CourtListener opinion 2855619

pension: tirement plans for Murphy, but the trial court failed to include such language in the decree. The settlement agreement provides that Murphy is to receive [a]ny and all sums . . . and any other rights related to any profit- sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of Respondent's [Murphy's] past, present or future employment . . . and ½ of Respondent's interest in FERS and [h]er ½ of the community portion of his USAF retirement with right of survivorship. (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 19


CourtListener opinion 2855619

domestic relations order: first decree, does not mention Murphy's survivorship rights. But the "Amended Retirement Benefits Court Order for Division of Federal Employees' Retirement System Benefits" states that "Murphy is awarded a former spouse survivor annuity," and the Amended Domestic Relations Order provides that, with regard to Leveille's Air Force benefits, "the disposable retirement pay awarded in this order to Marrita 6 Murphy shall continue until the death of Daniel Jude Leveille or Marrita Murphy. Marrita Murphy has the option of exercising her right of survivorship." Murphy argues that the trial court erred by failing to expressly award h


CourtListener opinion 2855619

survivor benefits: led motions to modify the decree, complaining that the decree contained several errors and omissions and failed to comport with the mediated settlement agreement. The trial court submitted one issue—whether the parties had agreed that Murphy would receive survivor benefits in both of two retirement plans—to the mediator for binding arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that Murphy was entitled to survivor benefits in both plans. 2 The trial court rendered an amended decree on March 24, 2008. Murphy filed a notice of appeal on April 4, 2008. Discussion 1. Amended Final Decree In her first issue, Murphy argues that the


CourtListener opinion 2864919

CourtListener opinion 2864919 Extracted reporter citation: 394 S.W.2d 494. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2864919 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 2864919

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 2864919

QDRO: H-14, infra. .... 4 The property division in the decree sometimes refers to February 17 as the Adate of divorce@ and presumes that a qualified domestic-relations order effectuating the division would be rendered on the same date as the divorce decree; the QDRO was signed April 20, 2001. 3 H-14 . . . SAVE AND EXCEPT for an undivided one-half (2) interest in and to all Dell Computer Corporation stock options granted to Respondent and vested before February 17, 2000, awarded to Petitioner, MARCIA LEE ANSLEY, hereinabove, any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise


CourtListener opinion 2864919

retirement benefits: to Petitioner, MARCIA LEE ANSLEY, hereinabove, any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, or like benefit program existing by reason of Respondent=s past, present, or future employment, including, but not limited to, the following: .... b. One-half (2) of Dell Computer Corporation stock options granted to Respondent, ROBERT LESTER ANSLEY, and vested before February 17, 2000. .... d. Any stock options granted and/or veste


CourtListener opinion 2864919

pension: RCIA LEE ANSLEY, hereinabove, any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, or like benefit program existing by reason of Respondent=s past, present, or future employment, including, but not limited to, the following: .... b. One-half (2) of Dell Computer Corporation stock options granted to Respondent, ROBERT LESTER ANSLEY, and vested before February 17, 2000. .... d. Any stock options granted and/or vested to Respo


CourtListener opinion 2864919

401(k): n February 17 and those existing 2 The plan=s method or formula for determining plan vesting is not in the record. Moreover, neither the plan nor a description or summary of plan benefits is in the record. 3 Item six of the agreement states, AQDRO 50% of 401k and 50% of stock options see exhibit B.@ 2 after that date.4 The divorce hearing, however, was not held until seven months later, on September 6, and the decree was signed that same day. In the interim, Dell granted Robert a significant number of additional stock options. These additional options were not specifically addressed by the mediated settle


CourtListener opinion 2869683

CourtListener opinion 2869683 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2869683 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 2869683


CourtListener opinion 2869683

QDRO: ed that the divorce was granted and that Mrs. Cook would receive a 34.8% interest in Mr. Cook's retirement benefits. Id. at 130-31. The trial court subsequently held a hearing to consider the final divorce decree and the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. at 131. At that time, the court signed a written decree awarding Mrs. Cook a 100% interest in the benefits. Id. Mr. Cook filed a motion to modify, complaining that the trial court's written decree should be reformed to comport with its oral ruling, and the trial court denied it. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment, stating that the trial c


CourtListener opinion 2869683

retirement benefits: issue on appeal, therefore, is confined to whether the trial court committed reversible error by issuing a final divorce 6 The closest Mrs. Cash comes to challenging the decree's legal correctness is in regards to the disability benefits. She states that "retirement benefits are a community asset to be divided between the married parties in the event of a divorce," and complains that the court should have awarded her half of all benefits payable in the future, as was done in the oral ruling, rather than just half of any benefits payable during marriage. Yet, Mrs. Cash only cites to a case dealing with a military pension plan,


CourtListener opinion 2869683

pension: vorce," and complains that the court should have awarded her half of all benefits payable in the future, as was done in the oral ruling, rather than just half of any benefits payable during marriage. Yet, Mrs. Cash only cites to a case dealing with a military pension plan, see Cearley v. Cearley, 544 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. 1976), and provides no authority to show that the court abused its discretion by not awarding her half of any future disability payments. Trial courts are given broad discretion to determine how assets should be divided in a divorce action, which will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of d


CourtListener opinion 2869683

domestic relations order: the trial court orally ruled that the divorce was granted and that Mrs. Cook would receive a 34.8% interest in Mr. Cook's retirement benefits. Id. at 130-31. The trial court subsequently held a hearing to consider the final divorce decree and the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Id. at 131. At that time, the court signed a written decree awarding Mrs. Cook a 100% interest in the benefits. Id. Mr. Cook filed a motion to modify, complaining that the trial court's written decree should be reformed to comport with its oral ruling, and the trial court denied it. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment, stating that the t


CourtListener opinion 2870066

CourtListener opinion 2870066 Extracted reporter citation: 717 S.W.2d 311. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2870066 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 2870066


CourtListener opinion 2870066

QDRO: nd her motion to modify the parent-child relationship. The district court rendered a final decree of divorce on June 22, 2001, and signed a qualified domestic relations order on September 27, 2002. In a subsequent action, Cynthia Vaughn complained that the qualified domestic relations order impermissibly altered the division of marital property set out in the divorce decree and, as a result, diminished her share of her former husband's retirement plans. She also alleged material and substantial changes in her financial status and argued for an increase in her child-support payments. The district court denied her petitions. We will affirm.


CourtListener opinion 2870066

retirement benefits: ember 27, 2002. In a subsequent action, Cynthia Vaughn complained that the qualified domestic relations order impermissibly altered the division of marital property set out in the divorce decree and, as a result, diminished her share of her former husband's retirement plans. She also alleged material and substantial changes in her financial status and argued for an increase in her child-support payments. The district court denied her petitions. We will affirm. BACKGROUND Cynthia and Joseph Vaughn were married on February 20, 1988, and had three children together. Cynthia Vaughn is self-employed as a chiropractor and Jos


CourtListener opinion 2870066

401(k): ssession of the children. Memorializing a previous agreement between the parties, the Decree also provided that Joseph Vaughn, as part of his child-support obligation, would pay off a $17,866.90 marital debt from a loan taken against his Southwest Airlines 401(k) plan.1 In exchange, the parties agreed that Joseph 1 The circumstances concerning this loan are not a part of this record and are not at issue on appeal. 2 Vaughn's obligation to pay $450.00 per month in child support would not begin until May 1, 2005, at which point the loan would be paid off. The Southwest Airlines 401(k) plan was one of two reti


CourtListener opinion 2870066

alternate payee: ator would need in order to calculate and send to each former spouse the correct amount of payment. See id. § 804.003(f). An order becomes "qualified" by containing statutorily required information, such as the name and address of the plan participant and the alternate payee (non-employee former spouse), the amount or percentage to be paid to each, or the method for calculating the amount to be paid, and the number of payments or period of time to which the order applies. Id. A party may petition a court to render a QDRO if the court that rendered a final decree of divorce did not provide a QDRO permitting payment of benefits t


