CourtListener opinion 2742400

domestic relations order: actors the court may determine to be relevant in an individual case. 11 The district court awarded Thomas the marital home along with the debt on it and divided the remaining assets, awarding Jaime a portion of Thomas's IPERS account through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Thomas filed a motion to amend and enlarge, contending the parties stipulated that each would retain its own IPERS account. The district court declined to alter its property division stating: In reviewing the Stipulation of Assets and Liabilities, it is indicated that the parties' IPERS accounts shall be received by the parties. However, there is no


CourtListener opinion 2742820

CourtListener opinion 2742820 Extracted case name: COA GEORGE AARON APPELLANT v. ANNIE AARON APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2742820 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2742820

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


CourtListener opinion 2742820

QDRO: on the ground of irreconcilable differences. As part of the divorce, George agreed to pay Annie one-half of his retirement funds acquired during the marriage. The judgment stated the funds would be transferred through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). At the time the judgment was entered, George was not receiving any retirement benefits. The judgment did not state which party was responsible for entering the QDRO. ¶3. In August 2011, George retired from the Amory Police Department. He began receiving benefits through the Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). On November 4, 2011,


CourtListener opinion 2742820

retirement benefits: IFFIS, P.J., MAXWELL AND FAIR, JJ. FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. George Aaron appeals the Monroe County Chancery Court's denial of his request to reconsider the judgment of divorce, in which he was ordered to pay his former wife a monthly payment from his retirement account. Finding no error, we affirm. FACTS ¶2. George Aaron and Annie Aaron were married on May 25, 1991, in Monroe County, Mississippi. Annie filed for divorce in 2001. On August 12, 2002, a judgment of divorce was entered in Monroe County on the ground of irreconcilable differences. As part of the divorce, George agreed to pay Annie one-half of his retirem


CourtListener opinion 2742820

alternate payee: se of a QDRO shows the parties' intent to transfer the benefits through a finite, lump-sum payment (a separate-interest QDRO) as opposed to a monthly payment. George seemingly fails to take 5 into account the shared-payment QDRO, a QDRO which assigns the alternate payee a portion of each monthly payment. U.S. Dep't of Labor, The Division of Pensions Through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/qdros.html, Question 3-3; see generally 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (2012). "Under [the shared-payment] approach, the alternate payee will not receive any payments unless the participant receives a paym


CourtListener opinion 2742820

domestic relations order: rest QDRO) as opposed to a monthly payment. George seemingly fails to take 5 into account the shared-payment QDRO, a QDRO which assigns the alternate payee a portion of each monthly payment. U.S. Dep't of Labor, The Division of Pensions Through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/qdros.html, Question 3-3; see generally 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (2012). "Under [the shared-payment] approach, the alternate payee will not receive any payments unless the participant receives a payment or is already in pay status." Id. George's argument is without merit. ¶15. George further claims that the court erred in


CourtListener opinion 2742972

CourtListener opinion 2742972 Extracted case name: K.L. v. E.H. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2742972 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2742972

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


CourtListener opinion 2742972

domestic relations order: obtain relief from her financial circumstances. Douglas has failed to demonstrate prima facie error arising from the trial court's award of $750 for attorney's 10 fees. See id. (affirming attorney fee award to Wife because Wife's counsel had to prepare a domestic relations order after Husband's counsel was ordered to prepare the order but failed to do so). CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Affirmed. VAIDIK, C.J., and KIRSCH, J., concur. 11


CourtListener opinion 2744004

CourtListener opinion 2744004 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: COA14-241 NORTH CAROLINA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2744004 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2744004


CourtListener opinion 2744004

QDRO: bstance of the 1998 [Judgment][,]" we are not persuaded. Defendant signed the 1998 Judgment before a notary, and the 1998 Judgment specifically states "WE CONSENT" above the signature line. The terms of the 1998 Judgment clearly provide for the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order if required by the Plan Administrator of the State of North Carolina Teachers' and State Employees' Retirement System, and it specifically directs the Plan Administrator to make monthly payments "directly to the Plaintiff of the amount which equals fifty percent (50%) of the Defendant's account" from the date of the parties' marriage to the date of th


CourtListener opinion 2744004

retirement benefits: February 1998, a Consent Judgment (1998 Judgment) was entered with respect to equitable distribution of the marital property. Defendant was a participant in the State of North Carolina Teachers' and State Employees' Retirement System, and a portion of his retirement benefits was subject to equitable distribution. In the 1998 Judgment, the trial court made the following findings of fact with regard to the portion of defendant's retirement benefits designated to plaintiff: (B) That the Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed that the Plaintiff shall be designated as the alternate payee of retirement benefits equal to fifty p


CourtListener opinion 2744004

alternate payee: the 1998 Judgment, the trial court made the following findings of fact with regard to the portion of defendant's retirement benefits designated to plaintiff: (B) That the Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed that the Plaintiff shall be designated as the alternate payee of retirement benefits equal to fifty percent (50%) of the Defendant/Plan Participant's account which can be attributed to that amount which accrued from the date of the parties' marriage (October 24, 1976) to the date of their separation (November 1, 1995), plus all interest accruing on the alternate payee's portion from the date of the parties' s


CourtListener opinion 2744004

domestic relations order: rt, for appellant. ELMORE, Judge. William Wallace Digh (defendant) appeals from the trial court's denial of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion and his Rule 59 motion. Defendant argues on appeal that he was not afforded due process prior to the entry of the 2009 Domestic Relations Order. After careful consideration, we affirm. I. Background -2- The facts of this case are largely undisputed and are derived from an earlier opinion filed in this matter, Digh v. Digh, COA12-506, 2012 WL 6590509 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2012). Rebecca Chapman Digh (plaintiff) and defendant were married on 24 October 1976 and subsequently separated on 1


CourtListener opinion 2745889

CourtListener opinion 2745889 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of MARJORIE ANNE and. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2745889 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2745889


CourtListener opinion 2745889

QDRO: KETAILY. (Super. Ct. No. D261068) (Ventura County) MARJORIE ANNE KETAILY, Appellant, v. MICHAEL EDWARD KETAILY, Respondent. Marjorie Anne Ketaily (Wife) appeals from the trial court's order clarifying that the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between Wife and Michael Edward Ketaily (Husband), do not award Wife a community property interest in certain deferred retirement benefits available to Husband. After reviewing the matter de novo, we conclude the community holds an interest in the benefits at issue. Accordingly, we reverse. Facts Husband began his employment with the Los Angeles Ci


CourtListener opinion 2745889

retirement benefits: e) appeals from the trial court's order clarifying that the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between Wife and Michael Edward Ketaily (Husband), do not award Wife a community property interest in certain deferred retirement benefits available to Husband. After reviewing the matter de novo, we conclude the community holds an interest in the benefits at issue. Accordingly, we reverse. Facts Husband began his employment with the Los Angeles City Fire Department (LAFD) in August 1980. He and Wife were married in May 1987 and separated in April 1 1998. Husband first became eligible to


CourtListener opinion 2745889

domestic relations order: (Super. Ct. No. D261068) (Ventura County) MARJORIE ANNE KETAILY, Appellant, v. MICHAEL EDWARD KETAILY, Respondent. Marjorie Anne Ketaily (Wife) appeals from the trial court's order clarifying that the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between Wife and Michael Edward Ketaily (Husband), do not award Wife a community property interest in certain deferred retirement benefits available to Husband. After reviewing the matter de novo, we conclude the community holds an interest in the benefits at issue. Accordingly, we reverse. Facts Husband began his employment with the Los Angeles Ci


CourtListener opinion 2745889

valuation/division: AILY, Respondent. Marjorie Anne Ketaily (Wife) appeals from the trial court's order clarifying that the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between Wife and Michael Edward Ketaily (Husband), do not award Wife a community property interest in certain deferred retirement benefits available to Husband. After reviewing the matter de novo, we conclude the community holds an interest in the benefits at issue. Accordingly, we reverse. Facts Husband began his employment with the Los Angeles City Fire Department (LAFD) in August 1980. He and Wife were married in May 1987 and separated in A


