CourtListener opinion 4286372

QDRO: discretion for abuse thereof. Id; In re Ben Franklin Hotel Assoc., 186 F.3d 301, 304 (3d Cir. 1999). Ms. Beeghley's arguments on appeal are difficult to discern. She primarily contends that the Delaware Family Court's November 7, 1995 order constitutes a QDRO, and that the Beeghleys' bankruptcy petition filed thereafter could not affect that order. 5 She also argues that the bankruptcy petition could not affect her interest in the retirement assets, which arose from the November 7, 1995 order. These arguments are not properly before us because they were not raised in Bankruptcy Court and/or in the District


CourtListener opinion 4286372

15-cv-02635. Her later filings and the District

QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

retirement benefits: the delay based on accounting issues that it concluded would be difficult, if not impossible, to resolve at this late date. The Bankruptcy Court stated, and the record reflects, that the Family Court's November 7, 1995 order provided for the division of a retirement plan that had previously been terminated and where the assets had already been distributed. We find no error in the Bankruptcy Court's finding of prejudice. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.3 3 Ms. Beeghley's motion to dismiss the Beeghleys' brief is denied. Her motions to supplement and/or expand the record (as supplemented a


CourtListener opinion 4287825

CourtListener opinion 4287825 Extracted reporter citation: 869 N.E.2d 1232. Docket: 18A-DR-326 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4287825 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 4287825

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 4287825

QDRO: ies are going to keep all property present in their possession. The Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-326 | June 25, 2018 Page 2 of 14 real estate is going to be the property of the husband. The husband is going to transfer, I think, by way of QDRO or transference $30,000 from an IRA into my client's name. Ah, he's going to give her $5,000 cash—and when is that payable— when can you get that? [Husband's counsel]: He had asked for six (6) months. [Wife's counsel]: Okay. Six (6) months. Okay. Ah, the parties are going to be responsible for the debt in their individual name. I don't believe there'


CourtListener opinion 4290437

CourtListener opinion 4290437 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Dalton. Extracted reporter citation: 412 S.W.2d 29. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4290437 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 4290437

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 4290437

QDRO: s in arrears on his support obligations and held him in contempt. The court issued a wage-withholding order requiring Bart's employer to withhold some of his earnings to satisfy his monthly child-support and support-alimony obligations. It later entered a "qualified domestic relations order" (commonly called a "QDRO") making up for some of Bart's arrearages by assigning Carol an additional interest in Bart's retirement accounts. Bart and Carol's divorce was made final in 2011. Consistent with the earlier summary judgment, the Texas court's final divorce decree incorporated the Oklahoma order approving the parties' agreement. Neither Bart


CourtListener opinion 4290437

retirement benefits: approved in the Oklahoma order, and later issued various post-divorce orders to enforce the former husband's obligations. The former husband argues that the court cannot enforce his spousal-support obligation by wage withholding or by an assignment of his retirement benefits to his former wife. The court of appeals rejected both arguments. We agree with the former husband on both points. We reverse the court of appeals' judgment and render judgment that the wage-withholding order and the order assigning retirement benefits to enforce unpaid spousal support are void. I. Background For 150 years, the State of Texas rejec


CourtListener opinion 4290437

pension: ty rights to a spouse [or] former spouse" and "is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii). But ERISA's prohibition against assignments does not apply to a "qualified domestic relations order"; instead, ERISA requires pension plans to "provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order." Id. § 1056(d)(3)(A) (emphasis 15 added).17 A pension plan that receives a valid QDRO must pay the plan benefits to the spouse or former spouse designated as an alternate payee. See id. § 1056(d)(3)(H)(ii), (J), (K).


CourtListener opinion 4290437

ERISA: t to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)." Neither Carol nor the trial court identified any Texas law authorizing the order. Carol argues, however, that what Texas law does or does not authorize is immaterial because the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (of which section 1056(d)(3) is a part) "supersede[s] any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). We agree 14 that ERISA preempts any Texas law relating to employee benefit plans, but here, there is no Texas law that ERISA would preempt. ERISA was enacted "to protect . . . th


CourtListener opinion 4290438

CourtListener opinion 4290438 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Thomas. Extracted reporter citation: 641 S.W.2d 210. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4290438 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 4290438


CourtListener opinion 4290438

QDRO: e order or agreement in Texas could never do so by income withholding or contempt because such orders or agreements are simply not entered with another state's law in mind. II. Retirement Benefits The Court holds that the trial court erred in entering a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) assigning Carol additional interests in Bart's retirement accounts to satisfy his alimony arrearages. Because Carol has never argued that any portion of Bart's support obligation qualifies as spousal maintenance under chapter 8, I agree with the Court that it is enforceable in Texas only as a contract and that Texas law does not authorize satisfa


CourtListener opinion 4290438

retirement benefits: g full faith and credit to an Oklahoma order approving a spousal maintenance agreement between Bart and Carol Dalton. After Bart fell behind on his maintenance payments, Carol sought to enforce the order by income withholding and by an assignment of Bart's retirement benefits. The Court holds that Carol is entitled to neither of these enforcement mechanisms. While I agree with that result under the circumstances of this case, I write separately to clarify my views on a spouse's ability to enforce spousal maintenance obligations to the extent they qualify as such under chapter 8 of the Family Code. I. Income Withholding


CourtListener opinion 4290438

pension: ation of retirement benefits and preempts state law to the contrary. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1056(d)(1), 1144(a). However, QDROs are exempt from this prohibition. See id. § 1056(d); Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 846 (1997) (noting that QDROs "are exempt from both the pension plan anti-alienation provision and ERISA's general pre-emption clause" (citations omitted)). ERISA defines a QDRO as "a domestic relations order" that "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable 4 with respect to a participant und


CourtListener opinion 4290438

ERISA: tate law to the contrary. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1056(d)(1), 1144(a). However, QDROs are exempt from this prohibition. See id. § 1056(d); Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 846 (1997) (noting that QDROs "are exempt from both the pension plan anti-alienation provision and ERISA's general pre-emption clause" (citations omitted)). ERISA defines a QDRO as "a domestic relations order" that "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable 4 with respect to a participant under a plan," and that meets various other t


CourtListener opinion 4291602

CourtListener opinion 4291602 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JULIE ANN ANKENBAUER AND MARTYN DAVID ANKENBAUER Upon the Petition of JULIE ANN. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 17-1227. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4291602 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 4291602


CourtListener opinion 4291602

QDRO: 6 (Iowa 1995) ("It should not invalidate a property division if a disproportionate expectation regarding social security benefits is acknowledged in the court's assessment of the equities."). We therefore modify the decree and remand with directions that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be entered directing IPERS to pay a percentage of Martyn's benefits to Julie consistent with Iowa Code section 97B.39. See Faber v. Herman, 731 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 2007). The percentage shall be calculated by a formula using the number of years of marriage in which pension benefits accumulated as the numerator and the total number of years p


CourtListener opinion 4291602

retirement benefits: y years and both were retired at the time of the dissolution. During the marriage, Julie worked for the federal government. She was employed in the postal department and the Corp of Engineers. Julie retired in December 2010. In 2015, Julie cashed out her retirement account, a Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which at that time totaled $76,192.18. From that total, $15,238.44 was withheld for federal tax, and Julie received a lump sum of $60,953.74. Julie used $43,813 to pay off the mortgage on the couple's home purchased in 1984,1 $4275 to pay 2015 taxes on the property, and $4774 to pay a joint credit card debt. The parties pl


CourtListener opinion 4291602

pension: n dissolution cases, just as any other property." (Citations omitted.)); see also Iowa Code § 598.21(1)(i) (stating vested and unvested pensions are circumstances to be considered in equitably dividing property). There are two accepted methods of dividing pension benefits: the present-value method and the percentage method. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d at 255; 24 Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and Separation §§ 585–86, at 747–50 (1998). Additionally, there are two main types of pension plans: defined-benefit plans and defined-contribution plans. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d at 254. .... IPERS is, of cour


CourtListener opinion 4291602

domestic relations order: 95) ("It should not invalidate a property division if a disproportionate expectation regarding social security benefits is acknowledged in the court's assessment of the equities."). We therefore modify the decree and remand with directions that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be entered directing IPERS to pay a percentage of Martyn's benefits to Julie consistent with Iowa Code section 97B.39. See Faber v. Herman, 731 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 2007). The percentage shall be calculated by a formula using the number of years of marriage in which pension benefits accumulated as the numerator and the total number of years p


CourtListener opinion 4292044

CourtListener opinion 4292044 Extracted reporter citation: 9 N.E.3d 1016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4292044 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 4292044


