 11149784

CourtListener opinion 11149784 Extracted case name: CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILLIAMSON. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11149784 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 11149784

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 11149784

QDRO: submitted to support the motion for default established that Steven and Annie Stone retained respondent in September 1991 to file for a dissolution. Pursuant to the couple's separation agreement, respondent attempted to provide Steven Stone's employer with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\QDRO\") to obtain certain employee benefits


CourtListener opinion 11149784

domestic relations order: to support the motion for default established that Steven and Annie Stone retained respondent in September 1991 to file for a dissolution. Pursuant to the couple's separation agreement, respondent attempted to provide Steven Stone's employer with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\QDRO\") to obtain certain employee benefits


CourtListener opinion 11151481

CourtListener opinion 11151481 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11151481 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 11151481


CourtListener opinion 11151481

domestic relations order: in discovery matters and in determining the appropriate spousal support award, see State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 469, 692 N.E.2d 198, 201 (discovery), and Booth v. Booth (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 142, 144, 541 N.E.2d 1028, 1030 (domestic relations orders), an extraordinary writ will not issue to control her judicial discretion, even if that discretion is abused. See State ex rel. Thomson v. Court of Claims (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 495, 497, 687 N.E.2d 456, 458. {¶ 9} Further, any errors committed by Judge Dezso will be remediable on appeal. Neither prohibition nor mandamus will issue as a substitute to revie


CourtListener opinion 11152463

CourtListener opinion 11152463 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11152463 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 11152463

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 11152463

QDRO: yments directly to a former spouse with a property interest in the fund. Thus, H.B. 535 reflects the General Assembly's dissatisfaction with the courts' incorrect interpretation of R.C. Chapter 742 and is simply a clarification of the law as it exists today. Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") {¶ 27} The trial court's July 20, 1998 entry included the following language: "The [domestic relations order] attached to this judgment entry is, and shall be treated by the parties as, a ‘qualified' domestic relations order for purposes of Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code, thereby causing [Donna] to be considered the recipient and dis


CourtListener opinion 11152463

retirement benefits: sets. We answer this question in the 1. R.C. 3105.171(A) provides: "(3)(a) ‘Marital property' means * * * all of the following: "(i) All real and personal property that currently is owned by either or both of the spouses, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage; "(ii) All interest that either or both of the spouses currently has in any real or personal property, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage; "* * * "(B) In


CourtListener opinion 11152463

pension: [This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 91 Ohio St.3d 503.] ERB, APPELLANT, v. ERB; OHIO POLICE & FIRE PENSION FUND, APPELLEE. [Cite as Erb v. Erb, 2001-Ohio-104.] Domestic relations—Divorce and alimony—Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund ordered by court to pay directly to member's former spouse that portion of member's monthly benefit that represents former spouse's property pursuant to division of marital assets—Order does not violate terms of the administrati


CourtListener opinion 11152463

ERISA: ts she receives directly [from] the Fund." {¶ 28} The fund contends that the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") Donna seeks to have enforced against the fund is based on a mechanism created under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), Section 1001 et seq., Title 29, U.S.Code. Because an ERISA QDRO may be used only in relation to private pensions, the fund argues that the QDRO may not be enforced against the fund, a government pension. See Sections 1003(b)(1) and 1002(32), Title 29, U.S.Code. 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 29} There is no support for the fund's contention that the QDR


CourtListener opinion 11152716

CourtListener opinion 11152716 Extracted case name: RICHLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. BRICKLEY. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11152716 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 11152716


CourtListener opinion 11152716

401(k): spondent never filed them. B {¶4} Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by failing to file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for a client after her divorce was finalized in December 1999. The client stood to receive one-half of the value of her ex-husband's 401(k) fund from the divorce decree. The client repeatedly asked respondent to complete the work and he promised that he would, but he never did. C {¶5} In 1999, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek client's lawful objectives), and 7-101(A)(2). He failed to respond to a motion for summary judgment while defending a client in a civil s


CourtListener opinion 11152716

domestic relations order: to prepare and file documents for the appointment of a guardian for the client's sister. Respondent prepared the documents and his client signed them, but respondent never filed them. B {¶4} Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by failing to file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for a client after her divorce was finalized in December 1999. The client stood to receive one-half of the value of her ex-husband's 401(k) fund from the divorce decree. The client repeatedly asked respondent to complete the work and he promised that he would, but he never did. C {¶5} In 1999, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to se


CourtListener opinion 11152728

CourtListener opinion 11152728 Extracted case name: OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GOLDEN. Extracted reporter citation: 769 N.E.2d 816. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11152728 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 11152728


CourtListener opinion 11152728

QDRO: Count III, the evidence showed that respondent represented a client during her 1997 divorce and that those proceedings required respondent to 1. A tenth count of misconduct found by the panel was later discounted by the board. 2 January Term, 2002 file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to transfer funds from an IRA to the client. Respondent never filed the QDRO but misled the client into believing that she had. The panel found this conduct to violate DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law); 6-107(A)


