CourtListener opinion 2991289

domestic relations order: 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 3007284

CourtListener opinion 3007284 Extracted case name: FREDERICK ANDERSON v. MARILYN ANDERSON. Extracted reporter citation: 995 A.2d 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3007284 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 3007284

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 3007284

QDRO: m the date of judgment and $2500 toward the attorney's fees of the defendant. The court ordered that the defendant would retain her pension, with no claim to it by the plaintiff. The court lastly ordered the plaintiff to transfer to the defendant, by way of a qualified domestic relations order, $43,158.65, ‘‘due to an outstanding loan of $20,000 in order to equalize the parties' retirement accounts.'' The plaintiff filed the pre- sent appeal, challenging these financial orders. We begin by setting forth the relevant standard of review. ‘‘[I]n domestic relations cases . . . this court will not disturb trial court orders unless the trial court ha


CourtListener opinion 3007284

retirement benefits: Anderson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the defendant, Marilyn Anderson, and issuing certain financial orders. Specifically, the plain- tiff claims that the court erred by (1) awarding $43,158.65 from the plaintiff's retirement account to the defendant, (2) awarding alimony to the defendant, while not awarding alimony to the plaintiff, (3) awarding the defendant certain real property in Jamaica, and (4) awarding attorney's fees to the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are rele- vant to our review of the plaintiff's claims. In


CourtListener opinion 3007284

pension: d presently enrolled in college. As it related to the finances of the parties, the court found that the plaintiff had a retirement account with a value of $95,643.97 and that the defendant had a total of $29,326.67 in two retirement accounts and would receive pension benefits upon retirement that would pay her $516.88 per month. The court further found, in relation to the marital property distribution, that the plaintiff was the sole owner of property located at 64 Terry Place in Bridgeport and that property in St. Mary, Jamaica was owned jointly by the parties. The court then issued orders after considering the releva


CourtListener opinion 3007284

domestic relations order: of judgment and $2500 toward the attorney's fees of the defendant. The court ordered that the defendant would retain her pension, with no claim to it by the plaintiff. The court lastly ordered the plaintiff to transfer to the defendant, by way of a qualified domestic relations order, $43,158.65, ‘‘due to an outstanding loan of $20,000 in order to equalize the parties' retirement accounts.'' The plaintiff filed the pre- sent appeal, challenging these financial orders. We begin by setting forth the relevant standard of review. ‘‘[I]n domestic relations cases . . . this court will not disturb trial court orders unless the trial court ha


CourtListener opinion 3007602

CourtListener opinion 3007602 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hall. Extracted reporter citation: 439 U.S. 572. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3007602 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 3007602


CourtListener opinion 3007602

QDRO: that SHIRLEY's benefits will commence not upon BRUCE's retirement, but upon her reaching the eligibility age for retirement, upon which date she will receive her spousal pension benefits in the amount of $621.00 per month without the necessity for any qualified domestic relations order." ¶5 Bruce retired from the Union Pacific Railroad in June 2011. Shirley did not begin receiving pension payments and filed her petition for enforcement of judgment in February 2013. In the petition, Shirley sought entry of an order from the trial court dividing Bruce's pension per the settlement agreement. ¶6 A hearing took place on Shirley's petit


CourtListener opinion 3007602

retirement benefits: s' youngest child, who was 16 when Shirley and Bruce divorced. The marital settlement agreement that both parties signed contained the following language in article VIII: "BRUCE shall have the sole right, title and interest in his pension and individual retirement plans, including but not limited to past, present and future contributions, interest and principal, whether contributed by BRUCE or his employer or both and whether unvested, partially vested, or fully vested, free and clear of any and all claims of SHIRLEY. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order will be entered which will provide SHIRLEY with $621.00


CourtListener opinion 3007602

pension: ____________________________ OPINION ¶1 Respondent Shirley Frank, n/k/a Shirley Pearson, filed a motion to enforce the terms in a 1998 marital settlement agreement she entered into with her former husband, petitioner Bruce Frank. Shirley sought various pension benefits she claims were distributed to her per the parties' marital settlement agreement but which she did not receive when Bruce retired. The trial court denied Shirley's petition for enforcement of judgment and her motion to reconsider. She appealed. We affirm. ¶2 FACTS ¶3 Petitioner Bruce Frank and respondent Shirley Frank were married in April 1


CourtListener opinion 3007602

domestic relations order: EY's benefits will commence not upon BRUCE's retirement, but upon her reaching the eligibility age for retirement, upon which date she will receive her spousal pension benefits in the amount of $621.00 per month without the necessity for any qualified domestic relations order." ¶5 Bruce retired from the Union Pacific Railroad in June 2011. Shirley did not begin receiving pension payments and filed her petition for enforcement of judgment in February 2013. In the petition, Shirley sought entry of an order from the trial court dividing Bruce's pension per the settlement agreement. ¶6 A hearing took place on Shirley's petit


CourtListener opinion 3009079

CourtListener opinion 3009079 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3009079 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 3009079


CourtListener opinion 3009079

QDRO: , Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee ............. FROELICH, P.J. {¶ 1} Vondelere B. White appeals pro se from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which vacated an "Amended Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order" filed on February 10, 2015. {¶ 2} For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. -2- {¶ 3} The history of this case is lengthy and has been discussed by this court in several prior Opinions. Mrs. White's brief does not set forth any assignments of error, as required by App.R. 16(A)(3), but it is apparent from her brief


CourtListener opinion 3009079

pension: does not set forth any assignments of error, as required by App.R. 16(A)(3), but it is apparent from her brief that she is dissatisfied with the terms and conditions under which her marriage ended, including her exclusion from Curtis White's General Motors pension plan. Her brief does not address directly the judgment from which she appeals. Her brief also recites many extraneous facts related to the parties' relationship. We will confine our discussion to the issues relevant to this appeal, and we will incorporate some of the procedural history set forth in our prior Opinions. Procedural History {¶ 4} Curtis


CourtListener opinion 3009079

domestic relations order: Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee ............. FROELICH, P.J. {¶ 1} Vondelere B. White appeals pro se from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which vacated an "Amended Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order" filed on February 10, 2015. {¶ 2} For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. -2- {¶ 3} The history of this case is lengthy and has been discussed by this court in several prior Opinions. Mrs. White's brief does not set forth any assignments of error, as required by App.R. 16(A)(3), but it is apparent from her brief


CourtListener opinion 3014627

CourtListener opinion 3014627 Extracted reporter citation: 822 S.W.2d 427. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3014627 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 3014627


CourtListener opinion 3014627

QDRO: tion judgment (hereinafter referred to as the original judgment) on February 26, 2002. 2. The third paragraph on page five of the original judgment included the following: [Wife] shall receive 31.25% of [Husband's] GTE Pension Plan in accordance with the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. After Wife filed a timely motion to amend, the original judgment was set aside. 4. On February 18, 2003, the court entered a new judgment (hereinafter referred to as the modified judgment). 5. In the modified judgment, the court "struck in its entirety" the third


CourtListener opinion 3014627

pension: COURT OF OZARK COUNTY Honorable Lynette B. Veenstra, Associate Circuit Judge AFFIRMED Jacqueline Klineline (Wife) appeals the dismissal of her petition in equity to divide omitted marital property. The petition alleged that Wife's marital interest in a pension plan was omitted from a 2003 judgment dissolving her marriage to Robert Klineline (Husband). The trial court determined that Wife's action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We agree and affirm. Wife's verified petition to determine the division of omitted property was filed on August 28, 2013. In relevant part, the August 2013 petiti


CourtListener opinion 3014627

ERISA: S.W.3d 593 (Mo. banc 2002), nor Lane v. Non-Teacher School Employee Retirement System of Missouri, 174 S.W.3d 626 (Mo. App. 2005), support Wife's argument. In Ochoa, the original judgment divided the pension, and the parties intended to create a QDRO that met ERISA's requirements. Ochoa, 71 S.W.3d at 595. Lane applied the general accrual rule in pension cases governed by ERISA. The usual rule in such cases is that, in an ERISA action brought by an employee, the cause of action accrues after the employee's claim for benefits has been made and formally denied. Lane, 174 S.W.3d at 637. That rule has no application in thi