CourtListener opinion 2746106

CourtListener opinion 2746106 Docket: 14-CA-27 5 trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2746106 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2746106

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


CourtListener opinion 2746106

QDRO: eement reached by appellee and decedent. At the time of the divorce, decedent was a retired educator, receiving retirement benefits as provided by STRS. {¶3} With respect to decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: (a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00 per month (44.41% of Defendant's gross monthly benefit), plus poundage and cost-of-living increases, for Plaintiff's interest in the STRS Plan as spousal sup


CourtListener opinion 2746106

retirement benefits: 1969. Appellee and Decedent were divorced via Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce filed November 26, 1997. The Decree incorporated a Separation Agreement reached by appellee and decedent. At the time of the divorce, decedent was a retired educator, receiving retirement benefits as provided by STRS. {¶3} With respect to decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: (a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00


CourtListener opinion 2746106

pension: ded by STRS. {¶3} With respect to decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: (a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00 per month (44.41% of Defendant's gross monthly benefit), plus poundage and cost-of-living increases, for Plaintiff's interest in the STRS Plan as spousal support, payable until the death of either Defendant or the Plaintiff. Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-27 3 (b)


CourtListener opinion 2746106

alternate payee: ng retirement benefits as provided by STRS. {¶3} With respect to decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: (a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00 per month (44.41% of Defendant's gross monthly benefit), plus poundage and cost-of-living increases, for Plaintiff's interest in the STRS Plan as spousal support, payable until the death of either Defendant or the Plaintiff. Fairfield County, Ca


CourtListener opinion 2746446

CourtListener opinion 2746446 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MATTHEW MORRIS AND ALLISON MORRIS Upon the Petition of MATTHEW MORRIS. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 13-1884. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2746446 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2746446


CourtListener opinion 2746446

QDRO: be "saved harmless" on the debt. Under the decree, Matthew was to receive assets with a net value of $174,336 and Allison was to receive assets with a net value of $43,953. The court ordered Matthew to transfer $65,000 from his 401(k) account to Allison by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). On October 9, Allison filed a motion for new trial in which she asked the court to take additional evidence concerning post-trial events. She also asked the court to amend the decree to require Matthew to refinance the first and second mortgages on the marital residence to remove her name. The court denied the post-trial motions, and Allison a


CourtListener opinion 2746446

401(k): Matthew and ordered Allison be "saved harmless" on the debt. Under the decree, Matthew was to receive assets with a net value of $174,336 and Allison was to receive assets with a net value of $43,953. The court ordered Matthew to transfer $65,000 from his 401(k) account to Allison by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). On October 9, Allison filed a motion for new trial in which she asked the court to take additional evidence concerning post-trial events. She also asked the court to amend the decree to require Matthew to refinance the first and second mortgages on the marital residence to remove her name


CourtListener opinion 2746446

domestic relations order: harmless" on the debt. Under the decree, Matthew was to receive assets with a net value of $174,336 and Allison was to receive assets with a net value of $43,953. The court ordered Matthew to transfer $65,000 from his 401(k) account to Allison by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). On October 9, Allison filed a motion for new trial in which she asked the court to take additional evidence concerning post-trial events. She also asked the court to amend the decree to require Matthew to refinance the first and second mortgages on the marital residence to remove her name. The court denied the post-trial motions, and Allison a


CourtListener opinion 2748655

CourtListener opinion 2748655 Extracted reporter citation: 432 N.E.2d 183. Docket: 10. There is no other evidence. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2748655 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2748655


CourtListener opinion 2748655

QDRO: Dr. Rosen also assumed that Riga would continue to receive an annual 3 percent cost of living increase until she retires. Based on these assumptions, Dr. Rosen determined what the pension would be worth in 2029. Dr. Rosen admitted he was not familiar with qualified domestic relations orders or order acceptable for processing. {¶47} By contrast, Riga's expert, Brian Hogan ("Hogan"), testified that he uses the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") method for valuing FERS pensions because the PBGC is the government entity that ensures plans are properly funded and can pay their benefits. He further testified that the PBGC method i


CourtListener opinion 2748655

retirement benefits: In preparing his evaluation, he assumed Riga performed no additional work for the federal government after June 29, 2012, and assumed a retirement age of 62 years. An individual who has a minimum five years of service in the FERS plan becomes eligible for retirement benefits at 62 years of age. After factoring in the PBGC interest rates and the PBGC mortality tables, Hogan determined that Riga's FERS pension had a present value of $177,911.96, as of November 12, 2012, because it had vested but was not matured. This figure also represented the marital portion of the pension earned during the marriage. {¶49} Hogan explained


CourtListener opinion 2748655

pension: he testimony of three experts. However, none of this evidence supports Saks's assertion. Plaintiff's expert reports include (1) an appraisal of the marital home dated August 23, 2012, (2) a preliminary report from an economist concerning the value of Riga's pension benefits as of August 15, 2012, (3) a revised pension valuation of Riga's pension benefits as of January 23, 2013, and (4) an appraisal of the parties' personal property dated December 29, 2012. {¶12} The appraiser who valued the parties' marital home testified at trial and confirmed that he performed an appraisal of the parties' marital home in August


CourtListener opinion 2748655

domestic relations order: also assumed that Riga would continue to receive an annual 3 percent cost of living increase until she retires. Based on these assumptions, Dr. Rosen determined what the pension would be worth in 2029. Dr. Rosen admitted he was not familiar with qualified domestic relations orders or order acceptable for processing. {¶47} By contrast, Riga's expert, Brian Hogan ("Hogan"), testified that he uses the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") method for valuing FERS pensions because the PBGC is the government entity that ensures plans are properly funded and can pay their benefits. He further testified that the PBGC method i


CourtListener opinion 2751146

CourtListener opinion 2751146 Extracted reporter citation: 145 U.S. 368. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2751146 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2751146


CourtListener opinion 2751146

QDRO: the Court upon the appeal of Petitioner, Carol Kinsinger, from a July 30, 2013, order of the Circuit Court of Mason County denying her petition for appeal of a final order of the family court which declined to find Respondent, Todd Pethel, in contempt of a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter "QDRO"). Herein, Petitioner argues that 1) the circuit court erred in applying the doctrine of laches below because there was no finding or evidence of prejudice to Respondent caused by the passage of time; and 2) the failure of a QDRO to obtain full payment does not thereby extinguish the underlying award of equitable distribution of prope


CourtListener opinion 2751146

retirement benefits: ecord before us on appeal, and applicable legal precedent, we affirm the circuit court's finding that Respondent was not in contempt of the QDRO, but we reverse the circuit court's finding that Petitioner was barred from obtaining her share of Respondent's retirement benefits pursuant to the doctrine of laches. We therefore remand this matter to the circuit court for entry of a judgment order awarding Petitioner the remainder of the $4,081.51 to which she is entitled under the settlement agreement. 1 The Respondent, Todd Pethel, has not entered an appearance or filed a responsive brief in this appeal. 1 I. FACTUAL AND


CourtListener opinion 2751146

domestic relations order: upon the appeal of Petitioner, Carol Kinsinger, from a July 30, 2013, order of the Circuit Court of Mason County denying her petition for appeal of a final order of the family court which declined to find Respondent, Todd Pethel, in contempt of a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter "QDRO"). Herein, Petitioner argues that 1) the circuit court erred in applying the doctrine of laches below because there was no finding or evidence of prejudice to Respondent caused by the passage of time; and 2) the failure of a QDRO to obtain full payment does not thereby extinguish the underlying award of equitable distribution of prope


CourtListener opinion 2751146

valuation/division: court erred in applying the doctrine of laches below because there was no finding or evidence of prejudice to Respondent caused by the passage of time; and 2) the failure of a QDRO to obtain full payment does not thereby extinguish the underlying award of equitable distribution of property rights. Upon review of the Petitioner's arguments,1 the record before us on appeal, and applicable legal precedent, we affirm the circuit court's finding that Respondent was not in contempt of the QDRO, but we reverse the circuit court's finding that Petitioner was barred from obtaining her share of Respondent's retirement benefits pursuant