CourtListener opinion 2872017

CourtListener opinion 2872017 Extracted reporter citation: 87 S.W.3d 538. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2872017 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 2872017


CourtListener opinion 2872017

QDRO: tgage costs incurred by [Peters] from July 2002, until the sale of [the home] have been paid by [Douglas] to [Peters]." The other relevant provision of the decree is the award to Douglas of fifty percent of Peters's Dell stock options. It appears that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order attached as appendix A to the divorce decree was never executed, requiring Douglas to bring legal action to receive her share of the stock options. Approximately one year after the entry of the divorce decree, Douglas filed a motion to enforce the decree alleging that Peters had not transferred fifty percent of his Dell stock options to Douglas. Peter


CourtListener opinion 2872017

retirement benefits: 575. In our case, the district 9 court held a hearing on the motions to enforce and granted the relief sought by both parties. The district court properly offset the two judgments and awarded a net recovery to Douglas. We overrule Douglas's fifth issue. Retirement Accounts In her sixth and final issue, Douglas complains that the "June 25, 2002, Ruling of the Court for the division of retirement savings plans ignored case law, is substantially unequal, constitutes an abuse of discretion and violates the rights of Douglas." This is essentially a challenge to the division of property set forth in the divorce decree. Dougla


CourtListener opinion 2872017

domestic relations order: s incurred by [Peters] from July 2002, until the sale of [the home] have been paid by [Douglas] to [Peters]." The other relevant provision of the decree is the award to Douglas of fifty percent of Peters's Dell stock options. It appears that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order attached as appendix A to the divorce decree was never executed, requiring Douglas to bring legal action to receive her share of the stock options. Approximately one year after the entry of the divorce decree, Douglas filed a motion to enforce the decree alleging that Peters had not transferred fifty percent of his Dell stock options to Douglas. Peter


CourtListener opinion 2872017

valuation/division: ONORABLE MICHAEL JERGINS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Josephine Douglas-Peters1 brings this pro se appeal of the district court's order granting both her motion and her former husband James Nathaniel Peters's counter-motion for enforcement of the property division set forth in their divorce decree. The order offsets the two awards, directing Peters to pay Douglas $2,830.82. We reverse the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND Douglas and Peters were divorced in May 2002. The divorce decree appointed Douglas and Peters joint managing conservators o


CourtListener opinion 2874326

CourtListener opinion 2874326 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2874326 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 2874326

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 2874326

QDRO: e FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 154,659-A, HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal arises from the district court's entry of a divorce decree and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in the divorce proceeding between Nancey E. Vanloh, appellant, and Sidney W. Vanloh, appellee. In four points of error, Nancey complains of the district court's failure to enter findings of fact and of the court's order clarifying the QDRO. We affirm the district court's judgment. The parties were divorced June 3, 1996, and a QDRO was entered on July


CourtListener opinion 2874326

retirement benefits: to the QDRO, and Sidney filed his Motion for Clarification and Request for Issuance of Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order. At a hearing on May 31, 2007, Sidney testified that, as of June 3, 1996, he would have been receiving $3,365.00 per month in retirement benefits. Although half of $3,365.00 was $1,682.50, when payments began upon Sidney's retirement in 2006, Nancey was receiving $1,963.14 per month.1 The district court granted Sidney's motion, modified the QDRO, and ordered Nancey to repay the excess retirement benefits she had received since payments began in June 2006—an amount of $3,648.32. The district cour


CourtListener opinion 2874326

domestic relations order: Sidney W. Vanloh, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 154,659-A, HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal arises from the district court's entry of a divorce decree and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in the divorce proceeding between Nancey E. Vanloh, appellant, and Sidney W. Vanloh, appellee. In four points of error, Nancey complains of the district court's failure to enter findings of fact and of the court's order clarifying the QDRO. We affirm the district court's judgment. The parties were divorced June 3, 1996, and a QDRO was entered on


CourtListener opinion 2874326

valuation/division: an appellant does not usually have to guess at the reasons for the trial court's ruling. Id. at 802. Here, the sole issue before the district court was whether the wording of the QDRO should be clarified to allow for its proper administration based on the property division set out in the divorce decree. In issuing the order granting Sidney's motion for clarification, the district court set out the basis for its decision: 1 The payment reflects Sidney's post-divorce salary adjustments. 2 The Court finds that clarification is necessary to conform the language of the decree and prior Qualified Domestic Relations Order t


CourtListener opinion 2876131

CourtListener opinion 2876131 Extracted reporter citation: 134 S.W.3d 845. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2876131 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 2876131

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 2876131

QDRO: ivorce); McKnight v. Trogdon-McKnight, 132 S.W.3d 126, 130 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (appellant participated in hearing resulting in final divorce decree, but did not participate in proceedings resulting in clarification order, amended qualified domestic relations orders, and stock division order at issue on appeal); Campsey v. Campsey, 111 S.W.3d 767, 771 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (appellant participated in TRO hearing governing conduct while divorce pending); cf. Kisinger v. Kisinger, 748 S.W.2d 2, 4 7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) (appellant signed order modifying custody agreement, but


CourtListener opinion 2876131

domestic relations order: cKnight v. Trogdon-McKnight, 132 S.W.3d 126, 130 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (appellant participated in hearing resulting in final divorce decree, but did not participate in proceedings resulting in clarification order, amended qualified domestic relations orders, and stock division order at issue on appeal); Campsey v. Campsey, 111 S.W.3d 767, 771 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (appellant participated in TRO hearing governing conduct while divorce pending); cf. Kisinger v. Kisinger, 748 S.W.2d 2, 4 7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) (appellant signed order modifying custody agreement, but


CourtListener opinion 2876345

CourtListener opinion 2876345 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: of months Mr. Beyer was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2876345 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 2876345


CourtListener opinion 2876345

QDRO: otal of 218, not 219, months while serving in the United States Armed Forces. At the hearing, the trial court indicated that he would "sign exactly what [the associate judge] said." The record does not include the associate judge's finding in this regard. The qualified domestic relations order signed by the trial court after the hearing but prior to entering the findings and conclusions is consistent with the evidence and recites that during their marriage, Mr. Beyer served "eighteen (18) years and two (2) months [218 months] of creditable service." 4 STANDARD OF REVIEW A trial judge is charged with dividing the community in a "just and righ


CourtListener opinion 2876345

retirement benefits: ivorce decree awarding her 34.5% of Eugene Albert Beyer's disposable retirement pay received as a result of his service in the United States Armed Forces. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly calculated the percentage of Mr. Beyer's retirement benefits to which Ms. Beyer is entitled pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement. We will reverse the domestic relations order to the extent it awards Ms. Beyer only 34.5% of the benefits and render judgment that Ms. Beyer be awarded 42.085% of Mr. Beyer's disposable retirement pay. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Beyers were married on April 5, 196


CourtListener opinion 2876345

domestic relations order: CV Phyllis Arlene Beyer, Appellant v. Eugene Albert Beyer, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2004-1155, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Phyllis Arlene Beyer appeals from the domestic relations order portion of a divorce decree awarding her 34.5% of Eugene Albert Beyer's disposable retirement pay received as a result of his service in the United States Armed Forces. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly calculated the percentage of Mr. Beyer's retirement benefits to which Ms. Beyer is entitled pursuant to a mediated settlement


CourtListener opinion 2876345

valuation/division: tends should be excluded from the creditable-service calculation. Mr. Beyer argues that his creditable service commenced when he began service in the National Guard on December 6, 1954. Consequently, Mr. Beyer contends on appeal that the denominator in the community property computation should be 317 months, and Ms. Beyer should receive 34.5% of his retirement benefits. Ms. Beyer counters that his creditable service did not begin until 2 January 15, 1960, when he entered United States Armed Forces active duty. She asserts that the denominator should be 259 months, which entitles her to 42.085% of the benefits. Pursuant t


CourtListener opinion 2877444

CourtListener opinion 2877444 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: after being abated by our order of June 19. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2877444 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 2877444