CourtListener opinion 3014627

domestic relations order: ent (hereinafter referred to as the original judgment) on February 26, 2002. 2. The third paragraph on page five of the original judgment included the following: [Wife] shall receive 31.25% of [Husband's] GTE Pension Plan in accordance with the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. After Wife filed a timely motion to amend, the original judgment was set aside. 4. On February 18, 2003, the court entered a new judgment (hereinafter referred to as the modified judgment). 5. In the modified judgment, the court "struck in its entirety" the third


CourtListener opinion 3015955

CourtListener opinion 3015955 Extracted reporter citation: 802 S.W.2d 546. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3015955 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 3015955

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 3015955

QDRO: Vantage Footwear, Inc., and Vantage Footwear, Inc. Said award shall be deemed a judgment lien against Respondent's interest in said plan and his interest in the stock of Vantage Footwear, Inc., which is held in or by said plan. Respondent shall execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order consistent with this Decree and the Court retains jurisdiction thereof. On February 7, 1990, the above language was modified, for reasons not in the record, on Ronald's motion to alter and amend the judgment. The only change of substance was the deletion of the last sentence requiring Ronald to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In an


CourtListener opinion 3015955

pension: ree of Dissolution, which reads as follows: As and for her partial share of the parties' marital property, Petitioner [Susan] is awarded Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00) to be paid to her by Respondent [Ronald], as her interest in Respondent's pension and profit sharing plan with Vantage Footwear, Inc., and Vantage Footwear, Inc. Said award shall be deemed a judgment lien against Respondent's interest in said plan and his interest in the stock of Vantage Footwear, Inc., which is held in or by said plan. Respondent shall execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order consistent with this Decree and th


CourtListener opinion 3015955

domestic relations order: ootwear, Inc., and Vantage Footwear, Inc. Said award shall be deemed a judgment lien against Respondent's interest in said plan and his interest in the stock of Vantage Footwear, Inc., which is held in or by said plan. Respondent shall execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order consistent with this Decree and the Court retains jurisdiction thereof. On February 7, 1990, the above language was modified, for reasons not in the record, on Ronald's motion to alter and amend the judgment. The only change of substance was the deletion of the last sentence requiring Ronald to execute a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In an


CourtListener opinion 3028487

CourtListener opinion 3028487 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3028487 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 3028487


CourtListener opinion 3028487

QDRO: der, Ronald was made an alternate payee under the retirement plan, and is entitled to receive a single lump sum distribution from the plan as soon as administratively feasible after Northwest Airlines determines that the Domestic Relations Order constitutes a qualified domestic relations order and the time for administrative appeals expires. However, in March 2001, Northwest 1 The state court set aside to Denise Nelson the remaining non-marital value of the retirement plan in the sum of $4,987.00 as her non-marital property. 2 Airlines determined that the state court's Domestic Relations Order does not meet the requirements of a qualified do


CourtListener opinion 3028487

retirement benefits: tted: March 6, 2002 Filed: March 21, 2002 ____________ Before KOGER, Chief Judge, SCHERMER and FEDERMAN, Bankruptcy Judges. ____________ KOGER, Chief Judge. Debtor/Appellant Ronald J. Nelson was awarded an interest in his former spouse's ERISA-qualified retirement plan in the amount of approximately $71,000.00 pursuant to a divorce decree and a Domestic Relations Order. After the divorce, but prior to receiving a distribution from the retirement plan, Nelson filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief and asserted that the interest was either not property of his bankruptcy estate, or, alternatively, that it was exempt under eit


CourtListener opinion 3028487

pension: restriction on the transfer of a beneficial interest of the debtor in a trust that is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law is enforceable in a case under this title." 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). 5 (d) Assignment or alienation of plan benefits (1) Each pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated. .... (3)(A) Paragraph (1) shall apply to the creation, assignment, or recognition of a right to any benefit payable with respect to a participant pursuant to a domestic relations order, except that paragraph (1) shall not apply if the order is determined to be a


CourtListener opinion 3028487

ERISA: ________ Submitted: March 6, 2002 Filed: March 21, 2002 ____________ Before KOGER, Chief Judge, SCHERMER and FEDERMAN, Bankruptcy Judges. ____________ KOGER, Chief Judge. Debtor/Appellant Ronald J. Nelson was awarded an interest in his former spouse's ERISA-qualified retirement plan in the amount of approximately $71,000.00 pursuant to a divorce decree and a Domestic Relations Order. After the divorce, but prior to receiving a distribution from the retirement plan, Nelson filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief and asserted that the interest was either not property of his bankruptcy estate, or, alternatively, th


CourtListener opinion 3031149

CourtListener opinion 3031149 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3031149 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 3031149


CourtListener opinion 3031149

QDRO: t Judge. Richard Schieffer and his law firm appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP's) determination that a debtor's interest in an ERISA-qualified retirement plan should be excluded from the debtor's bankruptcy estate when the interest derives from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) rather than directly from the plan. See Nelson v. Ramette (In re Nelson), 274 B.R. 789, 798 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2002). We affirm. I Ronald Nelson, a self-employed carpenter/contractor, and his wife, Denise, a cabin attendant for Northwest Airlines, obtained a divorce on September 28, 2000. The divorce decree awarded Ronald $71,089 from Denise's reti


CourtListener opinion 3031149

retirement benefits: , 2003 ___________ Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BYE, Circuit Judges. ___________ BYE, Circuit Judge. Richard Schieffer and his law firm appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP's) determination that a debtor's interest in an ERISA-qualified retirement plan should be excluded from the debtor's bankruptcy estate when the interest derives from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) rather than directly from the plan. See Nelson v. Ramette (In re Nelson), 274 B.R. 789, 798 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2002). We affirm. I Ronald Nelson, a self-employed carpenter/contractor, and his wife, Denise, a cabin attendant fo


CourtListener opinion 3031149

ERISA: Filed: March 7, 2003 ___________ Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BYE, Circuit Judges. ___________ BYE, Circuit Judge. Richard Schieffer and his law firm appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP's) determination that a debtor's interest in an ERISA-qualified retirement plan should be excluded from the debtor's bankruptcy estate when the interest derives from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) rather than directly from the plan. See Nelson v. Ramette (In re Nelson), 274 B.R. 789, 798 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2002). We affirm. I Ronald Nelson, a self-employed carpenter/contractor, and his wife, De


CourtListener opinion 3031149

domestic relations order: Richard Schieffer and his law firm appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP's) determination that a debtor's interest in an ERISA-qualified retirement plan should be excluded from the debtor's bankruptcy estate when the interest derives from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) rather than directly from the plan. See Nelson v. Ramette (In re Nelson), 274 B.R. 789, 798 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2002). We affirm. I Ronald Nelson, a self-employed carpenter/contractor, and his wife, Denise, a cabin attendant for Northwest Airlines, obtained a divorce on September 28, 2000. The divorce decree awarded Ronald $71,089 from Denise's reti


CourtListener opinion 3031868

CourtListener opinion 3031868 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3031868 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 3031868


CourtListener opinion 3031868

QDRO: ed a marital settlement agreement. The agreement provided that "to settle all obligations of the marriage," Mary would receive a 90 percent interest in Francis's Northwest employee benefits proceeds (plan proceeds). Also in July, the court entered a purported qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), directing the plan administrator to distribute Mary's interest in the plan proceeds directly to her. The Texas court, in the July order, retained jurisdiction to amend or reform the order as necessary to conform with plan requirements and qualify as a QDRO. In October 1995, Northwest informed Mary and Francis that the July DRO did not qualify as a


CourtListener opinion 3031868

retirement benefits: ubject to a prior federal tax lien. We disagree and reverse. I. BACKGROUND As is often the case, the sequence of events is critical. Francis Taylor (Francis) worked as a pilot for Northwest from 1966 to 1994. During his employment, Francis participated in a retirement plan, a stock plan, and a savings plan administered by Northwest under ERISA.1 Francis retired from Northwest in September 1994, at which time he filed in a Texas state court for divorce from Mary, his wife of more than thirty years. The following month, in October 1994, a tax court concluded that Francis had not filed tax returns from 1981 through 1985. On May


CourtListener opinion 3031868

pension: st in the plan proceeds. See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (ERISA supersedes state law insofar as such law relates to ERISA-governed plans); Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 850 (1997) (QDRO provisions define scope of nonparticipant spouse's community property interest in pension plans). We turn next to whether Mary became a judgment lien creditor under section 6323(a) within sufficient time to have priority over the IRS.3 An IRS lien attaches automatically on the date a penalty is assessed, 26 U.S.C. § 6322 (lien arises at time of assessment), and is enforceable as of that date against creditors except any "purchaser," "holder of