CourtListener opinion 2751976

CourtListener opinion 2751976 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2751976 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2751976

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


CourtListener opinion 2751976

pension: STIN E. HENSON, No. 62654 Appellant, vs. HOWARD HALE HENSON, AL Respondent. OCT 02 2614 CL BY It .0i ti RA C it uE Appeal from a district court order modifying a qualified domestic relations order and denying appellant's motion for a judgment on pension payment arrearages. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Bridget Robb Peck, Judge. Affirmed. Todd L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY, J.: In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether a


CourtListener opinion 2751976

domestic relations order: Nevi, Advance Opinion 71 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA KRISTIN E. HENSON, No. 62654 Appellant, vs. HOWARD HALE HENSON, AL Respondent. OCT 02 2614 CL BY It .0i ti RA C it uE Appeal from a district court order modifying a qualified domestic relations order and denying appellant's motion for a judgment on pension payment arrearages. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Bridget Robb Peck, Judge. Affirmed. Todd L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY


CourtListener opinion 2751976

survivor benefits: L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY, J.: In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether a nonemployee spouse is entitled to survivor benefits if, in a divorce decree, 'The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Justice, voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ce 14 /3214 he or she is allocated a community property interest in the employee spouse's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension plan. We are also asked to


CourtListener opinion 2751976

valuation/division: is entitled to survivor benefits if, in a divorce decree, 'The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Justice, voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ce 14 /3214 he or she is allocated a community property interest in the employee spouse's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension plan. We are also asked to consider whether the nonemployee spouse must file a motion in the district court to immediately begin receiving his or her community property interest in the PERS pension plan when the employee spouse has reached retirement eligibility but has


CourtListener opinion 2752209

CourtListener opinion 2752209 Extracted reporter citation: 701 A.2d 1018. Docket: 2014-308-M.P. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2752209 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2752209


CourtListener opinion 2752209

QDRO: les. The final judgment for divorce entered in the case contained a provision relating to the division of Anthony's pension. In order to effectuate the terms of the division of that pension, it was necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be entered by the Family Court. However, the parties disagreed as to the terms of the QDRO, and the court was not presented with a QDRO prior to entry of the final judgment of divorce. A motion to enter the QDRO was heard in October 2002, but the parties passed it off the calendar. There was no further action to prepare and enter a QDRO until 2012


CourtListener opinion 2752209

pension: y Pallini (Anthony) became divorced on August 2, 2001. The respondent represented Melissa, and Anthony was represented by Attorney Brenda Rioles. The final judgment for divorce entered in the case contained a provision relating to the division of Anthony's pension. In order to effectuate the terms of the division of that pension, it was necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), to be entered by the Family Court. However, the parties disagreed as to the terms of the QDRO, and the court was not presented with a QDRO prior to entry of the final judgment of divorce. A motion to enter the QDRO


CourtListener opinion 2752209

valuation/division: presented at the disciplinary hearing, the respondent acknowledged that, by his wrongful retrieval of the divorce documents, including the automatic orders, he had provided an advantage to his client, requiring further judicial proceedings to effectuate an equitable distribution of the marital assets. The respondent further acknowledged that his conduct in this matter was in violation of Rule 8.4(d) 2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. By wrongfully taking the divorce papers and failing to disclose to Iannone he had done so, he interfered with Iannone's ability to obtain proper service and protect the rights of her client. H


CourtListener opinion 2752803

CourtListener opinion 2752803 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of MARIA CARMEN and JULIO CESAR SANTILLAN. Extracted reporter citation: 190 Cal.App.4th 739. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2752803 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2752803


CourtListener opinion 2752803

QDRO: red throughout their marriage. The judgment divided their community property evenly. She deposited his retirement check into her account because, at that point, the court's judgment entitled her to half of it and he had not yet cooperated with her to get a qualified domestic relations order issued to separate their interests. Husband's health problems have been long-standing. 3 The documents husband provided to support this statement showed the deposit and withdrawal occurred in March 2013. 4 The court denied husband's request for relief, finding no basis to set aside the default and default judgment. Husband sought reconsideration of th


CourtListener opinion 2752803

retirement benefits: sal support for future determination and made wife responsible for approximately $12,000 in credit card debts. The court divided the marital property by awarding wife their home, the furnishings in it, two cars, 100 percent of the community interest in her retirement plan, approximately $60,000 from his 401k plan, and 50 percent of the community interest in his retirement plan. The court awarded husband three cars, a flatbed trailer, a motor home, tools, approximately $80,000 from his 401k plan, and 50 percent of the community interest in his retirement plan. On March 22, 2013, husband, now represented by counsel, filed


CourtListener opinion 2752803

401(k): fe responsible for approximately $12,000 in credit card debts. The court divided the marital property by awarding wife their home, the furnishings in it, two cars, 100 percent of the community interest in her retirement plan, approximately $60,000 from his 401k plan, and 50 percent of the community interest in his retirement plan. The court awarded husband three cars, a flatbed trailer, a motor home, tools, approximately $80,000 from his 401k plan, and 50 percent of the community interest in his retirement plan. On March 22, 2013, husband, now represented by counsel, filed a request for an order setting asid


CourtListener opinion 2752803

domestic relations order: hout their marriage. The judgment divided their community property evenly. She deposited his retirement check into her account because, at that point, the court's judgment entitled her to half of it and he had not yet cooperated with her to get a qualified domestic relations order issued to separate their interests. Husband's health problems have been long-standing. 3 The documents husband provided to support this statement showed the deposit and withdrawal occurred in March 2013. 4 The court denied husband's request for relief, finding no basis to set aside the default and default judgment. Husband sought reconsideration of th


CourtListener opinion 2753338

CourtListener opinion 2753338 Docket: 310479 Macomb Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2753338 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2753338


CourtListener opinion 2753338

QDRO: Antonio P. Viviano on November 16, 2009. The judgment awarded each party fifty percent of the marital portion of the other party's pension, i.e., plaintiff's pension with the State of Michigan (Lakeview Public Schools) and defendant's pension with Chrysler. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or Eligible Domestic Relations Order (EDRO), as appropriate for each pension, was to be prepared and incorporated by reference in the judgment. The judgment provided alternate payee "will be allowed to elect or begin receiving his/her benefits at the Participant's earliest retirement age." In addition, it provided, "To the extent that the Plan charge


CourtListener opinion 2753338

retirement benefits: yments under the Plan at any time beginning when the Participant reaches the earliest retirement date as defined in Section 2(d) of the Eligible Domestic Relations Order Act (MCL 38.1701 et seq.). . . . If the Participant elects to receive an early-reduced retirement benefit, the Alternate Payee's benefit shall also be reduced by the same early retirement factor. *** 10. ACTUARIAL FEES: The Participant and Alternate Payee agree to share any additional costs for actuarial services incurred by the Plan due to the review and implementation of the terms of this Order. The Alternate Payee's share of said costs shall be in


CourtListener opinion 2753338

pension: t, 9:05 a.m. v No. 310479 Macomb Circuit Court MICHAEL J. MAHAR, LC No. 2009-001462-DO Defendant-Appellee. Before: WILDER, P.J., AND SAAD AND K. F. KELLY, JJ. WILDER, P.J. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted1 an order denying a motion for relief from a pension provision in a divorce judgment. We reverse and remand. I The parties were married in 1993. Plaintiff filed for divorce from defendant in March 2009. The case was submitted to arbitration before a referee. A consent judgment of divorce was entered by Judge Antonio P. Viviano on November 16, 2009. The judgment awarded each party fifty percent of the mari


CourtListener opinion 2753338

alternate payee: c Schools) and defendant's pension with Chrysler. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) or Eligible Domestic Relations Order (EDRO), as appropriate for each pension, was to be prepared and incorporated by reference in the judgment. The judgment provided alternate payee "will be allowed to elect or begin receiving his/her benefits at the Participant's earliest retirement age." In addition, it provided, "To the extent that the Plan charges an administrative or actuarial cost for reviewing or administering the QDRO/EDRO, the Plaintiff and Defendant agree to split this cost equally." Subsequently, two QDROs covering defenda


CourtListener opinion 2754086

CourtListener opinion 2754086 Extracted reporter citation: 701 A.2d 1018. Docket: 2014-308-M.P. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2754086 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2754086

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


CourtListener opinion 2754086


CourtListener opinion 2754522

CourtListener opinion 2754522 Extracted reporter citation: 701 A.2d 1018. Docket: 2014-308-M.P. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2754522 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2754522


CourtListener opinion 2755697

CourtListener opinion 2755697 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KATHLEEN KAY KOETHER AND GREGORY SCOTT KOETHER Upon the Petition of KATHLEEN KAY. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 13-2047. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2755697 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2755697


CourtListener opinion 2755697

QDRO: gs. We therefore modify the district court's order in that respect. Greg's share of Kathy's IPERS benefits will be calculated on the date of distribution using the method described by our supreme court in Brown, 776 N.W.2d at 651 n.2. Entry of a corrected qualified domestic relations order consistent with this ruling shall be prepared by Kathy's counsel for the court's signature. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.


