CourtListener opinion 4582452

valuation/division: r month in average gross income from his salary, bonuses, and investment income. At trial, Richard clarified that his bonus income was not guaranteed. In his IED, Richard estimated he had $1.4 million in assets, including his separate property and half of the community property. However, of that, $250,000 in stocks and other assets he could "easily sell" was restricted by court order, except for $40,000; the court would not allow access to these accounts without an additional court order. In addition, he claimed $1.1 million in other property, including retirement accounts and restricted stock. Notably, these were to be divided wi


CourtListener opinion 4583604

CourtListener opinion 4583604 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF THOMAS DEAN NICHOLS AND TERESA LORRAINE NICHOLS Upon the Petition of THOMAS DEAN. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 20-0556. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4583604 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 4583604

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 4583604

QDRO: dissolution decree memorialized Thomas's agreement that one-half of his Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pension "benefits up to the time of the parties' separation shall be awarded to" Teresa. The court ordered the parties to file proposed qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) for the court's approval "to allow [Teresa] to receive one-half of the IPERS retirement plan from the time that [Thomas] joined the plan until the parties' separation." The court directed the following calculation: [Teresa] shall receive 50 percent of a fraction of [Thomas's] pension and pension payments. The numerator of this fraction shall b


CourtListener opinion 4583604

retirement benefits: pension "benefits up to the time of the parties' separation shall be awarded to" Teresa. The court ordered the parties to file proposed qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) for the court's approval "to allow [Teresa] to receive one-half of the IPERS retirement plan from the time that [Thomas] joined the plan until the parties' separation." The court directed the following calculation: [Teresa] shall receive 50 percent of a fraction of [Thomas's] pension and pension payments. The numerator of this fraction shall be the number of years [Thomas] contributed to IPERS during the marriage, and the denominator of the


CourtListener opinion 4583604

pension: and Teresa Johnson married on October 20, 1984. They separated on October 16, 1995, and the marriage was dissolved on May 19, 1997. The dissolution decree memorialized Thomas's agreement that one-half of his Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) pension "benefits up to the time of the parties' separation shall be awarded to" Teresa. The court ordered the parties to file proposed qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) for the court's approval "to allow [Teresa] to receive one-half of the IPERS retirement plan from the time that [Thomas] joined the plan until the parties' separation." The court dire


CourtListener opinion 4583604

domestic relations order: JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman, Judge. Thomas Nichols appeals the denial of his application to amend a qualified domestic relations order. AFFIRMED. Kevin D. Engels of Correll, Sheerer, Benson, Engels, Galles & Demro, PLC, Cedar Falls, for appellant. Jamie L. Schroeder of The Sayer Law Group, P.C., Waterloo, for appellee. Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ. Bower, C.J., takes no part. 2 MULLINS, Judge. Thomas Nichols and Teresa Johnson married on October 20, 1984


CourtListener opinion 4585457

CourtListener opinion 4585457 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4585457 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 4585457

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 4585457

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


CourtListener opinion 4585457

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


CourtListener opinion 4585457

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


CourtListener opinion 4586529

CourtListener opinion 4586529 Extracted case name: APPENDIX STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. PETER SEBBEN. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S Memorandum. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4586529 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 4586529


CourtListener opinion 4586529

pension: , the defendant further argues that he is being unfairly targeted and that the plaintiff has not sought reimbursement for the cost of incarceration from other inmates. He contends that he is being tar- geted because, inter alia, the defendant has a home and a pension; was a state employee and a ‘‘minority inmate''; does not use ‘‘entitlement services''; is of retire- ment age; and was involved in an infamous crime. In support of his argument, the defendant provides a table entitled ‘‘Collected Incarceration Costs'' from 2011 to 2015 and a printout of Assistant Attorney General Judith Brown's case list from the Judicial


CourtListener opinion 4586529

alternate payee: ction 18-85a and regulations adopted in accordance with section 18-85a from any federal, state or municipal pension, annuity or insurance contract or similar arrangement described in subdivision (5) of subsection (a) of this section, provided the rights of an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in Section 414 (p) of the Internal Reve- nue Code of 1986, or any subsequent corresponding internal revenue code of the United States, as from time to time amended, shall take precedence over any such recovery. . . .''


CourtListener opinion 4586529

domestic relations order: ed in accordance with section 18-85a from any federal, state or municipal pension, annuity or insurance contract or similar arrangement described in subdivision (5) of subsection (a) of this section, provided the rights of an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order, as defined in Section 414 (p) of the Internal Reve- nue Code of 1986, or any subsequent corresponding internal revenue code of the United States, as from time to time amended, shall take precedence over any such recovery. . . .''


CourtListener opinion 4586532

CourtListener opinion 4586532 Extracted case name: ALINA LEONOVA v. STANISLAV LEONOV. Extracted reporter citation: 908 A.2d 1119. Docket: of postdissolution motions. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4586532 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 4586532


CourtListener opinion 4586532

QDRO: retain the balances in their individual 401 (k) plans and retirement accounts, except that one Fidelity 401 (k) plan, held by the defen- dant and worth $423,184, was ordered be divided, 60 percent to the plaintiff and 40 percent to the defendant by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The plaintiff's Fidelity 401 (k) plan was worth $210,000. The defendant was allowed to retain in its entirety a Viking 401 (k) plan worth $167,139 and a Fidelity individual retirement account, worth $5779. The parties each were ordered responsible for the cost of their leased automobiles and for any debt on their respective financial affidavits not


CourtListener opinion 4586532

retirement benefits: ed a Citibank account containing the $63,000 escrowed balance of the defendant's 2017 bonus income, a Chase Bank account containing $11,000 and an HSBC check- ing account.9 The parties were allowed to retain the balances in their individual 401 (k) plans and retirement accounts, except that one Fidelity 401 (k) plan, held by the defen- dant and worth $423,184, was ordered be divided, 60 percent to the plaintiff and 40 percent to the defendant by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The plaintiff's Fidelity 401 (k) plan was worth $210,000. The defendant was allowed to retain in its entirety a Viking 401 (k) plan w


CourtListener opinion 4586532

401(k): se accounts included a Citibank account containing the $63,000 escrowed balance of the defendant's 2017 bonus income, a Chase Bank account containing $11,000 and an HSBC check- ing account.9 The parties were allowed to retain the balances in their individual 401 (k) plans and retirement accounts, except that one Fidelity 401 (k) plan, held by the defen- dant and worth $423,184, was ordered be divided, 60 percent to the plaintiff and 40 percent to the defendant by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The plaintiff's Fidelity 401 (k) plan was worth $210,000. The defendant was allowed to retain in its ent


CourtListener opinion 4586532

domestic relations order: balances in their individual 401 (k) plans and retirement accounts, except that one Fidelity 401 (k) plan, held by the defen- dant and worth $423,184, was ordered be divided, 60 percent to the plaintiff and 40 percent to the defendant by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The plaintiff's Fidelity 401 (k) plan was worth $210,000. The defendant was allowed to retain in its entirety a Viking 401 (k) plan worth $167,139 and a Fidelity individual retirement account, worth $5779. The parties each were ordered responsible for the cost of their leased automobiles and for any debt on their respective financial affidavits not


CourtListener opinion 4635999

CourtListener opinion 4635999 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Budorick. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4635999 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 4635999

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 4635999

QDRO: ployer's guidelines prohibiting her from transferring the stock to anyone outside of the specified corporate entities by awarding Daniel his share of the stock's value, rather than the stock itself. ¶ 53 Daniel's arguments that the court should have used a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to turn over the stock shares to him or divide the stock in accordance with a "reserved jurisdiction" approach, are likewise unavailing. With regard to Daniel's argument that the court should have used a QDRO to effectuate its order dividing the JDS stock, it is premised on the assumption that the trial court awarded Daniel shares of JDS stock an


CourtListener opinion 4635999

retirement benefits: ues in August and September 2018. The court entered a judgment for dissolution on November 28, 2018, and a modified judgment for dissolution on April 10, 2019. Daniel appeals from both orders, arguing that the trial court erred in (1) classifying Heather's retirement accounts from her employment in California as nonmarital property, (2) classifying and valuing Heather's shares in certain restricted stock, (3) valuing Heather's and Daniel's retirement accounts at different points in time, (4) requiring Daniel to pay $50,000 in attorney fees, (5) calculating Heather's gross income for child support purposes, (6) apportioning


CourtListener opinion 4635999

pension: ember 3, 1995, in California. Prior to their marriage, beginning in July 1991, Heather worked as a nurse for Los Angeles County USC Medical Center (USC). During her employment, Heather participated in the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association pension program (LACERA pension), and also contributed to a retirement plan for government employees (L.A. County 457 Plan). Her contributions to the LACERA pension occurred both pre- and post-marriage. The interest from her contributions continued to grow following the marriage. Heather took two leaves from her employment at the hospital before terminating her


CourtListener opinion 4635999

401(k): for Hollister, Inc., a manufacturer of medical products. During her employment with Hollister, she participated in two retirement plans. The first plan, HolliShare, consists solely of contributions made by Hollister, while the second plan is a traditional 401(k) plan that allows for employee contributions (Hollister 401(k) Plan). Heather testified that -2- 1-19-0994 & 1-19-1539 (consolidated) she is only permitted to access HolliShare funds when she ends her employment with Hollister or when she retires. In August 2002, Heather rolled over $6,663.50 from her L.A. County 457 Plan to the Hollister 401(k) Plan.