CourtListener opinion 3031868

ERISA: often the case, the sequence of events is critical. Francis Taylor (Francis) worked as a pilot for Northwest from 1966 to 1994. During his employment, Francis participated in a retirement plan, a stock plan, and a savings plan administered by Northwest under ERISA.1 Francis retired from Northwest in September 1994, at which time he filed in a Texas state court for divorce from Mary, his wife of more than thirty years. The following month, in October 1994, a tax court concluded that Francis had not filed tax returns from 1981 through 1985. On May 1, 1995, the IRS assessed deficiencies totaling approximately $984,310 (


CourtListener opinion 3035622

CourtListener opinion 3035622 Extracted case name: HAMILTON v. WASHINGTON STATE PLUMBING LINDA OPPEGAARD. Extracted reporter citation: 520 U.S. 833. Docket: of cases in which. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3035622 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 3035622

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 3035622

QDRO: pellees. Jonathan P. Meier, Sirianni Youtz Meier & Spoonemore, Seattle, Washington, for the defendant-intervenor-appellant. OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: The alphabet soup world of pension benefits has spawned a dizzying array of acronyms, like ERISA, QDRO, and QPSA, and a complex web of interrelated statutory provi- sions. In a case of first impression, our challenge is to cut through the dense language to figure out what Congress meant in terms of surviving spouse benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 88 Stat. 832, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. HAMILTON v. WAS


CourtListener opinion 3035622

retirement benefits: tion 7.01 [the Pre-Retirement Surviving Spouse Annuity] . . . , then his designated Beneficiary shall receive a lump sum death benefit. . . . [A] lump sum death benefit . . . shall be paid as a result of [participant's] death if he dies before the date retirement benefits commence . . . provided, however, if the Participant is less than 55 years of age at his death, and if his surviving spouse will receive a Pre-Retirement Annuity Benefit under the terms of Section 7.01, then no lump sum death bene- fit shall be paid under this paragraph as a result of the death of the Participant. It is undisputed that Mary Hamilto


CourtListener opinion 3035622

pension: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID HAMILTON; SARAH  HAMILTON, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WASHINGTON STATE PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY PENSION No. 04-35526 PLAN; PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND; WESTERN  D.C. No. CV-03-02438-TSZ WASHINGTON U.A. SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION TRUST, Defendants-Appellants, MARY HAMILTON, Defendant-intervenor- Appellant.  137 138 HAMILTON v. WASHINGTON STATE PLUMBING LINDA OPPEGAARD, guardian of  Sarah Hamilton, Plaintiff, and DAVID HAMILTON; SARAH


CourtListener opinion 3035622

ERISA: iffs-appellees. Jonathan P. Meier, Sirianni Youtz Meier & Spoonemore, Seattle, Washington, for the defendant-intervenor-appellant. OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: The alphabet soup world of pension benefits has spawned a dizzying array of acronyms, like ERISA, QDRO, and QPSA, and a complex web of interrelated statutory provi- sions. In a case of first impression, our challenge is to cut through the dense language to figure out what Congress meant in terms of surviving spouse benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 88 Stat. 832, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. HAMILTON


CourtListener opinion 3036604

CourtListener opinion 3036604 Extracted reporter citation: 346 F.3d 830. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3036604 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 3036604


CourtListener opinion 3036604

QDRO: , 834 (8th Cir. 2003) (reviewing de novo challenges to subject matter jurisdiction). Specifically, the lawsuit involved a plan fiduciary seeking to enforce plan terms and ERISA provisions regarding the segregation of plan funds while a former spouse secures a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(G)- (H);1 Hogan v. Raytheon Co., 302 F.3d 845, 857 (8th Cir. 2002) (recognizing 18- month period under ERISA to secure QDRO). We also disagree with appellants' suggestion that Schlaht was not a proper party to the lawsuit. See Bombardier Aerospace Employee Welfare Benefits Plan v. Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough, 354 F.3d 348,


CourtListener opinion 3036604

ERISA: ____ PER CURIAM. Todd Roth and Mitchell Schlaht appeal the district court's adverse partial grant of summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by the North American Coal Corporation (NACCO)'s Retirement Savings Plan--an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan--and NACCO, the Plan's administrator. The suit arose when NACCO mistakenly overpaid monies from a retirement savings account to Roth, who then endorsed the disbursement check over to Schlaht. Schlaht and Roth refused to return the overpaid benefits, and NACCO brought suit. The district court designated its order as appealable under Federal Rule of Ci


CourtListener opinion 3036604

401(k): s to whether plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment, see United States v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 947, 950 (8th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment standard of review), there were no material facts in dispute: the record showed that as of July 28, 2003, 65% of Roth's 401(k) monies belonged to his former wife, a fact confirmed by a QDRO received well within the eighteen-month period for the former wife to secure one; that Roth knew he was not entitled to the monies at issue and so informed 1 The Plan referenced the Internal Revenue Code provision on QDROs, but it is nearly identical to the ERISA provision. -2- NACCO befor


CourtListener opinion 3036604

domestic relations order: Cir. 2003) (reviewing de novo challenges to subject matter jurisdiction). Specifically, the lawsuit involved a plan fiduciary seeking to enforce plan terms and ERISA provisions regarding the segregation of plan funds while a former spouse secures a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(G)- (H);1 Hogan v. Raytheon Co., 302 F.3d 845, 857 (8th Cir. 2002) (recognizing 18- month period under ERISA to secure QDRO). We also disagree with appellants' suggestion that Schlaht was not a proper party to the lawsuit. See Bombardier Aerospace Employee Welfare Benefits Plan v. Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough, 354 F.3d 348,


CourtListener opinion 3036704

CourtListener opinion 3036704 Extracted case name: UNITED STATES v. NOVAK. Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3036704 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 3036704


CourtListener opinion 3036704

QDRO: sion prevents others from securing relief for the wrongs done them." Id. at 376. And it notes that those social-policy objectives "sometimes take[ ] precedence over the desire to do equity between particular parties." Id. at 376. UNITED STATES v. NOVAK 3187 qualified domestic relations order. See Guidry, 493 U.S. at 376 & n.18. ERISA contains an explicit, narrow exception to the anti alienation provision in cases of crimes against the pension plan itself. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(4)(A)(1) (noting that the anti-alienation provision in § 1056(d)(1) "shall not apply . . . if . . . the order or requirement to pay arises . . . under a judgment of con


CourtListener opinion 3036704

pension: es, California, for the appellant. Martin S. Bakst of Encino, California, for the appellee. OPINION CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge: The United States appeals from the district court's order quashing its writ of garnishment of Raymond Novak's bene- fits under a pension plan subject to the Employment and Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The dis- 3176 UNITED STATES v. NOVAK trict court held that such a garnishment was prohibited by ERISA's anti-alienation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). We reverse and remand because we determine that the Man- datory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 ("MVRA"), 18 U.S.C. §


CourtListener opinion 3036704

ERISA: ppellee. OPINION CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge: The United States appeals from the district court's order quashing its writ of garnishment of Raymond Novak's bene- fits under a pension plan subject to the Employment and Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The dis- 3176 UNITED STATES v. NOVAK trict court held that such a garnishment was prohibited by ERISA's anti-alienation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). We reverse and remand because we determine that the Man- datory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 ("MVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. § 3613, constitutes a statutory exception to


CourtListener opinion 3036704

domestic relations order: ents others from securing relief for the wrongs done them." Id. at 376. And it notes that those social-policy objectives "sometimes take[ ] precedence over the desire to do equity between particular parties." Id. at 376. UNITED STATES v. NOVAK 3187 qualified domestic relations order. See Guidry, 493 U.S. at 376 & n.18. ERISA contains an explicit, narrow exception to the anti alienation provision in cases of crimes against the pension plan itself. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(4)(A)(1) (noting that the anti-alienation provision in § 1056(d)(1) "shall not apply . . . if . . . the order or requirement to pay arises . . . under a judgment of con


CourtListener opinion 3040014

CourtListener opinion 3040014 Extracted reporter citation: 508 U.S. 324. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3040014 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 3040014