CourtListener opinion 2877444

retirement benefits: other reasons, if, as, and when received . 5. 50% of all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of [Elia Hernandez's] past employment with Federal Aviation Authority as of July 17, 1992 . * * * * * * * [Elia Hernandez] is awarded the following as [her] sole and separate property: * * * * * * * 5. All righ


CourtListener opinion 2877444

pension: f, as, and when received . 5. 50% of all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of [Elia Hernandez's] past employment with Federal Aviation Authority as of July 17, 1992 . * * * * * * * [Elia Hernandez] is awarded the following as [her] sole and separate property: * * * * * * * 5. All right, title,


CourtListener opinion 2877444

domestic relations order: een, Justice Sarah B. Duncan, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 12, 1998 REVERSED AND REMANDED This appeal is reinstated on the docket after being abated by our order of June 19, 1998. Elia Hernandez appeals from a clarification order and a Domestic Relations Order interpreting the divorce decree of her and her ex-husband, Pete Hernandez. On appeal, her primary contention is that the order is an impermissible modification of the original decree. We agree and we reverse the trial court's order. Factual and Procedural Background On August 12, 1992, the parties entered into an agreed divorce decree which dissol


CourtListener opinion 2877444

valuation/division: riginal decree. We agree and we reverse the trial court's order. Factual and Procedural Background On August 12, 1992, the parties entered into an agreed divorce decree which dissolved their marriage and divided their marital property. As part of the property division, the parties' retirement benefits were divided in the following manner: [Pete Hernandez] is awarded the following as [his] sole and separate property: * * * * * * * 4. All right, title, and interest in and to 50% of the United States Army disposable retired or retainer pay to be paid as a result of Pete Hernandez's service in the United States


CourtListener opinion 2879692

CourtListener opinion 2879692 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2879692 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 2879692

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 2879692

retirement benefits: Mansell, 490 U.S. at 585-86; Wallace v. Fuller, 832 S.W.2d 714, 719 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ); Gallegos v. Gallegos, 788 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990, no writ). "Disposable retired pay" is defined to exclude disability pay, including retirement benefits that may be waived in order to collect disability benefits. 10 U.S.C.A. at § 1408(a)(4)(C); see Thomas v. Piorkowski, 286 S.W.3d 662, 666 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009, no pet.); Limbaugh v. Limbaugh, 71 S.W.3d 1, 16-17 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.). A divorce court cannot apportion military retirement pay which has been waived to receive Veterans Ad


CourtListener opinion 2879692

pension: after be made by SERVICE MEMBER shall not reduce the amount of the retired pay that the Court has herein awarded to FORMER SPOUSE. In this regard, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECREED that SERVICE MEMBER shall not merge his military retired pay with any other pension and/or shall not waive any portion of his military retired pay in order to receive disability pay and/or shall not pursue any course of action which would defeat, reduce or limit FORMER SPOUSE's right to receive FORMER SPOUSE's full separate property share of SERVICE MEMBER's retired pay as awarded herein, unless otherwise ordered herein. Second, Kevi


CourtListener opinion 2879692

domestic relations order: Justice Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 2, 2009 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED Kevin Scott Gillin appeals a divorce decree, complaining that two provisions of the incorporated domestic relations order improperly restrict his right to elect military disability benefits and waive military retirement pay. We modify the decree and affirm it as modified. 04-09-00119-CV BACKGROUND Kevin and Lori Ann Gillin were married in 2004. During the marriage, Kevin served four years and one month of military service out of a total of twenty-five years and one mont


CourtListener opinion 2881665

CourtListener opinion 2881665 Extracted reporter citation: 386 U.S. 738. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2881665 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 2881665


CourtListener opinion 2881665

QDRO: ivities in this lawsuit occurred in the following sequence: March 5, 2002: Mediated settlement agreement May 10, 2002: Divorce decree signed by trial court (ordering Zvara to transfer two retirement accounts by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO): 50% of Vanguard account as of March 5, 2002; and 49% in Schwab account as of March 5, 2002) August 26, 2002: Petition for enforcement filed September 26- October 9, 2002: Hearing held on motion October 11, 2002: Court renders judgment in telephone conference October 25, 2002


CourtListener opinion 2881665

retirement benefits: The underlying activities in this lawsuit occurred in the following sequence: March 5, 2002: Mediated settlement agreement May 10, 2002: Divorce decree signed by trial court (ordering Zvara to transfer two retirement accounts by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO): 50% of Vanguard account as of March 5, 2002; and 49% in Schwab account as of March 5, 2002) August 26, 2002: Petition for enforcement filed September 26- October 9, 2002: Hearing held on motion October 11, 2002: Court renders judgment in tele


CourtListener opinion 2881665

domestic relations order: this lawsuit occurred in the following sequence: March 5, 2002: Mediated settlement agreement May 10, 2002: Divorce decree signed by trial court (ordering Zvara to transfer two retirement accounts by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO): 50% of Vanguard account as of March 5, 2002; and 49% in Schwab account as of March 5, 2002) August 26, 2002: Petition for enforcement filed September 26- October 9, 2002: Hearing held on motion October 11, 2002: Court renders judgment in telephone conference October 25, 2002


CourtListener opinion 2884433

CourtListener opinion 2884433 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2884433 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 2884433


CourtListener opinion 2884433

QDRO: d pursuant to an agreement incident to divorce, which amicably divided the marital property, responsibility for debt, and support and access to the parties' three children. The sole issue for our resolution is whether the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) signed by the trial court impermissibly altered the interest in a 401(k) account awarded to Josephine in the agreed decree of divorce. We determine it did not. With respect to this matter, the agreement incident to divorce, as well as the divorce decree awarded Josephine: One-half of the net value of the 401(k) existing from the husband's employm


CourtListener opinion 2884433

401(k): the marital property, responsibility for debt, and support and access to the parties' three children. The sole issue for our resolution is whether the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) signed by the trial court impermissibly altered the interest in a 401(k) account awarded to Josephine in the agreed decree of divorce. We determine it did not. With respect to this matter, the agreement incident to divorce, as well as the divorce decree awarded Josephine: One-half of the net value of the 401(k) existing from the husband's employment after subtracting the loan balance (eg since the vested balance as of


CourtListener opinion 2884433

domestic relations order: vested balance as of January 8, 2008 was $32,634.05 as set forth on the attached participant's summary and the loan balance was $5350.74 the wife would therefore receive $13,641.65 which is one-half of $27,283.31) more particularly described in a qualified domestic relations order signed by this court. While the court set out a current valuation and estimate of sum to be awarded if the distribution were to occur when the judgment was signed, this language simply awarded Josephine one-half of the value of the 401(k). After stating \[t]he applicable monies to be paid will be taken proportionately out of the


CourtListener opinion 2884434

CourtListener opinion 2884434 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2884434 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 2884434


CourtListener opinion 2884434

QDRO: d pursuant to an agreement incident to divorce, which amicably divided the marital property, responsibility for debt, and support and access to the parties' three children. The sole issue for our resolution is whether the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) signed by the trial court impermissibly altered the interest in a 401(k) account awarded to Josephine in the agreed decree of divorce. We determine it did not. With respect to this matter, the agreement incident to divorce, as well as the divorce decree awarded Josephine: One-half of the net value of the 401(k) existing from the husband's employment


CourtListener opinion 2884434

401(k): the marital property, responsibility for debt, and support and access to the parties' three children. The sole issue for our resolution is whether the qualified domestic relation order (QDRO) signed by the trial court impermissibly altered the interest in a 401(k) account awarded to Josephine in the agreed decree of divorce. We determine it did not. With respect to this matter, the agreement incident to divorce, as well as the divorce decree awarded Josephine: One-half of the net value of the 401(k) existing from the husband's employment after subtracting the loan balance (eg since the vested balance as of Jan


CourtListener opinion 2889268

CourtListener opinion 2889268 Extracted reporter citation: 216 S.W.2d 805. Docket: 07-02-0421-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2889268 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 2889268


