Abdul W. Mahmud v. Shireen Mahmud

Abdul W. Mahmud v. Shireen Mahmud Date: 1996-01-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Abdul W. Mahmud v. Shireen Mahmud 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.


Abdul W. Mahmud v. Shireen Mahmud

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


Abdul W. Mahmud v. Shireen Mahmud

QDRO: is ordered sold and the net proceeds remaining after payment of normal costs of sale (taxes commission and adjustments) shall be divided 70% to the wife and 30% to the husband. 9. The plaintiff's pension plan shall be equally divided between the parties, by QDRO and the court retains jurisdiction to enter said order. 10. The plaintiff is to name the defendant as irrevocable beneficiary of $100,000.00 in life insurance for so long as he is obligated to pay alimony. 11. The plaintiff shall transfer $19,000 00 of the M.D. Health plan proceeds to the defendant. He shall retain the balance and be responsible for all


Abdul W. Mahmud v. Shireen Mahmud

pension: half of the 1994 tax refund. 8. The Bear Rock Road property is ordered sold and the net proceeds remaining after payment of normal costs of sale (taxes commission and adjustments) shall be divided 70% to the wife and 30% to the husband. 9. The plaintiff's pension plan shall be equally divided between the parties, by QDRO and the court retains jurisdiction to enter said order. 10. The plaintiff is to name the defendant as irrevocable beneficiary of $100,000.00 in life insurance for so long as he is obligated to pay alimony. 11. The plaintiff shall transfer $19,000 00 of the M.D. Health plan proceeds to the defend


Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin.

Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin. Date: 1991-12-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin. 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.


Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin.

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.


Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin.

QDRO: week as support for the benefit of the minor child. (10) The payments of alimony and support shall be subject to an immediate wage execution. (11) Defendant shall assign to the plaintiff one-half of the current value of his retirement benefit by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. (12) Defendant shall name the minor child as irrevocable beneficiary on a $25,000 life insurance benefit for so long as the child is a minor. (13) The net proceeds from the sale of the premises shall be divided as follows: a. Immediate payment of the fee of Attorney Harkins. b. $900 to defendant c. 60 percent of the balance to the plaintiff and


Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin.

retirement benefits: he defendant the sum of $55 per week as support for the benefit of the minor child. (10) The payments of alimony and support shall be subject to an immediate wage execution. (11) Defendant shall assign to the plaintiff one-half of the current value of his retirement benefit by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. (12) Defendant shall name the minor child as irrevocable beneficiary on a $25,000 life insurance benefit for so long as the child is a minor. (13) The net proceeds from the sale of the premises shall be divided as follows: a. Immediate payment of the fee of Attorney Harkins. b. $900 to defendant c.


Agnes Feagin v. Willie Feagin.

domestic relations order: upport for the benefit of the minor child. (10) The payments of alimony and support shall be subject to an immediate wage execution. (11) Defendant shall assign to the plaintiff one-half of the current value of his retirement benefit by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. (12) Defendant shall name the minor child as irrevocable beneficiary on a $25,000 life insurance benefit for so long as the child is a minor. (13) The net proceeds from the sale of the premises shall be divided as follows: a. Immediate payment of the fee of Attorney Harkins. b. $900 to defendant c. 60 percent of the balance to the plaintiff and


Allen P. Crolius v. Judy Ann Crolius

Allen P. Crolius v. Judy Ann Crolius Date: 1994-05-12. Machine-draft public headnote: Allen P. Crolius v. Judy Ann Crolius 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.


Allen P. Crolius v. Judy Ann Crolius


Allen P. Crolius v. Judy Ann Crolius

QDRO: wing: 1. one half of the 1993 tax Refund; 2. one half of the 1993 bonuses currently held in escrow by Plaintiff's counsel; 3. one half of the present value of the plaintiff's, Times Mirror Pension Plan and the Ziff Corporation pension plan by means of a QDRO. H. Debts 1. The plaintiff shall pay forthwith the unpaid Pendente Lite award of $2000. 2. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the unreimbursed medical sums due to the Langley Porter Hospital, UCSF, in San Francisco, and he shall make arrangements for the payment of the balance due not to exceed $3720. 3. The Plaintiff shall be responsible for th


Allen P. Crolius v. Judy Ann Crolius

pension: shown on her affidavit as they are not her real expenses at this time. The plaintiff has a base salary of approximately $52,488 per year. According to his Financial Affidavit, he nets $2904.67 per month which includes a deduction of $175. per month for his pension. In addition to his base salary, the plaintiff receives a bonus, although the bonus is not guaranteed. In 1993, the plaintiff received a net bonus of $18,000. In 1994, the plaintiff received a net bonus of $9700. In the two years prior to 1992 the plaintiff averaged $12,000. in bonuses. The plaintiff sells advertising for Skiing Magazine and his bonuses


Allison Stafford v. Jeffrey Stafford

Allison Stafford v. Jeffrey Stafford Date: 1995-05-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Allison Stafford v. Jeffrey Stafford 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.


Allison Stafford v. Jeffrey Stafford


Allison Stafford v. Jeffrey Stafford

QDRO: e of Connecticut for the year 1994 for State Income tax purposes in the approximate amount of $382. Pension The plaintiff shall be entitled to one third of the defendant's pension benefits. The plaintiff's one third interest shall be secured by means of a QDRO. Income Tax Deductions The defendant shall be entitled to claim the two minor children as dependents for Income Tax purposes, provided he is current with the child support payments as of December 31st. Life Insurance The defendant shall name the minor children as irrevocable beneficiaries on his existing Life Insurance Policy which is represented to


Allison Stafford v. Jeffrey Stafford

pension: iff as lump sum property settlement the sum of $5000 within 90 days of date. Debts The defendant shall be responsible for the full amount owed to the State of Connecticut for the year 1994 for State Income tax purposes in the approximate amount of $382. Pension The plaintiff shall be entitled to one third of the defendant's pension benefits. The plaintiff's one third interest shall be secured by means of a QDRO. Income Tax Deductions The defendant shall be entitled to claim the two minor children as dependents for Income Tax purposes, provided he is current with the child support payments as of December 31st


AMERICAN COATINGS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent Citation: 54 Cal. 4th 446. Extracted reporter citation: 54 Cal. 4th 446. Docket: S177823 Date. Date: 2012-06-25. Machine-draft public headnote: AMERICAN COATINGS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. 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.


Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


opening text: Filed 6/25/12 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN COATINGS ASSOCIATION, ) INC., ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S177823 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/3 G040122 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY ) DISTRICT, ) ) Orange County Defendant and Respondent. ) Super. Ct. No. 03CC00007 ___________________________________ ) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) is charged with regulating nonvehicular air pollution emissions in a large area that encompasses much of Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California, regions that have some of the worst air pollution in the country. This case concerns the District‟s 2002 amendments to its Rule 1113, which limits certain pollution-causi


Andree Lupinacci v. Arthur Lupinacci, Jr. Date: 1993-05-18. Machine-draft public headnote: Andree Lupinacci v. Arthur Lupinacci, Jr. 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.


QDRO: shall indemnify and hold harmless the plaintiff from any liability on said encumbrances. The plaintiff shall release the lis pendens filed by her on the Stamford Land Records. b. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order against the defendant's Profit Sharing and 401K Plan. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may result from the execution of this order. The remainder of the Profit Sharing and 401K Plan shall be the property of the defendant. c. The defendant shall retain all bank accounts in his name, his pension with First National Bank of Long I


pension: court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may result from the execution of this order. The remainder of the Profit Sharing and 401K Plan shall be the property of the defendant. c. The defendant shall retain all bank accounts in his name, his pension with First National Bank of Long Island, his pension CT Page 4840 with Chase Manhattan Bank, the settlement proceeds from his pending litigation with European-American Bank and his stock and stock options in First National Bank of Long Island Corporation. d. The plaintiff shall retain her bank accounts, her IRA, her annuity and her pension with St. Raphae


401(k): cumbrances. The plaintiff shall release the lis pendens filed by her on the Stamford Land Records. b. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order against the defendant's Profit Sharing and 401K Plan. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may result from the execution of this order. The remainder of the Profit Sharing and 401K Plan shall be the property of the defendant. c. The defendant shall retain all bank accounts in his name, his pension with First National Bank of Long Island, his pension CT Page 4840 with Chase Manha


domestic relations order: emnify and hold harmless the plaintiff from any liability on said encumbrances. The plaintiff shall release the lis pendens filed by her on the Stamford Land Records. b. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order against the defendant's Profit Sharing and 401K Plan. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may result from the execution of this order. The remainder of the Profit Sharing and 401K Plan shall be the property of the defendant. c. The defendant shall retain all bank accounts in his name, his pension with First National Bank of Long I


Andrew McKenzie v. Lisa McKenzie

Andrew McKenzie v. Lisa McKenzie Date: 1997-03-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Andrew McKenzie v. Lisa McKenzie 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.


