CourtListener opinion 9353342

CourtListener opinion 9353342 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MATTHEW CALVIN HARPER AND STEPHANIE MAE HARPER Upon the Petition of MATTHEW. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 22-0041. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9353342 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 9353342

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 9353342

QDRO: ecause equity typically requires marital assets be divided on the date of the dissolution and we find no facts mandating an alternate date here, we modify the decree and remand so the district court can file appropriate qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO). I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings. Stephanie and Matthew were married in June 2010 and have two children, ages ten and seven at the time of trial. After their first child was born, Stephanie forwent working outside of the home to care for the child full time and avoid the cost of daycare. Matthew continued working as an engineer, a job he st


CourtListener opinion 9353342

retirement benefits: Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge. A wife appeals the district court's grant of physical care to the husband, division of a retirement account, the calculation of her spousal support, and award of attorney fees. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thomas J. Viner of Viner Law Firm P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant. Rachel R. McCrate of Gray, Stefani, & Mitvalsky, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. 2 GREER,


CourtListener opinion 9353342

401(k): ave been paid. [Matthew's] credit card debt has increased since November 2020." We believe all assets should be valued as of the same date and not just selected assets that are only affected by the market. 15 The parties agreed that $57,612.93 of Matthew's 401(k) and $18,233.81 of his Roth IRA were premarital assets and should be deducted before distribution. Matthew's affidavit of financial status filed with the court just days before the trial began, shows the values of the retirement accounts at $501,021.00 in his 401(k) and $149,961.00 in his IRA. After subtracting the premarital amounts (pursuant to the pa


CourtListener opinion 9353342

domestic relations order: ions of the decree. But, because equity typically requires marital assets be divided on the date of the dissolution and we find no facts mandating an alternate date here, we modify the decree and remand so the district court can file appropriate qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO). I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings. Stephanie and Matthew were married in June 2010 and have two children, ages ten and seven at the time of trial. After their first child was born, Stephanie forwent working outside of the home to care for the child full time and avoid the cost of daycare. Matthew continued working as an engineer, a jo


CourtListener opinion 9353939

CourtListener opinion 9353939 Docket: 359226 Livingston Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9353939 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 9353939


CourtListener opinion 9353939

QDRO: y division section of the consent judgment. It lists the various pensions and retirement plans each party holds. It states, "Out of Wife's Fidelity PepsiCo Savings Plan, $100,000 shall be transferred to Husband by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") as outlined in paragraph 6. Husband shall pay for the cost of drafting the QDRO." The UCSO deviation addendum attached to the judgment further provides, "Wife has transferred $100,000 in retirement funds to Husband in full satisfaction of any claim he may have to the receipt of child support," and that "$100,000 in retirement funds were transferred to Hus


CourtListener opinion 9353939

retirement benefits: nt judgment provided for equal parenting time. Under the Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF), Shana was required to pay Brian $1,051 in monthly child support. In lieu of monthly payments, the parties agreed that Shana would transfer $100,000 from one of her retirement accounts to Brian. Consistent with this agreement, ¶ 6 in the "custody, parenting time, and support" section of the consent judgment states: 1 The couple's eldest child has since reached the age of majority. -1- See attached Uniform Child Support Order [UCSO]. The parties acknowledge, and as reflected in the [UCSO] Deviation Addendum, and the Settlement Agree


CourtListener opinion 9353939

401(k): jority. -1- See attached Uniform Child Support Order [UCSO]. The parties acknowledge, and as reflected in the [UCSO] Deviation Addendum, and the Settlement Agreement between the parties dated March 20, 2020,[2] Wife has prepaid Husband $100,000 from her 401K as outlined in paragraph 19 in lieu of any claim he may currently have or have in the future for child support from Wife to Husband. Paragraph 19 falls within the property division section of the consent judgment. It lists the various pensions and retirement plans each party holds. It states, "Out of Wife's Fidelity PepsiCo Savings Plan, $100,000 shall b


CourtListener opinion 9353939

valuation/division: between the parties dated March 20, 2020,[2] Wife has prepaid Husband $100,000 from her 401K as outlined in paragraph 19 in lieu of any claim he may currently have or have in the future for child support from Wife to Husband. Paragraph 19 falls within the property division section of the consent judgment. It lists the various pensions and retirement plans each party holds. It states, "Out of Wife's Fidelity PepsiCo Savings Plan, $100,000 shall be transferred to Husband by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") as outlined in paragraph 6. Husband shall pay for the cost of drafting the QDRO." The UCSO deviation ad