CourtListener opinion 11152728

pension: rs and other property), and 6-101(A)(3). {¶15} As to Count IX, the evidence showed that in representing another client in her 1996 divorce, respondent again was required to file a QDRO so that the client could receive a portion of her former husband's 401(k) pension. Respondent did not file the QDRO during 1996, 1997, or 1998. {¶16} When her client was finally able to reach respondent and complain that she was not receiving any money from the QDRO, respondent falsely told the client that the QDRO had been filed. Respondent also told the client that she had had to sue the administrator of the 401(k) plan and that vario


CourtListener opinion 11152728

401(k): 's papers and other property), and 6-101(A)(3). {¶15} As to Count IX, the evidence showed that in representing another client in her 1996 divorce, respondent again was required to file a QDRO so that the client could receive a portion of her former husband's 401(k) pension. Respondent did not file the QDRO during 1996, 1997, or 1998. {¶16} When her client was finally able to reach respondent and complain that she was not receiving any money from the QDRO, respondent falsely told the client that the QDRO had been filed. Respondent also told the client that she had had to sue the administrator of the 401(k) plan and th


CourtListener opinion 11152728

domestic relations order: the evidence showed that respondent represented a client during her 1997 divorce and that those proceedings required respondent to 1. A tenth count of misconduct found by the panel was later discounted by the board. 2 January Term, 2002 file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to transfer funds from an IRA to the client. Respondent never filed the QDRO but misled the client into believing that she had. The panel found this conduct to violate DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law); 6-107(A)


CourtListener opinion 11152995

CourtListener opinion 11152995 Extracted case name: OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. EASTERWOOD. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11152995 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 11152995

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 11152995

QDRO: s fitness to practice law). {¶ 3} Again, based on stipulations, the panel found that in 1997, Martha V. McConnaughy agreed to pay respondent $1,500 if he would represent her in a divorce case. After the divorce was granted, respondent did not draft or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order as ordered by the court because McConnaughy had paid only $300 of the agreed fee. Respondent, however, did not notify McConnaughy or the court that he was not proceeding further in the case. The panel concluded that this inaction by respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). {¶ 4}


CourtListener opinion 11152995

domestic relations order: to practice law). {¶ 3} Again, based on stipulations, the panel found that in 1997, Martha V. McConnaughy agreed to pay respondent $1,500 if he would represent her in a divorce case. After the divorce was granted, respondent did not draft or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order as ordered by the court because McConnaughy had paid only $300 of the agreed fee. Respondent, however, did not notify McConnaughy or the court that he was not proceeding further in the case. The panel concluded that this inaction by respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). {¶ 4}


CourtListener opinion 11162425

CourtListener opinion 11162425 Extracted reporter citation: 575 F.3d 24. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11162425 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 11162425

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 11162425

QDRO: ERISA's anti-alienation policy, 29 U.S.C. § 1056, controlled such that decedent's first divorce decree could not re-direct the policy proceeds to his children. The court, however, found that the anti-alienation provision (and preemption) did not apply to the qualified domestic relations order (QDROs) specifically naming decedent's first wife and children as beneficiaries. Id. at 6-8. 11 2. Constructive trust Sullivan's state-law constructive trust claim warrants little discussion. Here, Sullivan asks that the court impose a trust on the life insurance proceeds and that the trust then designate the three Dobens children as beneficiaries.


CourtListener opinion 11162425

pension: t sued their father's second wife, whose marriage to the decedent ended in a divorce shortly before his intestate death. Id. at 144. At the time of death, the wife was the named beneficiary under the decedent's employer-sponsored life insurance policy and pension. Id. The children argued that they were entitled to the life insurance proceeds because a Washington state statute disqualified the wife as a beneficiary of a non-probate asset as a result of the divorce. Id. at 145. Although the state trial court found in the wife's favor, both the intermediate appellate court and Washington Supreme Court found, inte


CourtListener opinion 11162425

ERISA: associated with defending this lawsuit. There are two motions pending before the court. First, O'Connor moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Sullivan's claims are pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and that Securian's interpleader action is thereby mooted. Both Sullivan and Securian timely objected. Shortly thereafter, Securian moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to its interpleader claim, to which only O'Connor objected. See Fed R. Civ. P. 12(c). 2 After review of the pleadings, motions, objections, t


CourtListener opinion 11162425

domestic relations order: nti-alienation policy, 29 U.S.C. § 1056, controlled such that decedent's first divorce decree could not re-direct the policy proceeds to his children. The court, however, found that the anti-alienation provision (and preemption) did not apply to the qualified domestic relations order (QDROs) specifically naming decedent's first wife and children as beneficiaries. Id. at 6-8. 11 2. Constructive trust Sullivan's state-law constructive trust claim warrants little discussion. Here, Sullivan asks that the court impose a trust on the life insurance proceeds and that the trust then designate the three Dobens children as beneficiaries.