Andrew McKenzie v. Lisa McKenzie

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


Andrew McKenzie v. Lisa McKenzie

QDRO: . The only way the bill could be paid would be if there is any equity left in the house but he has agreed to give that to the defendant. The only other basis for payment would be his pension with the city. The court orders the defendant's counsel to prepare a QDRO for $500.00 for the contempt proceedings only and the court will sign it. The court does approve both agreements with respect to the child support and the sale of the house and makes the provisions orders of the court. The court further orders the plaintiff to pay $500.00 as sanctions for the contempt proceedings. The court sees no basis for ordering any


Andrew McKenzie v. Lisa McKenzie

pension: testimony do establish his present inability to pay out of his current wages. The only way the bill could be paid would be if there is any equity left in the house but he has agreed to give that to the defendant. The only other basis for payment would be his pension with the city. The court orders the defendant's counsel to prepare a QDRO for $500.00 for the contempt proceedings only and the court will sign it. The court does approve both agreements with respect to the child support and the sale of the house and makes the provisions orders of the court. The court further orders the plaintiff to pay $500.00 as sanctio


Andrew Vandersloot v. Mildred Vandersloot Docket: number 70267. Date: 1995-01-31. Machine-draft public headnote: Andrew Vandersloot v. Mildred Vandersloot 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.


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.


QDRO: ate the defendant wife as irrevocable beneficiary on so much of his life insurance policy with the Aetna, as is necessary to guaranty the payment of his alimony obligation here and after stated. 8. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of 401K (his incentive savings plan), with Aetna, as of today's value, which is Wednesday, the 18th of January, 1995. 9. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife, by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of his pension plan with Aetna, as of today's value. 10. As limited periodic alimony, the plaintiff husban


pension: r, fifty per cent of 401K (his incentive savings plan), with Aetna, as of today's value, which is Wednesday, the 18th of January, 1995. 9. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife, by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of his pension plan with Aetna, as of today's value. 10. As limited periodic alimony, the plaintiff husband shall pay to the defendant wife, the sum of four hundred dollars per week for a period of three years, the sum of three hundred fifty dollars a week for a period of three years, and the sum of three hundred dollars for a period CT Page 666 of three years, so that


401(k): o much of his life insurance policy with the Aetna, as is necessary to guaranty the payment of his alimony obligation here and after stated. 8. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of 401K (his incentive savings plan), with Aetna, as of today's value, which is Wednesday, the 18th of January, 1995. 9. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife, by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of his pension plan with Aetna, as of today's value. 10. As limited periodic alimony, the plaintiff husband shall pay to the defen


domestic relations order: fendant wife as irrevocable beneficiary on so much of his life insurance policy with the Aetna, as is necessary to guaranty the payment of his alimony obligation here and after stated. 8. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of 401K (his incentive savings plan), with Aetna, as of today's value, which is Wednesday, the 18th of January, 1995. 9. The plaintiff husband shall assign to the defendant wife, by qualified domestic relations order, fifty per cent of his pension plan with Aetna, as of today's value. 10. As limited periodic alimony, the plaintiff husban


Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith

Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith Date: 1999-05-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith 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.


Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith


Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith

QDRO: a Prudential Retirement Account. These three accounts contain a total of approximately $172,000. The plaintiff shall be entitled to one-half of these accounts with interest accrued on them as of date of judgment, and these accounts shall be equally divided. A Qualified Domestic Relations Orders will be necessary to accomplish the division, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to amend the orders until they have been accepted by the Plans Administrators. 9. The plaintiff is the custodian of an account containing approximately $132,000 which has heretofore been segregated to pay for the educational expenses of the daughter, Courtney. The plain


Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith

retirement benefits: m of $425 per week. Said alimony shall be payable until the happening of the first of the following events: the death of either party or the plaintiff's remarriage. 8. The defendant has a 401K with Morgan Stanley, an IRA with Morgan Stanley and a Prudential Retirement Account. These three accounts contain a total of approximately $172,000. The plaintiff shall be entitled to one-half of these accounts with interest accrued on them as of date of judgment, and these accounts shall be equally divided. A Qualified Domestic Relations Orders will be necessary to accomplish the division, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to amend


Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith

401(k): rance. 7. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff as alimony the sum of $425 per week. Said alimony shall be payable until the happening of the first of the following events: the death of either party or the plaintiff's remarriage. 8. The defendant has a 401K with Morgan Stanley, an IRA with Morgan Stanley and a Prudential Retirement Account. These three accounts contain a total of approximately $172,000. The plaintiff shall be entitled to one-half of these accounts with interest accrued on them as of date of judgment, and these accounts shall be equally divided. A Qualified Domestic Relations Orders will be nec


Ann Smith v. Todd R. Smith

domestic relations order: al Retirement Account. These three accounts contain a total of approximately $172,000. The plaintiff shall be entitled to one-half of these accounts with interest accrued on them as of date of judgment, and these accounts shall be equally divided. A Qualified Domestic Relations Orders will be necessary to accomplish the division, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to amend the orders until they have been accepted by the Plans Administrators. 9. The plaintiff is the custodian of an account containing approximately $132,000 which has heretofore been segregated to pay for the educational expenses of the daughter, Courtney. The plain


Arthur v. Burtaccio, Jr. v. Peggy Ann Burtaccio. Date: 2002-08-16. Machine-draft public headnote: Arthur v. Burtaccio, Jr. v. Peggy Ann Burtaccio. 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.


QDRO: following: Checking with First Union Bank, Savings with First Union Bank, CM Life IRA, Fidelity IRA, and Panorama. The Wife's financial affidavit lists the following: Savings with Bank of Danbury, Checking with Bank of Danbury and IRA with MassMutual. If a QDRO Order is necessary, the parties shall equally share the cost of preparation of same. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over the accounts until they are distributed between the parties and to resolve any disputes which may arise with regard to the preparation and execution of the QDRO. ATTORNEY FEES Except as provided for herein, the parties s


retirement benefits: ds, rather than the dollar amount of said stocks and bonds. IRA ACCOUNTS, CHECKING AND SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all their IRA accounts, Checking and Savings accounts, Deferred Compensation Accounts, Retirement Accounts, as listed on their financial affidavits. The Husband's financial affidavit lists the following: Checking with First Union Bank, Savings with First Union Bank, CM Life IRA, Fidelity IRA, and Panorama. The Wife's financial affidavit lists the following: Savings with Bank of Danbury, Checking with Bank of Danbury and IRA with MassMutual. If a QDRO Order is


valuation/division: iming a dissolution of marriage, an equitable division of the assets of the parties and other relief as law and equity might provide. The Wife filed an Answer and Cross Complaint dated March 14, 2001 claiming a dissolution of the marriage, alimony, a fair and equitable distribution of the assets and liabilities and other relief as law and equity might provide. No children were born issue of this marriage. However, the Wife had two sons from a previous marriage whom the Husband cared for and treated as his own. They both are now over the age of 18 years and work in the Husband's business. The Husband is age 52 and in good health. The


Aura Maria Serdici v. Alexander J. Serdici Date: 1998-12-18. Machine-draft public headnote: Aura Maria Serdici v. Alexander J. Serdici 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.