CourtListener opinion 4292044

QDRO: leas Court issued an order designating Bosse as the trial court's expert witness with respect to the distribution of David's retirement benefits to the parties. Specifically, Bosse, as the trial court's expert, was ordered by the magistrate to prepare four Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO") in order to equitably divide David's retirement benefits from Delphi Corporation. Pursuant to the magistrate's order, in June of 2009, Bosse presented the parties with four QDROs. {¶ 4} In February 2010, Hamlin, through counsel, sent Bosse a letter informing him that certain necessary language was missing from the QDROs and that the amount of


CourtListener opinion 4292044

retirement benefits: d establishes that Hamlin and her ex-husband, David, obtained a divorce on August 2, 1990, in Darke County Common Pleas Court Case No. 88-DIV-50267. Pursuant to one of the orders issued by the trial court, Hamlin was to receive one-half of her ex-husband's retirement benefits administered by the General Motors Corporation. In May of 2003, David retired from Delphi Corporation, a subsidiary of General Motors. {¶ 3} Thereafter, on October 30, 2008, a magistrate from the Darke County Common Pleas Court issued an order designating Bosse as the trial court's expert witness with respect to the distribution of David's retirement


CourtListener opinion 4292044

domestic relations order: issued an order designating Bosse as the trial court's expert witness with respect to the distribution of David's retirement benefits to the parties. Specifically, Bosse, as the trial court's expert, was ordered by the magistrate to prepare four Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO") in order to equitably divide David's retirement benefits from Delphi Corporation. Pursuant to the magistrate's order, in June of 2009, Bosse presented the parties with four QDROs. {¶ 4} In February 2010, Hamlin, through counsel, sent Bosse a letter informing him that certain necessary language was missing from the QDROs and that the amount of


CourtListener opinion 4293146

CourtListener opinion 4293146 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4293146 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 4293146

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 4293146

QDRO: luding the cases. The third one arose from Respondent's failure to pay $2,500 to his client after the Resolution of Fee Disputes Board instructed him to do so. Finally, the fourth complaint was filed after Respondent took approximately a decade to have three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) prepared. He represented a client in a domestic matter that was resolved by a settlement agreement approved by the family court in 1999. The agreement provided that Respondent was to prepare the QDROs. Respondent was contacted by the Complainant's attorney in 2009 regarding the status of the QDROs. Respondent then hired a QDRO specialist to prepare


CourtListener opinion 4293146

retirement benefits: 1999. The agreement provided that Respondent was to prepare the QDROs. Respondent was contacted by the Complainant's attorney in 2009 regarding the status of the QDROs. Respondent then hired a QDRO specialist to prepare the QDROs, which were submitted to the retirement plans in 2009 and 2010. Law Respondent admits that by his conduct he has violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), Rule 1.4 (lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), Rule 1.5 (lawy


CourtListener opinion 4293146

domestic relations order: cases. The third one arose from Respondent's failure to pay $2,500 to his client after the Resolution of Fee Disputes Board instructed him to do so. Finally, the fourth complaint was filed after Respondent took approximately a decade to have three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) prepared. He represented a client in a domestic matter that was resolved by a settlement agreement approved by the family court in 1999. The agreement provided that Respondent was to prepare the QDROs. Respondent was contacted by the Complainant's attorney in 2009 regarding the status of the QDROs. Respondent then hired a QDRO specialist to prepare


CourtListener opinion 4293283

CourtListener opinion 4293283 Extracted reporter citation: 629 A.2d 1014. Docket: 1817 MDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4293283 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 4293283


CourtListener opinion 4293283

QDRO: y 8, 2016. Between July 14, 2016 and November 30, 2016, Husband filed eight petitions challenging the validity of the postnuptial agreement, all of which were denied by the trial court. On December 14, 2016, the parties came to an agreement and executed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order addressing Wife's entitlement to a portion of Husband's pension payout. However, beginning on January 4, 2017 through November 14, 2017, Husband filed another six petitions challenging the validity of the postnuptial agreement. The trial court denied each petition. On November 27, 2017, Husband filed a timely pro se notice of appeal from the trial cour


CourtListener opinion 4293283

pension: history of this case as follows: Husband and [Lysbeth W. Clark (Wife)] signed a post- nuptial agreement on December 27, 1984. As stated in paragraph twelve (12) of the Agreement, Wife is entitled to a percentage of Husband's Philadelphia Electric Company pension when Husband begins drawing on it. Paragraph 12 also contains a formula to determine Wife's monthly portion of Husband's pension payout. In 1995, Husband retired and Wife began receiving her portion of Husband's pension payment directly from Husband. The amount of this payment was $532.30 per month. Husband began withholding monthly payments to Wife i


CourtListener opinion 4293283

domestic relations order: Between July 14, 2016 and November 30, 2016, Husband filed eight petitions challenging the validity of the postnuptial agreement, all of which were denied by the trial court. On December 14, 2016, the parties came to an agreement and executed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order addressing Wife's entitlement to a portion of Husband's pension payout. However, beginning on January 4, 2017 through November 14, 2017, Husband filed another six petitions challenging the validity of the postnuptial agreement. The trial court denied each petition. On November 27, 2017, Husband filed a timely pro se notice of appeal from the trial cour


CourtListener opinion 4293872

CourtListener opinion 4293872 Extracted reporter citation: 568 A.2d 419. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4293872 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 4293872


CourtListener opinion 4293872

QDRO: vorced in 2011. Under their final stipulated property division, they each received fifty percent of husband's pension from the Vermont Teachers Retirement System. Husband transferred a half-interest to wife by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and she has received regular payments since the divorce. ¶ 3. Sometime after the divorce became final, husband received a medical diagnosis that precluded employment and shortened his life expectancy. His inability to work increased his need for his full pension income. Because husband's pension is tied to his life, husband's health issues meant wife


CourtListener opinion 4293872

pension: r the divorce order has become absolute. We hold the court does have jurisdiction, and accordingly we reverse and remand. ¶ 2. Husband and wife divorced in 2011. Under their final stipulated property division, they each received fifty percent of husband's pension from the Vermont Teachers Retirement System. Husband transferred a half-interest to wife by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and she has received regular payments since the divorce. ¶ 3. Sometime after the divorce became final, husband received a medical diagnosis that precluded employment and shortened his life expectancy. His inab


CourtListener opinion 4293872

valuation/division: roperty-division order based on the agreement of the parties after the divorce order has become absolute. We hold the court does have jurisdiction, and accordingly we reverse and remand. ¶ 2. Husband and wife divorced in 2011. Under their final stipulated property division, they each received fifty percent of husband's pension from the Vermont Teachers Retirement System. Husband transferred a half-interest to wife by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and she has received regular payments since the divorce. ¶ 3. Sometime after the divorce became final, husband received a medical diagnosis that preclude


CourtListener opinion 4294014

CourtListener opinion 4294014 Extracted reporter citation: 562 A.2d 912. Docket: 3888 EDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4294014 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 4294014


CourtListener opinion 4294014

QDRO: ement and determining the amount of arrears to be $142,938.58. Trial Court Order, filed 9/26/16. The trial court indicated: [Husband] may purge himself of this contempt by cooperating within thirty (30) days in the preparation and signing of an approved Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) regarding his [] pension authorizing payment to [Wife] in an amount equal to 75 percent of the monthly pension benefit. ____________________________________________ 1 The trial court found that Husband's "pension went into pay status in 2002, while his social security went into pay status in 2012." Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, filed 1/2


CourtListener opinion 4294014

pension: ered into a stipulated settlement agreement as it pertained to the economic claims. Relevantly, the parties' settlement agreement provided that: "When [Husband] begins to collect social security, 20% of that will go to [Wife]. When he begins to collect his pension, ____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S37034-18 25% of that will go to [Wife]." Parties' Stipulated Settlement Agreement, filed 8/20/92, at 1-2. Subsequently, on November 9, 2015, Wife filed her first petition for contempt indicating that, by letter dated August 18, 2014, she received notice


CourtListener opinion 4294014

domestic relations order: determining the amount of arrears to be $142,938.58. Trial Court Order, filed 9/26/16. The trial court indicated: [Husband] may purge himself of this contempt by cooperating within thirty (30) days in the preparation and signing of an approved Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) regarding his [] pension authorizing payment to [Wife] in an amount equal to 75 percent of the monthly pension benefit. ____________________________________________ 1 The trial court found that Husband's "pension went into pay status in 2002, while his social security went into pay status in 2012." Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, filed 1/2