CourtListener opinion 2889268

QDRO: ing by assignment. 2 Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. a matter of law (1) by substantively changing the terms of the 1986 divorce decree and QDRO3 after it had lost plenary jurisdiction; (2) by substantively changing the express terms of the 1986 divorce decree and QDRO to re-allocate his savings plan benefits contrary to Texas law; (3) in substantively changing the terms of the decree because such change was barred by res judicata; (4) by giving retroactive effect to its clarification order; (5) by assessing interest in its September 4, 2002 order at ten percent requiring a remittitur and reformation of judgment if me


CourtListener opinion 2889268

retirement benefits: d remand the QDRO signed September 11, 2002, to the trial court with instructions to correct the retirement portion beginning at paragraph five to reflect verbatim the language of the original QDRO regarding distribution of Brenda's fifty percent of Paul's retirement plan, but not otherwise. Accordingly, the judgment signed September 4, 2002 awarding Brenda Brogdon (Chance) $55,664 is affirmed. Don H. Reavis Justice 11


CourtListener opinion 2889268

ERISA: eral denial, a specific denial that the QDRO is an instrument of the Court or that it needs to be modified, and a prayer for general relief and attorney's fees. His pleadings, however, did not raise any affirmative defenses, i.e. preemption of state law by ERISA, res judicata, or a plea to the jurisdiction of the court. Before announcing ready, counsel for Brenda outlined her position. Then, counsel for Paul advised the court: 1. The history stated by Brenda's attorney was substantially correct; 2. Acknowledge no real fact disputes; 3. Paul made withdrawals under the erroneous assumption that Chevron had sen


CourtListener opinion 2889268

domestic relations order: onale expressed herein, we affirm the judgment signed September 4, 2002. Brenda and Paul were divorced in 1986 and their decree contained a QDRO which, among other provisions, awarded Brenda one-half of the interest in Paul's Chevron Profit 3 Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 4 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. 2 Sharing/Savings Plan. Several months after the divorce, Chevron's attorneys informed Brenda's attorney that in order for the decree to qualify as a QDRO, both parties and their attorneys needed to sign an agreement letter. By letter dated December 15, 1986, to Paul's attorney, Brenda's attorney r


CourtListener opinion 2889269

CourtListener opinion 2889269 Docket: 07-02-0421-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2889269 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 2889269

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 2889269

QDRO: at he pay Brenda Chance, formerly Brenda Brogdon, $55,664 plus $750 costs and bearing ten percent interest. By his points of error, Paul asserts the trial court erred as a matter of law (1) by substantively changing the terms of the 1986 divorce decree and QDRO (3) after it had lost plenary jurisdiction; (2) by substantively changing the express terms of the 1986 divorce decree and QDRO to re-allocate his savings plan benefits contrary to Texas law; (3) in substantively changing the terms of the decree because such change was barred by res judicata; (4) by giving retroactive effect to its clarification order;


CourtListener opinion 2889269

ERISA: s: (7) in awarding Brenda a proportionate part of his first distribution from his savings plan because the 1986 decree, QDRO, and May 17, 2002 findings awarded said distribution exclusively to him as his separate property; and (8) in its calculations under ERISA (4) requiring a suggestion of remittitur or a reversal and remand for proper recalculation. By his ninth point, Paul requests that if this Court remands the matter to the trial court for recalculation, it do so with additional instructions in light of the uncertainty of the actuarial assumptions being employed in the deposition evidence of non-attorneys


CourtListener opinion 2890262

CourtListener opinion 2890262 Extracted reporter citation: 671 S.W.2d 37. Docket: 07-03-0445-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2890262 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 2890262


CourtListener opinion 2890262

QDRO: forcement by contempt; (4) second request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; (5) response to motion for sanctions; (6) first amended petition for enforcement by contempt; (7) second amended petition for enforcement; (8) response to motion to sign qualified domestic relations order; and (9) first supplemental response to second amended petition for enforcement. 2. Daniel does not present any error in the trial court's failure to make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law. in\> Mandamus Standard of Review


CourtListener opinion 2890262

retirement benefits: ee of divorce. (1) By a handwritten order signed on September 9, 2003, among other things, the trial court denied a motion for new trial and all other pending motions. Also, on that same date, the trial court signed an order regarding Nancy's civil service retirement benefits and a qualifying court order regarding Daniel's military reserve retirement benefits. By his notice of appeal, Daniel indicated he was appealing the judgment signed June 27, 2003, and the order denying the motion for new trial signed September 9, 2003. Pursuant to Rule 34.6(c)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Daniel requested preparati


CourtListener opinion 2890262

domestic relations order: by contempt; (4) second request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; (5) response to motion for sanctions; (6) first amended petition for enforcement by contempt; (7) second amended petition for enforcement; (8) response to motion to sign qualified domestic relations order; and (9) first supplemental response to second amended petition for enforcement. 2. Daniel does not present any error in the trial court's failure to make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law. in\> Mandamus Standard of Review


CourtListener opinion 2890262

valuation/division: , appeals from a divorce decree upon a non-jury trial, contending the trial court erred in making an unequal division of the property to appellee Nancy L. Clayton. By three points of error, he contends the trial court erred in (1) failing to set aside the property division as sought by both parties, (2) entry of the federal civil service retirement system order, and (3) entry of the military (reserve) qualifying court order. We affirm. Following a hearing held on March 5, 2003, on the petition for divorce, on June 27, 2003, the trial court signed a final decree of divorce. (1) By a handwritten order signed on Septembe


CourtListener opinion 2890264

CourtListener opinion 2890264 Extracted reporter citation: 671 S.W.2d 37. Docket: 07-03-0445-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2890264 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 2890264


CourtListener opinion 2890264

QDRO: enforcement by contempt; (4) second request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; (5) response to motion for sanctions; (6) first amended petition for enforcement by contempt; (7) second amended petition for enforcement; (8) response to motion to sign qualified domestic relations order; and (9) first supplemental response to second amended petition for enforcement. 2 constitutes the entire record for purposes of reviewing the stated points or issues. Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(c)(4). By his first point, Daniel contends the trial court erred in failing to set aside the property division following the September 9, 2003 hearing on his motio


CourtListener opinion 2890264

retirement benefits: ecree of divorce.1 By a handwritten order signed on September 9, 2003, among other things, the trial court denied a motion for new trial and all other pending motions. Also, on that same date, the trial court signed an order regarding Nancy's civil service retirement benefits and a qualifying court order regarding Daniel's military reserve retirement benefits. By his notice of appeal, Daniel indicated he was appealing the judgment signed June 27, 2003, and the order denying the motion for new trial signed September 9, 2003. Pursuant to Rule 34.6(c)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Daniel requested preparation


CourtListener opinion 2890264

domestic relations order: nt by contempt; (4) second request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; (5) response to motion for sanctions; (6) first amended petition for enforcement by contempt; (7) second amended petition for enforcement; (8) response to motion to sign qualified domestic relations order; and (9) first supplemental response to second amended petition for enforcement. 2 constitutes the entire record for purposes of reviewing the stated points or issues. Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(c)(4). By his first point, Daniel contends the trial court erred in failing to set aside the property division following the September 9, 2003 hearing on his motio


CourtListener opinion 2890264

valuation/division: e, appeals from a divorce decree upon a non-jury trial, contending the trial court erred in making an unequal division of the property to appellee Nancy L. Clayton. By three points of error, he contends the trial court erred in (1) failing to set aside the property division as sought by both parties, (2) entry of the federal civil service retirement system order, and (3) entry of the military (reserve) qualifying court order. We affirm. Following a hearing held on March 5, 2003, on the petition for divorce, on June 27, 2003, the trial court signed a final decree of divorce.1 By a handwritten order signed on September 9,


CourtListener opinion 2904748

CourtListener opinion 2904748 Citation: Domestic Relations order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2904748 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 2904748

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 2904748

domestic relations order: llowing Richardson to withdraw $9,150.62 from the Vanguard Growth Index Fund, which stood in the name of both parties. On February 25, 2004, Richardson filed a Motion for Enforcement of Judgment. On March 4, 2004, Clakley filed a Motion to Enter Qualified Domestic Relations order requesting the trial court enter a qualified domestic relations order in the form required by the plan administrator to enforce the division of community property set forth in the Final Decree of Divorce. The trial court signed the qualified domestic relations order submitted by Clakley's attorney. Neither party filed a motion for clarification of the F