CourtListener opinion 9363824

CourtListener opinion 9363824 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of PATRICIA M. and JOHN D. Extracted reporter citation: 16 Cal.4th 67. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9363824 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 9363824


CourtListener opinion 9363824

QDRO: aration of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order or retirement benefits order for each plan, which proposed order(s) shall set forth the respective community interest of the parties and govern the disposition of benefits upon qualification by the plan(s)." A qualified domestic relations order, or QDRO, is an order directing a retirement plan to pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse. (See In re Marriage of Oddino (1997) 16 Cal.4th 67, 71.) Finally, the MSA divided the parties' assets and obligations. Among other things, the parties agreed that each would retain one of their two ca


CourtListener opinion 9363824

retirement benefits: John would maintain coverage for Patricia under the health insurance provided through his employment, and stated, "At present husband carries two P.P.O. insurances through his retirement and current employer." The MSA also addressed the allocation of John's retirement benefits: "Based on Husband's employment during marriage, a community interest has arisen which include the following: Benefits from Federal Retirement, VA benefits, CalPERS. [¶] The parties agree and shall cooperate in the preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order or retirement benefits order for each plan, which proposed order(s) shall set forth the r


CourtListener opinion 9363824

pension: oyed, and had not worked outside the home for most of the marriage. John was 65 and worked for the El Dorado County Sheriff's Department as a detention aide. John was also receiving (1) Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability benefits and (2) a federal pension (he had previously worked for the federal government for approximately 32 years). In January 2015, Patricia and John executed a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that determined spousal support and the division of their assets. The MSA provided for spousal support as follows: "[Husband] shall pay to [Wife] for spousal support 1/2 his total income which in


CourtListener opinion 9363824

domestic relations order: the Qualified Domestic Relations Order or retirement benefits order for each plan, which proposed order(s) shall set forth the respective community interest of the parties and govern the disposition of benefits upon qualification by the plan(s)." A qualified domestic relations order, or QDRO, is an order directing a retirement plan to pay a portion of an employee participant's retirement benefits directly to the employee's former spouse. (See In re Marriage of Oddino (1997) 16 Cal.4th 67, 71.) Finally, the MSA divided the parties' assets and obligations. Among other things, the parties agreed that each would retain one of their two ca


CourtListener opinion 9365514

CourtListener opinion 9365514 Extracted case name: LESLIE v. LESLIE. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0199 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9365514 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 9365514


CourtListener opinion 9365514

QDRO: N Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Angela K. Paton and Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 Sawako Momii Leslie ("Wife") appeals from the superior court's entry of a divorce decree and a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") awarding John Marvin Leslie ("Husband") one half the community portion of her University of California 457(B) deferred compensation plan, as well as earnings from the valuation date to the segregation date. We dismiss the appeal to the extent it challenges the divorce decree because Wife previously unsuccessfully appealed from the entry of the decr


CourtListener opinion 9365514

retirement benefits: was invalid. The court denied Wife's motion, proceeded to trial, and entered the divorce decree, including a finding that the parties were validly married. In the decree, the superior court awarded each party one half of the community portion of the community retirement accounts and other retirement accounts containing community assets. It also ordered the parties to select a qualified person to prepare a QDRO. Wife appealed the decree, and this court affirmed. Leslie v. Leslie, 1 CA-CV 19-0628 FC, 2020 WL 3525912 (Ariz. App. June 30, 2020) (mem. decision). ¶4 A special master subsequently prepared a QDRO dividing the community p


CourtListener opinion 9365514

ERISA: these untimely arguments, and they are dismissed. See id. II. The QDRO ¶8 Wife claims the QDRO is invalid because: (1) the court erred in failing to calculate the QDRO using California law; (2) the QDRO violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), Arizona law, and California law; and (3) the court entered the QDRO without establishing marital validity or community property rights and was biased. A. California Law Calculations ¶9 Wife argues the superior court erred in applying Arizona law to calculate "the amount, distribution and timing of payment" in the QDRO. Wife claims the court instead sh


CourtListener opinion 9365514

alternate payee: e courts may assign benefits through QDROs if the orders meet the requirements listed in 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), by clearly specifying: (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and (iv) each plan to which such order applies. Here, the QDRO complies wit


CourtListener opinion 9365932

CourtListener opinion 9365932 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MATTHEW CALVIN HARPER AND STEPHANIE MAE HARPER Upon the Petition of MATTHEW. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 22-0041. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9365932 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 9365932