CourtListener opinion 4294014

valuation/division: abel Manzo ("Wife"). After a careful review, we affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: Husband and Wife were married on January 10, 1971, and on October 24, 1990, Wife filed a complaint in divorce in which she sought alimony and equitable distribution of the parties' marital estate. The trial court entered a divorce decree on August 20, 1992, and the parties entered into a stipulated settlement agreement as it pertained to the economic claims. Relevantly, the parties' settlement agreement provided that: "When [Husband] begins to collect social security, 20% of that will go to [Wife]. When he begins


CourtListener opinion 4294342

CourtListener opinion 4294342 Extracted case name: KATIE N. CONROY v. AMMAR A. IDLIBI. Extracted reporter citation: 787 A.2d 46. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4294342 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 4294342

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 4294342

QDRO: f [General Statutes §] 46b-86 (b) are incorporated by reference into these orders.'' With respect to property distributions, the court issued the following orders: ‘‘[The] defendant shall immediately transfer by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) one half . . . of his RBC Wealth Management retirement account . . . that accrued from the date of the marriage to the date of this decision plus gains and losses incurred from the date of the decision until the date of distribution. [The] defendant may choose a qualified professional to assist in the preparation of such an order. He shall be solely respon


CourtListener opinion 4294342

retirement benefits: by reference into these orders.'' With respect to property distributions, the court issued the following orders: ‘‘[The] defendant shall immediately transfer by means of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) one half . . . of his RBC Wealth Management retirement account . . . that accrued from the date of the marriage to the date of this decision plus gains and losses incurred from the date of the decision until the date of distribution. [The] defendant may choose a qualified professional to assist in the preparation of such an order. He shall be solely responsible for any and all costs of preparation or imple- mentation.


CourtListener opinion 4294809

CourtListener opinion 4294809 Extracted case name: KRENZEN v. KATZ. Docket: 1 CA-CV 17-0367 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4294809 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 4294809


CourtListener opinion 4294809

QDRO: e Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge James P. Beene joined. C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 Lori Krenzen ("Wife") appeals the family court's post-decree qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and the denial of her request for attorney fees. For the following reasons, we affirm the QDRO and remand the issue of attorney fees for the family court to consider the parties' financial resources. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Wife and Adam Katz ("Husband") were married in 2007. Wife served Husband with a petition for dissolution of marr


CourtListener opinion 4294809

401(k): ND ¶2 Wife and Adam Katz ("Husband") were married in 2007. Wife served Husband with a petition for dissolution of marriage in September 2012, and the parties were divorced in November 2013. As relevant here, the decree provided that "Father's Marker Advisors 401k shall be divided so that all funds contributed during the marriage (and all proceeds of such funds) are divided 50/50." (Emphasis added.) ¶3 Later, Husband proposed a QDRO assigning Wife 50 percent of the funds contributed in the Marker Advisors 401(k) (the "401(k)") through September 2012. Wife objected and argued she was entitled to 50 percent of the 401


CourtListener opinion 4294809

domestic relations order: MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge James P. Beene joined. C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 Lori Krenzen ("Wife") appeals the family court's post-decree qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") and the denial of her request for attorney fees. For the following reasons, we affirm the QDRO and remand the issue of attorney fees for the family court to consider the parties' financial resources. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Wife and Adam Katz ("Husband") were married in 2007. Wife served Husband with a petition for dissolution of marr


CourtListener opinion 4294809

valuation/division: 980)). ¶6 The family court determined that the language of the decree is ambiguous. Whether or not we agree with that determination, we agree with the ultimate outcome. Specifically, the parties' "marriage" ended in November 2013. See A.R.S. § 25-325(A). The community property aspect of the marriage "is deemed to have terminated upon the service of a petition 1 Although the family court did not specifically "deny" the fee requests, his failure to rule implies they were denied. See Pearson v. Pearson, 190 Ariz. 231, 237 (App. 1997). 3 KRENZEN v. KATZ Decision of the Court that results in a decree of dissolution." Bobrow v.


CourtListener opinion 4295195

CourtListener opinion 4295195 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4295195 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 4295195


CourtListener opinion 4295195

QDRO: " Id. The court then concluded that a latent ambiguity exists when "a contract fails to specify the rights or duties of the parties under certain conditions or in certain situations." Id. Similarly, in Taylor the parties prepared a contract providing that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") would serve as the method for enforcing distribution of the husband's pension plan. 183 So. 3d at 1122. The City of Orlando Police Department rejected the QDRO and the Fifth District concluded that rejection qualified "as an extrinsic fact or extraneous circumstance which altered the parties' understanding of the means of payment and their respecti


CourtListener opinion 4295195

pension: es of the parties under certain conditions or in certain situations." Id. Similarly, in Taylor the parties prepared a contract providing that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") would serve as the method for enforcing distribution of the husband's pension plan. 183 So. 3d at 1122. The City of Orlando Police Department rejected the QDRO and the Fifth District concluded that rejection qualified "as an extrinsic fact or extraneous circumstance which altered the parties' understanding of the means of payment and their respective duties." Id. at 1123. Finally, in Hayes, this Court held that the contractual lang


CourtListener opinion 4295195

domestic relations order: court then concluded that a latent ambiguity exists when "a contract fails to specify the rights or duties of the parties under certain conditions or in certain situations." Id. Similarly, in Taylor the parties prepared a contract providing that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") would serve as the method for enforcing distribution of the husband's pension plan. 183 So. 3d at 1122. The City of Orlando Police Department rejected the QDRO and the Fifth District concluded that rejection qualified "as an extrinsic fact or extraneous circumstance which altered the parties' understanding of the means of payment and their respecti


CourtListener opinion 4295289

CourtListener opinion 4295289 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BENJAMIN WILLIAM INGERSOLL AND JENNIFER LIZABETH INGERSOLL Upon the Petition of. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 17-1974. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4295289 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 4295289


CourtListener opinion 4295289

QDRO: following the separation from Jennifer, taking out a loan for solar panels in an amount greater than the increase in value attributable the asset. 11 awarded fifty percent of the marital interest in Ben's accounts to Jennifer. The court properly ordered a QDRO be prepared to limit any distribution to accumulations and earnings accrued during the marriage. The court found Jennifer's retirement accounts to be "nominal" and determined she would retain sole ownership of those funds. Given Jennifer's financial circumstances, the minimal nature of her accounts, and the use of the assets, we do not find the determi


CourtListener opinion 4295289

retirement benefits: ated child support using some overtime hours in Ben's income and adopting Jennifer's suggested imputed income, requiring Ben to pay $325 per month in child support. The court divided the marital assets and debts, including equity in the family home, Ben's retirement accounts, and medical debts. The court also awarded Jennifer a portion of her requested attorney fees. 4 Ben appeals the district court ruling of joint physical care and seeks physical care of A.M.I. Ben appeals the child-support calculation, distribution of assets, and awarding of attorney fees. II. Standard of Review We review dissolution of marriage ca


CourtListener opinion 4295289

pension: home-improvement projects during the marriage, which would have increased the equity. We find the evidence supports the court's increase in equity of the house during the marriage, and that the court's determination is equitable. 2. Retirement benefits Pension and retirement benefits are marital property and thus subject to equitable division between the parties to a dissolution proceeding. In re Marriage of Branstetter, 508 N.W.2d 638, 640 (Iowa 1993). There are two accepted methods of dividing retirement benefits: the present-value method and the percentage method. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252,


CourtListener opinion 4295289

401(k): efits accrued at maturity." Benson, 545 N.W.2d at 255. Both Ben and Jennifer had retirement accounts during their marriage. Jennifer cashed out her accounts of approximately $2700 to pay toward her legal bills. Ben had approximately $20,000 in his IRA and 401K account at the time of the hearing from contributions both before and during the marriage. The court 2 We note Ben decreased the home's equity following the separation from Jennifer, taking out a loan for solar panels in an amount greater than the increase in value attributable the asset. 11 awarded fifty percent of the marital interest in Ben's accoun


CourtListener opinion 4297254

CourtListener opinion 4297254 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Moore. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: for August 5. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4297254 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 4297254

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 4297254

domestic relations order: ad failed to pay Maria $58,511.89 in military retirement pay to which she was entitled. The trial court awarded Maria a judgment for that amount and further awarded her attorney a judgment for $11,698.00 in attorney's fees. Finally, the order incorporated a domestic relations order with regard to Juan's military retirement pay. Maria's attorney signed and filed an attorney's certificate of respondent's last known mailing address on the same day the order was signed, listing a street address in Killeen, Texas, for Juan and an address for the Law Office of Manuel V. Rodriguez. On September 14, 2017, Juan filed his notice of restric