CourtListener opinion 2904748

valuation/division: Court Newton County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 3382-D MEMORANDUM OPINION On September 16, 2003, the trial court signed an agreed Final Decree of Divorce between Thomas Andrew Clakley and Linda Fay Richardson which provided for the division of community property of the parties, and awarded Richardson the following: Any and all sums of cash in the possession of or subject to the control of [Richardson]; including money on account in any financial institution standing in [Richardson's] name or from which [Richardson] has the right to withdraw funds, subject to the provisions of the following subparagraph; and,


CourtListener opinion 2918837

CourtListener opinion 2918837 Extracted case name: C.M.S. v. D.E.H. Citation: Domestic Relations order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations order. Docket: 28 MDA 2015 : Appellants :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2918837 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 2918837


CourtListener opinion 2918837

domestic relations order: as an arrearage of approximately $2,000.00 in child support, which he asserted was due to periods of unemployment of approximately three months, and other difficulties making payments, but that he has been consistently making payments as required under a Domestic Relations order. His payments total what he is required to pay by the Domestic Relations support order. Father has never sought to contest the support amount, nor has he made efforts to refuse employment in an effort to avoid paying support. The Court finds that following the child's conception, Mother and Father initially lived for approximately three to four mon


CourtListener opinion 2935963

CourtListener opinion 2935963 Extracted case name: CARTER v. OPM PER CURIAM. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2935963 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 2935963

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 2935963

retirement benefits: conclud- ed that, because Alan had retired, it was barred by stat- ute and regulation from processing the request to change the survivor annuity based on the amendment—a change that would have reduced the annuity-funding amounts that OPM was withholding from retirement benefits being paid to Alan. The Merit Systems Protection Board agreed with OPM that the amended order was ineffective be- cause it was issued after Alan had retired. We affirm. BACKGROUND While working for the Army, Alan was married to Ka- ren. Their marriage, which began on March 26, 1988, ended in divorce on March 3, 1995. On that date, the Circuit Court of St


CourtListener opinion 2935963

pension: tlement agreement signed by the parties. The CARTER v. OPM 3 marital settlement agreement provided that, to comply with OPM regulations, the court would enter a domestic relations order detailing Karen's right to receive a portion of Alan's eventual federal pension benefits. The state court entered the domestic relations order on June 8, 1995. It awarded Karen a portion of Alan's monthly benefit and, separately, provided for Karen to receive a former spouse survivor annuity under federal law: Under section 8341(h)(1) of Title 5, United States Code, Karen Kay Carter is awarded the maximum possible former spouse sur


CourtListener opinion 2935963

domestic relations order: ce Retirement System in the same amount to which Karen Kay Carter would have been entitled if the divorce had not occurred." S.A. 68. Years later, Alan retired. A few years after that, he submitted to the Office of Personnel Management an amended state-court domestic relations order, which stated that his ex-wife should receive a lower amount of any former spouse survivor annuity, keyed to the amount of time (seven years) they were married. S.A. 59. Karen and Alan agreed that this lower amount was what they had originally intended years earlier. But OPM conclud- ed that, because Alan had retired, it was barred by stat- ute and regulati


CourtListener opinion 2935963

survivor benefits: RIAM. Alan Carter was a federal employee at the time that he and Karen Kay Carter divorced. We will call them by their first names for simplicity. A state-court "domestic relations order" at the time provided expressly for an allocation of any "former spouse survivor annuity" that Karen might receive upon Alan's death, referring express- ly to the statutory provision authorizing such an annuity, 5 U.S.C. § 8341(h). The order awarded Karen the "maxi- mum possible former spouse survivor annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System in the same amount to which Karen Kay Carter would have been entitled if the divorce had not o


CourtListener opinion 2952893

CourtListener opinion 2952893 Extracted reporter citation: 168 S.W.3d 802. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2952893 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 2952893


CourtListener opinion 2952893

QDRO: ding ended in a settlement and divorce decree, dated February 22, 1996, that awarded Rodriguez a portion of the retirement and 401(k) benefits Brown was to receive from his employer, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA). The divorce decree contained a Qualified Domestic Relations Order instructing the LCRA to pay a portion of Brown's benefits directly to Rodriguez. Hicks did not properly transmit the Order to the LCRA, however, so when Brown retired in 2003, the LCRA paid Rodriguez's portion of the benefits to Brown. Rodriguez became aware and notified Hicks of this fact in December 2003. Admitting his mistake, Hicks agreed to repres


CourtListener opinion 2952893

401(k): DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal grows out of Bryan Hicks's representation of Christina Rodriguez in an earlier divorce proceeding. The resulting divorce decree awarded Rodriguez an interest in her husband's retirement and 401(k) benefits. Hicks failed to notify the husband's employer of this fact, however, so the employer later disbursed Rodriguez's share of the benefits to the husband when he retired. Hicks attempted to recover Rodriguez's share of the benefits from Rodriguez's ex-husband; when that effort failed, Rodriguez sued Hicks for his earlier failure to notify the emplo


CourtListener opinion 2952893

domestic relations order: in a settlement and divorce decree, dated February 22, 1996, that awarded Rodriguez a portion of the retirement and 401(k) benefits Brown was to receive from his employer, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA). The divorce decree contained a Qualified Domestic Relations Order instructing the LCRA to pay a portion of Brown's benefits directly to Rodriguez. Hicks did not properly transmit the Order to the LCRA, however, so when Brown retired in 2003, the LCRA paid Rodriguez's portion of the benefits to Brown. Rodriguez became aware and notified Hicks of this fact in December 2003. Admitting his mistake, Hicks agreed to repres


CourtListener opinion 2955992

CourtListener opinion 2955992 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2955992 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 2955992


CourtListener opinion 2955992

QDRO: n of property made or approved in a final decree of divorce or annulment is beyond the power of the divorce court and is unenforceable"); Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 449 (Tex. 2003) (stating that the district court "was without authority to enter a QDRO altering the terms of the decree"); Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (stating that the district court should have issued a clarifying QDRO because prior QDRO did not divide property consistent with decree and, thus, was void). We can remedy any error in this discrepancy by modifying the DRO to clar


CourtListener opinion 2955992

retirement benefits: ara Sias-Chinn and Fred Henry Chinn, and dividing their marital property. In eight issues, Barbara1 urges that the district court erred in awarding Fred separate-property portions of her military retirement pay, improperly restricted her right to waive her retirement benefits in order to receive Veterans' Administration ("VA") disability pay, and miscalculated the values of numerous other community assets to an extent that the overall property division was manifestly unjust and unfair. We will modify the decree to eliminate the restriction against Barbara waiving her military retirement pay to receive VA disability pay and,


CourtListener opinion 2955992

pension: pay the Court has herein awarded to Former Spouse, except as provided by federal law and prohibited from being changed by a state court order. In this regard, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Service Member shall not merge her military retired pay with any other pension and shall not pursue any course of action that would defeat, reduce, or limit Former Spouse's right to receive Former Spouse's full separate-property share of Service Member's retired pay as awarded in this order, unless otherwise ordered herein. See Limbaugh, 71 S.W.3d at 17. We will do so. Turning now to Barbara's remaining complaints regarding the


CourtListener opinion 2955992

domestic relations order: number of months in which the employee spouse served). In the divorce decree, the district court awarded both Barbara and Fred "[f]ifty percent (50%) of the community interest" in the other's military retirement pay "and more particularly specified in the domestic relations order signed by the Court in this cause." However, in the domestic relations order (DRO) contemplated by the decree, and also incorporated into it, the district court "ORDERED AND DECREED THAT FRED HENRY CHINN have judgment against and recover from BARBARA SIAS-CHINN 50% of BARBARA SIAS- 3 CHINN'S disposable retired pay" without mentioning or distinguishing


CourtListener opinion 2956296

CourtListener opinion 2956296 Extracted reporter citation: 236 S.W.3d 343. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2956296 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 2956296


CourtListener opinion 2956296

QDRO: mately $108,000. Michael made the payments as agreed, and Karen applied a portion of the cash payment to the purchase of a new home. Neither party appealed the divorce decree. Suit for Post-divorce Division of Property Filed In the process of obtaining a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) recognizing Karen's right to receive a portion of Michael's benefits payable under the employee savings plan, see I.R.C. § 414(p); 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), Karen discovered that Michael had an additional employer pension plan, identified as "the Emerson Electric Co. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Fisher Controls" (the pension plan


CourtListener opinion 2956296

retirement benefits: ren's right to receive a portion of Michael's benefits payable under the employee savings plan, see I.R.C. § 414(p); 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), Karen discovered that Michael had an additional employer pension plan, identified as "the Emerson Electric Co. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Fisher Controls" (the pension plan), valued at approximately $500,000. Karen sought a second QDRO pertaining to the pension plan and filed suit seeking a post-divorce division of the benefits under the pension plan. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.201(either former spouse may file suit to divide property not divided in divorce decree).