CourtListener opinion 11164171

CourtListener opinion 11164171 Extracted reporter citation: 392 F.3d 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11164171 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 11164171


CourtListener opinion 11164171

QDRO: nsurance C o . v. Civil N o . 08-cv-248-JL Opinion N o . 2009 DNH 146 Judith A . Hanson, et a l . MEMORANDUM ORDER This interpleader action involving the proceeds of a life insurance policy presents a question of statutory interpretation: whether the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") exception to ERISA's pre-emption provision applies to welfare benefit plans such as life insurance policies, or only to pension plans. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") initiated this interpleader complaint to resolve competing claims to life insurance benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan established and maintained by


CourtListener opinion 11164171

pension: eds of a life insurance policy presents a question of statutory interpretation: whether the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") exception to ERISA's pre-emption provision applies to welfare benefit plans such as life insurance policies, or only to pension plans. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") initiated this interpleader complaint to resolve competing claims to life insurance benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan established and maintained by General Electric Company for its employee, decedent William J. Hanson. Two of the three interpleader defendants have cross-moved for sum


CourtListener opinion 11164171

ERISA: . 2009 DNH 146 Judith A . Hanson, et a l . MEMORANDUM ORDER This interpleader action involving the proceeds of a life insurance policy presents a question of statutory interpretation: whether the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") exception to ERISA's pre-emption provision applies to welfare benefit plans such as life insurance policies, or only to pension plans. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") initiated this interpleader complaint to resolve competing claims to life insurance benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan established and maintained by General Electric Company for


CourtListener opinion 11164171

alternate payee: riage is a qualified domestic relations order. Id. at § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i).3 What the parties dispute is whether the QDRO 3 ERISA defines "qualified domestic relations order" as "a domestic relations order ... which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right t o , or assigns to an alternate payee the right t o , receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan," and which also meets certain other requirements -- not disputed here -- set forth at 29 U.S.C. § 1056(3)(C) and ( D ) . Id.; see also id. at § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii) (defining "domestic relations order"). On


CourtListener opinion 11164834

CourtListener opinion 11164834 Extracted case name: J.A.D. v. F.J.D. Extracted reporter citation: 634 S.W.3d 653. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11164834 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 11164834


CourtListener opinion 11164834

QDRO: ourt denied Wife's motion to reconsider the judgment but modified its previous judgment of dissolution in two respects: directing that Wife vacate the marital residence within sixty days and allocating the costs of fees associated with the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order to both parties equally. Wife then filed a second motion seeking reconsideration of the amended judgment, asserting the same grounds as her first motion, which was again denied by the circuit court. Wife then appealed. Wife filed her initial appellate brief on January 13, 2025, and this Court issued its Order the following day, notifying Wife that her


CourtListener opinion 11164834

domestic relations order: d Wife's motion to reconsider the judgment but modified its previous judgment of dissolution in two respects: directing that Wife vacate the marital residence within sixty days and allocating the costs of fees associated with the preparation of a qualified domestic relations order to both parties equally. Wife then filed a second motion seeking reconsideration of the amended judgment, asserting the same grounds as her first motion, which was again denied by the circuit court. Wife then appealed. Wife filed her initial appellate brief on January 13, 2025, and this Court issued its Order the following day, notifying Wife that her


CourtListener opinion 11164834

valuation/division: il 2024, the circuit court entered judgment dissolving the marriage of Wife and Mr. Anthony Jay Shelton ("Husband") and addressing custody and child support. Wife filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the judgment, primarily lodging complaints about property division and other monetary considerations addressed by the dissolution judgment. The circuit court denied Wife's motion to reconsider the judgment but modified its previous judgment of dissolution in two respects: directing that Wife vacate the marital residence within sixty days and allocating the costs of fees associated with the preparation of a qualified do


CourtListener opinion 11166646

CourtListener opinion 11166646 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11166646 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 11166646

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 11166646

domestic relations order: ts under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments as well as under several state laws and rules. [Id. at p. 3]. Ultimately, Plaintiff seems to assert that this lawsuit arises from several occasions of insufficiency of process in what appears to be related to a domestic relations order. [Id. at pp. 4–5]. Plaintiff lists the "Department of Human Resources" as a defendant in this action. The Court assumes that Plaintiff is referring to what used to be known as the Georgia Department of Human Resources. However, the Georgia Department of Human Resources has not existed by that name since 2009. As such, Plaintiff seemingly seeks relief


CourtListener opinion 11176396

CourtListener opinion 11176396 Docket: 25AP-179 5 The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11176396 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 11176396

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 11176396

QDRO: ight, title, and interest in her State Teachers Retirement System account, and Jerry waived all interest in that account. The agreed divorce decree further provided that Valentina would receive one-half of the marital portion of Jerry's ODC account and that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QRDO") would be entered to effectuate the division. The court entered the QRDO on May 5, 2016. {¶ 4} On November 15, 2024, Valentina filed a pro se motion to modify the agreed divorce decree. Valentina asserted that, unbeknownst to her at the time, Jerry had selected a single life annuity plan upon his retirement from state employment.1 Selection of the