CourtListener opinion 4298735

CourtListener opinion 4298735 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Ford. Extracted reporter citation: 435 S.W.3d 347. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4298735 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 4298735

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 4298735

QDRO: nt of $150,000 from his ExxonMobil Savings Plan. During the hearing, Embesi testified that she understood the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and that it was a fair and equitable division of the parties' marital estate. The trial court entered a QDRO that was approved by the parties and which awarded Embesi $150,000 from Hall's ExxonMobil Savings Plan. In March 2014, Embesi filed another petition for post-divorce division of property, claiming that she was entitled to a division of Hall's ExxonMobil Pension Plan. Hall answered Embesi's petition and argued that the division of the marital estate h


CourtListener opinion 4298735

retirement benefits: rding to Hall, Embesi knew that he had a savings plan and a pension plan, and the parties had agreed that his payment of $186,000 to Embesi would settle any 3 disputes regarding both plans. Hall testified that Embesi had agreed to have her portion of the retirement benefits paid out in cash from the savings plan, instead of having to wait to receive money from the pension plan. Hall further testified that from 2008 to 2010, he paid Embesi $4000 per month. Hall explained that he had agreed to the bill of review to allow the court to award Embesi more money even though the dispute concerning his retirement arose after any


CourtListener opinion 4298735

pension: that was approved by the parties and which awarded Embesi $150,000 from Hall's ExxonMobil Savings Plan. In March 2014, Embesi filed another petition for post-divorce division of property, claiming that she was entitled to a division of Hall's ExxonMobil Pension Plan. Hall answered Embesi's petition and argued that the division of the marital estate had been litigated, settled, and confirmed, and that Embesi was not entitled to any further relief. In May 2015, Hall filed a traditional motion for summary 2 judgment, arguing that Embesi's post-divorce attempt to divide retirement funds was barred by res judica


CourtListener opinion 4300442

CourtListener opinion 4300442 Extracted reporter citation: 557 A.2d 23. Docket: 1787 WDA 2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4300442 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 4300442


CourtListener opinion 4300442

QDRO: the pension. The trial court entered a final divorce decree on December 19, 2012. The decree incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement, including their agreement to divide equally the monthly payment benefits issued from Husband's pension. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was subsequently prepared and executed by Wife, as an alternate payee, on October 29, 2013 and by Husband, as a participant, on November 20, 2013.1 With the preparation of the QDRO, the parties learned that they each would receive a monthly payment of $480.52 from Husband's pension. See QDRO, 12/3/13, at 2. On November 14, 2013, Wife filed a pet


CourtListener opinion 4300442

retirement benefits: ontroversy. Among these are the keeping of the defeated party away from court by false promise of ____________________________________________ 4 As additional support for her claims, Wife alleges that Husband removed funds from insurance policies and 401(k) retirement plans. These actions, however, are wholly unrelated to the relief ordered by the trial court and, therefore, would not support affirmance even if the claims proved meritorious. Hence, we shall not consider them further. -6- J-A02026-18 compromise, or fraudulently keeping him in ignorance of the action. Another instance is where an attorney without authorit


CourtListener opinion 4300442

pension: 76 and separated on June 20, 2009. Husband filed a divorce complaint on November 5, 2009. Thereafter, in August 2012, the parties appeared before a hearing master to divide their marital assets, including funds held in Husband's Kmart Corporation Employee Pension Plan (pension). At the hearing, the parties agreed to equally divide the monthly payment benefit issued from Husband's pension and further agreed to incorporate this "equal division" term into their marital settlement agreement. The record of the hearing contains no discussion of, or agreement to, a specific monetary sum that Husband or Wife expected t


CourtListener opinion 4300442

401(k): f the controversy. Among these are the keeping of the defeated party away from court by false promise of ____________________________________________ 4 As additional support for her claims, Wife alleges that Husband removed funds from insurance policies and 401(k) retirement plans. These actions, however, are wholly unrelated to the relief ordered by the trial court and, therefore, would not support affirmance even if the claims proved meritorious. Hence, we shall not consider them further. -6- J-A02026-18 compromise, or fraudulently keeping him in ignorance of the action. Another instance is where an attorney


CourtListener opinion 4301612

CourtListener opinion 4301612 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Whitley. Extracted reporter citation: 163 A.3d 399. Docket: 1139 EDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4301612 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 4301612


CourtListener opinion 4301612

QDRO: s $474,422.57. 1 See N.T., 9/15/16, Exhibit XW-3. The parties stipulated that [Wife] received this amount from the parties' joint TD stock account. At the time of the hearing on September 15, 2016, the -2- J-A14014-18 parties had yet to finalize a QDRO with respect to [Husband's] TIAA-CREF account. It is anticipated that one- half of this account will be approximately $35,000 to $37,000. (N.T., 9/15/16, pp. 38, 81). We issued an Order dated September 16, 2016,[1] that directed [Husband] to pay to [Wife] cash in the amount of $62,000 within 30 days of the date of the Order. That would leave a balan


CourtListener opinion 4301612

valuation/division: STORY The parties were formally married. They have two (2) minor children. The parties were divorced pursuant to a Divorce Decree dated January 11, 2016. The Divorce Decree incorporated a settlement agreement ("PSA") that was placed on the record before Equitable Distribution Master Bruce Goldenberg on December 17, 2015. Pursuant to the PSA, [Husband] agreed to transfer assets ____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A14014-18 totaling $575,000 to [Wife]. The $575,000 was to be distributed to [Wife] as follows: (1) $50,000 in accounts or assets that [Wife] had received


CourtListener opinion 4301716

CourtListener opinion 4301716 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4301716 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 4301716


CourtListener opinion 4301716

QDRO: mbus, OH 43215 Columbus, OH 43215 [Cite as Keller v. Keller, 2018-Ohio-3141.] Gwin, P.J. {¶1} Appellant/Wife appeals the December 27, 2017 judgment entry of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, and the January 22, 2018 QDRO's for the IBM and Nationwide Pension Plans. Facts & Procedural History {¶2} Appellant Susan Keller and appellee Michael Keller were married for thirty- two years. The trial court granted appellant and appellee a divorce pursuant to an agreed judgment entry-decree of divorce on July 31, 2015. Pursuant to the decree, Retirement Accounts: The parties f


CourtListener opinion 4301716

retirement benefits: History {¶2} Appellant Susan Keller and appellee Michael Keller were married for thirty- two years. The trial court granted appellant and appellee a divorce pursuant to an agreed judgment entry-decree of divorce on July 31, 2015. Pursuant to the decree, Retirement Accounts: The parties further agree that the parties shall divide equally all retirement/employment benefits, as described below, whether referred to as an IRA, 401(k) Pension, Retirement Plans, Profit Sharing or otherwise, and whether qualified or not qualified, including but not limited to all benefits through Nationwide and prior employer IBM. The part


CourtListener opinion 4301716

pension: [Cite as Keller v. Keller, 2018-Ohio-3141.] Gwin, P.J. {¶1} Appellant/Wife appeals the December 27, 2017 judgment entry of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, and the January 22, 2018 QDRO's for the IBM and Nationwide Pension Plans. Facts & Procedural History {¶2} Appellant Susan Keller and appellee Michael Keller were married for thirty- two years. The trial court granted appellant and appellee a divorce pursuant to an agreed judgment entry-decree of divorce on July 31, 2015. Pursuant to the decree, Retirement Accounts: The parties further agree that the parties shall


CourtListener opinion 4301716

401(k): greed judgment entry-decree of divorce on July 31, 2015. Pursuant to the decree, Retirement Accounts: The parties further agree that the parties shall divide equally all retirement/employment benefits, as described below, whether referred to as an IRA, 401(k) Pension, Retirement Plans, Profit Sharing or otherwise, and whether qualified or not qualified, including but not limited to all benefits through Nationwide and prior employer IBM. The parties shall retain QDRO Consultants Company or another proper expert to prepare any necessary QDRO(s) * * * The Retirement Plan documents will control the divis


CourtListener opinion 4301899

CourtListener opinion 4301899 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4301899 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 4301899

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 4301899

QDRO: be reduced from Husband's NY Life whole life policy [Appellant] is receiving. [Appellant] shall also receive 50% of the marital portion of Husband's defined benefit pension he is receiving from the Port Authority. [Appellant's] counsel shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband shall receive the following marital property: The Marital share of 3824 Mountain Road $55,000.00 The Marital share of 2893 Overhill Street $23,000.00 The PNC Money Market account ...2308 $1,000.33 The PNC Checking Account ...4171 $2,821.22 The NY Life IRA $29,591.24 The Riding Mower $500.00 - 11 - J-A13012-18 The 1995 GMC Silvera


CourtListener opinion 4301899

retirement benefits: orn of the marriage although each party has adult children from a prior marriage. At the time of trial, Husband was 81 years of age. Husband is retired from his employment from the Port Authority of Allegheny County. He is also receiving Social Security Retirement benefits as well as rental income from rental property he owns. Husband's 2014 federal income tax return indicated his gross income (which included his retirement, rental and Social Security income) was $45,234. Husband's net monthly income was determined to be $3,388 at the time of the support hearing. At the time of trial, [Appellant] was 78 years of age.