CourtListener opinion 2755697

retirement benefits: its division was equitable. We therefore affirm the district court's conclusion as to both the vehicles and Greg's use of LLC assets for living expenses.6 E. IPERS Benefits Kathy lastly asserts the district court used an incorrect formula to divide her retirement benefits in the IPERS system because it failed to remove future 6 Because the vehicles are not demonstrably LLC assets and neither this court nor the district court distributes LLC assets in the form of a salary, the district court did not need to pierce the corporate veil to reach its conclusions despite Kathy's claims to the contrary. 12 accumulations from Gr


CourtListener opinion 2755697

domestic relations order: refore modify the district court's order in that respect. Greg's share of Kathy's IPERS benefits will be calculated on the date of distribution using the method described by our supreme court in Brown, 776 N.W.2d at 651 n.2. Entry of a corrected qualified domestic relations order consistent with this ruling shall be prepared by Kathy's counsel for the court's signature. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.


CourtListener opinion 2755697

valuation/division: rict court awarded Greg his 4 interest in the timber property rather than divide it between the parties as a marital asset. "Property inherited by either party . . . during the course of the marriage is the property of that party and is not subject to a property division . . . except upon a finding that refusal to divide the property is inequitable to the other party . . . ." Iowa Code § 598.21(6) (2013). There are five factors we consider to determine whether exempting inherited property from division is inequitable: (1) contributions of the parties toward the property, its care, preservation, or improvement; (2) inde


CourtListener opinion 2758188

CourtListener opinion 2758188 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 1028. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2758188 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2758188


CourtListener opinion 2758188

QDRO: ding the estate attorney fees. The issues before this court are whether it is equitable to impose a constructive trust to require the beneficiary of a 401(k) account to return funds received when it was intended that the account be subject to a division by QDRO; whether a domestic relations court lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims based on a separation agreement more than six months after the death of one of the parties to the agreement; and whether it is an abuse of discretion to award attorney fees to a party against whom a motion for contempt was unsuccessfully prosecuted. For the following reasons, we


CourtListener opinion 2758188

retirement benefits: ich he ought not, in equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy." Id. at ¶ 18. {¶21} For example, in Fischbach v. Mercuri, 184 Ohio App.3d 105, 2009-Ohio- 4790, 919 N.E.2d 804 (2nd Dist.), the current spouse (Mercuri) of an STRS plan participant received retirement benefits owed, according to the terms of the divorce decree, to the former spouse (Fischbach). The court of appeals held that Fischbach was entitled to "the funds received by Mercuri on the basis of unjust enrichment, as a result of a wrongful act by her late husband, the plan participant," i.e., failing to designate Fischbach as a beneficiary on the fund. Id.


CourtListener opinion 2758188

pension: E.2d 1028 (1989). {¶19} The domestic relations court and magistrate relied on the case of Drummond v. Drummond, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 10-CA-20, 2010-Ohio-6139, which held that a constructive trust was an appropriate remedy where the proceeds of an STRS pension were not distributed in accordance with the terms of a separation agreement. Id. at ¶ 31-32. {¶20} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that a constructive trust may be imposed as an equitable remedy "against unjust enrichment * * * where it is against the principles of equity that the property be retained by a certain person even though the property


CourtListener opinion 2758188

ERISA: the other spouse as a beneficiary is revoked as a result of the divorce, dissolution of marriage, or annulment. {¶24} There is no dispute that Alden's Lincoln Electric 401(k) account is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). 29 U.S.C. 1002(1). Under ERISA, employee welfare benefit plans must be administered "in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan," and payments thereunder must be made to the "beneficiary" who is "designated by a participant, or by the terms of [the] plan." 29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)(D) and 1002(8). It is further provided that ERIS


CourtListener opinion 2758554

CourtListener opinion 2758554 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2758554 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2758554

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


CourtListener opinion 2758554

QDRO: bus, Ohio 43212-2710 Licking County, Case No. 14 CA 28 2 Wise, J. {¶1}. Appellant Kent Ware appeals the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Licking County, which issued a nunc pro tunc Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\QDRO\") following his divorce from Appellee Barbara Ware.


CourtListener opinion 2758554

domestic relations order: Columbus, Ohio 43215 Columbus, Ohio 43212-2710 Licking County, Case No. 14 CA 28 2 Wise, J. {¶1}. Appellant Kent Ware appeals the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Licking County, which issued a nunc pro tunc Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\QDRO\") following his divorce from Appellee Barbara Ware.


CourtListener opinion 2759298

CourtListener opinion 2759298 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2759298 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2759298

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


CourtListener opinion 2759298

QDRO: thdraws, which she claims she must do "to survive," while appellee is able to keep his portion of the money in the account, let it grow tax free, and pay no taxes until he withdraws it in retirement.1 1 Ehrenberg testified that money transferred into the QDRO account is not taxed, but he did not address money that she withdraws from it for living expenses, which is taxed. 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 697 Appellant also asserts that appellee's pre-separation spending highlights the inequity of the distribution. Appellee admitted that he withdrew either $73,557.92 or $76,121.922 from his 401(k) in April 2011,


CourtListener opinion 2759298

401(k): ible for the monthly bill paying the last six years, as well as being solely responsible for cooking, cleaning, and the upkeep of the house during that time. Before the date of separation, appellee paid off several bills including marital debts out of his 401(k) plan from which he withdrew $22,826.34—the plan having a value of $234,059.91 as of December 21, 2012. The parties had the marital residence built in 1981 which was valued at $87,000, and the balance of approximately $15,000 owed on the house was paid off from these funds around March 2011. Additionally, appellee paid off appellant's car, his son's car,


CourtListener opinion 2759298

domestic relations order: y had been divided, that appellant agreed to transfer her interest in the marital home to appellee for the amount of $43,500, and that she also agreed to transfer her interest in a certain mobile home to the parties' son. Other agreed orders and qualifying domestic relations orders (QDROs) concerning the property and assets were also entered. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the final decree on December 2, 2013, and on December 10, 2013, appellee filed a reply to the motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, appellant filed a reply to the response to the motion for reconsideration, but no order was entered addressi


CourtListener opinion 2759298

valuation/division: , 288 S.W.3d 680 (2008), that equal division of the marital property is what is fair and equitable in a divorce case. A circuit court is given broad powers to distribute all property in divorce cases, marital and non-marital, in order to achieve a fair and equitable distribution. Marks v. Marks, 2014 Ark. App. 174, 432 S.W.3d 698. In making such a distribution a court need not do so with 9 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 697 mathematical precision. Friend v. Friend, 2010 Ark. App. 525, 376 S.W.3d 519. A division of marital property will be not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. Wainwright v. Merryman, 2014 Ark. App. 156. The


CourtListener opinion 2761154

CourtListener opinion 2761154 Extracted case name: L.P.A. v. C.J. Extracted reporter citation: 461 N.E.2d 1295. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2761154 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2761154