CourtListener opinion 3040014

QDRO: BACKGROUND Mr. and Ms. Ziemski were divorced in 2001. As part of the divorce decree, the Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas ("State Court") awarded Ms. Ziemski forty percent of Mr. Ziemski's military retirement benefits. The State Court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order directing that forty percent of such retirement benefits be paid to Ms. Ziemski. 2 On November 3, 2004, the State Court entered an order modifying the Ziemskis' original division of property. The State Court required Ms. Ziemski to forfeit her forty percent of Mr. Ziemski's military retirement benefits and redirected the payment thereof to Mr. Ziemski un


CourtListener opinion 3040014

retirement benefits: ebruary 21, 2006 Filed: March 10, 2006 Before KRESSEL, Chief Judge, SCHERMER and MAHONEY, Bankruptcy Judges SCHERMER, Bankruptcy Judge Valerian J. Ziemski appeals the bankruptcy court's order determining that his post-petition receipt of certain military retirement benefits pursuant to a pre-petition state court order was in violation of the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362; requiring Mr. Ziemski to turn over such military retirement benefits to the Trustee of Rosemarie Ziemski's bankruptcy estate; determining that Mr. Ziemski's violation of the automatic stay was willful; directing Mr. Ziemski to pay Ms. Ziemski's attorney


CourtListener opinion 3040014

domestic relations order: UND Mr. and Ms. Ziemski were divorced in 2001. As part of the divorce decree, the Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas ("State Court") awarded Ms. Ziemski forty percent of Mr. Ziemski's military retirement benefits. The State Court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order directing that forty percent of such retirement benefits be paid to Ms. Ziemski. 2 On November 3, 2004, the State Court entered an order modifying the Ziemskis' original division of property. The State Court required Ms. Ziemski to forfeit her forty percent of Mr. Ziemski's military retirement benefits and redirected the payment thereof to Mr. Ziemski un


CourtListener opinion 3040883

CourtListener opinion 3040883 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3040883 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 3040883

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 3040883

QDRO: SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Helen Davis appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Alberici Corporation and Gary Davis, holding a domestic relations order entered in connection with the Davis's divorce was not a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(D)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The district court1 concluded the domestic relations order would require Alberici to pay Helen benefits in excess of the amount in Gary's retirement account. Therefore, it violated § 1056(d)(3)(D)(ii)'s prohibition against paying increased benefits and was no


CourtListener opinion 3040883

retirement benefits: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-1009 ___________ Alberici Corporation, as Plan * Administrator for Alberici Companies * Retirement Plan; * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Gary Davis, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern Intervenor Plaintiff - * District of Missouri. Appellee, * * [UNPUBLISHED] v. * * Helen E. Davis, * * Defendant - Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: May 17, 2006 Filed: July 6, 2006 ___________ Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit


CourtListener opinion 3040883

domestic relations order: Submitted: May 17, 2006 Filed: July 6, 2006 ___________ Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Helen Davis appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Alberici Corporation and Gary Davis, holding a domestic relations order entered in connection with the Davis's divorce was not a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(D)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The district court1 concluded the domestic relations order would require Alberici to pay Helen benefits in excess of the amount in Gary's retirement account. Therefore


CourtListener opinion 3044509

CourtListener opinion 3044509 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: 2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3044509 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 3044509


CourtListener opinion 3044509

QDRO: enerally cannot be assigned or alienated, see 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), there is a specific exception to this rule for "qualified domestic relations orders," which is what the distribution orders in this case were, id. § 1056(d)(3)(A). The law recognizes that a qualified domestic relations order creates "an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under the plan," id. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), and explicitly provides that a person designated as an "alternate payee under [such an order] shall be considered . . . a beneficiary under the plan," id. § 1056(d)(3)(J). For purposes of our di


CourtListener opinion 3044509

retirement benefits: appeal, filed in the hope of a lesser sentence. That hope, like the hopes that motivate many multiple matrimonies, will not be realized. I. Dr. Alfred Massam was an orthopedic surgeon in Sebring, Florida. In 1980 he set up two pension plans to provide retirement benefits for himself and the employees of his surgical practice. He served as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act administrator and trustee for both pension plans. In 2005 he and his fifth wife were divorced. The state court on March 9, 2005 entered two distribution orders allocating to his ex-wife $64,216 of his share in one of the pension plans and $


CourtListener opinion 3044509

pension: human breast," 1 can often be seen in matters of matrimony. Unfortunately for the defendant in this case, what sprang from his fifth matrimonial go round was a substantial property award to his fifth ex-wife. From that award sprang his embezzlement of the pension funds of his employees and his sentence of imprisonment for that crime. From that sentence sprang this appeal, filed in the hope of a lesser sentence. That hope, like the hopes that motivate many multiple matrimonies, will not be realized. I. Dr. Alfred Massam was an orthopedic surgeon in Sebring, Florida. In 1980 he set up two pension plans to prov


CourtListener opinion 3044509

ERISA: sed solely on intended loss. A credit against loss based on money returned is not available for intended loss alone. It is not available because the guidelines commentary concerning the credit requires that the money be returned 3 Although benefits under ERISA plans generally cannot be assigned or alienated, see 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), there is a specific exception to this rule for "qualified domestic relations orders," which is what the distribution orders in this case were, id. § 1056(d)(3)(A). The law recognizes that a qualified domestic relations order creates "an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all


CourtListener opinion 3047355

CourtListener opinion 3047355 Extracted case name: UNITED STATES v. NOVAK. Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: of district. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3047355 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 3047355


CourtListener opinion 3047355

QDRO: (QDROs), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B), included probate orders. Petitioner argued that reading "domestic relations" to cover probate matters was both textually permissible and consistent with legislative intent, but we held that we were required to construe the QDRO exception narrowly: We are bound by the specific use of the term "do- mestic relations" and the notable failure to include the term "probate" in section 1056(d). If Congress had intended to create an exception to the prohibition on alienation that would permit a deceased spouse to bequeath her purported interests in a surviving employee's pension be


CourtListener opinion 3047355

retirement benefits: ation of these two important policies, we conclude that crimi- nal restitution orders can be enforced by garnishing retirement funds, but with the funds only payable when the defendant has a current, unilateral right to receive payments under the terms of the retirement plan. I. From 1995 to 1999, Raymond Novak and his former wife, Norma Ortega Nance, engaged in a scheme to steal telephone equipment from the Nestlé Food Company, resell the equip- ment, and pocket the proceeds. Nance, a Nestlé employee, had access to the equipment, which she then passed along to Novak to sell. The scheme cost Nestlé over $3.3 million. Unsurp


CourtListener opinion 3047355

pension: TES v. NOVAK titution Act of 1996 ("MVRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1227, governing the payment of restitution to crime vic- tims, and the other, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461,1 regulating private pension plans. Underlying each statute is a weighty policy determination: MVRA rests on the recognition that "[i]t is essential that the criminal justice system recognize the impact that crime has on the victim, and, to the extent possi- ble, ensure that [the] offender be held accountable to repay these costs." S. Rep. No. 104-179, at 18 (1995). ERISA is meant to a


CourtListener opinion 3047355

ERISA: es — one, the Mandatory Victims Res- 1958 UNITED STATES v. NOVAK titution Act of 1996 ("MVRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1227, governing the payment of restitution to crime vic- tims, and the other, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461,1 regulating private pension plans. Underlying each statute is a weighty policy determination: MVRA rests on the recognition that "[i]t is essential that the criminal justice system recognize the impact that crime has on the victim, and, to the extent possi- ble, ensure that [the] offender be held accountable to repay these costs."