CourtListener opinion 4301899

pension: was determined to be $3,388 at the time of the support hearing. At the time of trial, [Appellant] was 78 years of age. [Appellant's] source of income is her income from Social Security as well as her rental income from the rental property she owns. Her pension from AT&T was cashed in sometime after her retirement in 1997. At the time of the support hearing, [Appellant's] net monthly income was determined to be $1,020. Husband is paying $1,106.81 to [Appellant] as alimony pendente lite, plus $100 toward the arrears. ... In 2012, Husband was diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm of the spinal cord (a cancero


CourtListener opinion 4301899

domestic relations order: from Husband's NY Life whole life policy [Appellant] is receiving. [Appellant] shall also receive 50% of the marital portion of Husband's defined benefit pension he is receiving from the Port Authority. [Appellant's] counsel shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband shall receive the following marital property: The Marital share of 3824 Mountain Road $55,000.00 The Marital share of 2893 Overhill Street $23,000.00 The PNC Money Market account ...2308 $1,000.33 The PNC Checking Account ...4171 $2,821.22 The NY Life IRA $29,591.24 The Riding Mower $500.00 - 11 - J-A13012-18 The 1995 GMC Silvera


CourtListener opinion 4302778

CourtListener opinion 4302778 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Fisher. Extracted reporter citation: 62 N.E.3d 1212. Docket: 30A01-1712-DR-2768 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4302778 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 4302778


CourtListener opinion 4302778

QDRO: to the trial court. However, during the evidentiary hearing, Husband specifically argued that the trial court should apply a coverture formula and argued that the trial court could not order the payments through a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") because the parties were not married for ten years during his military service. Husband testified that they were married for eight years during his twenty-one years of military service, and his Petitioner's Exhibit 2 requested Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A01-1712-DR-2768 | August 10, 2018 Page 9 of 24 a coverture factor of 49


CourtListener opinion 4302778

retirement benefits: ired before or during the marriage, is generally included in the marital estate for property division. See Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a). This Court has explained, The "coverture fraction" formula is one method a trial court may use to distribute pension or retirement plan benefits to the earning and non-earning spouses. Under this methodology, the value of the retirement plan is multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the period of time during which the marriage existed (while pension rights were accruing) and the denominator is the total period of time during which pension rights accrued. In re Marriage


CourtListener opinion 4302778

pension: rial court committed reversible error by deviating from the presumption of an equal division of marital property without explaining the deviation; II. whether the trial court erred by ordering that Wife receive sixty percent of Husband's gross military pension; III. whether the trial court erred when it ordered Husband to pay for Wife's vehicle in the future to transport their son; IV. whether the trial court erred when it valued Husband's Eli Lilly pension; and V. whether the trial court erred when it ordered Husband to pay rehabilitative maintenance to Wife. Facts [3] The parties had a child, C.M.,


CourtListener opinion 4302778

401(k): hed agreements on most issues regarding the children, leaving mainly issues regarding division of the marital estate and maintenance. Husband proposed that he "take on all liabilities associated with the marital estate." Tr. Vol. II p. 33. Husband has a 401K through his employment with Eli Lilly, a pension with Eli Lilly, and a military pension. Wife requested caretaker maintenance to care for D.M. and rehabilitative 1 Husband asserts that he has lost his job since the trial court's order. However, we cannot consider evidence not in the record. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A01-1


CourtListener opinion 4302933

CourtListener opinion 4302933 Extracted reporter citation: 999 N.E.2d 214. Docket: L-17-1157 Appellee Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4302933 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 4302933

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 4302933

QDRO: t-matter jurisdiction. Nancy countered that her interest arose from the divorce decree and characterized herself as a transferee of Mollie K—not a member. She argued that the domestic relations court reserved continuing jurisdiction only as to the parties' qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). {¶ 15} Randolph and Max Auto also moved to strike Nancy's jury demand as untimely under Civ.R. 38(B). Nancy urged that even if her jury demand was untimely— which she denied—the trial court had discretion under Civ.R. 39(B) to permit a trial by jury. {¶ 16} The trial court denied Randolph and Max Auto's motion to dismiss. It agreed with N


CourtListener opinion 4302933

domestic relations order: urisdiction. Nancy countered that her interest arose from the divorce decree and characterized herself as a transferee of Mollie K—not a member. She argued that the domestic relations court reserved continuing jurisdiction only as to the parties' qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). {¶ 15} Randolph and Max Auto also moved to strike Nancy's jury demand as untimely under Civ.R. 38(B). Nancy urged that even if her jury demand was untimely— which she denied—the trial court had discretion under Civ.R. 39(B) to permit a trial by jury. {¶ 16} The trial court denied Randolph and Max Auto's motion to dismiss. It agreed with N


CourtListener opinion 4304042

CourtListener opinion 4304042 Extracted reporter citation: 417 P.3d 78. Docket: 20170472. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4304042 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 4304042


CourtListener opinion 4304042

QDRO: Kiley petitioned for bankruptcy. About a month after that, the district court entered a supplemental decree reifying the settlement the parties had placed on the record. A couple months later, the district court entered the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)—the document that would permit Kiley to access Marrott's retirement funds. ¶ 5 Kiley did not list the retirement plan proceeds on her initial bankruptcy disclosures. At a meeting with her creditors—a meeting that took place before the district court entered the order memorializing the stipulated property division—Kiley disclosed her interest in the retire


CourtListener opinion 4304042

retirement benefits: ng to Kiley, read the stipulation into the record before the domestic relations commissioner. As part of that stipulation, and to satisfy the judgment for unpaid child support and alimony, Kiley received "all of the value in any and all of her former spouse's retirement accounts . . . ." ¶ 4 The day after mediation, Kiley petitioned for bankruptcy. About a month after that, the district court entered a supplemental decree reifying the settlement the parties had placed on the record. A couple months later, the district court entered the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)—the document that would permit Kiley to access Marrot


CourtListener opinion 4304042

ERISA: ____ 3 That the question arises in the context of funds in a retirement account further complicates the question and informs our decision to decline to answer the first certified question. The parties agree that the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act (ERISA) may have some impact on the disposition of the funds. The bankruptcy court appears to have carefully drafted the question to leave the ERISA issues out of our court. Nevertheless, both parties analyze the question with reference to ERISA. For example, Kiley argues that (continued . . .) 5 In re KILEY Opinion of the Court ¶ 15 The second certified que


CourtListener opinion 4304042

401(k): (1)(b), any money or other assets held for or payable to the individual as a participant or beneficiary from or an interest of the individual as a participant or beneficiary in a retirement plan or arrangement that is described in Section 401(a), 401(h), 401(k), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A, 409, 414(d), 414(e), or 457, Internal Revenue Code . . . . UTAH CODE § 78B-5-505(1)(a). And this exemption provides that: 2 (1)(a) An individual is entitled to exemption of the following property: . . . (xv) the interest of any money or other assets payable to an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order


CourtListener opinion 4304357

CourtListener opinion 4304357 Extracted reporter citation: 754 A.2d 36. Docket: 440 C.D. 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4304357 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 4304357

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 4304357

QDRO: , Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER1 FILED: August 16, 2018 Karen Gausman (Wife) seeks to compel the City of Erie Officers' and Employees' Retirement Plan (Plan) to approve a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that she negotiated during her divorce from Plan participant Gary Gausman (Participant). The Plan previously refused to approve the QDRO because it provided, in relevant part, that Wife would be entitled to survivor benefits upon Participant's death. The City of Erie's Pension Ordinance expressly prohibits survivor benefits to ex-spouses. Wife filed a Moti