CourtListener opinion 2761154

QDRO: o -2- his attorney, was close to $250,000. As to the 401(K), which was valued at approximately $611,000, the marital portion of the plan was determined to be $105,245.72 "by way of a present value determination conducted by Pension Evaluators, A division of QDRO Consultants Co., LLC." 11/23/11 Separation Agreement. Fifty percent of the marital portion was awarded to Christine. {¶6} The allegation in the legal malpractice action is that if Christine Bangor had gone to trial rather than settle, the outcome would have been more favorable to her; she claims that she would have gotten a larger portion of her ex-husband


CourtListener opinion 2761154

pension: he marital debt, which according to -2- his attorney, was close to $250,000. As to the 401(K), which was valued at approximately $611,000, the marital portion of the plan was determined to be $105,245.72 "by way of a present value determination conducted by Pension Evaluators, A division of QDRO Consultants Co., LLC." 11/23/11 Separation Agreement. Fifty percent of the marital portion was awarded to Christine. {¶6} The allegation in the legal malpractice action is that if Christine Bangor had gone to trial rather than settle, the outcome would have been more favorable to her; she claims that she would have gotten a l


CourtListener opinion 2761154

401(k): s reviewed and found to be fair and equitable. 11/28/11 Magistrate's Decision; 11/28/11 J.E. {¶5} The portions of the separation agreement that are at issue in a legal malpractice action are spousal support, marital debt, and the division of Richard Bangor's 401(K). The separation agreement provided that Richard would pay Christine $1,200 a month in spousal support for 59 months. The agreement indicated that Richard would pay the majority of the marital debt, which according to -2- his attorney, was close to $250,000. As to the 401(K), which was valued at approximately $611,000, the marital portion of the plan was d


CourtListener opinion 2761154

valuation/division: e $1,200 a month in spousal support for 59 months. The agreement indicated that Richard would pay the majority of the marital debt, which according to -2- his attorney, was close to $250,000. As to the 401(K), which was valued at approximately $611,000, the marital portion of the plan was determined to be $105,245.72 "by way of a present value determination conducted by Pension Evaluators, A division of QDRO Consultants Co., LLC." 11/23/11 Separation Agreement. Fifty percent of the marital portion was awarded to Christine. {¶6} The allegation in the legal malpractice action is that if Christine Bangor had gone to trial rathe


CourtListener opinion 2762691

CourtListener opinion 2762691 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Allen. Extracted reporter citation: 721 N.W.2d 25. Docket: 20130392. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2762691 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2762691


CourtListener opinion 2762691

QDRO: t $2,333,248, and ordered him to pay her $815,479 to equalize the property distribution. The court also awarded each party half of the proceeds from the sale of corn and soybeans and half of future payments from Sharleen Albrecht's two pensions, payable in a qualified domestic relations order. The court explained the marriage was long-term and none of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines established any reason to distribute the marital property unequally. The court issued a subsequent order substituting Sharleen Albrecht's estate as a party in the divorce action and denying Glenvin Albrecht's motion for clarification of the award of proceeds from t


CourtListener opinion 2762691

domestic relations order: 48, and ordered him to pay her $815,479 to equalize the property distribution. The court also awarded each party half of the proceeds from the sale of corn and soybeans and half of future payments from Sharleen Albrecht's two pensions, payable in a qualified domestic relations order. The court explained the marriage was long-term and none of the Ruff-Fischer guidelines established any reason to distribute the marital property unequally. The court issued a subsequent order substituting Sharleen Albrecht's estate as a party in the divorce action and denying Glenvin Albrecht's motion for clarification of the award of proceeds from t


CourtListener opinion 2762691

valuation/division: N.D. Cent. Code § 14-03-01. Under section 14-05-01, NDCC, Doris's and Allen's marriage was dissolved by Doris's death. Upon the death, there was no longer a marriage for the trial court to dissolve with a judgment decreeing a divorce. A court will make an equitable distribution of the real and personal property when a divorce is granted. N.D. Cent. Code § 14-05-24. In a divorce action, the equitable distribution of property is incidental to a judgment of divorce. Because the marriage was dissolved by death and not by divorce, the trial court did not err when it held that there was no longer a marriage to be dissolved and, there


CourtListener opinion 2765083

CourtListener opinion 2765083 Extracted reporter citation: 714 A.2d 1016. Docket: 303 WDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2765083 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2765083


CourtListener opinion 2765083

QDRO: ts "certain marital documents that the [p]arties drafted together." Appellant's Brief at 5 (emphasis removed). Within her brief, Appellant asserts, "[i]n 2011, Dreakford created and emailed [Appellant] a Separation Agreement and then the parties created a QDRO together, both documents containing August 1, - 12 - J-A35018-14 1997 as the agreed upon date of marriage." Appellant's Brief at 18. According to Appellant: The trial court excluded these documents as evidence despite argument that they were an opposing party's admission. Pa.R.E. 803(25). It also appears that had they been admitted, they would hav


CourtListener opinion 2765083

survivor benefits: usual formalities, the claim must be viewed with great scrutiny. -6- J-A35018-14 Generally, words in the present tense are required to prove common law marriage. Because common law marriage cases arose most frequently because of claims for a putative surviving spouse's share of an estate, however, we developed a rebuttable presumption in favor of a common law marriage where there is an absence of testimony regarding the exchange of verba in praesenti. When applicable, the party claiming a common law marriage who proves: (1) constant cohabitation; and (2) a reputation of marriage which is not partial or divided but


CourtListener opinion 2765246

CourtListener opinion 2765246 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2765246 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2765246

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


CourtListener opinion 2765246

domestic relations order: has since purchased her own home. In addition, the circuit court's July 17, 2013 order of divorce entitled wife to $147,240.89 of the marital share of husband's retirement account with Klockner Pentaplast and directed husband's attorney to prepare a qualified domestic relations order to that effect. - 29 - SunTrust account 7053, SunTrust account 0532, Union account 8512, and Union account 4006. We do not address husband's seventh, eighth, and ninth assignments of error challenging the $300,000 lump sum spousal support award to wife because remanding the matter for new equitable distribution determinations also requires the circuit


CourtListener opinion 2765246

valuation/division: peals the circuit court's order granting Robin R. DeLanoy (wife) a divorce on the ground that the parties had lived separate and apart for more than one year. Husband raises nine assignments of error pertaining to the issues of post-separation adultery, equitable distribution, and spousal support. Wife, in her responsive brief, has raised eight assignments of cross-error pertaining to the issues of constructive desertion and equitable distribution. For the reasons explained below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the matter to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. * Pursua


CourtListener opinion 2765506

CourtListener opinion 2765506 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2765506 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2765506

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


CourtListener opinion 2765506

QDRO: LISHED OPINION Respondent MELNICK, J. — Anthony Budziusl appeals from the trial court' s denial of his complaint to vacate an amendment to his dissolution decree with Leslie Miller. Budzius argues that the amended decree was invalid because it was not a qualified domestic relations order ( QDRO), and Budzius' s former attorney lacked authority to agree to the amended decree. We disagree and affirm the trial court. FACTS Budzius was married to Miller for approximately 10 years. During that time, Budzius worked as a police officer in Fife. He had a Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System ( LEOFF) Plan 22 retirem


CourtListener opinion 2765506

retirement benefits: disagree and affirm the trial court. FACTS Budzius was married to Miller for approximately 10 years. During that time, Budzius worked as a police officer in Fife. He had a Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System ( LEOFF) Plan 22 retirement plan with the state. Budzius and Miller divorced in November of 1992. The decree of dissolution, as originally drafted, provided that the value of the community interest in Budzius' s retirement account was 27,210, and \ a Qualified Domestic Relations Order should issue


CourtListener opinion 2765506

domestic relations order: NION Respondent MELNICK, J. — Anthony Budziusl appeals from the trial court' s denial of his complaint to vacate an amendment to his dissolution decree with Leslie Miller. Budzius argues that the amended decree was invalid because it was not a qualified domestic relations order ( QDRO), and Budzius' s former attorney lacked authority to agree to the amended decree. We disagree and affirm the trial court. FACTS Budzius was married to Miller for approximately 10 years. During that time, Budzius worked as a police officer in Fife. He had a Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System ( LEOFF) Plan 22 retirem