CourtListener opinion 4638126

CourtListener opinion 4638126 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CHRISTI ANN FERRIS AND JOEL DAVID FERRIS Upon the Petition of CHRISTI ANN FERRIS. Extracted reporter citation: 912 N.W.2d 444. Docket: 20-0266. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4638126 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 4638126


CourtListener opinion 4638126

QDRO: awarded her 2015 Nissan, and Joel his 2017 Silverado, each as sole property. The district court also ordered "that the pensions and deferred compensation annuities are to be divided as agreed by the parties and in accordance with the applicable law under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be drafted by petitioner's attorney for signature by the court." The court specified that order following motions to amend from both parties pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). In its fact findings, the district court valued Michigan farmland owned by the couple and awarded it to Joel.2 Joel appeals and Christi cross-appeals.


CourtListener opinion 4638126

retirement benefits: s the parent "most likely to bring [the children] to health, both physically and mentally, 8 and to social maturity." See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 695. We therefore affirm the award of physical care to Christi. B. Pension Accounts Christi has an Equistar Retirement Plan and Joel has a John Deere Pension Plan. Each is a defined-benefit pension plan. The district court awarded each party their own pension account.3 In retirement, Joel will receive $2062.96 a month and Christi will receive about $320.00.4 Christi argues the district court should have divided the pension accounts pursuant to our supreme court's calculation


CourtListener opinion 4638126

pension: gree with the district court that Christi is the parent "most likely to bring [the children] to health, both physically and mentally, 8 and to social maturity." See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 695. We therefore affirm the award of physical care to Christi. B. Pension Accounts Christi has an Equistar Retirement Plan and Joel has a John Deere Pension Plan. Each is a defined-benefit pension plan. The district court awarded each party their own pension account.3 In retirement, Joel will receive $2062.96 a month and Christi will receive about $320.00.4 Christi argues the district court should have divided the pension a


CourtListener opinion 4638126

domestic relations order: r 2015 Nissan, and Joel his 2017 Silverado, each as sole property. The district court also ordered "that the pensions and deferred compensation annuities are to be divided as agreed by the parties and in accordance with the applicable law under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be drafted by petitioner's attorney for signature by the court." The court specified that order following motions to amend from both parties pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). In its fact findings, the district court valued Michigan farmland owned by the couple and awarded it to Joel.2 Joel appeals and Christi cross-appeals.


CourtListener opinion 4640424

CourtListener opinion 4640424 Extracted reporter citation: 744 N.W.2d 444. Docket: A-20-192. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4640424 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 4640424


CourtListener opinion 4640424

QDRO: VIOUS PROCEEDINGS Stephanie and Dennis married in 1972 and divorced pursuant to a decree of dissolution entered on October 5, 1998. The decree ordered the division of the marital estate, including the equal division of three particular retirement accounts. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was to be prepared for each account. A couple months after entry of the decree, a hearing -1- was held on December 16 due to Dennis' failure to divide the three retirement accounts pursuant to the decree. One QDRO was entered in the Douglas County District Court in February 2001. Upon application by Stephanie in July 2004, the district court foun


CourtListener opinion 4640424

retirement benefits: DIVORCE DECREE AND PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS Stephanie and Dennis married in 1972 and divorced pursuant to a decree of dissolution entered on October 5, 1998. The decree ordered the division of the marital estate, including the equal division of three particular retirement accounts. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was to be prepared for each account. A couple months after entry of the decree, a hearing -1- was held on December 16 due to Dennis' failure to divide the three retirement accounts pursuant to the decree. One QDRO was entered in the Douglas County District Court in February 2001. Upon application by Stephani


CourtListener opinion 4640424

domestic relations order: EEDINGS Stephanie and Dennis married in 1972 and divorced pursuant to a decree of dissolution entered on October 5, 1998. The decree ordered the division of the marital estate, including the equal division of three particular retirement accounts. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was to be prepared for each account. A couple months after entry of the decree, a hearing -1- was held on December 16 due to Dennis' failure to divide the three retirement accounts pursuant to the decree. One QDRO was entered in the Douglas County District Court in February 2001. Upon application by Stephanie in July 2004, the district court foun


CourtListener opinion 4641777

CourtListener opinion 4641777 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4641777 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 4641777

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 4641777

domestic relations order: commenced a civil rights action in the District Court relating to his divorce proceedings in Erie County, Pennsylvania. According to Ke, counsel for the Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) conspired with his ex-wife's counsel to obtain a domestic relations order (DRO) that unlawfully deprived Ke of 50% of his monthly disability benefits. Specifically, in his pro se complaint, Ke claimed that: (1) SERS violated his due process rights by failing to notify him that his ex- wife's counsel had submitted an unexecuted draft DRO; (2) SERS violated his equal protection rights by failing to ensure that his disability wa


CourtListener opinion 4642138

CourtListener opinion 4642138 Extracted reporter citation: 898 A.2d 1141. Docket: 236 WDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4642138 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 4642138

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 4642138

QDRO: t [Appellant] pay Wife said sum each month for the duration of his lifetime, plus $500.00 per month towards the -3- J-A28017-20 liquidation of the arrearages. It was further recommended by the special master that since the award would not qualify as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), that it be collected and paid to Wife through the Domestic Relations Department [(DRD)] as if it were support, and paid by the issuance of a wage attachment. [In October 2019, Appellant] filed objections and exceptions to the second [report]. . . . [The trial] court heard argument on those objections and exceptions, as well as a supplemental


CourtListener opinion 4642138

retirement benefits: eding in this county." Memorandum Opinion and Order, 1/17/20, at 1. J-A28017-20 his heart attack, he was short of the 25 years by 9 months, and was 9 years short of reaching age 55. Consequently, [Appellant] would have had to wait in order to receive any retirement benefits until he reached the required age. [Appellant] asserts that there would have been no ability to receive anything for the 24-plus years of service; however, that matter was disputed. . . . The special master made a determination that the waiver of the defined benefit plan allowed [Appellant's] employer to essentially convert the monies that had been i


CourtListener opinion 4642138

pension: owever, that matter was disputed. . . . The special master made a determination that the waiver of the defined benefit plan allowed [Appellant's] employer to essentially convert the monies that had been in the defined benefit plan to the police disability pension fund, and therefore, there was a retirement component in the disability policy. That retirement component was calculated based upon the 24-plus years of service, nearly 10 years of which was during the course of the[ parties'] marriage. . . . The negotiated arrangement with the Borough provided that regardless of the change in status for [Appellant's]


CourtListener opinion 4642138

domestic relations order: nt] pay Wife said sum each month for the duration of his lifetime, plus $500.00 per month towards the -3- J-A28017-20 liquidation of the arrearages. It was further recommended by the special master that since the award would not qualify as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), that it be collected and paid to Wife through the Domestic Relations Department [(DRD)] as if it were support, and paid by the issuance of a wage attachment. [In October 2019, Appellant] filed objections and exceptions to the second [report]. . . . [The trial] court heard argument on those objections and exceptions, as well as a supplemental


CourtListener opinion 4643517

CourtListener opinion 4643517 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Lay. Extracted reporter citation: 120 N.E.3d 1083. Docket: 20A-DC-845 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4643517 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 4643517