CourtListener opinion 4304357

retirement benefits: ELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER1 FILED: August 16, 2018 Karen Gausman (Wife) seeks to compel the City of Erie Officers' and Employees' Retirement Plan (Plan) to approve a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that she negotiated during her divorce from Plan participant Gary Gausman (Participant). The Plan previously refused to approve the QDRO because it provided, in relevant part, that Wife would be entitled to survivor benefits upon Participant's death. The City of Erie's Pension Ordinance


CourtListener opinion 4304357

pension: egotiated during her divorce from Plan participant Gary Gausman (Participant). The Plan previously refused to approve the QDRO because it provided, in relevant part, that Wife would be entitled to survivor benefits upon Participant's death. The City of Erie's Pension Ordinance expressly prohibits survivor benefits to ex-spouses. Wife filed a Motion for Special Relief (Motion) asking the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County (common pleas) to order the Plan 1 This matter was reassigned to this author on July 9, 2018. to approve the QDRO. Common pleas denied the Motion by Order dated March 9, 2017. On appeal, Wife clai


CourtListener opinion 4304357

alternate payee: ch as an annuity purchased by Participant. 3 The MSA was ultimately approved by common pleas. 4 The language that the Plan wanted omitted is reflected by strikethrough and the proposed additions are underscored. 2 10. If the Participant predeceases the Alternate Payee[5], either before or after the Participant's retirement, then the Alternate Payee shall receive the marital portion (calculated using the fraction defined in Section 8) of the Plan's 50% survivor annuity. Such survivor annuity shall be payable to the Alternate Payee for her lifetime and irrespective of her or the Participant's marital status. If there


CourtListener opinion 4305023

CourtListener opinion 4305023 Extracted reporter citation: 741 P.2d 649. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4305023 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 4305023


CourtListener opinion 4305023

QDRO: efit until she turned 60, the applicable retirement age. Moreover, the medical benefit was personal to her, and she could not share it with Gregory or sell it. Miller suggested that the superior court could divide the PERS pension and medical benefits using a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).2 Assuming "a 50/50 division," Miller testified that the QDRO would assign Gregory a share of Patricia's monthly pension payment equal to 50% of the monthly pension payment plus 50% of the value of Patricia's monthly medical benefit. Because the medical benefit and pension were of comparable value, Miller's proposed QDRO would as a practical matter a


CourtListener opinion 4305023

retirement benefits: for the State" — even though Patricia had in fact quit her job with the State during the marriage. We agree with Gregory's argument that the court erred in applying this adjusted coverture fraction. The coverture fraction is used to determine what part of a retirement benefit is marital property and what part is separate property. It should not be used to discount the value of marital property or as a guideline for equitably dividing marital property. The superior court should have characterized the retirement medical benefit as marital or separate in accordance with the actual coverture fraction, valued the benefit at its full


CourtListener opinion 4305023

pension: a domestic violence incident. For much of the marriage — from 2001 until shortly before the parties' separation — Patricia worked for the State of Alaska.1 During that time, Patricia was enrolled in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and earned a pension and a retirement medical benefit. Patricia earned these benefits entirely during the marriage, and the benefits vested during the marriage. 1 Actually, Patricia worked for both the City of Kenai and the State. For ease of reference, in this opinion we refer to her employment as only being with the State. -2- 7273 Patricia filed for divorce soon after t


CourtListener opinion 4305023

domestic relations order: she turned 60, the applicable retirement age. Moreover, the medical benefit was personal to her, and she could not share it with Gregory or sell it. Miller suggested that the superior court could divide the PERS pension and medical benefits using a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).2 Assuming "a 50/50 division," Miller testified that the QDRO would assign Gregory a share of Patricia's monthly pension payment equal to 50% of the monthly pension payment plus 50% of the value of Patricia's monthly medical benefit. Because the medical benefit and pension were of comparable value, Miller's proposed QDRO would as a practical matter a


CourtListener opinion 4305665

CourtListener opinion 4305665 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4305665 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 4305665


CourtListener opinion 4305665

QDRO: Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) authorizing courts to make limited modifications to a final decree beyond the limitations of Rule 1:1. "Under Rule 1:1, courts ordinarily lose jurisdiction twenty-one days after entry of a decree, but when qualifying or maintaining a qualified domestic relations order, courts may ‘modify any order . . . intended to . . . divide any pension [plan] . . . to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order.'" Williams v. Williams, 32 Va. App. 72, 75, 526 S.E.2d 301, 303 (2000) (alterations in original) (quoting Code § 20-107.3(K)(4)); Hastie v. Hastie, 29 Va. App. 776, 780, 514 S.E.2d 80


CourtListener opinion 4305665

retirement benefits: Va. App. 22, 26, 441 S.E.2d 346, 348 (1994) (concluding order after twenty-one days was valid because it effectuated the final decree pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4)). -5- Recognizing "the complexity of [orders relating to the division of pensions and retirement accounts] and the need to permit the modification of such orders where technical deficiencies may be contained in such orders," the legislature enacted Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). Dale M. Cecka, Lawrence D. Diehl & James R. Cottrell, Virginia Practice Series: Family Law: Theory, Practice, and Forms § 11:34 (2018). That code section permits the court to retain jurisd


CourtListener opinion 4305665

pension: rial court entered a divorce decree that ratified and affirmed the parties' agreement regarding all issues of equitable distribution and spousal support. The divorce decree ordered, in part, that wife receive 50% of the marital share of husband's military pension, which was already in pay status. On the same day the trial court entered the divorce decree, it also entered an "Order Dividing Military Pension" intended "to give effect to the Final Order of Divorce" (pension order). The pension order specified that wife was "formally assigned an annuity in the monthly amount of $1,053.39" which was to be paid to


CourtListener opinion 4305665

domestic relations order: -107.3(K)(4) authorizing courts to make limited modifications to a final decree beyond the limitations of Rule 1:1. "Under Rule 1:1, courts ordinarily lose jurisdiction twenty-one days after entry of a decree, but when qualifying or maintaining a qualified domestic relations order, courts may ‘modify any order . . . intended to . . . divide any pension [plan] . . . to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order.'" Williams v. Williams, 32 Va. App. 72, 75, 526 S.E.2d 301, 303 (2000) (alterations in original) (quoting Code § 20-107.3(K)(4)); Hastie v. Hastie, 29 Va. App. 776, 780, 514 S.E.2d 80


CourtListener opinion 4309283

CourtListener opinion 4309283 Extracted case name: LLC v. CNG. Extracted reporter citation: 808 A.2d 232. Docket: 1645 WDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4309283 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 4309283


CourtListener opinion 4309283

QDRO: f Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No(s): FD-11-6066-002 BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J. OPINION BY MUSMANNO, J. FILED AUGUST 31, 2018 Jeffrey S. Zehner ("Husband") appeals from the Order directing the modification of a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter the "2015 QDRO") that Husband and his ex-wife, Erika L. Zehner ("Wife"), had entered into to effectuate the equitable distribution of Wife's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS") pension. We affirm. Husband and Wife married in July 1991. They separated in January 2011, shortly after which Wife filed a Divorce Complaint


CourtListener opinion 4309283

retirement benefits: equally divide the marital portion[1] of their respective retirement assets." Consent Order, 7/29/14, ¶ 2 (emphasis and footnote added). Concerning retirement assets, the Consent Order provides that Husband shall retain "50% of the marital portion of" his retirement plan, and 100% of the non-marital portion of his plan. Id. ¶ 3(g). Likewise, the Consent Order provides that Wife shall retain "50% of the marital portion of" her PSERS pension, and 100% of the non-marital portion of her pension. Id. ¶ 4(b). The Consent Order provides that "Husband shall receive 50% of the marital portion of Wife's PSERS pension … to be div


CourtListener opinion 4309283

pension: tion of a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter the "2015 QDRO") that Husband and his ex-wife, Erika L. Zehner ("Wife"), had entered into to effectuate the equitable distribution of Wife's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS") pension. We affirm. Husband and Wife married in July 1991. They separated in January 2011, shortly after which Wife filed a Divorce Complaint. Eventually, on July 29, 2014, the parties executed a Consent Order of Court for Equitable Distribution (hereinafter the "Consent Order"). The Consent Order sets forth the overall scheme of distribution at Paragraph 2


CourtListener opinion 4309283

domestic relations order: leas of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No(s): FD-11-6066-002 BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J. OPINION BY MUSMANNO, J. FILED AUGUST 31, 2018 Jeffrey S. Zehner ("Husband") appeals from the Order directing the modification of a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter the "2015 QDRO") that Husband and his ex-wife, Erika L. Zehner ("Wife"), had entered into to effectuate the equitable distribution of Wife's Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS") pension. We affirm. Husband and Wife married in July 1991. They separated in January 2011, shortly after which Wife filed a Divorce Complaint