CourtListener opinion 3048874

CourtListener opinion 3048874 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3048874 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 3048874


CourtListener opinion 3048874

QDRO: r legal process for the debts of any Player or beneficiary, except pursuant to (a) a qualified domestic relations order under [§] 414(p) of the [Tax] Code, (b) a domestic relations order entered before January 1, 1985 that the Retirement Board treats as a qualified domestic relations order, or (c) an exception required under [§] 401(a)(13) of the [Tax] Code. The Plan also gave the Retirement Board, as the "named fiduciary" of the Plan as defined by ERISA, "full and absolute discretion, authority and power to interpret, control, implement, and manage the Plan," including the power to "[d]efine the terms of the Plan [and] construe the Plan


CourtListener opinion 3048874

retirement benefits: aw, LLC, lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Consol. Counter Claimant - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Consol. Cross Claimant -lConsol. Cross Defendant - Appellant, versus THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Consol. Plaintiff - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Consol. Counter Defendant - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Appellee, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllConsol. Plaintiff, BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, lllllllllllllllllll


CourtListener opinion 3048874

pension: reached by creditors through legal process. 2 I. Odessa Turner and Marvin Woodson, both retired NFL players, retained the Ward Firm to represent them during the administrative review of their claims for disability benefits under the Plan, which was a pension and welfare benefits plan governed by ERISA. Turner and Woodson both entered into contingency fee contracts with the Ward Firm, promising to pay a percentage of any proceeds procured from the Plan. With the Ward Firm's assistance, Woodson successfully obtained disability benefits from the Plan in 2008 and Turner did so in 2009. Sometime later both Turn


CourtListener opinion 3048874

ERISA: 2 I. Odessa Turner and Marvin Woodson, both retired NFL players, retained the Ward Firm to represent them during the administrative review of their claims for disability benefits under the Plan, which was a pension and welfare benefits plan governed by ERISA. Turner and Woodson both entered into contingency fee contracts with the Ward Firm, promising to pay a percentage of any proceeds procured from the Plan. With the Ward Firm's assistance, Woodson successfully obtained disability benefits from the Plan in 2008 and Turner did so in 2009. Sometime later both Turner and Woodson stopped paying the Ward Firm t


CourtListener opinion 3053294

CourtListener opinion 3053294 Extracted case name: CARMONA v. CARMONA JANIS CARMONA. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3053294 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 3053294

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 3053294

QDRO: lues of the marital portion of the pensions divided." In 1997, after his divorce from Janis had been finalized, Lupe married Judy Carmona (nee Walkington), his ninth and final spouse. He petitioned the family court for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") revoking Janis's desig- nation as the survivor beneficiary of the IATSE and Hilton pensions and substituting Judy, his new wife. Lupe died in 1999. Judy survived him, as did Janis. The day after Lupe's death, the family court concluded that Janis had waived her right to Lupe's pension plan benefits by the divorce decree's allocation of property and that J


CourtListener opinion 3053294

retirement benefits: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANIS CARMONA,  Plaintiff, v. JUDY CARMONA; HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, Retirement Plan, Defendants, v. No. 06-15581 NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION D.C. No. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF  CV-04-01310- THEATRICAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES KJD/RJJ LOCAL 720 PENSION TRUST (I.A.T.S.E. Trustees), Cross-claimant-Appellant, v. JUDY CARMONA, Successor representative of Lupe N. Carmona deceased, Cross-defendant-Appellee.  13083 13084 CARMONA v. CARMONA JA


CourtListener opinion 3053294

pension: INTH CIRCUIT JANIS CARMONA,  Plaintiff, v. JUDY CARMONA; HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, Retirement Plan, Defendants, v. No. 06-15581 NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION D.C. No. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF  CV-04-01310- THEATRICAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES KJD/RJJ LOCAL 720 PENSION TRUST (I.A.T.S.E. Trustees), Cross-claimant-Appellant, v. JUDY CARMONA, Successor representative of Lupe N. Carmona deceased, Cross-defendant-Appellee.  13083 13084 CARMONA v. CARMONA JANIS CARMONA, a.k.a. JANIS  KESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 06-15938 v. D.C. No. JUDY CARMONA, Successor  CV-04-01310-KJD/ Representative of Lupe N. RJJ Carmo


CourtListener opinion 3053294

ERISA: s Vegas, Nevada, for defendant/appellee Hilton Hotels Corporation, Retirement Plan. OPINION CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: This case requires us to once again navigate the complex statutory scheme set out in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 88 Stat. 832, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and to answer an open question in this Circuit: whether or not a participant to an ERISA regu- lated Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity ("QJSA") plan may change the surviving spouse beneficiary after the partici- pant has retired and the annuity has become payable. The conflict here arises between t


CourtListener opinion 3054300

CourtListener opinion 3054300 Extracted case name: OWENS v. AUTOMOTIVE MACHINISTS PENSION TRUST COUNSEL. Extracted reporter citation: 778 P.2d 1022. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3054300 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 3054300


CourtListener opinion 3054300

QDRO: rcent interest in the pen- sion benefits being paid to Phillip by Automotive Machinist Pension Trust ("Automotive Trust" or "Trust"). Automotive Trust declined to implement the Order on the ground that it was not a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") under § 1056 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). Specifically, the Trust argued (1) that the Order did not relate to "marital property rights" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii)(I); and (2) that Norma was not an "Alter- nate Payee" under 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(K) because she did not qualify as an "other


CourtListener opinion 3054300

retirement benefits: nd vehi- cles. The Owens' jointly acquired funds were held in various financial institutions, and some of these funds were held in joint bank accounts. Additionally, during their relationship, Phillip, because of his employment, acquired interest in vari- ous retirement accounts. Norma's formal education ended after the ninth grade. Financially, Norma contributed little or nothing to the house- hold. Instead, Phillip provided the main financial support for the family. Except for brief periods during which she worked for minimum wages, Norma, a homemaker, devoted her time to caring for her husband and raising their two sons. Phil


CourtListener opinion 3054300

pension: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NORMA B. OWENS,  Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-35253 v.  D.C. No. CV-06-00943-TSZ AUTOMOTIVE MACHINISTS PENSION TRUST, OPINION Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 6, 2008—Seattle, Washington Filed January 12, 2009 Before: Harry Pregerson, William C. Canby, Jr. and John T. Noonan, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge


CourtListener opinion 3054300

ERISA: omotive Machinist Pension Trust ("Automotive Trust" or "Trust"). Automotive Trust declined to implement the Order on the ground that it was not a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") under § 1056 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). Specifically, the Trust argued (1) that the Order did not relate to "marital property rights" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii)(I); and (2) that Norma was not an "Alter- nate Payee" under 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(K) because she did not qualify as an "other dependent."1 We agree with the Washington Federal District Court th


CourtListener opinion 3065259

CourtListener opinion 3065259 Extracted case name: ANDERSON v. SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS COUNSEL. Extracted reporter citation: 458 F.3d 955. Docket: No. 97. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3065259 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 3065259


CourtListener opinion 3065259

QDRO: disability, resulting in a lower benefit. Anderson claims also that if the Trustees appropriately determined the date of his disability, then the 1999 amendment violates ERISA's anti- cutback rule. Finally, Anderson claims the Trustees improp- erly applied a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), allocating half of his pre-divorce disability bene- fits to his ex-wife. We affirm. I BACKGROUND For much of his life, Anderson worked as a mechanic. In July 1996, Anderson suffered an on-the-job knee injury that required surgery. In December 2006, Anderson was diag- nosed with osteoarthritis. In addition to his bad knee, Ander- son suffers


CourtListener opinion 3065259

retirement benefits: its only for periods when the employee actually works. However, before the Plan was amended in 1999, employees were covered by the 1995 ver- sion of the Plan ("1995 Plan"). Under the 1995 Plan, if an employee became disabled, [t]he amount of such Disability Retirement Benefit shall be equal to 100% of the amount of Age Retire- ment Benefit to which the Participant would be enti- tled at his Normal Retirement Age, calculated as if he remained in Covered Employment continuously from the onset of his total and permanent disability until his Normal Retirement Age, except that with respect to a Participant whose Disability Ret


CourtListener opinion 3065259

pension: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUCE W. ANDERSON,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS OF NORTHERN No. 07-15532 ILLINOIS PENSION FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in its capacity as  D.C. No. CV-05-01377-DGC Administrator of the Suburban Teamsters of Northern Illinois OPINION Pension Plan; SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS PENSION PLAN, Defendants-Appellees.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Ar


CourtListener opinion 3065259

ERISA: inois Pension Fund Board of Trustees ("the Trustees") ANDERSON v. SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS 15643 did not abuse their discretion in partially denying his claim for disability benefits pursuant to a plan maintained under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). In the past, the Plan specified one way to calculate disability bene- fits. Before Anderson applied for benefits, the Plan was amended to change the formula for calculating benefits depending on the date the employee became disabled. Ander- son claims the Trustees improperly determined the date of his disability, resulting in a lower benefit. Anderson cl


CourtListener opinion 3066767

CourtListener opinion 3066767 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3066767 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 3066767