CourtListener opinion 2956296

pension: lified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) recognizing Karen's right to receive a portion of Michael's benefits payable under the employee savings plan, see I.R.C. § 414(p); 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), Karen discovered that Michael had an additional employer pension plan, identified as "the Emerson Electric Co. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Fisher Controls" (the pension plan), valued at approximately $500,000. Karen sought a second QDRO pertaining to the pension plan and filed suit seeking a post-divorce division of the benefits under the pension plan. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.201(either former spouse may


CourtListener opinion 2956296

domestic relations order: 8,000. Michael made the payments as agreed, and Karen applied a portion of the cash payment to the purchase of a new home. Neither party appealed the divorce decree. Suit for Post-divorce Division of Property Filed In the process of obtaining a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) recognizing Karen's right to receive a portion of Michael's benefits payable under the employee savings plan, see I.R.C. § 414(p); 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), Karen discovered that Michael had an additional employer pension plan, identified as "the Emerson Electric Co. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Fisher Controls" (the pension plan


CourtListener opinion 2961330

CourtListener opinion 2961330 Extracted case name: M.C. v. S.L. Extracted reporter citation: 523 N.E.2d 332. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2961330 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 2961330

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 2961330

QDRO: orders payments toward the decree to be collected from his inmate account. {¶2} For the reasons expressed below, all three assignments of error lack merit. The trial court's decision to overrule the objections to the magistrate's decision and to approve the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") is hereby affirmed. Statement of the Facts and Case {¶3} In July 2008, Plaintiff-Appellee Sandra Lee Miklas, nka Sandra Lee Keller, ("Appellee") filed a divorce complaint against Appellant. In April 2009, the trial court granted the divorce. The parties were in agreement on the division of property and the allocation of parental rights. The trial


CourtListener opinion 2961330

401(k): court appears to have complied with the parties' agreement. However, for purposes of this appeal, one matter was not fully completed at the time of the decree, a QDRO. {¶4} The decree provided Appellee would receive 50% of the marital portion of Appellant's 401(k) account and Appellant would "obtain whatever paperwork is necessary to effectuate this award." 4/8/09 J.E. Appellee was required to prepare a QDRO, "if necessary." 4/8/09 J.E. {¶5} In July 2014, Appellee filed Motion to Enforce Decree requesting the court order Appellant to sign the proposed QDRO. A hearing on the matter was scheduled for September 15, 201


CourtListener opinion 2961330

domestic relations order: yments toward the decree to be collected from his inmate account. {¶2} For the reasons expressed below, all three assignments of error lack merit. The trial court's decision to overrule the objections to the magistrate's decision and to approve the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") is hereby affirmed. Statement of the Facts and Case {¶3} In July 2008, Plaintiff-Appellee Sandra Lee Miklas, nka Sandra Lee Keller, ("Appellee") filed a divorce complaint against Appellant. In April 2009, the trial court granted the divorce. The parties were in agreement on the division of property and the allocation of parental rights. The trial


CourtListener opinion 2961330

valuation/division: n of parental rights. The trial court appears to have complied with the parties' agreement. However, for purposes of this appeal, one matter was not fully completed at the time of the decree, a QDRO. {¶4} The decree provided Appellee would receive 50% of the marital portion of Appellant's 401(k) account and Appellant would "obtain whatever paperwork is necessary to effectuate this award." 4/8/09 J.E. Appellee was required to prepare a QDRO, "if necessary." 4/8/09 J.E. {¶5} In July 2014, Appellee filed Motion to Enforce Decree requesting the court order Appellant to sign the proposed QDRO. A hearing on the matter was scheduled


CourtListener opinion 2966935

CourtListener opinion 2966935 Extracted reporter citation: 981 F.2d 160. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2966935 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 2966935


CourtListener opinion 2966935

QDRO: summary judgment. 2 Relying on ERISA's preemption clause, the district court held that Betty's claim was preempted because it was based upon state law that related to an employee benefit plan. The district court noted further that Betty had not employed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), the method ERISA provided for a divorced spouse to enforce property rights in an ERISA plan. Accordingly, the district court granted Patricia's motion for summary judgment and denied Betty's summary judgment motion. The district court also denied Patricia's motion for attorney's fees and costs. On appeal, Betty contends that because an ERISA plan a


CourtListener opinion 2966935

ERISA: ___________________________ OPINION WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: Upon the death of one of its insured, Tom Pettit (Tom), Metropoli- tan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) sought to pay life insurance proceeds due under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) qualified plan. The designated beneficiary, Patricia Pettit (Patricia), who was Tom's widow, and Tom's former wife, Betty Pet- tit (Betty), both claimed a portion of the proceeds. Betty's claim was based on a property settlement agreement that she entered into with Tom in connection with their divorce. Faced with these competing claims, MetLife filed an in


CourtListener opinion 2966935

domestic relations order: udgment. 2 Relying on ERISA's preemption clause, the district court held that Betty's claim was preempted because it was based upon state law that related to an employee benefit plan. The district court noted further that Betty had not employed a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), the method ERISA provided for a divorced spouse to enforce property rights in an ERISA plan. Accordingly, the district court granted Patricia's motion for summary judgment and denied Betty's summary judgment motion. The district court also denied Patricia's motion for attorney's fees and costs. On appeal, Betty contends that because an ERISA plan a


CourtListener opinion 2969207

CourtListener opinion 2969207 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Adams. Extracted reporter citation: 10 N.E.3d 1005. Docket: 49A02-1412-DR-888 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2969207 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 2969207


CourtListener opinion 2969207

QDRO: Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1412-DR-888 | September 22, 2015 Page 9 of 20 [17] Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), pension benefits may be assigned or alienated from the plan participant only if the order alienating the benefit is a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722, 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)), trans. denied; see Von Haden v. Supervised Estate of Von Haden, 699 N.E.2d 301, 304 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (observing that ERISA provides that alienation or assignment of benefits is generally prohibited under a pension plan, that there is a limited


CourtListener opinion 2969207

retirement benefits: marriage. [3] On October 29, 2014, the court held a final dissolution hearing at which the parties presented evidence and argument related to the value of the marital property, including the parties' vehicles, debt, the marital residence, and Husband's retirement accounts. The evidence included a valuation report prepared by Financial Evaluations, Inc., related to Husband's retirement through the Public Employees' Retirement Fund ("PERF"). The report stated that Husband's retirement through PERF consisted of two components, a defined benefit pension and a defined contribution annuity savings account. The report al


CourtListener opinion 2969207

pension: l court's decree of dissolution of marriage. He raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the court abused its discretion in ordering him to make monthly equalization payments to Angela Kendrick ("Wife") prior to the distribution of his pension benefits. Wife raises one issue on cross-appeal, which we revise and restate as whether the court abused its discretion in determining and distributing the marital estate. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Facts and Procedural History [2] Husband and Wife were married in September 1995. On December 12, 2013, Husband filed a petition a