CourtListener opinion 4643517

QDRO: $277,826.99. The disparity in respective values is $37,554, half of which, in order to equalize the available retirement funds to each party, is $18,777. Such is the amount required by this Court to be allocated by Husband to Wife of his USPS pension via Qualified Domestic Relations Order within thirty (30) days of this order. Wife's counsel to prepare QDRO. 28. The Court adopts [Wife's] allocation of assets and liabilities contained in Wife's exhibit #11, except required [sic] Husband to assume responsibility for the $10,000 loan from his parents. 29. This division creates a net allocation advantage to Wife in the amount of $5314, w


CourtListener opinion 4643517

retirement benefits: sional order. After a factfinding hearing, the trial court entered a dissolution decree in which it valued and divided marital assets but did not rule on Wife's contempt petition. On appeal, Wife argues that the trial court erred in conflating Husband's retirement account with the parties' pensions and in failing to rule on her contempt petition. We agree with Wife and therefore reverse and remand. Facts and Procedural History [2] Wife and Husband were married in 1984, and Wife petitioned to dissolve the marriage in 2017. In October 2017, the parties entered into an agreed provisional order that gave Wife "sole pos


CourtListener opinion 4643517

pension: d with the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DC-845| December 16, 2020 Page 2 of 9 United States Postal Service, and Wife was not employed and was receiving Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI). Wife and Husband each has a vested pension, from which they are not currently receiving payments. No evidence was presented regarding the pensions' present value, but Husband testified that his monthly pension payment would be roughly equal to Wife's pension payment plus her SSI payment. Tr. Vol. 2 at 97-98. Husband also has a defined benefit retirement account with a value of $272,826.99. Ex. V


CourtListener opinion 4643517

domestic relations order: 99. The disparity in respective values is $37,554, half of which, in order to equalize the available retirement funds to each party, is $18,777. Such is the amount required by this Court to be allocated by Husband to Wife of his USPS pension via Qualified Domestic Relations Order within thirty (30) days of this order. Wife's counsel to prepare QDRO. 28. The Court adopts [Wife's] allocation of assets and liabilities contained in Wife's exhibit #11, except required [sic] Husband to assume responsibility for the $10,000 loan from his parents. 29. This division creates a net allocation advantage to Wife in the amount of $5314, w


CourtListener opinion 4644016

CourtListener opinion 4644016 Extracted case name: C.D.G. v. N.J.S. Extracted reporter citation: 35 S.W.3d 841. Docket: 2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4644016 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 4644016


CourtListener opinion 4644016

QDRO: pal factors to be considered, but the court should include other relevant factors. For instance, RSUs, unlike plans regulated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), may not qualify for division via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) resulting in adverse tax consequences if immediately divided.45 Deferred compensation arrangements are generally taxed fully to the earning employee, so any division must consider the tax paid and expenses incurred by the RSU owner in liquidating the RSUs.46 The RSUs in this case have already 44 Sexton v. Sexton, 125 S.W.3d 258, 265 (Ky. 2004). 45 Br


CourtListener opinion 4644016

pension: sted.24 Laura argues that Scott's right to participate 20 Id. at 195. 21 See McGinnis v. McGinnis, 920 S.W.2d 68 (Ky. App. 1995) (holding nonvested shares of stock as marital property); Poe v. Poe, 711 S.W.2d 849 (Ky. App. 1986) (holding nonvested military pension to be marital property); In re Marriage of Short, 890 P.2d 12, 13 (Wash. 1995) (Unvested stock options were part community property and part separate property.); but see In re Marriage of Miller, 915 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1996) (Shares of restricted stock granted during marriage constituted marital property in their entirety.). 22 411 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. App. 2013)


CourtListener opinion 4644016

ERISA: gment in equitably dividing the marital property.44 KRS 403.190 outlines principal factors to be considered, but the court should include other relevant factors. For instance, RSUs, unlike plans regulated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), may not qualify for division via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) resulting in adverse tax consequences if immediately divided.45 Deferred compensation arrangements are generally taxed fully to the earning employee, so any division must consider the tax paid and expenses incurred by the RSU owner in liquidating the RSUs.46 The RSUs in this


CourtListener opinion 4644016

401(k): h Aetna regarding a merger, clouding Scott's job outlook due to likely restructuring. This merger was never consummated. In addition to the RSUs, the parties contested the classification and equitable distribution of two other pieces of property: Scott's 401k and a plot of unimproved land in Wyoming. The 401k was valued at $499,879. At issue was the portion of the 401k deemed Scott's nonmarital property. The account consisted of funds derived from Scott's employment at Humana during the marriage, Honeywell both prior to and during the marriage, and the Secret Service and British Aerospace prior to the marri


CourtListener opinion 4647367

CourtListener opinion 4647367 Extracted case name: STOCK v. STOCK. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4647367 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 4647367


CourtListener opinion 4647367

retirement benefits: e opinion of the Court, in which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 Michael Joseph Stock (Husband) appeals from the denial of his motion to alter or amend post-decree orders awarding a portion of his federal retirement benefits, including for his pre-marriage federal service, to Susanne Kay Stock (Wife). The community is entitled to reimbursement for community funds used to purchase a credit for Husband's pre-marriage federal service. Wife, in turn, is entitled to receive her portion of that reimbursement plus interest from the time of purchase. The community, however, did not ac


CourtListener opinion 4647367

pension: ded during marriage are community property," Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 181, the opposite is equally true: the fruits of labor expended before marriage are separate property. For labor expended during marriage, "even if the employee spouse is not yet entitled to a pension, [a spouse] ‘and thereby the community, does indeed acquire a property right in . . . pension benefits,' even if the rights have not vested, that is subject to division upon dissolution." Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. at 451 ¶ 14 (citation omitted). Again, however, the opposite is true: a pension right acquired for labor expended before marriage is separate property


CourtListener opinion 4647367

domestic relations order: that these out-of-state cases are inconsistent with how Arizona law values defined-benefit plans, which looks either to present valuation and offset with other community assets, or by division of the benefit when it first reserves jurisdiction and then uses a domestic relations order. See Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 181-84. Wife's argument, however, conflates the issue of the valuation of community property with the issue of what is community property and what is separate property. Moreover, Wife has not shown how acknowledging Husband's pre-marriage service time as his separate property somehow deviates from Arizona's pension valuation metho


CourtListener opinion 4647367

valuation/division: he parties increased Husband's federal retirement benefits by using community funds to purchase credit for time Husband served in the military before the marriage. After Wife petitioned for dissolution, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dividing community property, which the court incorporated into the decree. Consistent with that settlement agreement, the decree awarded Wife her community portion of Husband's federal retirement benefits. ¶3 Wife later moved for entry of retirement benefit division orders, lodging proposed orders awarding her 37.09 percent of Husband's monthly federal retirement benefits. Wife calcu


CourtListener opinion 4647639

CourtListener opinion 4647639 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Knoerr. Docket: 2-19-0929 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4647639 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 4647639

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 4647639

QDRO: ose efforts failed, the parties would submit the matter to the trial court for resolution. A few days after the parties' marriage was dissolved, respondent lost her job. In September 2018, under the terms of the dissolution judgment, petitioner submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to his former employer. Garnishment of 2020 IL App (2d) 190929 petitioner's pension began in October 2018. Respondent obtained new employment in November 2018, and in December 2018, petitioner moved to set maintenance. Effective January 1, 2019, section 504(b-1)(1)(A) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/504


CourtListener opinion 4647639

pension: ' marriage was dissolved, respondent lost her job. In September 2018, under the terms of the dissolution judgment, petitioner submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to his former employer. Garnishment of 2020 IL App (2d) 190929 petitioner's pension began in October 2018. Respondent obtained new employment in November 2018, and in December 2018, petitioner moved to set maintenance. Effective January 1, 2019, section 504(b-1)(1)(A) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)(1)(A) (West 2018)) (the 2019 version) was amended as to its formula for the initial se


CourtListener opinion 4647639

domestic relations order: s failed, the parties would submit the matter to the trial court for resolution. A few days after the parties' marriage was dissolved, respondent lost her job. In September 2018, under the terms of the dissolution judgment, petitioner submitted a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to his former employer. Garnishment of 2020 IL App (2d) 190929 petitioner's pension began in October 2018. Respondent obtained new employment in November 2018, and in December 2018, petitioner moved to set maintenance. Effective January 1, 2019, section 504(b-1)(1)(A) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/504