CourtListener opinion 11176396

retirement benefits: counterclaim for divorce on October 8, 2015. Jerry had retired from employment with the State of Ohio in 2014. As part of the divorce proceedings, Jerry filed an affidavit of property attesting that he had an Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") retirement account with a value of $4,000 per month, and an Ohio Deferred No. 25AP-179 2 Compensation ("ODC") plan with a value of $213,361.25 as of June 2015. Both Valentina and Jerry were represented by counsel during the divorce proceedings. {¶ 3} On August 28, 2016, the trial court entered an agreed divorce decree awarding the parties a divorce and dividing their marit


CourtListener opinion 11176396

pension: er, and issue a Ruling to the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System her Spousal Consent Form was Forged. II. The Trial Court erred in not acknowledging the distinction between Retirement Benefits, and a Matured Survivor Annuity, when dividing a Public Pension in Valentina Reed's divorce, and not issuing a Ruling her OPERS Spousal Consent Form was forged. (Emphasis in original.) (Sic passim.) No. 25AP-179 4 III. Discussion {¶ 8} Valentina's two assignments of error are related, and we will address them together. {¶ 9} As explained above, the trial court construed Valentina's motion to modify as a motion fo


CourtListener opinion 11176396

domestic relations order: e, and interest in her State Teachers Retirement System account, and Jerry waived all interest in that account. The agreed divorce decree further provided that Valentina would receive one-half of the marital portion of Jerry's ODC account and that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QRDO") would be entered to effectuate the division. The court entered the QRDO on May 5, 2016. {¶ 4} On November 15, 2024, Valentina filed a pro se motion to modify the agreed divorce decree. Valentina asserted that, unbeknownst to her at the time, Jerry had selected a single life annuity plan upon his retirement from state employment.1 Selection of the


CourtListener opinion 11177374

CourtListener opinion 11177374 Extracted reporter citation: 987 F.3d 616. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11177374 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 11177374


CourtListener opinion 11177374

QDRO: ent consulting and management, and trustee/custodian services; (2) "A La Carte" services with separate additional fees which typically include loan processing and maintenance, brokerage services/account maintenance, distribution services, and processing of qualified domestic relations orders; and (3) Ad Hoc fees such as transaction fees and other administrative fees for various services. (Id. ¶¶ 53-56). The sum of fees for Bundled RKA, A La Carte, and Ad Hoc services equals the Total RKA fees. (Id. ¶ 57). Plaintiffs maintain, however, that Bundled RKA fees make up most of the Plan fee charges. (Id. ¶ 58). In the retirement plan services in


CourtListener opinion 11177374

retirement benefits: ct the investment of their contributions, but the Plan selects the recordkeeper and investments. (Id. ¶ 4). In 2022, the Plan had approximately $1,468,437,574 in assets with 18,965 participants. (Id. ¶¶ 45-46). Mega 401(k) plans like Dover's hire national retirement plan service providers—referred to as recordkeepers—with bundled service offerings that can meet all the needs of very large retirement plans with the same level and caliber of services for recordkeeping and administration ("RKA") services and fees. (Id. ¶ 48). There are three general types of RKA services provided by all plan recordkeepers: (1) Bundled RKA


CourtListener opinion 11177374

pension: stee 37 Participant loan processing 49 Other services 50 Direct payment from the plan 60 Sub-transfer agency fees 62 Float revenue 64 Recordkeeping fees Provider Relationship Direct Comp Service Codes TOWERS WATSON NONE $328,584 17 Consulting (pension) 50 Direct payment from the plan 70 Consulting fees Provider Relationship Direct Comp Service Codes FINANCIAL ENGINES INC NONE $263,242 27 Investment advisory (plan) 51 investment management fees paid directly by plan Provider Relationship Direct Comp Service Codes CROWE HORWATH LLP NONE $59,000 29 Legal 50 Direct payment from the plan Pro


CourtListener opinion 11177374

ERISA: ectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs assert allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by paying excessive recordkeeping fees (Count I) and failing to monitor (Count II), both in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1104. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. 79). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted. BACKGROUND According to the operative complaint, Dover is a global manufacturer headquartered in Illinois that sponsors a 401(k) defined contribution plan for participants like Plaintif


CourtListener opinion 11178295

CourtListener opinion 11178295 Extracted case name: RONALD L. SHOEMAKE v. ANN L. SHOEMAKE. Extracted reporter citation: 401 S.W.3d 595. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11178295 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 11178295


CourtListener opinion 11178295

QDRO: t ordered Husband to pay the TCRS shortage and ruled that Husband should continue to pay the $600.00 monthly alimony but declined to rule on the motion for contempt, stating that the court "reserves the issue of granting a judgment pending the approval of the QDRO to be submitted." Despite the trial court's ruling, Husband did not resume his alimony payments and did not comply fully with the order concerning his TCRS obligation, and Wife accordingly filed a second motion for contempt in August 2024. In that motion, Wife requested that the trial court find Husband "in civil contempt for his failure to make payments fo