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 9365932

QDRO: ecause equity typically requires marital assets be divided on the date of the dissolution and we find no facts mandating an alternate date here, we modify the decree and remand so the district court can file appropriate qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO).1 I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings. Stephanie and Matthew were married in June 2010 and have two children, ages ten and seven at the time of trial. After their first child was born, Stephanie forwent working outside of the home to care for the child full time and avoid the 1 Our original opinion in this case, filed January 11, 2023, was vaca


CourtListener opinion 9365932

retirement benefits: Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge. A wife appeals the district court's grant of physical care to the husband, division of a retirement account, the calculation of her spousal support, and award of attorney fees. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thomas J. Viner of Viner Law Firm P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant. Rachel R. McCrate of Gray, Stefani, & Mitvalsky, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. 2 GREER,


CourtListener opinion 9365932

401(k): between the initial trial date and the date the trial was held, resulted in the increased values so that it would be inequitable for Stephanie to realize the same gain in the funds he did under the decree. The parties agreed that $57,612.93 of Matthew's 401(k) and $18,233.81 of his Roth IRA were premarital assets and should be deducted before distribution. Matthew's affidavit of financial status filed with the court just days before the trial began, shows the values of the retirement accounts at $501,021.00 in his 401(k) and $149,961.00 in his IRA. After subtracting the premarital amounts (pursuant to the pa


CourtListener opinion 9365932

domestic relations order: ions of the decree. But, because equity typically requires marital assets be divided on the date of the dissolution and we find no facts mandating an alternate date here, we modify the decree and remand so the district court can file appropriate qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO).1 I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings. Stephanie and Matthew were married in June 2010 and have two children, ages ten and seven at the time of trial. After their first child was born, Stephanie forwent working outside of the home to care for the child full time and avoid the 1 Our original opinion in this case, filed January 11, 2023, w


CourtListener opinion 9366373

CourtListener opinion 9366373 Extracted case name: D.H. v. J.C. Extracted reporter citation: 432 N.E.2d 183. Docket: 110353. During the pendency of the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9366373 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 9366373


CourtListener opinion 9366373

QDRO: s her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018, the first day of the divorce trial. The trial court subsequently issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") regarding the pension. Wife now appeals from that order and argues the trial court abused its discretion in improperly modifying the judgment entry of divorce by using a date for the pension that varies from the date of the termination of the marriage. Our review of pertinent case law authority indicates that it is within the trial court'


CourtListener opinion 9366373

retirement benefits: ntiff-appellee Constantine Karabogias ("husband") and defendant-appellant Joan Zoltanski ("wife") were married in 2000. In 2016, husband filed a complaint for divorce. Wife is an executive at University Hospitals, and there are significant assets in her retirement accounts, including a 401(K) account, a 403(b) account, a 457(f) Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan ("SERP") account, and her pension with University Hospitals. This appeal concerns her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8,


CourtListener opinion 9366373

pension: d a complaint for divorce. Wife is an executive at University Hospitals, and there are significant assets in her retirement accounts, including a 401(K) account, a 403(b) account, a 457(f) Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan ("SERP") account, and her pension with University Hospitals. This appeal concerns her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018, the first day of the divorce trial. The trial court subsequently issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") regardi


CourtListener opinion 9366373

401(k): as ("husband") and defendant-appellant Joan Zoltanski ("wife") were married in 2000. In 2016, husband filed a complaint for divorce. Wife is an executive at University Hospitals, and there are significant assets in her retirement accounts, including a 401(K) account, a 403(b) account, a 457(f) Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan ("SERP") account, and her pension with University Hospitals. This appeal concerns her pension only. The trial court awarded husband 50% of wife's vested accrued benefit as of July 23, 2019, although it found the marriage to have terminated on January 8, 2018, the first day of


CourtListener opinion 9366529

CourtListener opinion 9366529 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of CLIFFORD and. Extracted reporter citation: 33 Cal.App.5th 298. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9366529 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 9366529


CourtListener opinion 9366529

QDRO: at a settlement conference. The terms of the agreements reached that day were recited on the record by the attorney serving as a pro tem settlement officer. The settlement officer stated that, "[t]he deferred compensation accounts will be divided pursuant to qualified domestic relations orders or other similar order to divide these accounts. This includes the PERS account for [Jenny's] retirement. The parties have agreed to use the services of Elizabeth Strassen to divide the account. [Clifford] has agreed to advance the retainer to Ms. Strassen." Clifford's attorney clarified, "The QUADROS or the orders that will be prepared by Elizabeth Strass