CourtListener opinion 2969207

ERISA: cquired during the marriage that is or may be payable after the dissolution of marriage. (Emphasis added). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1412-DR-888 | September 22, 2015 Page 9 of 20 [17] Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), pension benefits may be assigned or alienated from the plan participant only if the order alienating the benefit is a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722, 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)), trans. denied; see Von Haden v. Supervised Estate of Von Haden, 699 N.E.2d 301, 304 (Ind. C


CourtListener opinion 2971309

CourtListener opinion 2971309 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 02-3672 the district. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2971309 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 2971309

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 2971309

domestic relations order: n currently in effect. Morrison was then presented with a letter, vacated. Nonetheless, it argued that Morrison's discharge dated May 28, 1998, from Sheriff Warren, stating: "[i]n view was required under the Office's "zero-tolerance policy" for of the current Domestic Relations Order, you are removed domestic abuse.1 As evidence, the Sheriff's Office submitted from your position of Deputy Sheriff." At the conclusion of Morrison's July 2 charge and September 10 conviction for the hearing, the prosecutor issued a finding of just cause and Disorderly Conduct. Morrison's discharge went into effect on May 28. The arbitrator then engaged in


CourtListener opinion 2973169

CourtListener opinion 2973169 Extracted reporter citation: 82 F.3d 126. Docket: 05-1069 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2973169 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 2973169

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 2973169

QDRO: y of pension plan benefits. See Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 838 (1988). As of 1984, ERISA requires that "[e]ach pension plan shall provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). A divorce decree is a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") if it meets the various requirements set forth at § 1056(d)(3), such as the specification of the names and addresses of the participants. -3- No. 05-1069 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Moore The facts of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Marsh, 119 F.3d 415


CourtListener opinion 2973169

pension: Ins. v. Pressley, 82 F.3d 126, 128 (6th Cir. 1996). We find that summary judgment was not appropriate here. In 1984, Congress amended ERISA to correct what it perceived to be a bias against divorcees—particularly women—resulting from the inalienability of pension plan benefits. See Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 838 (1988). As of 1984, ERISA requires that "[e]ach pension plan shall provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). A divorce decree is a qualified domestic relati


CourtListener opinion 2973169

ERISA: ian Ad Litem ) for Kavottis Moore and Kyla Moore, Minors, ) Defendant-Appellant. BEFORE: MERRITT, MARTIN, and COLE, Circuit Judges R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Upon the death of Kevin Moore, his widow and ex- wife both submitted claims under Moore's ERISA-governed life insurance policy. This case arose when the insurance provider, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. ("MetLife"), filed an interpleader complaint in district court to resolve the conflict. Adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the widow, Appellee Sherron Moore. Kev


CourtListener opinion 2973169

domestic relations order: on plan benefits. See Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 838 (1988). As of 1984, ERISA requires that "[e]ach pension plan shall provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). A divorce decree is a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") if it meets the various requirements set forth at § 1056(d)(3), such as the specification of the names and addresses of the participants. -3- No. 05-1069 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Moore The facts of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Marsh, 119 F.3d 415


CourtListener opinion 2976136

CourtListener opinion 2976136 Extracted reporter citation: 358 F.3d 408. Docket: 07-5253 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2976136 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 2976136


CourtListener opinion 2976136

QDRO: favor of defendant William Lacy Hoge, III in this legal malpractice suit against Hoge. Plaintiffs argue that Hoge, who represented Patricia Mattingly in her divorce from her husband, Joseph M. Mattingly, was professionally negligent in failing to secure a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to protect Logan's right to the proceeds of Joseph's welfare benefit plan. Plaintiffs further argue, even assuming that Hoge did obtain a QDRO, that he was professionally negligent in not sending this QDRO to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the administrator of Joseph M. No. 07-5253 Mattingly v. Hoge Mattingly's welfare benefit plan. For


CourtListener opinion 2976136

pension: Police, 490 F.3d 491, 497 (6th Cir. 2007). Because plaintiffs claim that Hoge was professionally negligent in failing to secure a QDRO, we must ultimately determine whether the 1987 divorce decree constituted a qualified domestic relations order. Employee pension and welfare benefit plans are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. ERISA generally prevents the distribution, assignment, or garnishment of the benefits owed to a plan participant. However, an exception exists for qualified domestic relations orders, which allow payment to an alternate paye


CourtListener opinion 2976136

ERISA: ntly maintained through his employment at General Electric. Said beneficiary designation shall continue until the child's eighteenth (18th) birthday." It is undisputed that Hoge did not provide a copy of the divorce decree to either General Electric or its ERISA plan administrator, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife"). Eight years later, in June of 1995, Joseph married Anita Mattingly. On March 4, 1998, Joseph Mattingly filed a GE Benefits Plan Beneficiary Designation, naming Anita as the primary beneficiary and then nine-year old Logan as one of two contingent beneficiaries, in contravention of th


CourtListener opinion 2976136

alternate payee: t of 1974 ("ERISA"). 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. ERISA generally prevents the distribution, assignment, or garnishment of the benefits owed to a plan participant. However, an exception exists for qualified domestic relations orders, which allow payment to an alternate payee. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1056(d)(1)-(3). A QDRO is an order or decree that creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of a participant's benefits payable under an ERISA qualified benefit plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B). We must first decide whether the divorce decree is properly categorized as a "domestic relatio


CourtListener opinion 2976977

CourtListener opinion 2976977 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: 07-1914 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2976977 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 2976977


CourtListener opinion 2976977

QDRO: .1 Thus, Joseph Galenski's entitlement to pension benefits never went into effect. The plan then provides for a divorced spouse as follows: The only benefit payable in such a case would be a surviving spouse benefit [not a pension benefit] and only if [a qualified domestic relations order issued by a court] provides for the [spouse] to be considered the participant's surviving spouse for the purposes of the pre-retirement survivor annuity. Joint Appendix at 12. Ford appeals, arguing correctly that it did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it decided that plaintiff was entitled only to a pre-retirement surviving spouse benefit inst


CourtListener opinion 2976977

retirement benefits: ld have been eligible to begin receiving pension benefits. The district court also found that Marilyn was entitled to "post-retirement surviving spouse benefits." This is also in error because Joseph never reached retirement age or eligibility to receive retirement benefits. The district court opinion gives no analysis as to how it reached this decision. Ford does not dispute that Marilyn is entitled to pre-retirement surviving spouse benefits and appealed the district court's decision. II. We review de novo a district court's disposition of an ERISA action based on the administrative record and we apply the same legal


CourtListener opinion 2976977

pension: LICATION File Name: 08a0517n.06 Filed: August 21, 2008 No. 07-1914 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Marilyn Galenski, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Ford Motor Company Pension Plan, ) EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) BEFORE: Merritt, Clay, and Gilman, Circuit Judges. MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This case arises under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended by the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). Defendant, Ford Motor Company, appeals from an a


CourtListener opinion 2976977

ERISA: THE Ford Motor Company Pension Plan, ) EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) BEFORE: Merritt, Clay, and Gilman, Circuit Judges. MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This case arises under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended by the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). Defendant, Ford Motor Company, appeals from an award of summary judgment granted to plaintiff, Marilyn Galenski, the divorced wife of a former Ford employee, Joseph Galenski, who died at age 53, two years before he became eligible to receive any pension benefits under Ford's pen


CourtListener opinion 2980699

CourtListener opinion 2980699 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: 10-6433 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2980699 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 2980699


CourtListener opinion 2980699

pension: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a0180n.06 No. 10-6433 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED IBEW PACIFIC COAST PENSION FUND, Feb 13, 2012 Plaintiff-Appellee, LEONARD GREEN, Clerk v. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED CLETA M. LEE, STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Defendant-Appellant, v. LOIS A. LEE, Defendant-Appellee. / BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge, CLAY, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges. CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Cleta M. Lee appeals the d


CourtListener opinion 2980699

ERISA: d for the non-moving party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). When faced with a dispute over the proper beneficiary for benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), ERISA "supplies the rule of law" for making that determination. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Pressley, 82 F.3d 126, 129–30 (6th Cir. 1996); see 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. That rule requires, first and foremost, that an ERISA plan administrator pay -3- No. 10-6433 benefits "in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan." 29 U.S.C. §