QDRO: iff shall be entitled to one-half of the Defendant's NUSCO 401K plan to wit one half of $36,594.00. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to a 50% interest in and to the Defendant's Northeast Utilities Service Company Retirement Plan, the same to be achieved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Defendant shall assist and or participate in securing health insurance coverage for the Plaintiff incident to his employment under Cobra for a period of three years but at the Plaintiff's cost and expense. The Plaintiff shall be responsible for the debt to People's Bank in the amount of $276.03 and the Sears debt of $1,327.22. The Defendant shall


retirement benefits: hibit 1, statement from Mohegan Sun, for an account of the dates, hours spent at the casino and wins and losses for 1998 through November 19, 1998, amounting to losses of $51,747.00. The Defendant has a vested interest in Northeast Utilities Service Company Retirement Plan. At age 65 his monthly benefit would be $952.59. Defendant is also a member of the NUSCO 401K plan with a balance of $36,121.92. Plaintiff's total earnings in 1997 were $30,606.96 as shown in her W-2, in 1996 they were $35,355.50 and in 1996 Defendant's earnings were $73,233.34, in 1995 Plaintiff's earnings were $34,829.18 and the Defendant's $58,035.93.


pension: For a considerable time during the marriage, the Plaintiff gave her weekly paycheck to the Defendant. The Plaintiff prevented the Defendant from securing a further $80,000.00 loan by refusing to sign the necessary documents. The Plaintiff has no vested pension benefits nor any 401K plan. The Defendant refused to discuss family finances with the Plaintiff. The Defendant discontinued prescribed medicine from Dr. Patterson after one month even though its purpose was to assist in the addiction of gambling. The Defendant has suffered from stresses incident to his employment, the uncertainty of his position and m


401(k): e during the marriage, the Plaintiff gave her weekly paycheck to the Defendant. The Plaintiff prevented the Defendant from securing a further $80,000.00 loan by refusing to sign the necessary documents. The Plaintiff has no vested pension benefits nor any 401K plan. The Defendant refused to discuss family finances with the Plaintiff. The Defendant discontinued prescribed medicine from Dr. Patterson after one month even though its purpose was to assist in the addiction of gambling. The Defendant has suffered from stresses incident to his employment, the uncertainty of his position and mother-in-law problems.


Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz

Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz Date: 1995-01-24. Machine-draft public headnote: Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz 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.


Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz

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.


Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz

QDRO: r contempt alleging the plaintiff had failed to comply with the court order for child support and temporary alimony. The text of the motion contained an allegation that plaintiff had resigned his employment and terminated his attorney. Defendant requested a Qualified Domestic Relations Order transferring sufficient funds from plaintiff's 401K plan to cover the support order. The court signed this order after a hearing. At or about August 19, 1994, plaintiff obtained an ex parte restraining order against the defendant. Defendant applied to the court on August 29, 1994 for an order (114) requiring plaintiff to devote the rental payments from the


Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz

retirement benefits: ntiff. In April 1994, defendant filed a cross complaint requesting the following relief: dissolution of the marriage; joint legal custody; child support; alimony; exclusive use of the family home; counsel fees; transfer of plaintiff's interest in a pension or retirement plan; and conveyance of plaintiff's interest in real property located at 87 Williams Street, Meriden, Connecticut. In May of 1994, the parties stipulated and the court ordered: 1. Joint legal custody, primary residence with the CT Page 445-M mother, visitation to plaintiff father. 2. Plaintiff shall pay the two mortgages on 87 Williams Street receiving cre


Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz

pension: of the plaintiff. In April 1994, defendant filed a cross complaint requesting the following relief: dissolution of the marriage; joint legal custody; child support; alimony; exclusive use of the family home; counsel fees; transfer of plaintiff's interest in a pension or retirement plan; and conveyance of plaintiff's interest in real property located at 87 Williams Street, Meriden, Connecticut. In May of 1994, the parties stipulated and the court ordered: 1. Joint legal custody, primary residence with the CT Page 445-M mother, visitation to plaintiff father. 2. Plaintiff shall pay the two mortgages on 87 Williams S


Bahij Baz v. Vera Baz

401(k): ild support and temporary alimony. The text of the motion contained an allegation that plaintiff had resigned his employment and terminated his attorney. Defendant requested a Qualified Domestic Relations Order transferring sufficient funds from plaintiff's 401K plan to cover the support order. The court signed this order after a hearing. At or about August 19, 1994, plaintiff obtained an ex parte restraining order against the defendant. Defendant applied to the court on August 29, 1994 for an order (114) requiring plaintiff to devote the rental payments from the jointly owned CT Page 445-P property at 90 Williams


Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral.

Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral. Date: 2002-03-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral. 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.


Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral.


Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral.

QDRO: the same. The defendant shall receive a credit in the amount of $28,000, representing a one-half interest of the equity in said marital residence, to be deducted as outlined in paragraph 4 below; 4. The defendant shall transfer one-half of his 401K plan by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, less a credit of $28,000 representing one-half interest of the equity in said marital premises as described in paragraph 3, above. For purposes of determining the value of the 401K plan, the date of February 12, 2002 shall be used, as previously agreed to by the parties. The court shall retain jurisdiction over all aspects of the Qualified Domestic Relatio


Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral.

retirement benefits: rket value of the jointly owned marital residence is $130,000. The mortgage balance is $74,000 leaving equity of $56,000 for the parties. The defendant has a 401K plan through his employer with a value as of February 12, 2002 of $187,668.86. The plaintiff's retirement benefits are limited to social security entitlements as follows: $477 per month beginning March 8, 2004; $645 per month beginning January 8, 2008 if she waits until age 65 to collect and $873 per month beginning March 8, 2012 if she reaches age 70 before claiming benefits. The parties are at odds about a property settlement and alimony, thereby invoking the statu


Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral.

401(k): the parties' joint tax return the amounts cannot be confirmed. The parties agree that the fair market value of the jointly owned marital residence is $130,000. The mortgage balance is $74,000 leaving equity of $56,000 for the parties. The defendant has a 401K plan through his employer with a value as of February 12, 2002 of $187,668.86. The plaintiff's retirement benefits are limited to social security entitlements as follows: $477 per month beginning March 8, 2004; $645 per month beginning January 8, 2008 if she waits until age 65 to collect and $873 per month beginning March 8, 2012 if she reaches age 70 befor


Barbara Amaral v. William Amaral.

domestic relations order: The defendant shall receive a credit in the amount of $28,000, representing a one-half interest of the equity in said marital residence, to be deducted as outlined in paragraph 4 below; 4. The defendant shall transfer one-half of his 401K plan by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, less a credit of $28,000 representing one-half interest of the equity in said marital premises as described in paragraph 3, above. For purposes of determining the value of the 401K plan, the date of February 12, 2002 shall be used, as previously agreed to by the parties. The court shall retain jurisdiction over all aspects of the Qualified Domestic Relatio


Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell

Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell Date: 1993-12-21. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell 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.


Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell


Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell

QDRO: 82 , the Court enters the following orders: (A) The marriage is dissolved. (B) The plaintiff is awarded 50 percent of the defendant's Connecticut State Police pension and 50 percent of his future military reserve pension. Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order with regard to both pensions, and the defendant is required to sign any and all documents and instruments necessary to effectuate this award. This Court will continue to retain jurisdiction to enforce these orders. (C) The defendant is ordered to retain and keep in force the Connecticut State Police Association life insurance policy in the amount of $100,


Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell

pension: kly income of $184.01. Plaintiff did not attend college and has no specialized training and has a work history which indicates an earning capacity of $10,000 to $12,000 per year. (8) The defendant is 53 years old and is a retired state policeman receiving a pension of $464.32 a week gross and a net income of $398.86. The evidence indicated that the defendant has in the past had an earning capacity of approximately $50,000 in addition to his pension. However, the defendant is presently unemployed and has tried very hard to obtain a position that would make use of his skills both in the CT Page 11147 security field and


Barbara Bedell v. Robert Bedell

domestic relations order: ourt enters the following orders: (A) The marriage is dissolved. (B) The plaintiff is awarded 50 percent of the defendant's Connecticut State Police pension and 50 percent of his future military reserve pension. Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order with regard to both pensions, and the defendant is required to sign any and all documents and instruments necessary to effectuate this award. This Court will continue to retain jurisdiction to enforce these orders. (C) The defendant is ordered to retain and keep in force the Connecticut State Police Association life insurance policy in the amount of $100,


Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio

Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio Date: 1998-11-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio 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.


Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio


Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio

QDRO: toward her medical/dental expenses from his net proceeds of the sale of the real estate or upon transfer of the real estate title. Miscellaneous 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension plan which shall be secured by means of a QDRO. 2. The defendant shall be entitled to his 401(k) savings plan. 3. Each party shall be responsible for their own medical and dental expenses hereafter. The plaintiff shall be entitled to COBRA benefits, if available, through the defendant's employment, at her sole expense. 4. The defendant shall be responsible for the tenant's security deposit. Chan


Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio

pension: ir market value of $224,000. The mortgage balance is approximately $174,600. The home has a third floor apartment which is rented for $750 per month. The defendant has been collecting this rental income since the parties separated. The defendant has a small pension and a 401(k) of approximately $2,200. There are no other assets. The court has carefully considered the statutory criteria in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders that follow. Real Estate 1. The marital home located at 862 Grassy Hill Road, Orange, Connecticut, shall immediately be listed for sale with a listing price of $265,000. The partie


Barbara Dimaio v. Ralph Dimaio

401(k): e of $224,000. The mortgage balance is approximately $174,600. The home has a third floor apartment which is rented for $750 per month. The defendant has been collecting this rental income since the parties separated. The defendant has a small pension and a 401(k) of approximately $2,200. There are no other assets. The court has carefully considered the statutory criteria in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders that follow. Real Estate 1. The marital home located at 862 Grassy Hill Road, Orange, Connecticut, shall immediately be listed for sale with a listing price of $265,000. The parties shall agree


Barbara Ganns v. Kevin Ganns

Barbara Ganns v. Kevin Ganns Date: 1999-08-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Ganns v. Kevin Ganns 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.


Barbara Ganns v. Kevin Ganns

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.


Barbara Ganns v. Kevin Ganns

QDRO: he plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant all her interest in the lots in Pathiump, Nevada and to the Las Vegas timeshare. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless on any CT Page 10669 claims arising from said ownership. 5. The defendant shall, by QDRO, transfer to the plaintiff 35% of his U.S. Navy pension. 6. The plaintiff shall own the 1998 Saturn automobile, the Pioneer II stocks in her name, her Citizen's bank account, her IRA, jewelry, household furnishings and the silver certificates. 7. The defendant shall own the 1997 Ford, his Navy Federal Credit Union account, the Templeton Growth Fund join


Barbara Ganns v. Kevin Ganns

pension: laintiff can or will increase her earning capacity. The defendant, who is in the United States Navy, appears to be in good health. He entered the Navy in August 1976 and married the plaintiff on June 3, 1977. Therefore, approximately 22 years of defendant's pension accumulated during the marriage of the parties. He plans to retire June 2000. CT Page 10668 The defendant receives a gross weekly income of $947.44 and a net income of $692.74. He also receives an allowance of approximately $1,000.00 a month which will cease when their marriage is dissolved. The parties jointly own the marital home located at and known


Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi

Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi Date: 1993-11-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi 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.


Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi


Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi

QDRO: ASSETS Personal Property Husband's Retirement and Pension Plans The husband shall transfer to the wife 50% of his present interest in his Diebold Retirement plan for Salaried Employees. The husband shall participate in the preparation and execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate said transfer. The husband shall retain his 401K Savings Plan as his exclusive property. Savings Bonds Currently in Husband's Possession In the event the parties are unable to agree with respect to holding said bonds in trust for the benefit of the minor children, they shall equally divide the Savings Bonds currently in the husband's pos


Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi

retirement benefits: ral Statutes Section 46b-84 (c) are incorporated by reference in its entirety in this decree. DIVISION OF ASSETS Personal Property Husband's Retirement and Pension Plans The husband shall transfer to the wife 50% of his present interest in his Diebold Retirement plan for Salaried Employees. The husband shall participate in the preparation and execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate said transfer. The husband shall retain his 401K Savings Plan as his exclusive property. Savings Bonds Currently in Husband's Possession In the event the parties are unable to agree with respect to holding said b


Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi

pension: e wife to timely process her application in relation thereto. The provisions of Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b-84 (c) are incorporated by reference in its entirety in this decree. DIVISION OF ASSETS Personal Property Husband's Retirement and Pension Plans The husband shall transfer to the wife 50% of his present interest in his Diebold Retirement plan for Salaried Employees. The husband shall participate in the preparation and execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate said transfer. The husband shall retain his 401K Savings Plan as his exclusive property. Savings Bonds Curre


Barbara J. Licursi v. Eugene A. Licursi

401(k): r to the wife 50% of his present interest in his Diebold Retirement plan for Salaried Employees. The husband shall participate in the preparation and execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate said transfer. The husband shall retain his 401K Savings Plan as his exclusive property. Savings Bonds Currently in Husband's Possession In the event the parties are unable to agree with respect to holding said bonds in trust for the benefit of the minor children, they shall equally divide the Savings Bonds currently in the husband's possession. Life Insurance The husband shall maintain his curren


Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock

Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock Date: 1999-06-29. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock 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.


Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock


Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock

QDRO: shall receive one-half of any amount by which the defendant's retirement plan increased during the period of this marriage until July 31, 1998. The defendant shall cooperate in providing documentation for this purpose. The transfer shall be by cash payment or QDRO at the discretion of the defendant. The remainder of said retirement plan shall be the sole property of the defendant and the plaintiff shall have no claim thereto. LIFE INSURANCE The defendant shall continue to maintain the $130,000 life insurance policy as set forth on his financial affidavit, with the minor children as beneficiaries thereon, for so l


Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock

retirement benefits: t for the maximum duration allowed under COBRA or until the plaintiff shall remarry or have such coverage available to her through employment, whichever shall occur first. PENSION The plaintiff shall receive one-half of any amount by which the defendant's retirement plan increased during the period of this marriage until July 31, 1998. The defendant shall cooperate in providing documentation for this purpose. The transfer shall be by cash payment or QDRO at the discretion of the defendant. The remainder of said retirement plan shall be the sole property of the defendant and the plaintiff shall have no claim thereto. LIFE


Barbara Landock v. Christopher Landock

pension: it of the plaintiff at his sole cost and expense as is available through his employment for the maximum duration allowed under COBRA or until the plaintiff shall remarry or have such coverage available to her through employment, whichever shall occur first. PENSION The plaintiff shall receive one-half of any amount by which the defendant's retirement plan increased during the period of this marriage until July 31, 1998. The defendant shall cooperate in providing documentation for this purpose. The transfer shall be by cash payment or QDRO at the discretion of the defendant. The remainder of said retirement plan shal


Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino

Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino Date: 1997-04-24. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino 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.


Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino


Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino

QDRO: s. Likewise, the parties shall share equally in the liability for any deficiency. 3. The balance in the defendant's 401K plan as of March 31, 1997 shall be divided equally between the parties, and the plaintiff's share shall be transfered to her by way of a qualified domestic relations order or some other vehicle designed to eliminate or minimize taxes. Counsel for the plaintiff shall draft the instrument of transfer, and the defendant shall CT Page 4745 cooperate fully 4. Except as otherwise ordered herein, the parties shall retain the assets shown on their respective financial affidavits without any claim by the other party. Likewise, each


Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino

401(k): obligation on the defendant solely for the purpose of meeting the plaintiff's weekly payments on her liabilities) The parties have agreed to sell the former family home and equally share any profit or deficiency. The defendant has also agreed to divide his 401K plan equally with the plaintiff, a division which is fair and equitable given the fact that all contributions were made during the marriage. They have also agreed on the distribution of personal property, all or most of which has already been divided. The plaintiff requests and the defendant objects to a contribution to her counsel fees. Considering the r


Barbara Mancino v. John Mancino

domestic relations order: e, the parties shall share equally in the liability for any deficiency. 3. The balance in the defendant's 401K plan as of March 31, 1997 shall be divided equally between the parties, and the plaintiff's share shall be transfered to her by way of a qualified domestic relations order or some other vehicle designed to eliminate or minimize taxes. Counsel for the plaintiff shall draft the instrument of transfer, and the defendant shall CT Page 4745 cooperate fully 4. Except as otherwise ordered herein, the parties shall retain the assets shown on their respective financial affidavits without any claim by the other party. Likewise, each


Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza

Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza Date: 2000-04-03. Machine-draft public headnote: Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza 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.


Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza

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.


Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza

QDRO: nearly equally as possible. If the parties are unable to agree, the matter is referred to Family Relations for mediation and recommendation. 11. The Defendant is currently vested in a pension through the City of East Haven. The parties shall, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), share equally in that portion of the pension benefit accrued during the period of their marriage. At the time of the hearing, both counsel indicated to the Court that independent counsel would be hired to prepare the necessary documentation and that insufficient information was available as of the date of the hearing regarding all of the terms of th


Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza

retirement benefits: as she commences receipt of her share in the form of an annuity. The intent of this order is to secure the Plaintiff's share of the pension should the Defendant die prior to his receipt of any lump sum benefit or the commencement of any annuity portion of his retirement benefit, and the Plaintiff not be eligible to receive her share under the terms of the plan. The balance of such insurance shall be maintained with the minor children as beneficiaries during the minority of either or both. 8. So long as he has physical custody of the minor children, CT Page 3535 the Defendant shall be entitled to claim the personal exemption for


Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza

pension: rs were substantially reduced as a result of his new position, and the Court finds that evidence to be credible. He appeared to the Court to be in good health, and no testimony was offered to the contrary. He has a $50,000.00 group life insurance policy and a pension through the City of East Haven. According to the evidence presented to the Court, the Defendant resumed his participation in the pension plan during fiscal year 1985-86, and that as of the end of fiscal year 1992/1993, his vested contribution account had a balance of $18,217.58. As of the end of fiscal 1998/1999, this account stood at $40,195.97. Assuming a


Barbara Speranza v. Anthony Speranza

domestic relations order: ually as possible. If the parties are unable to agree, the matter is referred to Family Relations for mediation and recommendation. 11. The Defendant is currently vested in a pension through the City of East Haven. The parties shall, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), share equally in that portion of the pension benefit accrued during the period of their marriage. At the time of the hearing, both counsel indicated to the Court that independent counsel would be hired to prepare the necessary documentation and that insufficient information was available as of the date of the hearing regarding all of the terms of th


Barry S. JAMESON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Taddese DESTA, Defendant and Respondent. Citation: 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831. Extracted reporter citation: 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831. Docket: of commentators pointed out that the. Date: 2018-07-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Barry S. JAMESON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Taddese DESTA, Defendant and Respondent. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. 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.


Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


opening text: Filed 7/5/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA BARRY S. JAMESON, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S230899 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/1 D066793 TADDESE DESTA, ) ) San Diego County Defendant and Respondent. ) Super. Ct. No. GIS9465 ____________________________________) Under California's in forma pauperis doctrine and Government Code section 68086, subdivision (b),1 a person who because of limited financial resources qualifies for a waiver of initial court filing fees is entitled, as well, to a waiver of fees for the attendance of an official court reporter at a hearing or trial. In this case, however, although plaintiff Barry Jameson (hereafter plaintiff) was entitled to a waiver of offici


Bd. of Trustees of The N.D. Public Employees' Retirement System v. N.D. Citation: 2023 ND 185. Extracted reporter citation: 2023 ND 185. Date: 2023-09-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Bd. of Trustees of The N.D. Public Employees' Retirement System v. N.D. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. 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.


Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


retirement benefits: yee and who is familiar with retirement and employee benefit plans. The governor shall appoint one citizen member to serve as chairman of the board. 4. Three board members must be elected by and from among the active participating members, members of the retirement plan established under chapter 54-52.6, members of the retirement plan 2 established under chapter 39-03.1, and members of the job service North Dakota retirement plan. Employees who have terminated their employment for whatever reason are not eligible to serve as elected members of the board under this subsection. Board members must be elected to a five


Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant

Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant Date: 1999-07-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant 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.


Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant


Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant

QDRO: tiff and/or her representatives in adjusting her mode of living residence in accordance with her health requirements. The defendant shall retain the cash value of his life insurance policy with Northwest Mutual and the court reserves jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order in order to transfer the aforementioned interests to the plaintiff of the defendant's pension. It is ordered that each of the parties shall be responsible for the debts as appear on their respective financial affidavits. Assets transferred to the plaintiff by virtue of the orders of this judgment are to be made payable to Cheri Olzacki, Conservatrix of th


Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant

pension: onies that she has and any bank accounts, mutual funds or investment accounts. The defendant retain monies that he has in any bank accounts, mutual funds or investment accounts. The parties have further stipulated that the marital portion of the defendant's pension plan is $47,500.00 and that the plaintiffs retirement and 401K funds total $36,585.00, this latter sum being a portion of the funds set over to her as here and before ordered. The $47,500.00 marital portion of the pension fund of the defendant is ordered divided and 50% of said amount is set over to the plaintiff in the event that she shall survive the de


Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant

401(k): nt accounts. The defendant retain monies that he has in any bank accounts, mutual funds or investment accounts. The parties have further stipulated that the marital portion of the defendant's pension plan is $47,500.00 and that the plaintiffs retirement and 401K funds total $36,585.00, this latter sum being a portion of the funds set over to her as here and before ordered. The $47,500.00 marital portion of the pension fund of the defendant is ordered divided and 50% of said amount is set over to the plaintiff in the event that she shall survive the defendant as of the date said benefits become payable for any rea


Bernice G. Bishop v. David A. Grant

domestic relations order: r her representatives in adjusting her mode of living residence in accordance with her health requirements. The defendant shall retain the cash value of his life insurance policy with Northwest Mutual and the court reserves jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order in order to transfer the aforementioned interests to the plaintiff of the defendant's pension. It is ordered that each of the parties shall be responsible for the debts as appear on their respective financial affidavits. Assets transferred to the plaintiff by virtue of the orders of this judgment are to be made payable to Cheri Olzacki, Conservatrix of th


Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertpand J. Bouchard. Date: 2000-10-24. Machine-draft public headnote: Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertpand J. Bouchard. 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.


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.


QDRO: e found by the judgment of the court for pendente lite alimony of $5036, plus the post judgment alimony arrearage of $3900 for a total arrearage amount of $8936, plus $600 in additional attorney's fees for a total of $9536, which the court orders be made as a qualified domestic relations order of the defendant's 401k plan known as Eyelematic Manufacturing Company, Inc. 401k savings plan. The court orders said $9536 be transferred to the plaintiff for the past due amounts in addition to the fifty percent of said plan previously awarded. ___________________, J. Kocay, J.


401(k): alimony of $5036, plus the post judgment alimony arrearage of $3900 for a total arrearage amount of $8936, plus $600 in additional attorney's fees for a total of $9536, which the court orders be made as a qualified domestic relations order of the defendant's 401k plan known as Eyelematic Manufacturing Company, Inc. 401k savings plan. The court orders said $9536 be transferred to the plaintiff for the past due amounts in addition to the fifty percent of said plan previously awarded. ___________________, J. Kocay, J.


domestic relations order: the judgment of the court for pendente lite alimony of $5036, plus the post judgment alimony arrearage of $3900 for a total arrearage amount of $8936, plus $600 in additional attorney's fees for a total of $9536, which the court orders be made as a qualified domestic relations order of the defendant's 401k plan known as Eyelematic Manufacturing Company, Inc. 401k savings plan. The court orders said $9536 be transferred to the plaintiff for the past due amounts in addition to the fifty percent of said plan previously awarded. ___________________, J. Kocay, J.


Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertrand J. Bouchard Date: 2000-01-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Beryl W. Bouchard v. Bertrand J. Bouchard 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.


QDRO: eam Drive, Waterbury, Connecticut, to the plaintiff Beryl Bouchard and the plaintiff shall hold defendant harmless from any and all liability pertaining to the mortgage and taxes on the subject premises. The defendant shall transfer to plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 50% of his right, title and interest in his 401K plan. The defendant shall be entitled to the following items of personal property and the plaintiff shall retain all other items of personal property: a) Computer, b) Computer table/desk, c) Bicycle (10 speed), d) Tools, and e) All available negatives of pictures of the parties' children and grand


pension: available negatives of pictures of the parties' children and grandchildren, for purposes of duplication and then negatives to be returned to plaintiff. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by QDRO 50% of his right, title and interest in and to any pension plan to which he is entitled to pension benefits from the Baking and Confectionery Union and Industrial International Pension Fund. The defendant shall transfer ownership to the plaintiff the Primerica life insurance policy having a face amount of $150,000.00. The plaintiff shall be named irrevocable beneficiary of the death benefit. Failure to transfer s


401(k): ntiff shall hold defendant harmless from any and all liability pertaining to the mortgage and taxes on the subject premises. The defendant shall transfer to plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 50% of his right, title and interest in his 401K plan. The defendant shall be entitled to the following items of personal property and the plaintiff shall retain all other items of personal property: a) Computer, b) Computer table/desk, c) Bicycle (10 speed), d) Tools, and e) All available negatives of pictures of the parties' children and grandchildren, for purposes of duplication and then ne


domestic relations order: Waterbury, Connecticut, to the plaintiff Beryl Bouchard and the plaintiff shall hold defendant harmless from any and all liability pertaining to the mortgage and taxes on the subject premises. The defendant shall transfer to plaintiff by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order 50% of his right, title and interest in his 401K plan. The defendant shall be entitled to the following items of personal property and the plaintiff shall retain all other items of personal property: a) Computer, b) Computer table/desk, c) Bicycle (10 speed), d) Tools, and e) All available negatives of pictures of the parties' children and grand


Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr.

Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr. Date: 1997-01-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr. 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.


Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr.


Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr.

QDRO: 817.50 in some form. The plaintiff's assets equal $12,729. To provide her with a total at least approximating one half of the total assets, she would need to receive from the defendant some $10,000. The court, therefore, would order the defendant to provide a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for one half the value of his pension and in addition, the sum of $2,000 from his IRA so as to provide a reasonably close division of the assets. Having considered all of the elements in § 46b-81 and § 46b-82 and the affidavits of the parties as well as the evidence presented, the court makes the following findings and orders. 1. The p


Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr.

pension: s paid in food. Food, of course, also has a monetary value and should be considered as part of his income. Given these facts which suggest additional income to that CT Page 380-Q reported on his affidavit plus the fact that he failed to report that he had a pension of over $15,000 from the church on his first affidavit and was required to amend his affidavit in order to reveal this, it appears that his account of his earnings is somewhat less than trustworthy. In addition, at the time of the trial, the defendant was notified that his employment was to be terminated at the end of the month and he was to be given a mo


Betsy Harwood v. John Harwood, Jr.

domestic relations order: some form. The plaintiff's assets equal $12,729. To provide her with a total at least approximating one half of the total assets, she would need to receive from the defendant some $10,000. The court, therefore, would order the defendant to provide a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for one half the value of his pension and in addition, the sum of $2,000 from his IRA so as to provide a reasonably close division of the assets. Having considered all of the elements in § 46b-81 and § 46b-82 and the affidavits of the parties as well as the evidence presented, the court makes the following findings and orders. 1. The p


Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish

Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish Date: 1999-02-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish 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.


Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish


Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish

QDRO: to the plaintiff to take whatever action at law she deems reasonable in order to liquidate her interests, if that is her wish. The court further orders that 50% of the pension plan and profit sharing plan of the defendant is transferred to the plaintiff by qualified domestic relations order which the parties are ordered to prepare and submit to the court for execution. The Jeep automobile is set over and assigned to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $250.00 per week as alimony until he accomplishes the payment to her of her equity in the residence parcel. Thereafter he shall pa


Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish

pension: o-ownership of this parcel are not before the court, CT Page 2088 the court will leave it to the plaintiff to take whatever action at law she deems reasonable in order to liquidate her interests, if that is her wish. The court further orders that 50% of the pension plan and profit sharing plan of the defendant is transferred to the plaintiff by qualified domestic relations order which the parties are ordered to prepare and submit to the court for execution. The Jeep automobile is set over and assigned to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $250.00 per we


Betsy Wettish v. Robert C. Wettish

domestic relations order: aintiff to take whatever action at law she deems reasonable in order to liquidate her interests, if that is her wish. The court further orders that 50% of the pension plan and profit sharing plan of the defendant is transferred to the plaintiff by qualified domestic relations order which the parties are ordered to prepare and submit to the court for execution. The Jeep automobile is set over and assigned to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $250.00 per week as alimony until he accomplishes the payment to her of her equity in the residence parcel. Thereafter he shall pa


Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider.

Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider. Date: 2003-03-10. Machine-draft public headnote: Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider. 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.


Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider.

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.


Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider.

QDRO: he defendant shall provide to the plaintiff the name, address and telephone of the plan administrator, together with the correct name of the plan, on or before April 2, 2003. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the preparation and filing and expense of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This court shall retain jurisdiction for review of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 18. The defendant is awarded the security deposit in the amount of $895 that he has paid to his current landlord. 19. Whether the parties file jointly or separately on their income taxes for the year 2002, they shall pool the amounts to be refunded to each and to


Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider.

retirement benefits: tion. Until recently, the defendant put aside moneys from his paycheck for 401(k) contributions. As of January 8, 2003, the net 401(k) savings CT Page 3421 account balance was approximately $3,600 because of an outstanding loan balance of $6,100. The 401(k) retirement account balance is approximately $22,100. The defendant enjoys singing. In 1998, he made a compact disk and worked to promote its sales. The C.D. did not take off. The defendant worked in the kitchen at home for two years developing a hot and spicy barbecue sauce. In October 2001, he borrowed $4,000 to incorporate a business — Absolutely Necessary, LLC &#


Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider.

401(k): tew Leonard's is planning to open a new store on Long Island in May 2004. The defendant has tentatively been offered a position there as a store manager. He expects to accept the position. Until recently, the defendant put aside moneys from his paycheck for 401(k) contributions. As of January 8, 2003, the net 401(k) savings CT Page 3421 account balance was approximately $3,600 because of an outstanding loan balance of $6,100. The 401(k) retirement account balance is approximately $22,100. The defendant enjoys singing. In 1998, he made a compact disk and worked to promote its sales. The C.D. did not take off. The


Brenda Snider v. Leroy Snider.

domestic relations order: nt shall provide to the plaintiff the name, address and telephone of the plan administrator, together with the correct name of the plan, on or before April 2, 2003. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the preparation and filing and expense of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. This court shall retain jurisdiction for review of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. 18. The defendant is awarded the security deposit in the amount of $895 that he has paid to his current landlord. 19. Whether the parties file jointly or separately on their income taxes for the year 2002, they shall pool the amounts to be refunded to each and to


Burke v. State

Burke v. State Citation: 2012 ND 169. Extracted reporter citation: 2012 ND 169. Docket: 20110231. Date: 2012-08-16. Machine-draft public headnote: Burke v. State 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.