CourtListener opinion 9366529

retirement benefits: D O. MARKS, Respondent, v. JENNY FU MARKS, Appellant. Appellant Jenny Fu Marks appeals orders issued by the trial court arising from the dissolution of her marriage to respondent Clifford Marks. She contends the court erred when it divided a CalPERS retirement account, and challenges other orders that assigned payment of a debt, awarded spousal support, and awarded attorney's fees and costs as a sanction under Family Code section 271. As Jenny1 has failed to meet her burden to show that the trial court erred, we will affirm the orders and resulting judgment. 1 As the parties share the same last name, we refer to them


CourtListener opinion 9366529

pension: perty, or if she agrees that the parties intended to award Clifford half of the benefit incurred during the marriage, with any retirement benefit incurred post-separation to be awarded as Jenny's separate property. She notes "[t]hat [Clifford's] rights to the pension will only extend during the period of community property is clearly stated in Order after MSC. . . ." The relief she appears to seek in her appellant's opening brief is a modification of the judgment to include the following language, which she contends "meets CalPERS published requirements" and is "necessary for the purpose of equitable equalization and di


CourtListener opinion 9366529

domestic relations order: ement conference. The terms of the agreements reached that day were recited on the record by the attorney serving as a pro tem settlement officer. The settlement officer stated that, "[t]he deferred compensation accounts will be divided pursuant to qualified domestic relations orders or other similar order to divide these accounts. This includes the PERS account for [Jenny's] retirement. The parties have agreed to use the services of Elizabeth Strassen to divide the account. [Clifford] has agreed to advance the retainer to Ms. Strassen." Clifford's attorney clarified, "The QUADROS or the orders that will be prepared by Elizabeth Strass


CourtListener opinion 9367425

CourtListener opinion 9367425 Extracted case name: ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR v. PUBLICATION ANGELA M. BELTHIUS. Extracted reporter citation: 68 Cal.App.3d 515. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9367425 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 9367425


CourtListener opinion 9367425

QDRO: t. Law Offices of Gregory G. Yacoubian and Gregory G. Yacoubian for Respondent. ______________________________ In this marital dissolution case, appellant Angela M. Belthius (Angela) appeals from a postjudgment order denying her request for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and instead adopting the QDRO proposed by respondent Darrell P. Belthius (Darrell).1 We reverse and remand with directions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Marriage Angela and Darrell were married on September 14, 1985, and separated on September 1, 1995. Darrell's Employment On April 27, 1987, Darrell began working for the Los Angeles Polic


CourtListener opinion 9367425

retirement benefits: .)4 II. Community Interest in Darrell's Pension A. Applicable law In general, all property acquired by spouses during marriage but before separation is considered community property. (Lehman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 177.) This includes the property right to retirement benefits attributable to employment during marriage. (Ibid.)5 "The right to retirement 4 Darrell contends that we should apply the abuse of discretion standard of review. (See In re Marriage of Adams (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 181, 187 [method selected to distribute the community interest in retirement rights reviewed for abuse of discretion].) Because we conclude that


CourtListener opinion 9367425

pension: UND The Marriage Angela and Darrell were married on September 14, 1985, and separated on September 1, 1995. Darrell's Employment On April 27, 1987, Darrell began working for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). He joined the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension Plan on October 11, 1987. During the parties' marriage, Darrell held the rank and paygrade of Police Officer I, Police Officer II, and Police Officer III. Stipulated Judgment of Dissolution A stipulated judgment of marital dissolution was entered on May 12, 1997 (stipulated judgment). As relevant here, the stipulated judgment awarded Angela and Darrell eac


CourtListener opinion 9367425

domestic relations order: fices of Gregory G. Yacoubian and Gregory G. Yacoubian for Respondent. ______________________________ In this marital dissolution case, appellant Angela M. Belthius (Angela) appeals from a postjudgment order denying her request for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and instead adopting the QDRO proposed by respondent Darrell P. Belthius (Darrell).1 We reverse and remand with directions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Marriage Angela and Darrell were married on September 14, 1985, and separated on September 1, 1995. Darrell's Employment On April 27, 1987, Darrell began working for the Los Angeles Polic


CourtListener opinion 9367450

CourtListener opinion 9367450 Citation: Domestic Relations order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9367450 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 9367450