CourtListener opinion 11178295

retirement benefits: and and Wife had both been employed by the State of Tennessee during their marriage, the Final Decree provided for an equitable division of the parties' respective TCRS pension payments using the deferred distribution method for calculating division of future retirement benefits. The Final Decree additionally awarded alimony in futuro to Wife in the amount of $1,200.00, to be paid by Husband monthly until his retirement, at which point the monthly payment would be reduced to $600.00. For several years following their divorce, the parties proceeded without court intervention. On April 3, 2018, Husband retired at the age of sixty-


CourtListener opinion 11178295

pension: _____________________________ In this post-divorce action, the wife, Ann L. Shoemake ("Wife"), filed a petition against the husband, Ronald L. Shoemake ("Husband"), in the Sumner County Chancery Court ("trial court") to receive her marital share of Husband's pension payments through the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System ("TCRS"). Wife had been awarded a portion of Husband's TCRS payments in the final decree of divorce ("Final Decree"). Husband filed a counter-petition seeking, inter alia, a reduction of his alimony in futuro obligation. After the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Wife for her portion of


CourtListener opinion 11178295

domestic relations order: retirement [$]839.00 to be sent to me by TCRS to my account the way it was suppose[d] to be done when you retired." Wife also gave Husband an ultimatum to comply within two weeks. In response to the letter, Husband sent to Wife a partially completed Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Husband had filled in a portion of the QDRO to reflect the parties' marriage and divorce dates and the monthly retirement from TCRS that Husband had determined he owed to Wife in the amount of $840.00. Wife did not sign the QDRO. On January 4, 2023, Wife filed a petition in the trial court seeking (1) a determination of "what share and interest


CourtListener opinion 11178597

CourtListener opinion 11178597 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 18 at 2–3. Because the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11178597 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 11178597

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 11178597

domestic relations order: port hearing in the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas. ECF No. 1; see also Taylor v. Lawrence Cnty. Domestic Rel. Section, No. 2:23-cv-01321-CCW, (W.D. Pa.) ("Taylor I"), ECF Nos. 3, 4. During that hearing, Ms. Taylor was found to be in contempt of her domestic relations order and was taken into custody by officers of the Lawrence County Domestic Relations Section, including Detective Cory Smith, the Defendant in this case. ECF No. 5 at 3–4. Ms. Taylor alleges that she informed the arresting officers that, due to an existing shoulder injury, she was unable to place her hands behind her back to be handcuffed. Id. at 4. Ms. Tayl


CourtListener opinion 11181649

CourtListener opinion 11181649 Extracted reporter citation: 148 S.W.3d 124. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11181649 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 11181649

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


CourtListener opinion 11181649

QDRO: 401(k) funds that had not been comingled with non- exempt funds. See 131 S.W.3d 261, 270 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.). In Jones, the administrator for the employer of Jones's ex-husband mistakenly paid Jones funds she was not entitled to under the QDRO. Id. at 268. After obtaining a judgment against Jones in federal court, the employer applied for a turnover order in state court. Id. at 264. In the trial court Jones conceded she knew the overpayment 5 did not belong to her and that she was obligated to pay American Airlines in accordance with the federal court's judgment. Id. at 270. The trial court


CourtListener opinion 11181649

retirement benefits: On June 13, 2025, Caroldene filed a Protected Property Claim Form with the Montgomery County Clerk. Caroldene claimed, "Some of my money or property has been frozen or taken. It is protected and should be returned to me because it is: . . . Tax-deferred retirement accounts, like 401(k) and IRA accounts." She requested a hearing and asked that the money or property be returned to her. The mandamus The distribution of assets and closing of the estate is the subject of Appeal 1 Number 09-25-00167-CV, In the Estate of Aletha Cahill Wolf. 2 record contains an Account Statement dated May 1-31, 2025, for a Contributory IRA


CourtListener opinion 11181649

401(k): dene filed a Protected Property Claim Form with the Montgomery County Clerk. Caroldene claimed, "Some of my money or property has been frozen or taken. It is protected and should be returned to me because it is: . . . Tax-deferred retirement accounts, like 401(k) and IRA accounts." She requested a hearing and asked that the money or property be returned to her. The mandamus The distribution of assets and closing of the estate is the subject of Appeal 1 Number 09-25-00167-CV, In the Estate of Aletha Cahill Wolf. 2 record contains an Account Statement dated May 1-31, 2025, for a Contributory IRA of Caroldene M


CourtListener opinion 11182274

CourtListener opinion 11182274 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of Jon Lynn Kinning. Extracted reporter citation: 960 P.2d 722. Docket: 25CA0072 City and County of Denver District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11182274 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 11182274

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 11182274

QDRO: with counsel; wife, still unrepresented, chose not to appear. ¶8 On June 13, 2024, the district court ordered that husband could satisfy wife's $250,000 share of the down payment by transferring to her an equivalent amount of his 401(k) funds via a 2 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). No one appealed the judgment. ¶9 On June 27, 2024, the firm then filed a forthwith motion urging the district court to modify the QDRO so that its lien would be satisfied directly from the transferred funds: What need[s] to be addressed . . . is the method by which [husband] should satisfy the May 2 and June 13 [o]rders. The May 2, 2024