Burke v. State

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


Burke v. State

pension: costs. Schulte argues that without utilizing her property settlement award, she has no funds to pay her attorney's fees while Kramer has given up income from Bobcat and Swanson Apartments, has disposable income after his court-ordered obligations, and has a pension at Bobcat. Kramer seemingly concedes that the trial court made no specific findings regarding Schulte's request for attorney's fees, but argues this Court may rely upon implied findings when the record enables us to understand the factual determinations. [¶36] Here, in not awarding Schulte's attorney's fees, the trial court made no findings explaining


Burke v. State

valuation/division: ded divorce judgment eliminating Kenneth Kramer's obligations to pay her spousal support, to provide health insurance, and to pay non-covered medical costs. We affirm the trial court's conclusion that the award of health insurance was spousal support and not property division; we reverse, concluding the trial court clearly erred in granting Kramer's motion to eliminate his spousal support obligations; we reverse for the trial court to consider whether to grant Schulte's request for attorney's fees; and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I [¶2] Relevant facts are set forth in our prior decision


Carkuff v. Balmer

Carkuff v. Balmer Citation: 2011 ND 60. Extracted reporter citation: 2011 ND 60. Docket: 20100237. Date: 2011-03-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Carkuff v. Balmer 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.


Carkuff v. Balmer


Carkuff v. Balmer

retirement benefits: mber 2009, the district court issued a decision adopting the 1994 divorce judgment, adopting Sharrie Stephenson's proposed distribution of assets and liabilities, and awarding Sharrie Stephenson $90,000 as an adjustment for her interest in Daniel Stephenson's retirement accounts. Daniel Stephenson's net award, without the value of his pensions, is approximately $175,000. Sharrie Stephenson's net award, including the $90,000 the court awarded as an adjustment for the retirement accounts, is approximately $155,000. The court also ordered Daniel Stephenson pay Sharrie Stephenson $3,000 per month in permanent spousal support and $1


Carkuff v. Balmer

pension: most of the parties' marriage but also had periods when she did not work outside the home. [¶3] At the time of their 1994 divorce, the parties agreed Sharrie Stephenson would receive twenty-five percent of Daniel Stephenson's Department of Defense ("DOD") pension. The parties' agreement was incorporated into the divorce judgment. Daniel Stephenson began receiving benefits from his DOD pension in 1997 after he completed his military career. Daniel and Sharrie Stephenson remarried in 1997, and Sharrie Stephenson did not receive payment for the portion of the pension benefits she was awarded in the 1994 judgment.


Carkuff v. Balmer

401(k): nsion benefits. The court awarded Sharrie Stephenson her individual retirement accounts worth approximately $11,203.44. The court awarded Daniel Stephenson his individual retirement accounts worth approximately $28,361.51, his Department of Veterans Affairs 401(k) worth $80,844.55, the DOD pension, and his Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") pension. The court found "[Daniel Stephenson's] retirement benefits totaled approximately $173,731.50." The court also ordered, "Daniel shall make payment to Sharrie as an adjustment for Sharrie's interest in Daniel's retirement accounts, that in the amount of $90,000, to be


Carkuff v. Balmer

survivor benefits: eceives $4,417 per month from his DOD pension and his benefits increase each year for the cost of living. He testified he started receiving monthly benefits from this pension in 1997, he will continue to receive monthly payments until he dies, and there is a survivor benefit that will go to Sharrie Stephenson after he dies which would provide her with $2,400 per month until her death. Daniel Stephenson also testified he will receive approximately $905 per month from his VA pension when he retires. There was evidence the other individual retirement accounts and 401(k) account the court awarded to Daniel Stephenson are worth ap


Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol

Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol Date: 1999-06-17. Machine-draft public headnote: Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol 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.


Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol


Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol

QDRO: The lower court, in its judgment entry issued February 24, 1998, ordered, inter alia: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the parties' retirement benefits shall be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). Counsel for the Plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the marital portion of the Defendant's Key Corp Cash Balance Pension Plan and his 401 (K). Counsel for Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the plaintiff's PraxAir Retirement Program Plan and Advanced Ceramics Corporation Retirem


Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol

retirement benefits: The lower court, in its judgment entry issued February 24, 1998, ordered, inter alia: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the parties' retirement benefits shall be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). Counsel for the Plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the marital portion of the Defendant's Key Corp Cash Balance Pension Plan and his 401 (K). Counsel for Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the plaintiff's PraxAir Reti


Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol

pension: REED that the parties' retirement benefits shall be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). Counsel for the Plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the marital portion of the Defendant's Key Corp Cash Balance Pension Plan and his 401 (K). Counsel for Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the plaintiff's PraxAir Retirement Program Plan and Advanced Ceramics Corporation Retirement Plan and Severance Pay Plan in conformity with this Judgment Entry. The Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to effectuate this order. Since neither appe


Carol Ann Kofol v. August Kofol

401(k): ' retirement benefits shall be divided through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO). Counsel for the Plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the marital portion of the Defendant's Key Corp Cash Balance Pension Plan and his 401 (K). Counsel for Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days, prepare a QDRO which divides the plaintiff's PraxAir Retirement Program Plan and Advanced Ceramics Corporation Retirement Plan and Severance Pay Plan in conformity with this Judgment Entry. The Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to effectuate this order. Since neither appellant nor appellee ha


Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick

Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick Date: 1996-01-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick 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.


Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick

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.


Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick

QDRO: balance shall be due and payable within sixty (60) days of the date of this decision and, at the defendant's election, this payment may be made in readily liquid funds or by the transfer to the plaintiff of that amount of his retirement account(s) by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court will retain jurisdiction of this matter until the lump sum property settlement is fully effectuated. E. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant all of her right, title and interest in the North Carolina condominium upon receipt of the full property settlement amount as stated above. F. Except as provided in this decision, all other asse


Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick

retirement benefits: ter thirty-three (33) years with the company. At the time of the marriage, the husband's assets consisted of approximately $1000 in checking; $1000 in savings; $12,000 in municipal bonds; equity of $106,000 in his home; $80,000 in Union Carbide savings and/or retirement accounts; life insurance cash value of $22,000; an automobile valued at $6000; and his interest in the Union Carbide pension. The wife's assets at the time of the marriage consisted of CT Page 620 equity in her home of approximately $100,000 to $110,000; a Volkswagen van; bank account(s) worth something less than $2000; and a possible interest in a pension/retire


Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick

pension: in checking; $1000 in savings; $12,000 in municipal bonds; equity of $106,000 in his home; $80,000 in Union Carbide savings and/or retirement accounts; life insurance cash value of $22,000; an automobile valued at $6000; and his interest in the Union Carbide pension. The wife's assets at the time of the marriage consisted of CT Page 620 equity in her home of approximately $100,000 to $110,000; a Volkswagen van; bank account(s) worth something less than $2000; and a possible interest in a pension/retirement plan at her then place of employment, where she had worked for five years before the marriage. Any claims that t


Carol E. Gulick v. Rodwin E. Gulick

domestic relations order: all be due and payable within sixty (60) days of the date of this decision and, at the defendant's election, this payment may be made in readily liquid funds or by the transfer to the plaintiff of that amount of his retirement account(s) by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court will retain jurisdiction of this matter until the lump sum property settlement is fully effectuated. E. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant all of her right, title and interest in the North Carolina condominium upon receipt of the full property settlement amount as stated above. F. Except as provided in this decision, all other asse


Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls

Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls Date: 1994-09-16. Machine-draft public headnote: Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls 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.


Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls


Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls

QDRO: endant has an interest in retirement benefits from the Civil Service Retirement system. The court enters the following order on the assumptions that the retirement plan is qualified under IRS regulations and there is no federal statute exempting the plan from Qualified Domestic Relations Order awards. The court reserves jurisdiction to enter other appropriate orders in the event either or both of the stated assumptions are incorrect. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) twenty five (25%) percent of his retirement plan, valued as of the date of this decree. Said payment shall be made directly


Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls

retirement benefits: e policy for her benefit under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) for the statutory period at the plaintiff's sole expense. (4) The defendant is awarded his trailer, boat and motorcycle. (5) The defendant has an interest in retirement benefits from the Civil Service Retirement system. The court enters the following order on the assumptions that the retirement plan is qualified under IRS regulations and there is no federal statute exempting the plan from Qualified Domestic Relations Order awards. The court reserves jurisdiction to enter other appropriate orders in the event either or both of the


Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls

pension: interim, while the documentation is being processed for the transfer, the defendant shall do nothing to impair said plan, or withdraw funds therefrom. The court retains jurisdiction to modify the QDRO to comply with federal or state law relating to retirement/pension plans. CT Page 9270 If the plan permits, the QDRO shall provide for a surviving spouse annuity, and an order prohibiting the defendant from withdrawing his contributions. (6) The parties shall divide the furniture and furnishings in the marital residence by agreement. If they are unable to agree, they shall consult the Family Services Unit for assistanc


Carol S. Sauls v. Samuel Sauls

domestic relations order: an interest in retirement benefits from the Civil Service Retirement system. The court enters the following order on the assumptions that the retirement plan is qualified under IRS regulations and there is no federal statute exempting the plan from Qualified Domestic Relations Order awards. The court reserves jurisdiction to enter other appropriate orders in the event either or both of the stated assumptions are incorrect. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) twenty five (25%) percent of his retirement plan, valued as of the date of this decree. Said payment shall be made directly


Carolyn E. Barrett v. William D. Barrett. Date: 2002-05-31. Machine-draft public headnote: Carolyn E. Barrett v. William D. Barrett. 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.