CourtListener opinion 4647870

CourtListener opinion 4647870 Extracted reporter citation: 645 N.E.2d 1300. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4647870 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 4647870


CourtListener opinion 4647870

QDRO: contributions left in the account and market forces, not years of employment or another formula. Therefore, the use of the coverture fraction would be an arbitrary and unnecessary method for determining the marital portion of the account. See Gary Shulman, Qualified Domestic Relations Order Handbook, Section 11.02 (3d Ed., 2014 supplement). Ultimately, the trial court's analysis was supported by a sound reasoning process. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when selecting a method for determining the marital and separate portions of the defined contribution account. See AAAA Ents., 50 Ohio St.3d at 161, 553 N.E.2d 597


CourtListener opinion 4647870

retirement benefits: e/cross-appellant Amita Rikhy Boolchand ("Rikhy")1 and defendant- appellant/cross-appellee Punit Boolchand ("Boolchand"). Boolchand asserts error related to the trial court's division of property, challenging the determination that his defined contribution retirement plan account was entirely marital property and that a joint investment account contained, in part, Rikhy's separate, inherited funds. Rikhy argues, in her cross-appeal, that the court erred when it failed to require Boolchand to contribute to her attorney fees. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Background Facts {¶2} Rikhy and Boolchand were married


CourtListener opinion 4647870

pension: f a retirement plan, if the benefit is vested but unmatured, regardless of the characteristics of the plan. We disagree. {¶16} In Hoyt, decided before the enactment of R.C. 3105.171, the Supreme Court recognized the difficulty courts face when considering pension and retirement benefits in a property division stemming from a divorce. The court set forth "guidelines" to be used by the trial courts when resolving such issues, but, more importantly, also recognized that "no specific rule can apply in every case." Id. at 179. Specifically, the court held that "[w]hen considering a fair and equitable distribution of


CourtListener opinion 4647870

401(k): s, plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant Amita Rikhy Boolchand ("Rikhy")1 and defendant- appellant/cross-appellee Punit Boolchand ("Boolchand"). Boolchand asserts error related to the trial court's division of property, challenging the determination that his defined contribution retirement plan account was entirely marital property and that a joint investment account contained, in part, Rikhy's separate, inherited funds. Rikhy argues, in her cross-appeal, that the court erred when it failed to require Boolchand to contribute to her attorney fees. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Background Facts {¶2} Rikhy and Boolcha


CourtListener opinion 4648598

CourtListener opinion 4648598 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Joyner. Extracted reporter citation: 351 S.W.3d 552. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4648598 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 4648598


CourtListener opinion 4648598

QDRO: Community Hospital Corporation 401(k), the Westrock 401(k), the Community Hospital 403(b) plan, and the Westrock Cash Balance Pension Plan. The QDROs that include a specific valuation date provide that the valuation date "shall be" December 17, 2018. Each QDRO assigned Matt a fifty percent interest in Sybrena's balance under the plan. Sybrena filed a request for findings of fact and 6 conclusions of law, followed by a notice of past-due findings of fact and conclusions of law, but the trial judge made none. ISSUE ONE In her first issue, Sybrena argues the trial court abused its discretion by altering th


CourtListener opinion 4648598

retirement benefits: property, (4) $100.00 for two lots on Park Place, (5) $62,720 for the Gardner property, (6) $2450 for the Congress property, and (7) $28,790 for the Kenneth property. The MSA further provided that the funds in the Community Health Corporation and Westrock retirement accounts would be the subject of QDROs. On August 27, 2018, Sybrena filed a motion to divide undivided assets, in which she asserted that Hurricane Harvey damaged most of the property the parties had agreed to divide in the MSA and pleaded that "the parties received insurance monies for damages to the structure and contents of the home that are not addressed i


CourtListener opinion 4648598

pension: rst reimbursed to [Matt] for money expended by him for repairs and reconstruction." The trial court awarded Sybrena the entire $7600 insurance payment for the contents of the residence. The trial judge signed QDROs pertaining to the Westrock Consolidated Pension Plan, the Community Hospital Corporation 401(k), the Westrock 401(k), the Community Hospital 403(b) plan, and the Westrock Cash Balance Pension Plan. The QDROs that include a specific valuation date provide that the valuation date "shall be" December 17, 2018. Each QDRO assigned Matt a fifty percent interest in Sybrena's balance under the plan. Sybrena


CourtListener opinion 4648598

401(k): that said value was not listed in the MSA. Sybrena stated she believes Matt intentionally undervalued their real property to reacquire the properties when their divorce is finalized. Matt testified that Sybrena's retirement benefits and the amount in her 401(k) from Community Health Corporation accrued during the marriage. Matt explained that the property values he listed on the MSA came from the county tax rolls, and he 4 testified that significant back taxes were owed on the properties. Matt testified that he sold the properties for approximately $44,000, but the net price after the back taxes were paid w


CourtListener opinion 4649198

CourtListener opinion 4649198 Extracted reporter citation: 854 A.2d 597. Docket: 3555 EDA 2019. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4649198 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 4649198


CourtListener opinion 4649198

QDRO: ruary 12, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the petition. After the conduct of the hearing on February 12, 2019, the [trial c]ourt . . . ordered [Husband] to facilitate communication with a representative of the Railroad Retirement Board so that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, "QDRO" could be drafted by [Wife]'s counsel and executed by [Husband]. See Order, dated 2/12/19[.] . . . Thereafter, the matter was continued twice. See Orders, dated 5/16/19 and 8/15/19[.] . . . The next hearing was scheduled for November 21, 2019. On November 1, 2019, [Husband], through [counsel], filed his answer to the petition for special relie


CourtListener opinion 4649198

retirement benefits: w. Accordingly, we affirm. Wife commenced this action on March 27, 2015. On May 5, 2017, the parties, each represented by counsel, entered into a stipulated order providing, in relevant part: "Wife will continue to receive payment from Husband's Railroad Retirement Benefit." Stipulated Order, 5/5/2017, at 3 ¶ 4.d. On June 20, 2017, the trial court entered a decree and order divorcing the parties from the bonds of matrimony and ordering "that the terms, ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A27034-20 provisions and conditions of a certain Stipulated Order be


CourtListener opinion 4649198

pension: ecember 18, 2018, Wife filed a petition for special relief seeking to enforce the stipulated order and for sanctions.1 The petition stated: In July 2018, Wife was made aware that the Stipulated Order did not contain the necessary language for the Railroad Pension Board and that she would no longer continue to receive her share of Husband's pension without a revised Order of Court containing the language required by the Railroad Pension Board. Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief to Enforce Stipulated Order and for Sanctions, 12/18/2018, at ¶ 6. Wife attached a proposed amended order to the petition, that in


CourtListener opinion 4649198

domestic relations order: 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the petition. After the conduct of the hearing on February 12, 2019, the [trial c]ourt . . . ordered [Husband] to facilitate communication with a representative of the Railroad Retirement Board so that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, "QDRO" could be drafted by [Wife]'s counsel and executed by [Husband]. See Order, dated 2/12/19[.] . . . Thereafter, the matter was continued twice. See Orders, dated 5/16/19 and 8/15/19[.] . . . The next hearing was scheduled for November 21, 2019. On November 1, 2019, [Husband], through [counsel], filed his answer to the petition for special relie


CourtListener opinion 4649655

CourtListener opinion 4649655 Extracted case name: BECKSTEAD v. OPM. Extracted reporter citation: 819 F.2d 1113. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4649655 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 4649655

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 4649655

QDRO: Decree"), which stated in relevant part that Mrs. Beckstead was entitled to: Exactly one half (1/2) of any and all retirement ben- efits, 401(k) or other retirement account of [Lynn]. Such account(s) to be divided by Qualified Domes- tic Relations Order (QDRO). SAppx. 10. The Divorce Decree did not specifically provide for a survivor annuity, and no QDRO was issued while Mr. Beckstead was alive. Following the divorce, Mr. Beck- stead did not notify OPM of the divorce and he never made a new election of a survivor annuity for Mrs. Beckstead. Case: 20-1884 Document: 36 Page: 3 Filed: 01/07/2021 BECKSTEAD v