CourtListener opinion 2769818

CourtListener opinion 2769818 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Preston. Extracted reporter citation: 991 N.E.2d 992. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2769818 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2769818


CourtListener opinion 2769818

QDRO: vested pension account. See In re Marriage of Preston, 704 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (discussing various methods for dividing future pension benefits in a dissolution decree); Ryan v. Janovsky, 999 N.E.2d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (discussing use of qualified domestic relations order for payment of pension benefits divided years earlier in dissolution decree), trans. denied. 10 II. Child Support Arrearage Terry also contends the trial court erred in calculating the amount of his child support arrearage as being $11,805. Decisions regarding child support generally rest within the trial court's sound discretion. Dore v. Dore, 782


CourtListener opinion 2769818

retirement benefits: e of $33,000, less a loan against it of $12,000, for a net value of $21,000. Donna also testified that she was vested in an Eli Lilly pension, but she did not know its value or future payment amounts. Terry's financial declaration indicated that he had two retirement accounts through Federal Express, with a total net value of approximately $11,000. There also was evidence that each party owned a vehicle, though their values were unclear. There was no marital residence or any other significant assets. Donna also requested payment of attorney fees from Terry because of his uncooperativeness during discovery. On April 9, 201


CourtListener opinion 2769818

pension: ederal Express. Additionally, Donna submitted a financial declaration showing an Eli Lilly 401(k) account with a gross value of $33,000, less a loan against it of $12,000, for a net value of $21,000. Donna also testified that she was vested in an Eli Lilly pension, but she did not know its value or future payment amounts. Terry's financial declaration indicated that he had two retirement accounts through Federal Express, with a total net value of approximately $11,000. There also was evidence that each party owned a vehicle, though their values were unclear. There was no marital residence or any other significant


CourtListener opinion 2769818

401(k): red pro se. At that time, evidence was presented that Donna earned $1,247.34 per week from her job at Eli Lilly, while Terry earned $850.50 per week from his job at Federal Express. Additionally, Donna submitted a financial declaration showing an Eli Lilly 401(k) account with a gross value of $33,000, less a loan against it of $12,000, for a net value of $21,000. Donna also testified that she was vested in an Eli Lilly pension, but she did not know its value or future payment amounts. Terry's financial declaration indicated that he had two retirement accounts through Federal Express, with a total net value of ap


CourtListener opinion 2771241

CourtListener opinion 2771241 Extracted case name: APPELLANTS v. MELISSA VANDERKAM. Extracted reporter citation: 520 U.S. 833. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2771241 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2771241


CourtListener opinion 2771241

QDRO: an," id. § 1144(a). One exception rests on the fact that plan benefits are often considered marital community property, a domain traditionally reserved exclusively for state law. As a result, Congress exempted a narrow category of state-court orders, known as qualified domestic relations orders, from ERISA's anti-alienation and preemption provisions. Id. § 1056(d)(3)(A); § 1144(b)(7). A qualified domestic relations order is a state-court decree regarding marital property that creates or recognizes an alternate payee's right to ERISA-governed benefits—for instance, changing the plan beneficiary from a soon-to-be ex-spouse to a child. Id. 3 § 1056


CourtListener opinion 2771241

retirement benefits: e trust for his benefit. The district court rejected this claim, holding that ERISA preempts any state law or state-court decree that would otherwise defeat the spouse's vested annuity. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm. I. ERISA protects retirement benefits for millions of pension plan participants and their beneficiaries. 29 U.S.C. § 1001(b). Finding that the stability of retirement benefits directly affects the national economy, id. § 1001(a), Congress acted to ensure that accrued benefits remain unaltered by individuals and states alike. It accomplished this by prohibiting participants from assigning or al


CourtListener opinion 2771241

pension: INSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. Concurring opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG. 2 TATEL, Circuit Judge: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) entitles certain spouses of pension plan participants to a survivor annuity unless waived pursuant to clearly defined procedures. In this case, the pension plan participant concedes that ERISA vested an annuity in his ex-wife, but nonetheless argues that Texas law, including his Texas divorce decree, requires entry now of a declaratory judgment that, after his death, she place her annuity pay


CourtListener opinion 2771241

ERISA: and MILLETT, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. Concurring opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG. 2 TATEL, Circuit Judge: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) entitles certain spouses of pension plan participants to a survivor annuity unless waived pursuant to clearly defined procedures. In this case, the pension plan participant concedes that ERISA vested an annuity in his ex-wife, but nonetheless argues that Texas law, including his Texas divorce decree, requires entry now of a declaratory judgment that, after


CourtListener opinion 2771373

CourtListener opinion 2771373 Extracted reporter citation: 918 F.2d 187. Docket: CH-0831-11-0312-I-1. Id. 2. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2771373 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2771373


CourtListener opinion 2771373

QDRO: IAF), Tab 7, Subtab 2. On June 3, 2011, the administrative judge issued an initial decision in which he found that the decree effecting the appellant's divorce from the annuitant, John S. Lowe, did not expressly provide for a survivor annuity and that the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) purporting to award the appellant a survivor annuity was not effective because it modified the first court order dividing marital property and was executed after Mr. Lowe died. 0312 IAF, Tab 11, Initial Decision (0312 ID) at 7. ¶3 The administrative judge noted, however, that, during proceedings in the appeal, the appellant claimed that Mr. Lowe


CourtListener opinion 2771373

domestic relations order: 7, Subtab 2. On June 3, 2011, the administrative judge issued an initial decision in which he found that the decree effecting the appellant's divorce from the annuitant, John S. Lowe, did not expressly provide for a survivor annuity and that the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) purporting to award the appellant a survivor annuity was not effective because it modified the first court order dividing marital property and was executed after Mr. Lowe died. 0312 IAF, Tab 11, Initial Decision (0312 ID) at 7. ¶3 The administrative judge noted, however, that, during proceedings in the appeal, the appellant claimed that Mr. Lowe


CourtListener opinion 2771373

survivor benefits: is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g). BACKGROUND ¶2 The appellant filed an appeal challenging OPM's January 5, 2011 reconsideration decision, in which OPM denied the appellant's request for a court-awarded survivor annuity. MSPB Docket No. CH-0831-11-0312-I-1, Initial Appeal File (0312 IAF), Tab 7, Subtab 2. On June 3, 2011, the administrative judge issued an initial decision in which he found that the decree effecting the appellant's divorce from the annuitant, John S. Lowe, did not expressly provide for a survivor annuity and that the qualified domestic relations order


CourtListener opinion 2772541

CourtListener opinion 2772541 Extracted reporter citation: 352 S.W.3d 462. Docket: sheet states that on July 9. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2772541 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2772541

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


CourtListener opinion 2772541

QDRO: n of or as a result of [Armando's] past, present, or future employment. At the top of the page, there is a handwritten note stating, "Remainder milit ret," and there is a handwritten paragraph H-9 mid-page, which states in its entirety, "50% profit share - QDRO." The 2008 decree awards Patricia: W-5. The sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee 1 We note that


CourtListener opinion 2772541

retirement benefits: ditions.1 In relevant part, Armando is awarded: H-5. The sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits existing by reason of [Armando's] past, present or future employment. H-6. The individual retirement accounts, simplified employee pensions, annuities, and variable annuity life insurance benefits in [Ar


CourtListener opinion 2772541

pension: Armando is awarded: H-5. The sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits existing by reason of [Armando's] past, present or future employment. H-6. The individual retirement accounts, simplified employee pensions, annuities, and variable annuity life insurance benefits in [Armando's] name. H-7.