CourtListener opinion 4309548

CourtListener opinion 4309548 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: COA18-110. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4309548 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 4309548

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 4309548

retirement benefits: g money." The parties each submitted to the trial court a proposed equitable distribution order. Plaintiff-Husband's proposed equitable distribution order suggested the following in regard to the SEP IRA: Anderson and Strudwick SEP which is Plaintiff's retirement account with a stipulated value of $51,524.00 and Anderson and Strudwick IRA with a value of $4,783.67 which is Defendant's account. The IRA at a value of $4,783.67 is distributed to the Defendant and the SEP value of $51,524.00 is distributed to the Defendant. Defendant-Wife, however, proposed that -2- HENSON V. HENSON Opinion of the Court [t]he Ande


CourtListener opinion 4309548

pension: nt-Wife filed an answer and counterclaim for equitable distribution, post-separation support, and alimony. The trial court entered an Equitable Distribution Order on 11 August 2015. Among the items distributed was Plaintiff-Husband's simplified employment pension IRA account ("SEP IRA"). While the parties stipulated that the SEP IRA was worth $51,524.00 at the time of separation, the SEP IRA had accumulated an additional $30,000 to $40,000 in growth by the date of the equitable distribution hearing. Neither party contributed to the SEP IRA after the date of separation, and Plaintiff- Husband maintained that any


CourtListener opinion 4309548

domestic relations order: 2018. Kenneth P. Andresen, PLLC, by Kenneth P. Andresen, for plaintiff-appellant. Ferguson, Hayes, Hawkins & DeMay, PLLC, by James R. DeMay, for defendant-appellee ZACHARY, Judge. Plaintiff-Husband Thomas Steven Henson appeals from the trial court's Domestic Relations Order and Order Denying Rule 60 Motion. Because the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the Domestic Relations Order, we reverse the Order Denying Rule 60 Motion and vacate the Domestic Relations Order. Background Plaintiff-Husband Thomas Steven Henson and Defendant-Wife Robin Black Henson married in June 1984 and separated in October 2


CourtListener opinion 4309548

valuation/division: Motion and vacate the Domestic Relations Order. Background Plaintiff-Husband Thomas Steven Henson and Defendant-Wife Robin Black Henson married in June 1984 and separated in October 2010. Plaintiff-Husband filed a complaint seeking absolute divorce and equitable distribution on 8 December 2011. HENSON V. HENSON Opinion of the Court On 4 January 2012, Defendant-Wife filed an answer and counterclaim for equitable distribution, post-separation support, and alimony. The trial court entered an Equitable Distribution Order on 11 August 2015. Among the items distributed was Plaintiff-Husband's simplified employment pension IR


CourtListener opinion 4309600

CourtListener opinion 4309600 Extracted reporter citation: 669 N.E.2d 878. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4309600 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 4309600


CourtListener opinion 4309600

QDRO: arital portion" sentence in the quoted provision was handwritten into the divorce decree and initialed by both parties. As to appellant's three retirement accounts, the decree further states that her counsel would be responsible for preparing the necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDROs") to implement the distribution. In relation to the trial court's continuing authority to modify the foregoing provision, the decree provides: 2 {¶5} "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Court retains jurisdiction with respect to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order or Division of Property Order to the extent required to ma


CourtListener opinion 4309600

retirement benefits: senthal, Thurman & Daray, 1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 1720, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellee). THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J. {¶1} Appellant, Lisa M. Longo, appeals the trial court's post-decree finding that she has no premarital interest in her three retirement accounts. She maintains that the court exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction in rendering a finding that directly conflicts with an original finding in the final divorce decree. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. {¶2} The parties to the underlying action were married for seventeen years and had three children. During the


CourtListener opinion 4309600

pension: etirement accounts. Regarding the distribution of her accounts, the final divorce decree provides: {¶3} "The Plaintiff, Lisa M. Longo, has an interest in the following retirement assets: (1) Mondelez Global 401(k); (2) GSK 401(k); and (3) GSK Cash Balance Pension Plan. As of July 6, 2015, the Mondelez Global Plan had a value of $29,286. As of June 30, 2015, the GSK 401(k) Plan had a balance of $503,467.58 and the GSK Cash Balance Pension Plan had a value of $129,590.95. There are no liens or encumbrances. The Plaintiff's retirement assets shall be divided by coverture fraction calculated from October 3, 1998 (d


CourtListener opinion 4309600

401(k): arriage, appellant made contributions to three retirement accounts. Regarding the distribution of her accounts, the final divorce decree provides: {¶3} "The Plaintiff, Lisa M. Longo, has an interest in the following retirement assets: (1) Mondelez Global 401(k); (2) GSK 401(k); and (3) GSK Cash Balance Pension Plan. As of July 6, 2015, the Mondelez Global Plan had a value of $29,286. As of June 30, 2015, the GSK 401(k) Plan had a balance of $503,467.58 and the GSK Cash Balance Pension Plan had a value of $129,590.95. There are no liens or encumbrances. The Plaintiff's retirement assets shall be divided by cove


CourtListener opinion 4309776

CourtListener opinion 4309776 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4309776 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 4309776


CourtListener opinion 4309776

QDRO: intained by a municipality, when in fact, the plan was merged into the State of Florida retirement plan prior to the final hearing. The Former Wife also argues the trial court erred by not reserving jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to enforce the equitable distribution of her interest in the plan, including cost of living adjustments. However, the final judgment did make provisions for a QDRO if the municipal plan allowed for such. The Former Husband agrees that the final judgment erroneously described his pension plan as being maintained by a 4 municipality and agrees the final


CourtListener opinion 4309776

retirement benefits: argues that the trial court made an improper award of her interest in the Former Husband's pension plan because the final judgment erroneously stated the pension plan is maintained by a municipality, when in fact, the plan was merged into the State of Florida retirement plan prior to the final hearing. The Former Wife also argues the trial court erred by not reserving jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to enforce the equitable distribution of her interest in the plan, including cost of living adjustments. However, the final judgment did make provisions for a QDRO if the municipal plan allowed fo


CourtListener opinion 4309776

pension: rred by: (1) awarding a dissipated asset to the Former Wife in the equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets; (2) awarding child support using an incorrect amount for the Former Wife's income; (3) failing to correctly describe the Former Husband's pension plan in equitably distributing the Former Wife's marital interest in the plan; and (4) failing to rule on the parties' agreement regarding life insurance. We affirm without discussion the Former Wife's remaining arguments. Background The parties were married in 1992, after which two children were born, one of whom was still a minor at the time of the fi


CourtListener opinion 4309776

domestic relations order: ated the pension plan is maintained by a municipality, when in fact, the plan was merged into the State of Florida retirement plan prior to the final hearing. The Former Wife also argues the trial court erred by not reserving jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to enforce the equitable distribution of her interest in the plan, including cost of living adjustments. However, the final judgment did make provisions for a QDRO if the municipal plan allowed for such. The Former Husband agrees that the final judgment erroneously described his pension plan as being maintained by a 4 municipality and agrees the


CourtListener opinion 4310463

CourtListener opinion 4310463 Extracted case name: RICHARD BUTLER v. EDITH BUTLER. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4310463 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 4310463


CourtListener opinion 4310463

QDRO: urt of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A19A0062. RICHARD BUTLER v. EDITH BUTLER. In 2003, Richard and Edith Butler divorced. The divorce decree provided that Edith Butler was to receive 50 per cent of her husband's pension. In 2004, a stipulated qualified domestic relations order was entered dividing the pension. Richard Butler retired in 2015. Edith Butler sought entry of an amended qualified domestic relations order on the basis that she was receiving 50 per cent of one of two pensions. In 2016, the trial court entered an amended qualified domestic relations order. Richard Butler filed a motion to set aside the order under OCGA §


CourtListener opinion 4310463

pension: ______ August 29, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A19A0062. RICHARD BUTLER v. EDITH BUTLER. In 2003, Richard and Edith Butler divorced. The divorce decree provided that Edith Butler was to receive 50 per cent of her husband's pension. In 2004, a stipulated qualified domestic relations order was entered dividing the pension. Richard Butler retired in 2015. Edith Butler sought entry of an amended qualified domestic relations order on the basis that she was receiving 50 per cent of one of two pensions. In 2016, the trial court entered an amended qualified domestic relations order. Richard