QDRO: 0 days of the date of this dissolution. STOCKS, BANK ACCOUNTS, IRA'S AND PENSIONS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts and deferred compensation accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share of the cost of preparing the necessary documents. Each party shall be awarded joint and survivorship benefits to protect each party in the event of the other's death. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over these accounts until they CT Page 6939 are distributed between the parties and to resolve any disp


401(k): finds that his credibility is questionable. For many years before and after the marriage, the Wife was working in retail sales. The parties agreed after the birth of their first child that the Wife would stay at home with the child. The Wife cashed out her 401K with her employer in the approximate amount of $28,000.00. Over the course of the marriage the parties used those funds to help support the family. The Husband has been using the joint funds in the Ridgefield Bank accounts to wine and dine his girlfriend and has used those funds to purchase gifts for the girl friend. The girl friend has made purchases on be


domestic relations order: the date of this dissolution. STOCKS, BANK ACCOUNTS, IRA'S AND PENSIONS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts and deferred compensation accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share of the cost of preparing the necessary documents. Each party shall be awarded joint and survivorship benefits to protect each party in the event of the other's death. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over these accounts until they CT Page 6939 are distributed between the parties and to resolve any disp


valuation/division: urt.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The parties were married on June 18, 1988 in Danbury, Connecticut. By complaint dated September 11, 2000, the Wife instituted this action claiming a legal separation, sole custody of the minor children, child support, alimony, an equitable distribution of the marital assets and other relief as law and equity might provide. On April 18, 2002 the Husband filed a Cross Claim claiming a dissolution of the marriage, distribution of the marital assets, joint custody of the minor children and other relief as law and equity might provide. Two minor children were born issue of this marriage: Katie A. Barren, bor


Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder.

Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder. Date: 2000-05-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder. 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.


Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder.


Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder.

QDRO: randum of decision, the court granted the plaintiff 50% of the defendant's pension benefits and it was the court's intention to make her the survivor annuitant with regard to the retirement benefits as relates to the Pfizer pension. The court notes that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order has not at this point been presented to the court for approval. As indicated, it was the court's intention to make the plaintiff the survivor annuitant and to that extent as concerns item 6 in the plaintiffs Motion to Clarify Post Judgment the matter is herewith clarified and the memorandum of decision is amended. Austin, J.


Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder.

retirement benefits: with regard to matters pertaining to life insurance. As is reflected in the memorandum of decision, the court granted the plaintiff 50% of the defendant's pension benefits and it was the court's intention to make her the survivor annuitant with regard to the retirement benefits as relates to the Pfizer pension. The court notes that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order has not at this point been presented to the court for approval. As indicated, it was the court's intention to make the plaintiff the survivor annuitant and to that extent as concerns item 6 in the plaintiffs Motion to Clarify Post Judgment the matter is herewi


Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder.

pension: reflected on his financial affidavit, has no cash value. The court did not intend to enter any orders with regard to matters pertaining to life insurance. As is reflected in the memorandum of decision, the court granted the plaintiff 50% of the defendant's pension benefits and it was the court's intention to make her the survivor annuitant with regard to the retirement benefits as relates to the Pfizer pension. The court notes that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order has not at this point been presented to the court for approval. As indicated, it was the court's intention to make the plaintiff the survivor ann


Carolyn J. Ryder v. Kenyon J. Ryder.

domestic relations order: decision, the court granted the plaintiff 50% of the defendant's pension benefits and it was the court's intention to make her the survivor annuitant with regard to the retirement benefits as relates to the Pfizer pension. The court notes that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order has not at this point been presented to the court for approval. As indicated, it was the court's intention to make the plaintiff the survivor annuitant and to that extent as concerns item 6 in the plaintiffs Motion to Clarify Post Judgment the matter is herewith clarified and the memorandum of decision is amended. Austin, J.


Catalina Betancourt v. David C. Betancourt Date: 1994-02-17. Machine-draft public headnote: Catalina Betancourt v. David C. Betancourt 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.


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.


QDRO: ary beneficiary for $5,000.00 of the death benefit payable via his group life insurance coverage and shall maintain same for so long as he continues to be liable for periodic alimony. The counsel for the plaintiff is directed to prepare the judgment and the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders for which the plaintiff's attorney shall be allowed $500, payable by the defendant on or before July 1, 1994. /s/ Harrigan, J. ___________________ HARRIGAN


pension: r in 1990 over defendant's involvement with another woman. The final separation occurred in early 1992. The defendant's health is good except for a back condition which developed in 1991, but which has not prevented his working. The defendant has a deferred pension of $144.60 monthly, payable at age 65, but which can commence as early as 55, but reduced 5% for each year prior to 65, which he acquired while employed by Duracell. He is presently employed by Anamet, Inc., where he has medical coverage, dental coverage, life insurance, and an accidental death policy, as well as a pension plan funded by the employer with a


domestic relations order: ciary for $5,000.00 of the death benefit payable via his group life insurance coverage and shall maintain same for so long as he continues to be liable for periodic alimony. The counsel for the plaintiff is directed to prepare the judgment and the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders for which the plaintiff's attorney shall be allowed $500, payable by the defendant on or before July 1, 1994. /s/ Harrigan, J. ___________________ HARRIGAN


Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina

Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina Date: 1996-04-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina 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.


Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina


Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina

QDRO: r week towards such arrearage. The defendant's pension from his service with Hamilton Standard, which was earned during the course of the marriage, is split between the parties. The plaintiff is awarded a 50% interest in the defendant's Hamilton Standard by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Plaintiff's counsel is to prepare such order and a judgment file and defendant is to cooperate in effectuating such order. The defendant's pension resulting from his military service was primarily earned through pre-marital military service. Defendant will retain his entire interest in his military pension. CT Page 3668 Defendant will quitclaim his int


Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina

pension: arty or the plaintiff's remarriage. The alimony is otherwise non-modifiable as to its term. The court finds as arrearage due on pendente-lite alimony in the amount of $5,400. Defendant is ordered to pay $20 per week towards such arrearage. The defendant's pension from his service with Hamilton Standard, which was earned during the course of the marriage, is split between the parties. The plaintiff is awarded a 50% interest in the defendant's Hamilton Standard by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Plaintiff's counsel is to prepare such order and a judgment file and defendant is to cooperate in effectuating such orde


Catherine G. Perina v. Martin L. Perina

domestic relations order: ards such arrearage. The defendant's pension from his service with Hamilton Standard, which was earned during the course of the marriage, is split between the parties. The plaintiff is awarded a 50% interest in the defendant's Hamilton Standard by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Plaintiff's counsel is to prepare such order and a judgment file and defendant is to cooperate in effectuating such order. The defendant's pension resulting from his military service was primarily earned through pre-marital military service. Defendant will retain his entire interest in his military pension. CT Page 3668 Defendant will quitclaim his int


Catherine M. Duthrie v. Jeffrey A. Duthrie Date: 1998-11-10. Machine-draft public headnote: Catherine M. Duthrie v. Jeffrey A. Duthrie 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.