CourtListener opinion 11182274

401(k): r, husband was present with counsel; wife, still unrepresented, chose not to appear. ¶8 On June 13, 2024, the district court ordered that husband could satisfy wife's $250,000 share of the down payment by transferring to her an equivalent amount of his 401(k) funds via a 2 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). No one appealed the judgment. ¶9 On June 27, 2024, the firm then filed a forthwith motion urging the district court to modify the QDRO so that its lien would be satisfied directly from the transferred funds: What need[s] to be addressed . . . is the method by which [husband] should satisf


CourtListener opinion 11182274

alternate payee: . December 2 Order ¶ 14 The firm also contends that the December 2, 2024, order is unfair. To get there, it says that "if a QDRO is to be used as the [district] court directed, neither [w]ife nor [the] [f]irm will get paid, as [the] [f]irm cannot be an alternate payee under the QDRO, and [h]usband will happily sit back and smile as the years continue to slip by without having to pay anyone." The firm gives us no supporting legal analysis. So, we decline to address the issue. See In re Marriage of Zander, 2019 COA 149, ¶ 27 (an appellate court may decline to consider an argument not supported by legal authorit


CourtListener opinion 11182274

domestic relations order: sel; wife, still unrepresented, chose not to appear. ¶8 On June 13, 2024, the district court ordered that husband could satisfy wife's $250,000 share of the down payment by transferring to her an equivalent amount of his 401(k) funds via a 2 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). No one appealed the judgment. ¶9 On June 27, 2024, the firm then filed a forthwith motion urging the district court to modify the QDRO so that its lien would be satisfied directly from the transferred funds: What need[s] to be addressed . . . is the method by which [husband] should satisfy the May 2 and June 13 [o]rders. The May 2, 2024


CourtListener opinion 11191111

CourtListener opinion 11191111 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11191111 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 11191111


CourtListener opinion 11191111

domestic relations order: lication, which is hereby REINSTATED. Furthermore, it appears that the juvenile court's order is directly appealable. This case is a dependency proceeding – what used to be called "deprivation" under the old juvenile code. See OCGA § 15-11-2 (22). Although a domestic relations order or an order terminating parental rights is subject to the discretionary appeal procedures, a dependency or deprivation finding may be appealed directly. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) & (12); In the Interest of J. P., 267 Ga. 492, 493 (480 SE2d 8) (1997) (deprivation/dependency cases do not fall within the purview of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) and therefore are direc


CourtListener opinion 11192244

CourtListener opinion 11192244 Extracted case name: SPONSLER v. SPONSLER. Docket: A19A2282 1. Ex-husband first argues that the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11192244 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 11192244


CourtListener opinion 11192244

QDRO: Ex-husband to execute a quitclaim deed, which would allow Ex-wife to sell or re-finance the Rental Property in her own name on or before March 1, 2010. See Sponsler II, 301 Ga. at 600-601 (1). The divorce decree also required Ex-husband to promptly prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to transfer $89,380 of a 401(k) retirement plan. See id. at 601 (1), fn. 5. Ex-husband did not execute the quitclaim deed and QDRO until more than four years later, in July 2013, after Ex-wife filed a motion for contempt. See id. 602 (2) (a), n. 7. 3 any part of that award flowed from the litigation of contempt remedies that had been reversed i


CourtListener opinion 11192244

retirement benefits: r re-finance the Rental Property in her own name on or before March 1, 2010. See Sponsler II, 301 Ga. at 600-601 (1). The divorce decree also required Ex-husband to promptly prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to transfer $89,380 of a 401(k) retirement plan. See id. at 601 (1), fn. 5. Ex-husband did not execute the quitclaim deed and QDRO until more than four years later, in July 2013, after Ex-wife filed a motion for contempt. See id. 602 (2) (a), n. 7. 3 any part of that award flowed from the litigation of contempt remedies that had been reversed in that appeal. Id. at 605 (3). In May 2018, after reman


CourtListener opinion 11192244

401(k): sell or re-finance the Rental Property in her own name on or before March 1, 2010. See Sponsler II, 301 Ga. at 600-601 (1). The divorce decree also required Ex-husband to promptly prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to transfer $89,380 of a 401(k) retirement plan. See id. at 601 (1), fn. 5. Ex-husband did not execute the quitclaim deed and QDRO until more than four years later, in July 2013, after Ex-wife filed a motion for contempt. See id. 602 (2) (a), n. 7. 3 any part of that award flowed from the litigation of contempt remedies that had been reversed in that appeal. Id. at 605 (3). In May 2