CourtListener opinion 4310463

domestic relations order: eals hereby passes the following order: A19A0062. RICHARD BUTLER v. EDITH BUTLER. In 2003, Richard and Edith Butler divorced. The divorce decree provided that Edith Butler was to receive 50 per cent of her husband's pension. In 2004, a stipulated qualified domestic relations order was entered dividing the pension. Richard Butler retired in 2015. Edith Butler sought entry of an amended qualified domestic relations order on the basis that she was receiving 50 per cent of one of two pensions. In 2016, the trial court entered an amended qualified domestic relations order. Richard Butler filed a motion to set aside the order under OCGA §


CourtListener opinion 4311782

CourtListener opinion 4311782 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CHRISTI ANNE FICEK AND LAWRENCE PETER FICEK. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 17-2028. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4311782 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 4311782

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 4311782

QDRO: h financial and non-financial contributions in determining an equitable distribution. In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 103–04 (Iowa 2007). The district court awarded Lawrence a portion of Christi's retirement account and pension account through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Christi filed a motion to amend and enlarge, asserting Lawrence wasted marital assets and it was inequitable for him to receive any part of her retirement or pension account. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(c) (dividing all property equitably by considering the contribution of each party and giving value to each contribution in homemaking and child care se


CourtListener opinion 4311782

retirement benefits: l and Tabor, JJ. 2 VOGEL, Judge. Christi Ficek appeals from a decree dissolving her marriage to Lawrence Ficek. Christi argues the district court erred by granting the parties joint physical custody of their child and awarding Lawrence part of Christi's retirement account and pension account. Because joint physical care is in the best interests of the child, we affirm the decree's physical care arrangement. Also, because of Lawrence's financial and nonfinancial contributions to the marriage, we affirm the district court's property distribution. We decline to award either party appellate attorney fees and tax costs to bo


CourtListener opinion 4311782

pension: EL, Judge. Christi Ficek appeals from a decree dissolving her marriage to Lawrence Ficek. Christi argues the district court erred by granting the parties joint physical custody of their child and awarding Lawrence part of Christi's retirement account and pension account. Because joint physical care is in the best interests of the child, we affirm the decree's physical care arrangement. Also, because of Lawrence's financial and nonfinancial contributions to the marriage, we affirm the district court's property distribution. We decline to award either party appellate attorney fees and tax costs to both parties eq


CourtListener opinion 4311782

domestic relations order: l and non-financial contributions in determining an equitable distribution. In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 103–04 (Iowa 2007). The district court awarded Lawrence a portion of Christi's retirement account and pension account through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Christi filed a motion to amend and enlarge, asserting Lawrence wasted marital assets and it was inequitable for him to receive any part of her retirement or pension account. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(c) (dividing all property equitably by considering the contribution of each party and giving value to each contribution in homemaking and child care se


CourtListener opinion 4311783

CourtListener opinion 4311783 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JOSHUA ROBERT DEMMER AND JACQUELYN A. DEMMER Upon the Petition of JOSHUA ROBERT. Extracted reporter citation: 376 N.W.2d 918. Docket: 17-0831. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4311783 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 4311783


CourtListener opinion 4311783

QDRO: their medical and dental care and the maintenance of a home in which they will reside, without much assistance from Jacque. The court does not find it proper under the current status of the law and these facts to award Jacque alimony. The court ordered Qualified Domestic Relations Orders be prepared dividing Josh's IRA and 401(k) accounts, ordered Josh to be responsible for the debts owed on the house and additional loans by his parents. Jacque was awarded one-half of Josh's IRA and 401(k) accounts, and a bank account with a balance of about $4000. The court ordered her to be responsible for $13,054.68 owed to Linn County Credit Union


CourtListener opinion 4311783

401(k): additional interest had been added to the balance of the mortgage the parties' owed to his parents. He stated he and Jacque owed his parents $311,000. The parties had few assets. Josh had a Principal Life Insurance Policy with a cash value of $5192.16; a 401(k) plan with a value of $42,704.79; a Northwestern Mutual Roth IRA with a value of $18,100; a simple IRA with a value of $13,977.60; and a bank account with a balance of $4657.92. In addition to the $280,000 note, Josh had an outstanding promissory note in the amount of $20,000 for the original house purchase in Waterloo; one credit card debt of $11,386.03


CourtListener opinion 4311783

domestic relations order: ical and dental care and the maintenance of a home in which they will reside, without much assistance from Jacque. The court does not find it proper under the current status of the law and these facts to award Jacque alimony. The court ordered Qualified Domestic Relations Orders be prepared dividing Josh's IRA and 401(k) accounts, ordered Josh to be responsible for the debts owed on the house and additional loans by his parents. Jacque was awarded one-half of Josh's IRA and 401(k) accounts, and a bank account with a balance of about $4000. The court ordered her to be responsible for $13,054.68 owed to Linn County Credit Union


CourtListener opinion 4311783

valuation/division: ule. Josh did not seek any restriction or supervision of Jacque's parenting time. The trial court gave no reviewable reason for restricting the maternal grandparents' access to the children. We strike that provision of the decree. D. Spousal Support and Property Division. At the time of the dissolution trial, the parties had been married for about eight years. Josh was thirty-nine years old and Jacque was thirty-five. Both have advanced degrees and are physically healthy and capable of working. Jacque is being provided a home by her parents. Josh and the children live in the marital residence originally funded by Josh's


CourtListener opinion 4311784

CourtListener opinion 4311784 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARK ALAN BERG AND AMY LYNN BERG Upon the Petition of MARK ALAN BERG. Extracted reporter citation: 699 N.W.2d 260. Docket: 16-1880. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4311784 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 4311784


CourtListener opinion 4311784

QDRO: ather than thirty-three percent of the account value because the account was "entirely marital" and her "contributions [to the marriage] are worth 50%." She does not specify how the account should have been divided. The record contains a "Stipulation Re: Qualified Domestic Relations Order" regarding the "MG2, LLC dba Berg Audio & Video 401(k) plan." The stipulation states Amy's "interest in the Plan shall be $55,000 of [Mark's] total vested account balance under the plan." Also on file is a qualified domestic relations order recognizing Amy's right to an interest in $55,000 of vested benefits in the plan. As noted, the district court aw


CourtListener opinion 4311784

retirement benefits: t acted equitably in assigning both dependent exemptions to Mark. II. Property Distribution Amy argues the property distribution portion of the decree was inequitable. In her view, (A) she should have received half rather than one-third of one of Mark's retirement accounts; (B) a pension should have been equitably divided; and (C) she should have received certain personal property. A. Retirement Accounts Mark had three retirement accounts, which he identified as follows: (1) an Edward Jones IRA valued at $33,950.33, (2) a Sheet Metal Workers 401(k) 4 account listed by Mark as having a market value of $86,516.62 and a


CourtListener opinion 4311784

pension: ning both dependent exemptions to Mark. II. Property Distribution Amy argues the property distribution portion of the decree was inequitable. In her view, (A) she should have received half rather than one-third of one of Mark's retirement accounts; (B) a pension should have been equitably divided; and (C) she should have received certain personal property. A. Retirement Accounts Mark had three retirement accounts, which he identified as follows: (1) an Edward Jones IRA valued at $33,950.33, (2) a Sheet Metal Workers 401(k) 4 account listed by Mark as having a market value of $86,516.62 and a net value of $


CourtListener opinion 4311784

401(k): d have been equitably divided; and (C) she should have received certain personal property. A. Retirement Accounts Mark had three retirement accounts, which he identified as follows: (1) an Edward Jones IRA valued at $33,950.33, (2) a Sheet Metal Workers 401(k) 4 account listed by Mark as having a market value of $86,516.62 and a net value of $75,075.71, and (3) a Ubiquity retirement (formerly "Berg Audio and Video 401(k)" account) valued at $76,329.44. Amy did not have any retirement accounts. The district court concluded (1) the IRA accrued before the couple married and Amy was not entitled to any of it;


CourtListener opinion 4311891

CourtListener opinion 4311891 Extracted reporter citation: 118 A.3d 455. Docket: 124 MDA 2017. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4311891 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 4311891


CourtListener opinion 4311891

QDRO: ersey property, may have been significantly reduced in value as a result of actions by third parties. Armed with a judgment in her favor against Husband, Wife may attempt to enforce that judgment in any manner she believes appropriate, including seeking a QDRO or a contempt order. ALIMONY -7- J-A32013-17 Wife has waived any claim for permanent alimony. COUNSEL FEES While counsel for Wife is apparently acting pro se, whatever that means in the context of this litigation, we believe Wife and her counsel are entitled to an award of attorney's fees solely because Husband's actions, including many appea