CourtListener opinion 4649655

retirement benefits: - vorced. A state court in New Mexico issued a Default De- cree of Dissolution of Marriage ("Divorce Decree"), which stated in relevant part that Mrs. Beckstead was entitled to: Exactly one half (1/2) of any and all retirement ben- efits, 401(k) or other retirement account of [Lynn]. Such account(s) to be divided by Qualified Domes- tic Relations Order (QDRO). SAppx. 10. The Divorce Decree did not specifically provide for a survivor annuity, and no QDRO was issued while Mr. Beckstead was alive. Following the divorce, Mr. Beck- stead did not notify OPM of the divorce and he never made a new election of a survivor annuit


CourtListener opinion 4649655

401(k): rs. Beckstead di- vorced. A state court in New Mexico issued a Default De- cree of Dissolution of Marriage ("Divorce Decree"), which stated in relevant part that Mrs. Beckstead was entitled to: Exactly one half (1/2) of any and all retirement ben- efits, 401(k) or other retirement account of [Lynn]. Such account(s) to be divided by Qualified Domes- tic Relations Order (QDRO). SAppx. 10. The Divorce Decree did not specifically provide for a survivor annuity, and no QDRO was issued while Mr. Beckstead was alive. Following the divorce, Mr. Beck- stead did not notify OPM of the divorce and he never made a new e


CourtListener opinion 4649655

survivor benefits: ument: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 01/07/2021 2 BECKSTEAD v. OPM Before LOURIE, DYK, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Joyce Beckstead ("Mrs. Beckstead") appeals from a de- cision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the "Board") denying her a survivor annuity arising from her former husband's federal service. See Beckstead v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 2020 MSPB LEXIS 1897 (M.S.P.B. May 11, 2020) ("Board Decision"). We affirm. BACKGROUND Mrs. Beckstead was married to Lynn Beckstead ("Mr. Beckstead") on February 4, 1965. In 1971, Mr. Beck- stead became a federal employee covered under the Civil Service Retir


CourtListener opinion 4652193

CourtListener opinion 4652193 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 15 DR 0011. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4652193 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 4652193


CourtListener opinion 4652193

QDRO: he order to effectuate the original intent of the parties." (Id.). {¶5} On August 23, 2017, the trial court filed two orders relating to Larry's OPERS and deferred compensation accounts. First, the trial court filed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which "assign[ed] to [Helen] an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of [Larry's] Total Account Balance accumulated under the [Deferred Compensation] Plan as of December 2, 2015 * * *." (Doc. No. 56). The QDRO was signed by Helen and Larry and by their attorneys. (Id.). In addition, the trial court filed a DOPO, which directed OPERS -3- Case


CourtListener opinion 4652193

retirement benefits: n support of her motion, Helen argued that Larry had again failed to complete the paperwork necessary to effectuate the division of his OPERS account. (Id.). She noted that "[a] [DOPO] was filed August 23, 2017, granting [her] 50 percent of [Larry's] OPERS Retirement Plan," and she maintained that Larry had "retired but * * * failed to complete the necessary paperwork to authorize the Refund Authorization required by OPERS." (Id.). {¶9} On October 9, 2019, Helen, who had obtained new counsel, filed a motion to journalize the agreement that her former attorney read into the record at the August 13, 2018 show-cause heari


CourtListener opinion 4652193

pension: istrate's recommendation that same day. (Id.). Consequently, Helen and Larry were granted a divorce from each other. (Id.). Furthermore, as relevant to this appeal, Helen was to receive "62.5% of [Larry's] Ohio Public Employee Retirement System [("OPERS")] pension/retirement, with [Larry] cooperating fully to secure a Division of Property Order [("DOPO")] or similarly required court order * * * to effectuate the transfer of these funds from -2- Case No. 13-20-10 [Larry] to [Helen] in accordance with the rules and regulations of [OPERS]." (Id.). Helen was also to receive "100% of [Larry's] deferred compensation


CourtListener opinion 4652193

alternate payee: the judgment entry of divorce. Insofar as the trial court recognized that a DOPO generally cannot be used to modify the property division in a divorce decree, the trial court was correct. "A DOPO ‘is an order that creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a [retirement] plan.'" Estate of Parkins v. Parkins, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-18-50, 2019-Ohio-1941, ¶ 37, quoting State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355, 2010-Ohio-252, ¶ 18. "A DOPO ‘merely implemen


CourtListener opinion 4652971

CourtListener opinion 4652971 Extracted case name: STOCK v. STOCK. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0015 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4652971 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 4652971


CourtListener opinion 4652971

retirement benefits: e opinion of the Court, in which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 Michael Joseph Stock (Husband) appeals from the denial of his motion to alter or amend post-decree orders awarding a portion of his federal retirement benefits, including for his pre-marriage federal service, to Susanne Kay Stock (Wife). The community is entitled to reimbursement for community funds used to purchase a credit for Husband's pre-marriage federal service. Wife, in turn, is entitled to receive her portion of that reimbursement plus interest from the time of purchase. The community, however, did not ac


CourtListener opinion 4652971

pension: ded during marriage are community property," Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 181, the opposite is equally true: the fruits of labor expended before marriage are separate property. For labor expended during marriage, "even if the employee spouse is not yet entitled to a pension, [a spouse] ‘and thereby the community, does indeed acquire a property right in . . . pension benefits,' even if the rights have not vested, that is subject to division upon dissolution." Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. at 451 ¶ 14 (citation omitted). Again, however, the opposite is true: a pension right acquired for labor expended before marriage is separate property


CourtListener opinion 4652971

domestic relations order: that these out-of-state cases are inconsistent with how Arizona law values defined-benefit plans, which looks either to present valuation and offset with other community assets, or by division of the benefit when it first reserves jurisdiction and then uses a domestic relations order. See Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 181-84. Wife's argument, however, conflates the issue of the valuation of community property with the issue of what is community property and what is separate property. Moreover, Wife has not shown how acknowledging Husband's pre-marriage service time as his separate property somehow deviates from Arizona's pension valuation metho


CourtListener opinion 4652971

valuation/division: he parties increased Husband's federal retirement benefits by using community funds to purchase credit for time Husband served in the military before the marriage. After Wife petitioned for dissolution, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dividing community property, which the court incorporated into the decree. Consistent with that settlement agreement, the decree awarded Wife her community portion of Husband's federal retirement benefits. ¶3 Wife later moved for entry of retirement benefit division orders, lodging proposed orders awarding her 37.09 percent of Husband's monthly federal retirement benefits. Wife calcu


CourtListener opinion 4653189

CourtListener opinion 4653189 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SURAJ GEORGE PAZHOOR AND HANCY CHENNIKKARA PAZHOOR Upon the Petition of SURAJ. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 20-0090. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4653189 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 4653189


CourtListener opinion 4653189

401(k): e to become self-sufficient at ‘a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.'" Gust, 858 N.W.2d at 411 (quoting Iowa Code § 598.21A(1)(f)). As to need, we focus on earning 7The parties also stipulated to distribution of a 401(k) account by way of a qualified domestic relations order. 17 capability of the party seeking maintenance, not necessarily actual income. Id.; see Iowa Code § 598.21A(1)(e). While Hancy has an impressive educational background, determining her earning capacity is somewhat of a nebulous task given her length of absence from the job market and resulting lac


CourtListener opinion 4653189

domestic relations order: ndard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.'" Gust, 858 N.W.2d at 411 (quoting Iowa Code § 598.21A(1)(f)). As to need, we focus on earning 7The parties also stipulated to distribution of a 401(k) account by way of a qualified domestic relations order. 17 capability of the party seeking maintenance, not necessarily actual income. Id.; see Iowa Code § 598.21A(1)(e). While Hancy has an impressive educational background, determining her earning capacity is somewhat of a nebulous task given her length of absence from the job market and resulting lack of training, employment skills, and work experience.