CourtListener opinion 2772541

401(k): er matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits existing by reason of [Armando's] past, present or future employment. H-6. The individual retirement accounts, simplified employee pensions, annuities, and variable annuity life insurance benefits in [Armando's] name. H-7. All sums, whether matured or unmatured, a


CourtListener opinion 2773194

CourtListener opinion 2773194 Docket: I THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2773194 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2773194


CourtListener opinion 2773194

QDRO: as the termination date of marriage and distributed the marital assets and debts as to that date. Specifically, the magistrate recommended that Robert's $70,000 in loans from his brother and friend be considered a marital debt. It also recommended that a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") be issued to allow Jennifer to receive one-half of Robert's deferred compensation plans, vested and unvested, as of November 2006, "payable to [Jennifer] once the unvested portion of the deferred compensation plans becomes fully vested." (Docket No. 171, p. 8). Moreover, the magistrate recommended that the trial court deny Robert's request to


CourtListener opinion 2773194

pension: of Error No. III {¶63} In Robert's third assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred in awarding Jennifer one-half of his unvested deferred compensation. We disagree. -34- Case No. 17-14-13 {¶64} It is well-established that "[a] vested pension plan accumulated during the marriage is a marital asset and must be considered * * * in dividing marital assets and liabilities." Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128, 132 (1989). Further, a trial court "may also consider the value of an unvested pension plan as a marital asset for purposes of reaching an equitable distribution." (Emphasis deleted). K


CourtListener opinion 2773194

domestic relations order: ermination date of marriage and distributed the marital assets and debts as to that date. Specifically, the magistrate recommended that Robert's $70,000 in loans from his brother and friend be considered a marital debt. It also recommended that a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") be issued to allow Jennifer to receive one-half of Robert's deferred compensation plans, vested and unvested, as of November 2006, "payable to [Jennifer] once the unvested portion of the deferred compensation plans becomes fully vested." (Docket No. 171, p. 8). Moreover, the magistrate recommended that the trial court deny Robert's request to


CourtListener opinion 2773194

valuation/division: within its discretion to "award a credit to the party who uses his or her own separate funds to make mortgage or other loan payments while the divorce is pending." Shattuck v. Shattuck, 153 Ohio App.3d 622, 2003- Ohio-4230, ¶ 25 (7th Dist.), citing Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property, Section 6.25, 441 (2d Ed.1994). Such a request will be denied however, if the payments were made with marital funds. Id. Further, a trial court may also deny a claim for reimbursement for mortgage payments when the spouse retains exclusive use and possession of the marital home. See Wu v. Li, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA- 2012-04-091, 2013-Ohi


CourtListener opinion 2778118

CourtListener opinion 2778118 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. NCP. Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2778118 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2778118


CourtListener opinion 2778118

QDRO: alance of $80,437.02 and the Ready Reserve account has an approximate balance of $432.05. Wife shall receive one-half of the balance from these two accounts as of the date of the signing of this agreement, together with any gain or loss thereon, until the QDRO is prepared. Wife shall be allotted fifty percent of the marital share of FERS account and Ready Reserve account by way of a QDRO. Husband shall have both QDROs prepared at Husband's expense within 30 days of the entry of a final decree of divorce. If Husband has Military pension, Wife will receive fifty percent of the marital share. Approximately on


CourtListener opinion 2778118

retirement benefits: rt of his appeal are as follows: (1) "The trial court erred in its Order dated June 3, 2014, when it heard parol evidence on terms of the parties' Amendment to Property Settlement Agreement that were unambiguous;" (2) "The trial court erred by entering its Retirement Benefits Court Order (TSP) dated May 18, 2014 and its Court Order Acceptable for Processing (FERS) dated May 18, 2014, when the Amendment to Property/Separation Agreement clearly states ‘[h]usband shall have both QDROs prepared at Husband's expense within 30 days after official retirement from CIA;'" (3) "The trial court erred in its Order dated June 3, 2014, when


CourtListener opinion 2778118

pension: n its two May 18, 2014 orders and its June 3, 2014 order as to a disputed provision in the parties' property settlement agreement, titled "Pensions," addressing husband's Thrift Savings Plan ("TSP") account, Federal Employees' Retirement System ("FERS") pension, and Ready Reserve account; and (ii) the circuit court's refusal to award attorney's fees to husband in its March 26, 2014 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. order.1 For the following reasons, we affirm in part, and reverse and remand the judgment of the circuit court in part. PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMEN


CourtListener opinion 2778257

CourtListener opinion 2778257 Extracted case name: L.P. v. HD. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2778257 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2778257

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


CourtListener opinion 2778257

domestic relations order: n the assault in the garage, defendant was charged with count IV, corporal injury to a spouse. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on this charge and a mistrial was declared. However, defendant was charged and convicted of count V, misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations order on the same day. 19. Defendant Allegedly Calls Sewell's Cell Phone On March 20, 2008, defendant appeared in court and was served with a criminal protective order to have no contact, directly or indirectly, with Sewell, including by a telephone call. On March 27, 2008, Sewell was being interviewed at the district attorney's office about this case by a d


CourtListener opinion 2778358

CourtListener opinion 2778358 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2502 EDA 2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2778358 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2778358


CourtListener opinion 2778358

domestic relations order: urt. Mother did not attend therapy beyond the intake appointment. Mother missed many of her visits as well; some were cancelled due to Mother contracting cellulitis, some due to Mother's incarceration from August 2012 until October 2012 for contempt of a domestic relations order, and some for other reasons. Mother has not seen the Children since August 2012. On December 27, 2012, Mother gave birth to another child who is not subject to this termination proceeding. On January 17, 2013, the Agency filed a petition to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights to J.P.R.P. The trial court held an additional hearing on the te


CourtListener opinion 2778396

CourtListener opinion 2778396 Extracted reporter citation: 935 A.2d 547. Docket: 898 WDA 2014 : Appellant :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2778396 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2778396

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


CourtListener opinion 2778396

QDRO: of J. S76014/14 $42,000 from his Erie Insurance 401(k) Savings Plan to Wife by tax-free rollover. Specifically, Paragraph 9 of the Agreement provided as follows: 9. HUSBAND'S ERIE INSURANCE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN Husband agrees to transfer to Wife via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the sum of $42,000.00 from his Erie Insurance 401(k) Savings Plan. This transfer will take place so as to constitute a tax free rollover. Counsel for Wife shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order relating to Husband's Erie Insurance 401(k) Savings Plan. Paragraph 11 of the Agreement addressed the parties' insurance policies and pension


CourtListener opinion 2778396

retirement benefits: Husband did not agree with Wife's claim that she was entitled to any increase in the value of the account. On March 12, 2014, Wife filed a petition for special relief claiming that Husband had not complied with an oral agreement on the distribution of a retirement account to her. A hearing was scheduled for May 5, 2014. The parties and counsel appeared. On May 20, 2014, the trial court entered an order determining that the parties had reached an oral agreement modifying their written Agreement, and awarded Wife a share of the post-separation increase in Husband's Transamerica Diversified Account, in addition to the $42,


CourtListener opinion 2778396

pension: e place so as to constitute a tax free rollover. Counsel for Wife shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order relating to Husband's Erie Insurance 401(k) Savings Plan. Paragraph 11 of the Agreement addressed the parties' insurance policies and pension plans as follows: 11. INSURANCE POLICIES AND PENSION RIGHTS Unless and except as otherwise provided herein, each of the parties agrees that the other, after execution of this Agreement, shall have the right to make any changes in his or her respective insurance policies, including, but not limited to, change of his or her beneficiary, increasing o


CourtListener opinion 2778396

401(k): reement ("the Agreement"). The Agreement was incorporated into the parties' October 12, 2012 divorce decree. The subject of this appeal concerns a paragraph that directed Husband to transfer the fixed amount of J. S76014/14 $42,000 from his Erie Insurance 401(k) Savings Plan to Wife by tax-free rollover. Specifically, Paragraph 9 of the Agreement provided as follows: 9. HUSBAND'S ERIE INSURANCE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN Husband agrees to transfer to Wife via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the sum of $42,000.00 from his Erie Insurance 401(k) Savings Plan. This transfer will take place so as to constitute a


CourtListener opinion 2778624

CourtListener opinion 2778624 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TERRY L. CARLSON AND WILLIAM J. CARLSON Upon the Petition of TERRY L. CARLSON. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 13-1854. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2778624 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2778624