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 3066767

QDRO: de a false statement for the purpose of obtaining benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as 33 U.S.C. § 931 requires; and 26 U.S.C. § 414 prescribes the Internal Revenue Code's requirements for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and Davis has not suggested that a QDRO is somehow at issue here. Thus, any claims based on those statutes were properly dismissed. 3 Given the legal failings of Davis's complaint, we are satisfied that amendment to the complaint would be futile, and therefore conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the complaint without providing leave to am


CourtListener opinion 3066767

domestic relations order: .C. § 3729 requires, or made a false statement for the purpose of obtaining benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as 33 U.S.C. § 931 requires; and 26 U.S.C. § 414 prescribes the Internal Revenue Code's requirements for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and Davis has not suggested that a QDRO is somehow at issue here. Thus, any claims based on those statutes were properly dismissed. 3 Given the legal failings of Davis's complaint, we are satisfied that amendment to the complaint would be futile, and therefore conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the complaint without providing leave


CourtListener opinion 3074111

CourtListener opinion 3074111 Extracted reporter citation: 352 S.W.3d 746. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3074111 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 3074111

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 3074111

QDRO: ot give its clarification order any impermissible retroactive effect. See id. We overrule Orndoff's fourth issue. ATTORNEY'S FEES Orndoff argues Italian's attorney's fees award of $2,651.90 is not supported by the evidence. He contends her request for a qualified domestic relations order was frivolous, as was the discovery pertaining to that request. Furthermore, Orndoff argues he agreed his monthly obligation under the divorce decree was $254.40 a month and he attempted to settle the matter. An award of attorney's fees must be supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. See City of Laredo v. Montano, 415 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex.


CourtListener opinion 3074111

retirement benefits: doff retired in 1996 as an E-7 with twenty years of service. Orndoff and Italian remarried but divorced again in March 2005 and a new divorce decree was entered. At that time, the trial court "confirmed" Italian's entitlement to 22.5% of Orndoff's military retirement benefits as set forth on page 11 of the 1988 divorce decree and ordered Orndoff to "resume payments starting March 2005." In December 2005, a hearing took place on Italian's motion to enforce payment of her share of Orndoff's military retirement benefits. The trial court ordered Orndoff to pay Italian the monthly amount of $111.71 in addition to $100 until the


CourtListener opinion 3074111

domestic relations order: s clarification order any impermissible retroactive effect. See id. We overrule Orndoff's fourth issue. ATTORNEY'S FEES Orndoff argues Italian's attorney's fees award of $2,651.90 is not supported by the evidence. He contends her request for a qualified domestic relations order was frivolous, as was the discovery pertaining to that request. Furthermore, Orndoff argues he agreed his monthly obligation under the divorce decree was $254.40 a month and he attempted to settle the matter. An award of attorney's fees must be supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. See City of Laredo v. Montano, 415 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex.


CourtListener opinion 3081412

CourtListener opinion 3081412 Extracted reporter citation: 161 S.W.3d 217. Docket: 12-10-00384-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3081412 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 3081412


CourtListener opinion 3081412

QDRO: ced in 1988. The divorce decree, filed August 17, 1988, assigned and granted to Carol Dixon a percentage of Steve Dixon's retirement benefits accrued at the date of divorce and specified a formula for their calculation. The decree recited that it shall be "a qualified domestic relations order" pursuant to Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, the decree apparently was not accepted as "a qualified domestic relations order" by the retirement plan administrator. In 2006, Carol, without notice to Steve and without a hearing, obtained the trial judge's signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and submitted a copy to th


CourtListener opinion 3081412

retirement benefits: tends that the trial court erred in denying her petition for bill of review. We affirm. BACKGROUND Carol and Steven (Steve) Dixon divorced in 1988. The divorce decree, filed August 17, 1988, assigned and granted to Carol Dixon a percentage of Steve Dixon's retirement benefits accrued at the date of divorce and specified a formula for their calculation. The decree recited that it shall be "a qualified domestic relations order" pursuant to Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, the decree apparently was not accepted as "a qualified domestic relations order" by the retirement plan administrator. In 2006, Carol, wit


CourtListener opinion 3081412

pension: pted as "a qualified domestic relations order" by the retirement plan administrator. In 2006, Carol, without notice to Steve and without a hearing, obtained the trial judge's signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and submitted a copy to the pension fund. On June 13, 2006, the fund sent notice to Steve that it would begin withholding $476.19 from his retirement if he did not object. Steve notified the fund on August 1, 2006, that he did object. Steve filed a "Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Domestic Relations Order." The trial court heard the motion on August 13, 2007. Carol appeared pro se. The


CourtListener opinion 3081412

domestic relations order: 8. The divorce decree, filed August 17, 1988, assigned and granted to Carol Dixon a percentage of Steve Dixon's retirement benefits accrued at the date of divorce and specified a formula for their calculation. The decree recited that it shall be "a qualified domestic relations order" pursuant to Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, the decree apparently was not accepted as "a qualified domestic relations order" by the retirement plan administrator. In 2006, Carol, without notice to Steve and without a hearing, obtained the trial judge's signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and submitted a copy to th


CourtListener opinion 3086398

CourtListener opinion 3086398 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 05-12-01576-CV V. Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3086398 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 3086398


CourtListener opinion 3086398

QDRO: llin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429-52873-98 OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Lang, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice Fillmore Donald Beshears (Donald) 1 filed a motion to vacate or, alternatively, modify a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) signed by the trial court following his divorce from Judith Karen Beshears (Judith) on the ground the QDRO did not comport with the divorce decree. During trial, Judith orally requested the trial court remove a provision from the QDRO that required her benefit to be calculated as of November 8, 2001, the date the divorce proceedings were heard by the t


CourtListener opinion 3086398

retirement benefits: rder. 1 Because the parties have the same surname, we refer to them by their first names for clarity. Background Judith and Donald were married on July 20, 1977. On June 12, 1978, Donald began working for Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) and participated in a retirement plan offered by Merck. In October 1998, Judith filed for divorce. On November 8, 2001, the trial court heard evidence pertaining to the divorce. On February 5, 2002, the trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce finding "the parties have reached an agreement as to a proposed division of the marital estate," the agreement was a just and right division of t


CourtListener opinion 3086398

ERISA: ify the 2002 QDRO, on the ground it did not comport with the terms of the decree. Donald specifically complained that, pursuant to section 205 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001–1461 (West 2008, 2009, & Supp. 2013) (ERISA), there are two types of survivor annuities, a Qualified Preretirement Survivor Annuity (QPSA) and a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity (QJSA). Donald asserted the award of a QJSA to Judith in the 2002 QDRO did not comport with the property division in the decree. 2 Judith filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting the 2002 QDRO was a final order, th


CourtListener opinion 3086398

401(k): s to be divided, depends on the court's interpretation of the decree. Judith called Donald as a witness. Donald testified he retired from Merck effective January 1, 2011. The only funds he had withdrawn from his retirement accounts at Merck were from his 401(k) account. Judith testified that she and Donald have an adult disabled son. Since the divorce, Donald has filed several petitions against her and dismissed them before trial. Donald ultimately obtained a ruling from a court in Arkansas decreasing the amount of support he was paying for their son and capping the support at two years. 3 The trial court gra


CourtListener opinion 3091943

CourtListener opinion 3091943 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3091943 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 3091943

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 3091943

domestic relations order: developed between the parties concerning the amount of appellant's military retirement that appellee was entitled to receive. On October 4, 2013, the trial court signed a default judgment in appellant's favor. The court set aside an April 2013 clarifying domestic relations order, awarded appellant $2,493.75 in attorney's fees and expenses, and taxed costs against appellee. On December 30, 2013, pursuant to a motion filed by appellee earlier that month, the trial court signed an order vacating the October 4 default judgment. The court reinstated the clarifying domestic relations order but did not purport to render a final dec


CourtListener opinion 3092981

CourtListener opinion 3092981 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McDonald. Extracted reporter citation: 811 S.W.2d 542. Docket: equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3092981 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 3092981

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 3092981

QDRO: 2005). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 (1) ERISA Issues Were Not Preserved for Our Review Diane contends that, because there was no qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered in this case, the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) applies; that, under its provisions, she is the proper beneficiary of R.V.‘s savings plan; and that the trial court erred in awarding half of it to Cindy. The issue, however, was not raised below and, thus, is not before us. A party may raise a point of error regardin