CourtListener opinion 4653190

CourtListener opinion 4653190 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MATTHEW TAIT MILLER AND KARRI ANN MILLER Upon the Petition of MATTHEW TAIT MILLER. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 19-0969. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4653190 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 4653190

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 4653190

QDRO: s for retirement pay. He has a total of 3,522 retirement points. Fifty percent of 929/3522 is 13.1%, which is Karri[ ]'s share of Matthew's military pension. In a post-trial ruling, the court ordered Matthew to pay the sum personally rather than through a qualified domestic relations order. On our de novo review, we agree with the district court's decision to award Karri a portion of the expected National Guard retirement pension of $1395 per month. See Howell, 434 N.W.2d at 632 (stating military pensions, like private pensions, are considered marital property and can be subject to division in 9 dissolution proceedings). Although the m


CourtListener opinion 4653190

retirement benefits: le to receive $1395 per month from a National Guard retirement pension, beginning on December 28, 2034. Matthew had a Bachelor's degree and later obtained a Master's degree. Between deployments, he worked at a credit union, accumulating funds in a 401(k) retirement account. Later, he joined the Waterloo Police Department. A disability ended his employment after approximately eight years and, effective September 1, 2015, Matthew began receiving gross monthly disability pension payments of $2651 from the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa.1 Shortly before filing the dissolution petition, Matthew took a job


CourtListener opinion 4653190

pension: w was forty-two years old at the time of trial. He joined the Army in 1993 and served in the Army National Guard, participating in four overseas tours of duty. Based on his service, he is eligible to receive $1395 per month from a National Guard retirement pension, beginning on December 28, 2034. Matthew had a Bachelor's degree and later obtained a Master's degree. Between deployments, he worked at a credit union, accumulating funds in a 401(k) retirement account. Later, he joined the Waterloo Police Department. A disability ended his employment after approximately eight years and, effective September 1, 2015,


CourtListener opinion 4653190

401(k): s eligible to receive $1395 per month from a National Guard retirement pension, beginning on December 28, 2034. Matthew had a Bachelor's degree and later obtained a Master's degree. Between deployments, he worked at a credit union, accumulating funds in a 401(k) retirement account. Later, he joined the Waterloo Police Department. A disability ended his employment after approximately eight years and, effective September 1, 2015, Matthew began receiving gross monthly disability pension payments of $2651 from the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa.1 Shortly before filing the dissolution petition,


CourtListener opinion 4653646

CourtListener opinion 4653646 Extracted case name: SAMUEL LEE BACHELOR JR. v. AJA MICHELE BACHELOR N. Extracted reporter citation: 535 S.W.3d 467. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4653646 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 4653646


CourtListener opinion 4653646

QDRO: nt Account as of the date of the Final Decree. Husband's counsel shall be responsible for the preparation of any documents necessary to divide the account. Such account shall be divided within sixty (60) days from the date of the Final Decree by entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband represents that he has not withdrawn from such account since the filing of the divorce. The parties shall share in the increase or decrease of said account up until the entry of the QDRO transferring Wife's interest to her. Both parties acknowledge that this is a monthly pension payable upon Husband's retirement and is not payable in lump sum


CourtListener opinion 4653646

retirement benefits: ch was incorporated by reference into the final decree of divorce that was entered on January 15, 2019. This MDA set forth various obligations and responsibilities with which the parties were to comply. Specifically, the MDA provided for the following: 8. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS. Wife shall be awarded as a division of marital property one-half of the value of Husband's Tennessee Consolidated Retirement Account as of the date of the Final Decree. Husband's counsel shall be responsible for the preparation of any documents necessary to divide the account. Such account shall be divided within sixty (60) days from the date of the


CourtListener opinion 4653646

pension: he has not withdrawn from such account since the filing of the divorce. The parties shall share in the increase or decrease of said account up until the entry of the QDRO transferring Wife's interest to her. Both parties acknowledge that this is a monthly pension payable upon Husband's retirement and is not payable in lump sum unless he is no longer employed by Shelby County Schools System. In the event he receives a lump sum, Wife is entitled to her one-half on the day he receives such sum. Wife shall be awarded any and all pension and/or retirement accounts she has accrued during the marriage. .... 10. HE


CourtListener opinion 4653646

domestic relations order: as of the date of the Final Decree. Husband's counsel shall be responsible for the preparation of any documents necessary to divide the account. Such account shall be divided within sixty (60) days from the date of the Final Decree by entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband represents that he has not withdrawn from such account since the filing of the divorce. The parties shall share in the increase or decrease of said account up until the entry of the QDRO transferring Wife's interest to her. Both parties acknowledge that this is a monthly pension payable upon Husband's retirement and is not payable in lump sum


CourtListener opinion 4656355

CourtListener opinion 4656355 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of JODY L. and ROBERT J. PALLO. JODY L. PALLO. Extracted reporter citation: 555 U.S. 285. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4656355 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 4656355


CourtListener opinion 4656355

QDRO: provide: "HUSBAND shall receive as his separate property all of the items set forth below: [¶] . . . [¶] 3. Any and all community property interest in HUSBAND's Retirement/Pension/401(k) with Allergan, which shall be subject to the equalization payment and a QDRO, as described below." "The community and/or co-owned interest in HUSBAND's Allergan Retirement/Pension/401(k) accounts shall be awarded to HUSBAND subject to the transfer of the amount of $65,000 to WIFE as her portion of the community property interest in HUSBAND's retirement account, after accounting for all equalization. If a Qualified Domestic Relation


CourtListener opinion 4656355

retirement benefits: ribed below." "The community and/or co-owned interest in HUSBAND's Allergan Retirement/Pension/401(k) accounts shall be awarded to HUSBAND subject to the transfer of the amount of $65,000 to WIFE as her portion of the community property interest in HUSBAND's retirement account, after accounting for all equalization. If a Qualified Domestic Relations Order is necessary to accomplish this division, Richard Muir shall be appointed pursuant to Evidence Code § 730 to prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders dividing any accounts including 401(k), pension and deferred compensation benefits of HUSBAND as may be required. HUSBAND


CourtListener opinion 4656355

pension: heir property; the MSA was approved as a 1 stipulated judgment by the trial court. More than six years later, Jody filed a motion to set aside the stipulated judgment on the ground Robert had failed to disclose the existence of a community property asset—his pension. The trial court found that the motion to set aside was untimely, and that Jody had been aware of the existence of the pension at the time the parties entered into the MSA. Jody appeals from the postjudgment order denying her motion. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings. We reject Jody's claim that the Employee Retirement Income Securit


CourtListener opinion 4656355

ERISA: tence of the pension at the time the parties entered into the MSA. Jody appeals from the postjudgment order denying her motion. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings. We reject Jody's claim that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts her waiver of a right to the pension. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the motion to set aside the judgment. Jody's motion to set aside was made under Family Code section 2122 "on the grounds of Failure to Comply with Disclos[ure] Requirements of Chapter 9, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, and/or as an Omitted Property Adjudication pursuant to


CourtListener opinion 4657764

CourtListener opinion 4657764 Extracted case name: HIGGINS v. CURRIER. Extracted reporter citation: 937 N.W.2d 838. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4657764 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 4657764


CourtListener opinion 4657764

QDRO: ative dates for the marriage were from May 2016 to July 2017 and that Higgins thus made $21,000 in contributions to the 401K account that were subject to division. Accordingly, it awarded Currier $10,500 from Higgins' 401K and ordered it transferred through a qualified domestic relations order. The - 753 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 307 Nebraska Reports HIGGINS v. CURRIER Cite as 307 Neb. 748 district court awarded the parties any other retirement plans held in their own names. In a subsection of the decree addressing real property, the district court concluded that the Council Bluffs house was not a marital asset. It also concl


CourtListener opinion 4657764

retirement benefits: Higgins was represented by counsel at trial. Currier represented herself. Both parties testifed and offered exhibits, which were received into evidence by the district court. Summary of Trial Evidence. Much of the evidence at trial concerned investment and retirement accounts owned by Higgins. Higgins testified that he had a TD Ameritrade account with an account number end- ing in "3733" (the 3733 account). He testified that the 3733 account was in existence prior to the marriage and that he did not make any deposits into the 3733 account during the mar- riage. Higgins' counsel referred to the account as a "brokerage account" d


CourtListener opinion 4657764

401(k): ., Miller‑Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ. Papik, J. In its decree dissolving the marriage of Billy Meredith Higgins and Rashell Rene Currier, the district court for Douglas County found that Currier should be awarded $10,500 from a 401K account owned by Higgins, but otherwise awarded Higgins all funds in his retirement and investment accounts. Currier appealed, challenging various aspects of the dis- trict court's dissolution decree, and the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed. See Higgins v. Currier, No. A‑19‑343, 2020 WL 634183 (Neb. App. Feb. 11, 2020) (selected for posting to court webs