CourtListener opinion 2778624

QDRO: ilitary pension was a defined benefit plan, which was to be divided under the 3 Benson formula.1 The court ordered the parties to "consult regarding whether Petitioner Terry wants to take and pay for survivor's benefits. [Terry's] counsel shall prepare a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] QDRO to accomplish the division of the pension." On October 8, 2012, William filed a motion to reconsider, enlarge, and amend, in which he requested, in part, that the court amend the decree to provide for the immediate sale of the marital residence, rule that the parties equally share any profit or deficiency, and adjust the equalization payment. Te


CourtListener opinion 2778624

pension: And Concerning WILLIAM J. CARLSON, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble, Judge. A former husband appeals from the entry of a military pension division order. REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Cathleen J. Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellant. Catherine C. Dietz-Kilen of Harrison & Dietz-Kilen, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee. Heard by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ. 2 POTTERFIELD, J. A former husband appeals from the entry of a military pension division o


CourtListener opinion 2778624

domestic relations order: nsion was a defined benefit plan, which was to be divided under the 3 Benson formula.1 The court ordered the parties to "consult regarding whether Petitioner Terry wants to take and pay for survivor's benefits. [Terry's] counsel shall prepare a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] QDRO to accomplish the division of the pension." On October 8, 2012, William filed a motion to reconsider, enlarge, and amend, in which he requested, in part, that the court amend the decree to provide for the immediate sale of the marital residence, rule that the parties equally share any profit or deficiency, and adjust the equalization payment. Te


CourtListener opinion 2778624

valuation/division: his order or frustrates the intent of the court. He shall release, hold harmless and indemnify [Terry] as to any actions he takes which reduce her allocated benefits. The court will retain continuing jurisdiction to modify the pension division payments or the property division specified herein, or to award compensatory alimony or damages, if [William] should waive military retired pay in favor of disability payments or take any other action (such as receipt of severance pay, bonuses or an early out payments) which reduces the amount or share [Terry] is entitled to receive. In addition, the court retains authority over this award


CourtListener opinion 2778953

CourtListener opinion 2778953 Extracted case name: AFL-CIO v. U.S. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2778953 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2778953


CourtListener opinion 2778953

QDRO: l Pension Fund explained that Ms. Bell was not entitled to the Death Benefit because at the time of Mr. Bell's death, Ms. Bell was divorced from Mr. Bell and the Plan Administrators "never received any actual or proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assigning any interest to Darlene Bell" nor a designation of beneficiary form designating Ms. Bell as Mr. Bell's beneficiary. Nov. 1, 2012, Denial Letter, Appx. 116. Ms. Bell subsequently appealed the decision to the Board of Trustees which denied her appeal in February 2013. Pl.'s Stmt. ¶¶ 39-43. In May 2013, the Central Pension Fund was contacted by


CourtListener opinion 2778953

pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL R. FANNING, as Chief Executive Officer of the Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers, Civil Action No. 13-1937 (CKK) Plaintiff, v. BELL, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (February 11, 2015) Plaintiff, Michael R. Fanning, Chief Executive Officer of the Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participatin


CourtListener opinion 2778953

ERISA: td. v. Zenith 7 Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); "[i]f the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (internal citations omitted). B. Standard of Review of ERISA Determinations In considering the determination of benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA, courts generally review the decisions of plan administrators de novo. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989). If the plan grants the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for


CourtListener opinion 2778953

domestic relations order: ded by the Plan, or by the terms of the Plan itself, who is or may become entitled to receive a benefit under the Plan. The term "Beneficiary" shall also refer to any spouse, former spouse, child or other dependent of a Participant, who is recognized by a domestic relations order as having a right to receive all or a portion of the Participant's benefit . . . . Id. at Appx. 67, § 1.06. In turn, Section 12.05 of the Plan provides that [e]ach Participant may designate on a form furnished by the Board a Beneficiary to receive the death benefit as indicated in Section[] 12.03 . . . . In the event there is a death benefit payable .


CourtListener opinion 2779079

CourtListener opinion 2779079 Extracted case name: KRENZEN v. KATZ. Extracted reporter citation: 977 P.2d 807. Docket: 1 CA-CV 14-0037. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2779079 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2779079


CourtListener opinion 2779079

QDRO: the superior court's orders relating to the Denali and remand for further proceedings regarding the proper distribution of that asset. ¶20 We reach a similar conclusion regarding Wife's IRA. The superior court ordered her IRA and Husband's 401(k) divided by QDRO such that "all funds contributed during the marriage (and all proceeds of such funds) are divided 50/50." Wife contends this was legally erroneous because contributions to her IRA during the marriage were gifts from her parents. ¶21 Husband took the position that Wife's IRA was community property. Wife's attorney advised the court that, because her allotte


CourtListener opinion 2779079

401(k): e therefore vacate the superior court's orders relating to the Denali and remand for further proceedings regarding the proper distribution of that asset. ¶20 We reach a similar conclusion regarding Wife's IRA. The superior court ordered her IRA and Husband's 401(k) divided by QDRO such that "all funds contributed during the marriage (and all proceeds of such funds) are divided 50/50." Wife contends this was legally erroneous because contributions to her IRA during the marriage were gifts from her parents. ¶21 Husband took the position that Wife's IRA was community property. Wife's attorney advised the court that, bec


CourtListener opinion 2779079

valuation/division: sses Wife complains about were present for trial. ¶17 We do conclude, though, that the trial time allocations prevented Wife from meaningfully litigating two issues that would have required little additional time: (1) the extent to which a Denali vehicle was community property; and (2) whether Wife's IRA was her sole and separate property, in whole or in part. See Volk, 235 Ariz. at 468, ¶ 21, 333 P.3d at 795 ("If, during the progress of a scheduled hearing, it becomes apparent that the court lacks sufficient time to receive adequate testimony, then the court must allow reasonable additional time or continue the hearing to permit


CourtListener opinion 2779317

CourtListener opinion 2779317 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Epsteen. Docket: 2-13-0961 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2779317 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2779317

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


CourtListener opinion 2779317

QDRO: in Du Page County circuit court case number 85-MR-111. ¶4 In May 2008, James died from injuries suffered in a workplace accident. In April 2012, Anita filed in case number 85-MR-111 a "petition for confirmation of lien, sale of real estate, and entry of a qualified domestic relations order." She alleged child support arrearages of $7,770 and $14,687.34, respectively, in case numbers 82-D-24518 and 85-MR-111. Adding statutory interest, Anita alleged a total arrearage of $65,976.46. Anita claimed that there was an existing lien in that amount against the assets of the Estate by operation of section 505(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissol


CourtListener opinion 2779317

pension: ] lien arises by operation of law against the real and personal property of the noncustodial parent for each installment of overdue [child] support owed by the noncustodial parent.")). Those assets included real estate that James had owned in Elmhurst and a pension that he had earned from Iron Workers Mid-America. Anita sought an order directing the sale of the real estate and applying the proceeds to the support arrearage. She also sought a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) applying James's pension to the arrearage. ¶5 The Estate responded by filing a nine-count motion to strike and dismiss Anita's petiti


CourtListener opinion 2779317

domestic relations order: e County circuit court case number 85-MR-111. ¶4 In May 2008, James died from injuries suffered in a workplace accident. In April 2012, Anita filed in case number 85-MR-111 a "petition for confirmation of lien, sale of real estate, and entry of a qualified domestic relations order." She alleged child support arrearages of $7,770 and $14,687.34, respectively, in case numbers 82-D-24518 and 85-MR-111. Adding statutory interest, Anita alleged a total arrearage of $65,976.46. Anita claimed that there was an existing lien in that amount against the assets of the Estate by operation of section 505(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissol


CourtListener opinion 2779317

survivor benefits: governed by the Probate Act. ¶ 17 Section 18-12 of the Probate Act specifies limitations periods for claims against a decedent's estate, providing in relevant part: "(a) Every claim against the estate of a decedent, except expenses of administration and surviving spouse's or child's award, is barred as to all of the decedent's estate if: (1) Notice is given to the claimant as provided in Section 18-3 and the claimant does not file a claim with the representative or the court on or before the date stated in the notice; or (2) Notice of disallowance is given to the claimant as provided in Section 18-11 and the cl