CourtListener opinion 3092981

ERISA: or the amount of $69,594.06. Diane appeals, contending that federal law applies, passing the plan‘s corpus to R.V.‘s estate and that the unambiguous language of the divorce decree awards the corpus to R.V. We affirm the trial court‘s decision because: (1) ERISA issues were not preserved for our review, and (2) the decree left the corpus undivided. 1 The decree‘s payment provisions reference both yearly and monthly payments from the plan. The parties dispute the significance of this discrepancy, but it is irrelevant to the issue of the plan‘s corpus. 2 The plan is referred to in the decree as the ―Champion Savi


CourtListener opinion 3092981

domestic relations order: are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 (1) ERISA Issues Were Not Preserved for Our Review Diane contends that, because there was no qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered in this case, the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) applies; that, under its provisions, she is the proper beneficiary of R.V.‘s savings plan; and that the trial court erred in awarding half of it to Cindy. The issue, however, was not raised below and, thus, is not before us. A party may raise a point of error regardin


CourtListener opinion 3092981

valuation/division: trial court of jurisdiction. Rather, ERISA would merely alter the law that the court would apply to the case. Had ERISA‘s 3 applicability been raised before the trial court, the resulting issue would concern a potential conflict between the Texas law of community property and the federal law of beneficiaries, assignment, and alienation under ERISA.4 But Diane‘s failure to assert ERISA at trial waives the argument, and ERISA issues with respect to the distribution of the savings plan funds were not preserved for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). (2) The Decree Left the Corpus Undivided The trial court found that


CourtListener opinion 3099143

CourtListener opinion 3099143 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: of months the member has served. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3099143 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 3099143


CourtListener opinion 3099143

retirement benefits: ervice on July 24, 1979 and married Sumiko Freeman on February 8, 1980. A divorce was rendered on September 14, 2000, although the decree was not signed until October 21, 2002. The decree divided the parties' community property including Stanley's military retirement benefits. At the time of divorce, Stanley was a Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) and had served 247 months in the United States Air Force during marriage. After the divorce, Stanley continued on active duty and retired on August 1, 2007, with a total of 28 years of service (336 months). His total monthly retired pay is $3293. When Stanley retired, he was notified


CourtListener opinion 3099143

domestic relations order: DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ' STANLEY FREEMAN, SR., No. 08-10-00202-CV ' Appellant, Appeal from ' v. 285th District Court ' SUMIKO A. FREEMAN, of Bexar County, Texas ' Appellee. ' (TC # 98-CI-13915) OPINION Stanley Freeman appeals from a Domestic Relations Order (DRO) entered in clarification of a prior divorce decree. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. FACTUAL SUMMARY Stanley Freeman entered active duty military service on July 24, 1979 and married Sumiko Freeman on February 8, 1980. A divorce was rendered on September 14, 2000, although the decree was not signed until October 21, 2002. The decree div


CourtListener opinion 3099143

survivor benefits: e retired pay due to cost of all increases in the United States Air Force disposable retired pay due to cost of living or other reasons, if, as, and when received. The decree also ordered Stanley to designate Sumiko as the former spouse beneficiary of his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). The cost of the Survivor Benefit Plan is to be paid by SUMIKO FREEMAN. SUMIKO FREEMAN is ORDERED TO set up an allotment from her portion of the military retirement to be paid to STANLEY FREEMAN on the 1st day of the 1st month that STANLEY FREEMAN notifies her that he has retired. Although Stanley did not notify Sumiko of his retirement, D


CourtListener opinion 3099143

valuation/division: Stanley Freeman entered active duty military service on July 24, 1979 and married Sumiko Freeman on February 8, 1980. A divorce was rendered on September 14, 2000, although the decree was not signed until October 21, 2002. The decree divided the parties' community property including Stanley's military retirement benefits. At the time of divorce, Stanley was a Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) and had served 247 months in the United States Air Force during marriage. After the divorce, Stanley continued on active duty and retired on August 1, 2007, with a total of 28 years of service (336 months). His total monthly retired pay is


CourtListener opinion 3099168

CourtListener opinion 3099168 Extracted reporter citation: 783 S.W.2d 210. Docket: 10-09-00254-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3099168 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 3099168


CourtListener opinion 3099168

QDRO: TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-09-00254-CV IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF KATIE SPAHN AND RODNEY SPAHN From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. 06-15572-CV MEMORANDUM OPINION Rodney Spahn appeals from the entry of a qualified domestic relations order based on an agreed final decree of divorce and of the denial of his motion for nunc pro tunc of the decree of divorce. He complains that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to his ex-wife, Katie Spahn-Northern, and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc to correct the date of the partie


CourtListener opinion 3099168

domestic relations order: URT OF APPEALS No. 10-09-00254-CV IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF KATIE SPAHN AND RODNEY SPAHN From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. 06-15572-CV MEMORANDUM OPINION Rodney Spahn appeals from the entry of a qualified domestic relations order based on an agreed final decree of divorce and of the denial of his motion for nunc pro tunc of the decree of divorce. He complains that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to his ex-wife, Katie Spahn-Northern, and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc to correct the date of the partie


CourtListener opinion 3100709

CourtListener opinion 3100709 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Rister. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3100709 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 3100709


CourtListener opinion 3100709

retirement benefits: nse Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) was erroneously overpaying Lesa and giving her "some of [his] separate property."3 He asked the trial court to amend the decree to clarify "that what [Lesa is] awarded is only the community property portion" of his retirement benefits. The trial court denied Milton's motion to clarify and/or modify, explaining that it did not find the decree's language to be ambiguous. Milton then filed a motion for new trial, but the trial court denied that, too. Milton now brings three issues before this Court, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to clarify and/or modify. He


CourtListener opinion 3100709

domestic relations order: s case from the Fourth Court of Appeals to this Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005). Milton retired from the Army in 2008, after serving 26 years. Shortly before he retired, Milton filed in the trial court a "Motion to Clarify and/or Modify Domestic Relations Order." See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.006(a) (West 2006). Milton argued in his motion that the language in the divorce decree, quoted above, "fails in that it attempts to award [to Lesa] a portion of future-earned benefits."2 He argued further that "[s]aid future benefits are [his] separate property" and may not lawfully be awarded to Lesa. He asked the trial c


CourtListener opinion 3100709

valuation/division: because of that ambiguity, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) was erroneously overpaying Lesa and giving her "some of [his] separate property."3 He asked the trial court to amend the decree to clarify "that what [Lesa is] awarded is only the community property portion" of his retirement benefits. The trial court denied Milton's motion to clarify and/or modify, explaining that it did not find the decree's language to be ambiguous. Milton then filed a motion for new trial, but the trial court denied that, too. Milton now brings three issues before this Court, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his


CourtListener opinion 3101247

CourtListener opinion 3101247 Extracted reporter citation: 803 S.W.2d 711. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3101247 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 3101247

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 3101247

QDRO: parties agreed to equally distribute their retirement accounts. On March 19, 2012, Thomas appealed, complaining of 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. several property division issues. On June 29, 2012, Thomas filed a motion asking the trial court to enter three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Thomas stated that he attached the three proposed QDROs for the trial court's signature, but the record does not show that the proposed QDROs were attached to the motion. Thomas further asserted that he had emailed the proposed QDROs to Daniel's attorney, Brook Stuntebeck, but Stuntebeck would not agree to the proposed QDROs. Pursuant to Th


CourtListener opinion 3101247

retirement benefits: court's order awarding attorney's fees in favor of appellee Denise Daniel. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND The final divorce decree between Thomas and Daniel was entered on September 23, 2011. During the divorce, the parties agreed to equally distribute their retirement accounts. On March 19, 2012, Thomas appealed, complaining of 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. several property division issues. On June 29, 2012, Thomas filed a motion asking the trial court to enter three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Thomas stated that he attached the three proposed QDROs for the trial court's signature, but the record does not sh


CourtListener opinion 3101247

domestic relations order: reed to equally distribute their retirement accounts. On March 19, 2012, Thomas appealed, complaining of 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. several property division issues. On June 29, 2012, Thomas filed a motion asking the trial court to enter three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Thomas stated that he attached the three proposed QDROs for the trial court's signature, but the record does not show that the proposed QDROs were attached to the motion. Thomas further asserted that he had emailed the proposed QDROs to Daniel's attorney, Brook Stuntebeck, but Stuntebeck would not agree to the proposed QDROs. Pursuant to Th