CourtListener opinion 11192244

domestic relations order: d to execute a quitclaim deed, which would allow Ex-wife to sell or re-finance the Rental Property in her own name on or before March 1, 2010. See Sponsler II, 301 Ga. at 600-601 (1). The divorce decree also required Ex-husband to promptly prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to transfer $89,380 of a 401(k) retirement plan. See id. at 601 (1), fn. 5. Ex-husband did not execute the quitclaim deed and QDRO until more than four years later, in July 2013, after Ex-wife filed a motion for contempt. See id. 602 (2) (a), n. 7. 3 any part of that award flowed from the litigation of contempt remedies that had been reversed i


CourtListener opinion 11192480

CourtListener opinion 11192480 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11192480 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 11192480

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 11192480

domestic relations order: t's order finding C. L. W. to be dependent and awarding temporary custody of the child to his foster parents. No application is required, however, because the juvenile court's order is directly appealable. This case is a dependency proceeding, and although a domestic relations order or an order terminating parental rights is subject to the discretionary appeal procedures, a dependency finding may be appealed directly. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) & (12); In the Interest of J. P., 267 Ga. 492, 493 (480 SE2d 8) (1997) (deprivation/dependency cases do not fall within the purview of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) and therefore are directly appealable)


CourtListener opinion 11193046

CourtListener opinion 11193046 Extracted case name: SR. v. BRENDA PARHAM FARLEY. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11193046 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 11193046


CourtListener opinion 11193046

QDRO: er 08, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A23A0250. FERDINAND FARLEY, SR. v. BRENDA PARHAM FARLEY n/k/a BRENDA PARHAM MURRAY. Ferdinand Farley, Sr., ("Farley") filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking clarification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") entered following his divorce from Brenda Parham Farley n/k/a Brenda Parham Murray. The trial court entered an order finding the QDRO unambiguous, and Farley appeals.1 We, however, lack jurisdiction. Appeals from "judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic relations cases" must be made by application for discretionary appeal. OCGA


CourtListener opinion 11193046

domestic relations order: 2 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A23A0250. FERDINAND FARLEY, SR. v. BRENDA PARHAM FARLEY n/k/a BRENDA PARHAM MURRAY. Ferdinand Farley, Sr., ("Farley") filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking clarification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") entered following his divorce from Brenda Parham Farley n/k/a Brenda Parham Murray. The trial court entered an order finding the QDRO unambiguous, and Farley appeals.1 We, however, lack jurisdiction. Appeals from "judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic relations cases" must be made by application for discretionary appeal. OCGA


CourtListener opinion 11193786

CourtListener opinion 11193786 Extracted case name: BROOKS v. BROOKS. HODGES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11193786 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 11193786

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 11193786

QDRO: ecifically, Section 4 (a) of the settlement agreement, incorporated into the divorce decree, provides that "[t]he INPO Pension arises out of [Charles'] employment and will be divided 50/50 between [Charles] and [Vinci] effective 9 [December 10, 2013] via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. . . ." A Form 1099 is issued for Charles' pension payments, however, and pursuant to Section 1 (b) of the settlement agreement, following his retirement, Vinci is entitled to 32.5 percent of all Form 1099 income. According to Charles, awarding Vinci 82.5 percent of his pension income leaves him with very little remaining income while providing Vinci wi


CourtListener opinion 11193786

pension: the arbitrator overstepped his authority. We will address them in turn. (a) The Evidence Charles argues that the arbitrator ignored the intention of the parties in interpreting the divorce decree because the award allows Vinci to "double dip" into his pension. Specifically, Section 4 (a) of the settlement agreement, incorporated into the divorce decree, provides that "[t]he INPO Pension arises out of [Charles'] employment and will be divided 50/50 between [Charles] and [Vinci] effective 9 [December 10, 2013] via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. . . ." A Form 1099 is issued for Charles' pension payments,


CourtListener opinion 11193786

domestic relations order: , Section 4 (a) of the settlement agreement, incorporated into the divorce decree, provides that "[t]he INPO Pension arises out of [Charles'] employment and will be divided 50/50 between [Charles] and [Vinci] effective 9 [December 10, 2013] via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. . . ." A Form 1099 is issued for Charles' pension payments, however, and pursuant to Section 1 (b) of the settlement agreement, following his retirement, Vinci is entitled to 32.5 percent of all Form 1099 income. According to Charles, awarding Vinci 82.5 percent of his pension income leaves him with very little remaining income while providing Vinci wi


CourtListener opinion 11194461

CourtListener opinion 11194461 Extracted case name: DUNN v. DUNN. BROWN. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11194461 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 11194461


CourtListener opinion 11194461

domestic relations order: rksheet 2 We note that six months after the final order was entered, the parties appeared for a hearing, where counsel explained that the trial court incarcerated Husband for failing to provide information requested in the final order so that the qualified domestic relations order could be entered. Apparently, Husband had filed a financial affidavit indicating he had retirement assets of $125,000; the retirement statement sent to Wife's counsel so that Husband could "gain his freedom" from incarceration had "a substantial amount missing" because the account balance indicated an amount of $7,501.19. 14 as mandated by OCGA § 19-6-15