CourtListener opinion 2980699

domestic relations order: 1056(d)(3), 1144(b)(7); Howell, 227 F.3d at 677. -8- No. 10-6433 In this case, by contrast, it would appear that Wayne had only one valid marriage. It seems he had no validly wed second spouse to name as a beneficiary, and he did not obtain a qualified domestic relations order altering his designation. Cleta was likely his wife, and, if so, her permission was required for Wayne's designation of Lois as his beneficiary. See § 1005(c)(2)(B). The peculiar facts of this case also explain why the district court erred in concluding it was not bound by Durden. 448 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 2006). In Durden, we were required to make a pens


CourtListener opinion 2980699

survivor benefits: s the beneficiary of "any benefits which may be payable from the IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Fund as the result of [his] death." Wayne passed away in January 2007. The Pension Fund began paying Lois a monthly pension on February 1, 2007. Cleta applied for survivor benefits from the Pension Fund later in February 2007, attaching her 1979 marriage certificate and explaining that she and Wayne had never 1 We refer to Wayne, Cleta, and Lois Lee by their first names in order to avoid confusion arising from their shared last name. -2- No. 10-6433 divorced. The Pension Fund subsequently filed this interpleader action in the


CourtListener opinion 2982613

CourtListener opinion 2982613 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 09-3226 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2982613 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 2982613

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 2982613

pension: Y, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. This case originated from Belen Cuellar's long-closed divorce case. In a strange series of procedural events, Cuellar filed a motion against General Motors ("GM") in her divorce case demanding benefits from her ex-husband's pension plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered in her divorce case. GM removed the case to federal court. Cuellar now appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant GM. We dismiss. After this case was appealed an


CourtListener opinion 2982613

ERISA: orce case. In a strange series of procedural events, Cuellar filed a motion against General Motors ("GM") in her divorce case demanding benefits from her ex-husband's pension plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered in her divorce case. GM removed the case to federal court. Cuellar now appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant GM. We dismiss. After this case was appealed and fully briefed, GM filed a notice of bankruptcy, and this appeal was held in abeyance p


CourtListener opinion 2982613

domestic relations order: l events, Cuellar filed a motion against General Motors ("GM") in her divorce case demanding benefits from her ex-husband's pension plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered in her divorce case. GM removed the case to federal court. Cuellar now appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant GM. We dismiss. After this case was appealed and fully briefed, GM filed a notice of bankruptcy, and this appeal was held in abeyance pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. In March 20


CourtListener opinion 2982987

CourtListener opinion 2982987 Extracted reporter citation: 716 F.3d 404. Docket: 14-1433/1435/1436 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2982987 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 2982987


CourtListener opinion 2982987

QDRO: d County, Michigan. The judgment contained the following provision: PROPERTY SETTLEMENT .... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any IRA [Individual Retirement Account] or 401K Plans shall be divided equally by and between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) if necessary. . . . In the event there are any gains or losses on any of these accounts from date of entry of the Judgment until such time as the accounts are transferred, said gains or losses shall be equally split between the parties, as well. Through this process, Schwartz transferred one-half interests in at least five accounts to Liggett in


CourtListener opinion 2982987

retirement benefits: Robert Schwartz and Pamela Liggett received a judgment of divorce from the Circuit Court in Oakland County, Michigan. The judgment contained the following provision: PROPERTY SETTLEMENT .... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any IRA [Individual Retirement Account] or 401K Plans shall be divided equally by and between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) if necessary. . . . In the event there are any gains or losses on any of these accounts from date of entry of the Judgment until such time as the accounts are transferred, said gains or losses shall be equally split between the partie


CourtListener opinion 2982987

401(k): ela Liggett received a judgment of divorce from the Circuit Court in Oakland County, Michigan. The judgment contained the following provision: PROPERTY SETTLEMENT .... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any IRA [Individual Retirement Account] or 401K Plans shall be divided equally by and between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) if necessary. . . . In the event there are any gains or losses on any of these accounts from date of entry of the Judgment until such time as the accounts are transferred, said gains or losses shall be equally split between the parties, as wel


CourtListener opinion 2982987

domestic relations order: Michigan. The judgment contained the following provision: PROPERTY SETTLEMENT .... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any IRA [Individual Retirement Account] or 401K Plans shall be divided equally by and between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) if necessary. . . . In the event there are any gains or losses on any of these accounts from date of entry of the Judgment until such time as the accounts are transferred, said gains or losses shall be equally split between the parties, as well. Through this process, Schwartz transferred one-half interests in at least five accounts to Liggett in


CourtListener opinion 2986315

CourtListener opinion 2986315 Extracted reporter citation: 148 S.W.3d 124. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2986315 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 2986315


CourtListener opinion 2986315

QDRO: th District Court of Harris County, to vacate his ruling creating a constructive trust. On January 26, 1988, relator was divorced from his wife Susan Kay Husted, now Susan Cowles. On the same day, the trial court signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in which the court awarded one-half of relator's retirement benefits from Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) to Susan as part of the property division. With regard to payment of the retirement benefits, the order states: While it is anticipated that the Plan Administrator will pay directly to SUSAN KAY HUSTED LONG the benefit awarded to her, RUSSELL


CourtListener opinion 2986315

retirement benefits: g creating a constructive trust. On January 26, 1988, relator was divorced from his wife Susan Kay Husted, now Susan Cowles. On the same day, the trial court signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in which the court awarded one-half of relator's retirement benefits from Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) to Susan as part of the property division. With regard to payment of the retirement benefits, the order states: While it is anticipated that the Plan Administrator will pay directly to SUSAN KAY HUSTED LONG the benefit awarded to her, RUSSELL JERRY HUSTED is designated a constructive trustee to the extent he


CourtListener opinion 2986315

valuation/division: ife Susan Kay Husted, now Susan Cowles. On the same day, the trial court signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in which the court awarded one-half of relator's retirement benefits from Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) to Susan as part of the property division. With regard to payment of the retirement benefits, the order states: While it is anticipated that the Plan Administrator will pay directly to SUSAN KAY HUSTED LONG the benefit awarded to her, RUSSELL JERRY HUSTED is designated a constructive trustee to the extent he receives any retirement benefits under RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN that are due to SUSAN K


CourtListener opinion 2991289

CourtListener opinion 2991289 Extracted reporter citation: 132 S.W.3d 126. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2991289 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 2991289


CourtListener opinion 2991289

QDRO: Appellant V. MARIE ANNETTE GOTTFRIED, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law Waller County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 03-11-17060 MEMORANDUM OPINION Mitchell Gottfried petitioned the trial court to clarify a final decree of divorce and qualified domestic relations order addressing the portion of Mitchell‘s retirement benefits to be paid to his ex-wife, Marie Gottfried. In two issues, Mitchell argues that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to clarify the final decree and order; and (2) awarding attorney‘s fees to Marie. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mitchell and Marie have married and divorced each other twice. The


CourtListener opinion 2991289

retirement benefits: County Court at Law Waller County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 03-11-17060 MEMORANDUM OPINION Mitchell Gottfried petitioned the trial court to clarify a final decree of divorce and qualified domestic relations order addressing the portion of Mitchell‘s retirement benefits to be paid to his ex-wife, Marie Gottfried. In two issues, Mitchell argues that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to clarify the final decree and order; and (2) awarding attorney‘s fees to Marie. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mitchell and Marie have married and divorced each other twice. The first marriage lasted from 1984 to 1995. Their second m


CourtListener opinion 2991289

alternate payee: y defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final Decree of Divorce is signed. 10 APPENDIX B: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER a. If the participant's effective retirement date is on or before January 31, 2007, 1. The alternate payee shall receive a one time single sum payment of $25,000.00 net after tax withholding; or 2. In the alternative, if the participant elects not to receive a single sum payment, or if such single sum payment is not sufficient to provide $25,000.00 net payment after tax withholding, then the alternate payee shall receive 100% of all net (after tax withhol