CourtListener opinion 4657764

domestic relations order: s for the marriage were from May 2016 to July 2017 and that Higgins thus made $21,000 in contributions to the 401K account that were subject to division. Accordingly, it awarded Currier $10,500 from Higgins' 401K and ordered it transferred through a qualified domestic relations order. The - 753 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 307 Nebraska Reports HIGGINS v. CURRIER Cite as 307 Neb. 748 district court awarded the parties any other retirement plans held in their own names. In a subsection of the decree addressing real property, the district court concluded that the Council Bluffs house was not a marital asset. It also concl


CourtListener opinion 4658208

CourtListener opinion 4658208 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Joyner. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4658208 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 4658208

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 4658208

QDRO: 01k Plan with Profit Sharing," with account number xx733) awarded to her herein and in the Additional Temporary Orders dated February 2, 2018 (herein the "Temporary Orders") both of which are incorporated in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (herein "QDRO") attached hereto as Exhibit "A," Petitioner [Appellant] is ordered to tender to O'Neil Wysocki, P.C., $105,111.57 from these funds. The total amount to be received is $244,000.00, with $100,000.00 of this amount having been awarded in the Temporary Orders, and $144,000.00 of this amount being awarded in this decree. IT IS ORDERED that this $105,111.


CourtListener opinion 4658208

401(k): nses, and costs incurred as a result of legal representation in this case, subject to the following: IT IS ORDERED that within seven (7) days of Petitioner, Joy Maraio-Wilhoit's receipt of funds or proceeds (herein "received funds") from the Edward Jones 401(k), account ending xx733 (also known as the "Industrial Automation Services 401k Plan with Profit Sharing," with account number xx733) awarded to her herein and in the Additional Temporary Orders dated February 2, 2018 (herein the "Temporary Orders") both of which are incorporated in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (herein "QDRO") attached hereto a


CourtListener opinion 4658208

domestic relations order: "Industrial Automation Services 401k Plan with Profit Sharing," with account number xx733) awarded to her herein and in the Additional Temporary Orders dated February 2, 2018 (herein the "Temporary Orders") both of which are incorporated in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (herein "QDRO") attached hereto as Exhibit "A," Petitioner [Appellant] is ordered to tender to O'Neil Wysocki, P.C., $105,111.57 from these funds. The total amount to be received is $244,000.00, with $100,000.00 of this amount having been awarded in the Temporary Orders, and $144,000.00 of this amount being awarded in this decree. IT IS ORDERED that


CourtListener opinion 4658208

valuation/division: hsmith v. Highsmith, 587 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tex. 2019); Milner v. Milner, 361 S.W.3d 615, 618 (Tex. 2012). Unlike other family law settlement agreements, before approving an MSA, the trial court is not required to determine if the parties' negotiated and agreed property division is "just and right." Highsmith, 587 S.W.3d at 775; Milner, 361 S.W.3d at 618; see also In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 455 (Tex. 2013). Moreover, once signed, an MSA cannot be revoked. Milner, 361 S.W.3d at 618. Accordingly, an MSA that complies with the statutory requirements is binding on the parties, and the trial court must enforce its terms. Toler v. Sander


CourtListener opinion 4660635

CourtListener opinion 4660635 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4660635 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 4660635

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 4660635

domestic relations order: 69), along with two misdemeanors, providing false information to a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)) and disobeying a domestic relations order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)). Defendant was held to answer on all charges except for the disobeying a domestic relations order. The jury found defendant guilty of aggravated resisting an executive officer and providing false information. The jury could not reach a verdict on the battery against a peace officer charge, so the trial court declared a mistrial as to that charge. The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years for the felony resisting an officer c


CourtListener opinion 4661313

CourtListener opinion 4661313 Extracted reporter citation: 935 F.2d 1114. Docket: entry 143. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4661313 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 4661313


CourtListener opinion 4661313

QDRO: _________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This appeal involves whether a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage ("Divorce Decree" or "Decree") is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1461. If the Decree is a QDRO, then the plaintiff, Stela Festini-Steele, is entitled to the proceeds of a group life insurance policy that her ex-husband, Billy Steele, held through defendant ExxonMobil Corporation. ExxonMobil concluded that the * A


CourtListener opinion 4661313

retirement benefits: bil points out that the Separation Agreement warned the parties about the need to obtain a QDRO, thus suggesting the Separation Agreement 17 did not itself function as a QDRO. But the warning appears in a separate section of the Agreement concerning only retirement plans, and there the parties checked boxes indicating they had no such plans or had already divided or transferred any such funds. See Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 47. In any event, we do not think that the presence of this warning requires plan administrators or courts to determine that a DRO into which such a separation agreement is incorporated is not a QDRO.


CourtListener opinion 4661313

pension: to deny Ms. Festini-Steele's claim, not the district court's ruling. See Holcomb v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 578 F.3d 1187, 1192 (10th Cir. 2009). We therefore afford no deference to the district court's decision. Martinez v. Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Plan, 795 F.3d 1211, 4 In a separate minute order filed the same day as its order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the district court explained that it had not adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the case because Ms. Festini-Steele had not sought a ruling on her state-law claim. See Aplt. App., Vol. 1 at 15 (docket e


CourtListener opinion 4661313

ERISA: KELLY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This appeal involves whether a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage ("Divorce Decree" or "Decree") is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1461. If the Decree is a QDRO, then the plaintiff, Stela Festini-Steele, is entitled to the proceeds of a group life insurance policy that her ex-husband, Billy Steele, held through defendant ExxonMobil Corporation. ExxonMobil concluded that the * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has deter


CourtListener opinion 4661610

CourtListener opinion 4661610 Extracted reporter citation: 866 A.2d 394. Docket: 896 MDA 2020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4661610 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 4661610


CourtListener opinion 4661610

QDRO: ined by Wife. 6. Wife is to retain her Chevrolet Corvette ($12,415.00) and Ford Explorer ($12,600.00) and Husband is to retain the farm truck ($1,250.00). 7. Wife is to transfer 52% ($102,645.00) of her retirement assets ($172,533.00) to Husband via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order with the parties sharing the cost of preparation and approval of that order. 8. Wife is to pay Husband $20,000.00 for his interest in Entwistle family properties in Maine. 9. Wife is to reimburse Husband $1,500.00 for two televisions. In addition, the Master recommended that Wife pay alimony to Husband for a period of 12 months from the entry of


CourtListener opinion 4661610

domestic relations order: fe. 6. Wife is to retain her Chevrolet Corvette ($12,415.00) and Ford Explorer ($12,600.00) and Husband is to retain the farm truck ($1,250.00). 7. Wife is to transfer 52% ($102,645.00) of her retirement assets ($172,533.00) to Husband via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order with the parties sharing the cost of preparation and approval of that order. 8. Wife is to pay Husband $20,000.00 for his interest in Entwistle family properties in Maine. 9. Wife is to reimburse Husband $1,500.00 for two televisions. In addition, the Master recommended that Wife pay alimony to Husband for a period of 12 months from the entry of


CourtListener opinion 4661610

valuation/division: of Common Pleas of Adams County Civil Division at No(s): 2017-SU-0000043 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J. MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2021 Appellant, Kelly S. Retowsky (Husband), appeals from the order entered in this equitable distribution dispute with Appellee, Julie C. Retowsky (Wife). We affirm. The trial court recounted the factual and procedural background as follows: [Wife] and [Husband] were married on July 15, 2002. Husband filed a divorce complaint against Wife in York County, Pennsylvania on or about October 17, 2016. Subsequently, on January 17, 2017, Wife filed a Complain


CourtListener opinion 4663099

CourtListener opinion 4663099 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 17CA0255 Garfield County District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4663099 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 4663099


CourtListener opinion 4663099

domestic relations order: y placed the children with their maternal grandmother. However, father M.M. moved from Florida to Colorado and sought custody of all three children soon after the case began. He said that he shared custody of the two older children with mother under a domestic relations order, and he asserted that he should have custody of M.A.M. because he was her psychological parent. The court placed the children with him, under the protective supervision of the Department, at the end of March. 3 ¶8 In May, father M.M. entered into a stipulated agreement for continued adjudication under section 19-3-505(5), C.R.S. 2020, and the