CourtListener opinion 11194461

valuation/division: iled to do so[.] [F]or this reason, the [c]ourt finds that all the interest in the real property was marital." 17 trial court as factfinder and neither party asked the trial court to make factual findings, we are unable to conclude that the trial court's equitable distribution of marital property was improper as a matter of law or as a matter of fact. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Messaadi v. Messaadi, 282 Ga. 126, 128 (1) (646 SE2d 230) (2007). Accordingly, there is no merit in Husband's claim that the final order should be reversed because it fails to resolve all contested issues concerning the real property. See id


CourtListener opinion 11196866

CourtListener opinion 11196866 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11196866 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 11196866


CourtListener opinion 11196866

QDRO: ient agreed to pay Gillum a total of $4,900 to represent him in his ongoing divorce case, paying $2,500 up front with the remainder to be paid in installments. He was at 8 risk of being held in contempt of court and needed Gillum to review and approve a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") drafted by opposing counsel. Although the client informed Gillum that the QDRO had an incorrect amount on it and she advised him that she would correct the error, Gillum submitted the order without making this correction, and the court signed and issued it. After the client questioned Gillum about this error, Gillum advised the client that sh


CourtListener opinion 11196866

domestic relations order: d to pay Gillum a total of $4,900 to represent him in his ongoing divorce case, paying $2,500 up front with the remainder to be paid in installments. He was at 8 risk of being held in contempt of court and needed Gillum to review and approve a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") drafted by opposing counsel. Although the client informed Gillum that the QDRO had an incorrect amount on it and she advised him that she would correct the error, Gillum submitted the order without making this correction, and the court signed and issued it. After the client questioned Gillum about this error, Gillum advised the client that sh


CourtListener opinion 11198732

CourtListener opinion 11198732 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thornley. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 4-25-0319 Carla Bender not precedent except. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11198732 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 11198732


CourtListener opinion 11198732

retirement benefits: ses where a trial court allocated property in lieu of maintenance, the payee has been awarded additional assets, rather than being awarded fewer debts. See In re Marriage of Celani, 2021 IL App (1st) 201085-U, ¶ 11 (trial court granted to the wife her full retirement plan "in lieu of maintenance"). Heather contends that granting assets in lieu of maintenance "makes logical sense" so that the "receiving spouse gets their money up front." She notably overlooks the fact that the division of - 18 - property in Celani also involved granting the husband most of the marital debt and declining to award additional maintenance.


CourtListener opinion 11198732

pension: n, including both valuations for the marital property provided by each party: Marital Assets Zachary Heather Bigelow Residence $225,000 or $340,000 2019 Cadillac $44,747 2020 Mercedes $33,725 Bank accounts $1,877.89 Bank accounts $1,373.36 Zachary's Pension 50% of marital portion 50% of marital portion according to Qualified Illinois according to Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order Domestic Relations Order Heather's 403(b) Account $3,911.63 Total Assets $271,624.89 or $386,624.89 $39,009.99 Marital Debts Zachary Heather Mortgage on Bigelow $161,217.69 Residence Second Mortgage on Bigelow $46


CourtListener opinion 11198732

domestic relations order: w Residence $225,000 or $340,000 2019 Cadillac $44,747 2020 Mercedes $33,725 Bank accounts $1,877.89 Bank accounts $1,373.36 Zachary's Pension 50% of marital portion 50% of marital portion according to Qualified Illinois according to Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order Domestic Relations Order Heather's 403(b) Account $3,911.63 Total Assets $271,624.89 or $386,624.89 $39,009.99 Marital Debts Zachary Heather Mortgage on Bigelow $161,217.69 Residence Second Mortgage on Bigelow $46,934.26 Residence Cadillac Auto Loan $47,569.68 Mercedes Auto Loan $41,173.60 JP Companies $18,890.31 T-H Professional $2,846.20 Ac


CourtListener opinion 11198732

valuation/division: th valuations for the marital property provided by each party: Marital Assets Zachary Heather Bigelow Residence $225,000 or $340,000 2019 Cadillac $44,747 2020 Mercedes $33,725 Bank accounts $1,877.89 Bank accounts $1,373.36 Zachary's Pension 50% of marital portion 50% of marital portion according to Qualified Illinois according to Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order Domestic Relations Order Heather's 403(b) Account $3,911.63 Total Assets $271,624.89 or $386,624.89 $39,009.99 Marital Debts Zachary Heather Mortgage on Bigelow $161,217.69 Residence Second Mortgage on Bigelow $46,934.26 Residence Cad


CourtListener opinion 11199361

CourtListener opinion 11199361 Extracted reporter citation: 454 P.3d 1092. Docket: 48414 XIOMARA ROBIRDS. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11199361 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 11199361


CourtListener opinion 11199361

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


CourtListener opinion 11199361

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


CourtListener opinion 11199361

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


CourtListener opinion 11199361

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


CourtListener opinion 11199572

CourtListener opinion 11199572 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thomas. Extracted reporter citation: 302 P.3d 357. Docket: 42875 LINDA C. KESTING. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11199572 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 11199572

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.