CourtListener opinion 3101247

valuation/division: nal divorce decree between Thomas and Daniel was entered on September 23, 2011. During the divorce, the parties agreed to equally distribute their retirement accounts. On March 19, 2012, Thomas appealed, complaining of 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. several property division issues. On June 29, 2012, Thomas filed a motion asking the trial court to enter three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Thomas stated that he attached the three proposed QDROs for the trial court's signature, but the record does not show that the proposed QDROs were attached to the motion. Thomas further asserted that he had emailed the prop


CourtListener opinion 3105739

CourtListener opinion 3105739 Extracted reporter citation: 347 S.W.3d 345. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3105739 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 3105739


CourtListener opinion 3105739

QDRO: Price, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 2, 2014 AFFIRMED William R. Schlecht challenges the trial court's amended qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), arguing that it impermissibly modifies the parties' final divorce decree and original QDRO. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 04-13-00183-CV BACKGROUND Kimberly B. Schlecht filed a petition for divorce in 2009. Kimberly and William entered into a mediated settlement agreement, 1 which they and their attorneys signed on December 6,


CourtListener opinion 3105739

pension: ent agreement, 1 which they and their attorneys signed on December 6, 2011. The Final Decree of Divorce was signed on February 27, 2012 by the Honorable Cathy Stryker. 2 The divorce decree awarded Kimberly an "undivided" one-half interest in William's AT&T pension benefit plan to be paid to Kimberly "if, as and when" payments are made to William (paragraph 6 of property awarded to wife). The same paragraph provided that: "The Court finds that the election currently in effect is the Fidelity Option 4 with Wife having a survivorship interest therein." Option 4 is not defined in the record before us. On the same day


CourtListener opinion 3105739

ERISA: cognize a nonparticipant spouse's community property interest in pension plans under specific circumstances" and that "QDRO's, unlike domestic relation orders in general, are exempt from both the pension plan anti-alienation provision, § 1056(d)(3)(A), and ERISA's general pre-emption clause, § 1144(b)(7)." Id. at 839, 846-47. We must therefore review the amended QDRO to determine whether it modified the substantive division of property contained in the final divorce decree. We will interpret the divorce decree and QDRO like any other judgment. Floyd v. Floyd, No. 04-04-00436-CV, 2005 WL 291493, at *2 (Tex. Ap


CourtListener opinion 3105739

alternate payee: n 4 with Wife having a survivorship interest therein." Option 4 is not defined in the record before us. On the same day the decree was signed, Judge Stryker also signed a QDRO relating to William's AT&T pension benefit plan. The QDRO assigned Kimberly, the alternate payee, a benefit of 50% of the Plan's benefit. Paragraph 6 of the QDRO further specified that: The Alternate Payee shall commence his/her portion of the benefit when and as paid to the Plan Participant. The Participant has previously elected the "Joint and 50% Survivor Annuity with Pop-up" option. Alternate Payee confirms her acceptance of Participant's pre


CourtListener opinion 3108976

CourtListener opinion 3108976 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Collier. Extracted reporter citation: 332 S.W.3d 361. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3108976 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 3108976


CourtListener opinion 3108976

QDRO: ouston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Walker v. Walker, No. 04-98-00537-CV, 2000 WL 374641, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 12, 2000, pet. denied) (not designated for publication). Rather than discussing the trial court's findings, Sylvia contends that the QDRO used by the trial court only splits the community interest in Salvador's retirement, including the DROP account. Even assuming Sylvia is correct, the trial court's finding that the DROP account was 100% community property affected the division of the marital estate. $300,000 EXPENDED BY SYLVIA'S SEPARATE ESTATE ON COMMUNITY ESTATE Salvador next conte


CourtListener opinion 3108976

retirement benefits: property which the trial court was prohibited from divesting. See Shanks, 110 S.W.3d at 448. For the foregoing reasons, we hold the trial court erred in awarding Sylvia one-half of the rental proceeds, and Salvador's first issue is sustained. SALVADOR'S RETIREMENT BENEFITS Salvador raises two issues with regard to the division of retirement benefits. First, he contends that the trial court erred in awarding Sylvia a percentage of the retirement benefits using -7- 04-12-00638-CV a fraction that began on the date of marriage and ended on July 1, 2012, because the date of divorce was December 3, 2011. Second, Salvador co


CourtListener opinion 3108976

valuation/division: n a decree of divorce, the trial court must order a just and right division of the estate of the parties. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 7.001 (West 2006). "Trial courts can only divide community property, [because] the phrase ‘estate of the parties' encompasses the community property of a marriage, but does not reach separate property." Pearson v. Fillingim, 332 S.W.3d 361, 363 (Tex. 2011). "Texas law prohibits courts from divesting spouses of their separate property." Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 448 (Tex. 2003). -2- 04-12-00638-CV "The trial court has wide discretion in dividing the estate of the parties and that divisio


CourtListener opinion 3113427

CourtListener opinion 3113427 Extracted reporter citation: 379 S.W.3d 267. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3113427 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 3113427


CourtListener opinion 3113427

QDRO: of his retirement benefits in his civil service retirement "arising out of [his] employment with Tinker Air Force Base as of date of 04-13-00138-CV valuation of DBP, that portion being seventy percent (70%)," which was to be more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Similarly, Rebecca was awarded a portion of Joe's retirement benefits in his civil service retirement "arising out of [Joe's] employment with Tinker Air Force Base as of date of valuation of DBP, that portion being thirty percent (30%) as of September 29, 2005," which also was to be more particularly defined in a QDRO. The QDRO stated that the


CourtListener opinion 3113427

retirement benefits: etition, we reverse the trial court's order and remand the cause for further proceedings. BACKGROUND A final divorce decree was signed on April 18, 2006, granting Joe and Rebecca Medellin a divorce. In the divorce decree, Joe was awarded a portion of his retirement benefits in his civil service retirement "arising out of [his] employment with Tinker Air Force Base as of date of 04-13-00138-CV valuation of DBP, that portion being seventy percent (70%)," which was to be more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Similarly, Rebecca was awarded a portion of Joe's retirement benefits in his civi


CourtListener opinion 3113427

domestic relations order: irement benefits in his civil service retirement "arising out of [his] employment with Tinker Air Force Base as of date of 04-13-00138-CV valuation of DBP, that portion being seventy percent (70%)," which was to be more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Similarly, Rebecca was awarded a portion of Joe's retirement benefits in his civil service retirement "arising out of [Joe's] employment with Tinker Air Force Base as of date of valuation of DBP, that portion being thirty percent (30%) as of September 29, 2005," which also was to be more particularly defined in a QDRO. The QDRO stated that the


CourtListener opinion 3113454

CourtListener opinion 3113454 Extracted reporter citation: 909 S.W.2d 950. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3113454 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 3113454

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 3113454

QDRO: discharge their respective portion of the debt. In her motion, Rosita alleged that Eusebio failed to make any payment on the debt and requested the following: Petitioner prays that the Court order Respondent to deliver and or [sic] an order vacating the Qualified Domestic Relations Order a [sic] crediting Respondent against the existing debt. Petitioner requests alternatively and [sic] assignment of interest in Rosita Vejil's teacher retirement system benefitys [sic] or an equivalent sum of money to Petitioner at a date and place certain. Petitioner requests a judgment be entered against Respondent or alternatively that Respondent be o


CourtListener opinion 3113454

domestic relations order: their respective portion of the debt. In her motion, Rosita alleged that Eusebio failed to make any payment on the debt and requested the following: Petitioner prays that the Court order Respondent to deliver and or [sic] an order vacating the Qualified Domestic Relations Order a [sic] crediting Respondent against the existing debt. Petitioner requests alternatively and [sic] assignment of interest in Rosita Vejil's teacher retirement system benefitys [sic] or an equivalent sum of money to Petitioner at a date and place certain. Petitioner requests a judgment be entered against Respondent or alternatively that Respondent be o


CourtListener opinion 3113454

valuation/division: d be held in contempt for violating the clarified order is not ripe for our consideration, and his second issue is dismissed. See id. CLARIFICATION In his third issue, Eusebio contends that the trial court's clarification order substantively changes the property division in the divorce by creating new obligations. We disagree that the clarification order substantively changed the property division. Section 9.006(b) of the Texas Family Code gives the trial court the authority to "specify more precisely the manner of effecting the property division previously made if the substantive division of property is not altered or