CourtListener opinion 4664265

CourtListener opinion 4664265 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4664265 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 4664265


CourtListener opinion 4664265

domestic relations order: and that she and defendant had probably discussed the restraining order. The jury found defendant guilty of felony vandalism (count 3), exhibiting a deadly weapon (counts 4 & 6), injuring a spouse or cohabitant (count 5), battery (count 7), and disobeying a domestic relations order (count 8). The jury could not reach a verdict on counts 1 and 2, and the court declared a mistrial as to those counts. The trial court subsequently found true the on-bail enhancement attached to count five. On February 14, 2019, the trial court terminated the previously issued protective order. 2 The trial court took judicial notice of the restraining orde


CourtListener opinion 4664986

CourtListener opinion 4664986 Extracted case name: SEMBOWER v. SEMBOWER. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0210 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4664986 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 4664986

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 4664986

QDRO: 6. The Court ordered an equal division of the parties' community property and debt. The court further determined that while the retirement account was Husband's, Wife was entitled to her share of the community contributions and assigned an expert to prepare a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to determine the community interest in the account to be "equitably divided" between Husband and Wife. Husband timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12–2101(C) (2003). ¶11 After Husband appealed, Wife moved the trial court to correct and cla


CourtListener opinion 4664986

retirement benefits: herwise provided in this Agreement, the following property now owned by either party shall remain and be their separate property. . .[t]he property currently owned by each party is described on Exhibits A and B to this Agreement." Exhibit A included Husband's retirement account, which had an approximate value of $860,000 at the time. ¶4 The agreement stated that on dissolution of marriage, the following provisions shall apply: a. Each party shall have an equal interest in all property acquired by either party during the course of marriage (except 2 SEMBOWER v. SEMBOWER Decision of the Court property that is merely the re


CourtListener opinion 4664986

pension: p. 2010). ¶14 Absent parties' express intent, employer and employee contributions to a retirement account during marriage create a community interest in those contributions. A.R.S § 25-211; see also Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 181 (1986) (holding that pension plans, as a form of deferred compensation to employees for services rendered, are considered 5 SEMBOWER v. SEMBOWER Decision of the Court community property when earned through employment during marriage.). Under the agreement's Clause a, "[e]ach party shall have an equal interest in all property acquired by either party during the course of marriage (


CourtListener opinion 4664986

401(k): 1 Greg Littman Sembower ("Husband") appeals from the trial court's decree dissolving his marriage to Larissa Lee Sembower ("Wife"). Husband claims that the court erred in interpreting the parties' premarital agreement to find a community interest in Husband's 401(k) account that had to be shared with Wife. We affirm the trial court's ruling that Wife was entitled to an equal share of the community property contributions made to the account and any appreciation or increase attributable to those contributions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife lived together and filed an affidavit of common-law marria


CourtListener opinion 4665913

CourtListener opinion 4665913 Extracted reporter citation: 892 N.W.2d 100. Docket: A-20-380. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4665913 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 4665913


CourtListener opinion 4665913

QDRO: 5, one half of F7, FA [sic], F 16 and one half of F 17. The Defendant is awarded F1O and . . . one half of F 17. Each party is otherwise ordered the property in his or her respective possessions or as set forth in in [sic] Exhibit 25. [Nellie] is awarded a QDRO from [Daniel's] retirement at F 11 in the amount of $77,105. [Nellie] failed to meet her burden of proof regarding the gift of land P9. The evidence does establish that the purchase price was less than market value. It was nominally a sale and made to both parties. [Nellie] failed to meet her burden of proof regarding her premarital cattle L5. The proce


CourtListener opinion 4665913

retirement benefits: ishings & Equipment $12,230.00 $12,190.00 B. Checking & Savings Accounts $82,533.00 $82,533.00 C. Automobiles & Other Vehicles $12,764.00 $15,814.00 D. Farm/Business Equipment, Inventory, & Supplies $- $- E. Real Estate $354,000.00 $- F. Life Insurance & Retirement Plans $208,462.80 $200,907.84 G. Miscellaneous $7,375.00 $- TOTAL ASSETS $677,349.80 $311,444.84 -7- LIABILITIES H. Mortgages or Contracts on Real Estate ($232,452.27) $- I. Secured Creditors $- $- J. Unsecured Debts ($916.14) ($1,866.79) TOTAL DEBTS ($233,368.41) ($1,866.79) LESS: ASSETS OWNED PRIOR TO MARRIAGE K-L ($265.00) ($110.00) O-P Gifts ($2,


CourtListener opinion 4665913

401(k): urgardt v. Burgardt, 304 Neb. 356, 934 N.W.2d 488 (2019) in making our determination that the cattle proceeds should not be included in the marital estate. In Burgardt, the Nebraska Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether a portion of the husband's 401K and proceeds from an inheritance constituted nonmarital property. More specifically, the husband argued that the Court of Appeals erred in determining his failure to offer documentary proof to support his unrefuted testimony resulted in a failure to satisfy his evidentiary burden. Id. Ultimately, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and


CourtListener opinion 4665913

valuation/division: award and failing to allocate tax exemptions equally between the parties. -3- IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW In an action for the dissolution of marriage, an appellate court reviews de novo on the record the trial court's determinations of custody, child support, property division, alimony, and attorney fees; these determinations, however, are initially entrusted to the trial court's discretion and will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of that discretion. Donald v. Donald, 296 Neb. 123, 892 N.W.2d 100 (2017). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court bases its decision upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if


CourtListener opinion 4669076

CourtListener opinion 4669076 Extracted case name: LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. LEWIS. Extracted reporter citation: 906 N.E.2d 1102. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4669076 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 4669076

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 4669076

QDRO: recommended sanction. Misconduct {¶ 5} In June 2017, Sandra Deem retained Lewis to represent her in a marriage-dissolution proceeding, and on December 5, 2017, the court entered a judgment entry of dissolution. The entry required Lewis to prepare and submit qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs") by February 28, 2018, in order to divide the parties' retirement assets. Lewis, however, failed to prepare the QDROs and had no further communication with Deem after the court's December 5 judgment entry. By April 2018, none of the retirement funds had been distributed. Deem filed a grievance against Lewis in which she alleged that he had not onl


CourtListener opinion 4669076

domestic relations order: d sanction. Misconduct {¶ 5} In June 2017, Sandra Deem retained Lewis to represent her in a marriage-dissolution proceeding, and on December 5, 2017, the court entered a judgment entry of dissolution. The entry required Lewis to prepare and submit qualified domestic relations orders ("QDROs") by February 28, 2018, in order to divide the parties' retirement assets. Lewis, however, failed to prepare the QDROs and had no further communication with Deem after the court's December 5 judgment entry. By April 2018, none of the retirement funds had been distributed. Deem filed a grievance against Lewis in which she alleged that he had not onl


CourtListener opinion 4671816

CourtListener opinion 4671816 Extracted case name: MR JOHNNY WADE BELL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM BARREN FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE MIKE MCKOWN. Extracted reporter citation: 536 S.W.3d 191. Docket: 2020-CA-0017-MR JOHNNY WADE BELL APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4671816 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 4671816


CourtListener opinion 4671816

QDRO: at $24,650.35. Johnny's account had a fair market value of $352,362.13 as of December 31, 2018. However, there was evidence that this account was subject to attachment by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), except for any portion assigned to Carla under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). To protect Carla's interest, the family court awarded her $49,600.00 -4- from this account, representing the amount of Johnny's maintenance arrearage. The court further ordered that the remaining balance shall be split equally between Carla and Johnny. The family court next turned to the division of marital debts. Most relevant to this appe


CourtListener opinion 4671816

retirement benefits: nny filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. The contested issues included: valuation and division of Johnny's interest in the law firm in which he was a partner; division of other marital property, including the marital residence and the parties' retirement accounts; division of marital debt; Carla's claim for maintenance; and attorney fees. The family court awarded Carla temporary maintenance during the pendency of this action. -2- During discovery, Carla sought records concerning the value of Johnny's interest in the law firm Gillenwater, Hampton, and Bell. She argued that Johnny's interest in the firm's cont