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 9367450

domestic relations order: appellee. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations BEATTY BLUNT, P.J. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Chad N. Woodford, appeals the May 15, 2021 decision of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations ordering the trial record and shared parenting decree issued on July 6, 2020 in this case to be supplemented with a child support worksheet pursuant to Civ.R. 60(A). Appellant argues that the trial court erred by supplementing the trial record with a child support worksheet as the case was already under appeal. {¶ 2} On the date that the trial court issued


CourtListener opinion 9367997

CourtListener opinion 9367997 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1919 EDA 2021. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9367997 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 9367997


CourtListener opinion 9367997

domestic relations order: trial court's reasoning. Indeed, the trial court's jurisdiction to correct the omission from its order long after thirty days is supported by the case law. See, e.g., Hayward, supra at 236 (holding extraordinary circumstances existed to modify a qualified domestic relations order six years after its entry where the order's indication of an improper coverture fraction was apparent from the face of the record). ____________________________________________ 3 The Maize Court in turn cited with approval Cohn v. Scheuer, 8 A. 421, 422 (Pa. 1887), in which our Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge's amendment of the verdict weeks after


CourtListener opinion 9368674

CourtListener opinion 9368674 Extracted reporter citation: 869 A.2d 548. Docket: 211 WDA 2022. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9368674 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 9368674


CourtListener opinion 9368674

QDRO: as it legal error and an abuse of discretion to penalize [Appellant] $20,000 where the Trial Court[] mistakenly believes transfer to Mother was by tax-free rollover when [Appellant's] testimony is contrary, and, when a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)] is not on the docket? 4. Was it legal error for the Trial Court not to consider and factor into the deviation analysis [Appellant's] federally-approved disability under Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 (Rule 16-5)]? 5. Was it legal error for the Trial Court to consider income distributions from [Appellant's] post-[Equitable Distribution (ED)] IRA asset also as


CourtListener opinion 9368674

valuation/division: the Trial Court not to consider and factor into the deviation analysis [Appellant's] federally-approved disability under Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 (Rule 16-5)]? 5. Was it legal error for the Trial Court to consider income distributions from [Appellant's] post-[Equitable Distribution (ED)] IRA asset also as income when calculating child support, when imputing $20,000 of "hypothetical" income, and when applying a retroactive child support deviation? Appellant's Brief at 3 (reordered for disposition). We review support awards for an abuse of discretion. Spahr v. Spahr, 869 A.2d 548, 551 (Pa. Super. 2005). "A finding that the court


CourtListener opinion 9368787

CourtListener opinion 9368787 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of LAURIE and WAYNE JACOBSEN. LAURIE JACOBSEN. Extracted reporter citation: 18 Cal.4th 169. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9368787 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 9368787

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 9368787

QDRO: Wayne's three other retirement plans were also addressed in the stipulated judgment, with each party receiving one-half of the community property interest in those plans. The stipulated judgment stated Wayne was to prepare and transmit to Laurie's counsel a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to effectuate the assignment provisions concerning the division of all four of his retirement benefit plans. The stipulated judgment further stated the QDRO concerning the PARB "will provide that [Laurie's] share will be paid to her as [Wayne's] share is paid to him." The stipulated judgment indicated the court retained jurisdiction for certain purpo


CourtListener opinion 9368787

retirement benefits: Melveny for more than 20 years. A month after they separated, Wayne turned 55 years old. Based on his age and years of service, Wayne was eligible to retire and receive a pension benefit from O'Melveny, which the parties refer to as the "Partnership Agreement Retirement Benefit" (PARB). The PARB is a defined benefit program for the law firm's equity partners. Wayne did not retire at age 55, but instead, he continued in his role at the firm for about 10 more years. When Wayne retired, Laurie requested an order from the trial court determining the community property interest in Wayne's PARB payment under the time rule. The time rul


CourtListener opinion 9368787

pension: 'Melveny or OMM). When Wayne and Laurie separated, Wayne had been an equity partner at O'Melveny for more than 20 years. A month after they separated, Wayne turned 55 years old. Based on his age and years of service, Wayne was eligible to retire and receive a pension benefit from O'Melveny, which the parties refer to as the "Partnership Agreement Retirement Benefit" (PARB). The PARB is a defined benefit program for the law firm's equity partners. Wayne did not retire at age 55, but instead, he continued in his role at the firm for about 10 more years. When Wayne retired, Laurie requested an order from the trial court d


CourtListener opinion 9368787

domestic relations order: three other retirement plans were also addressed in the stipulated judgment, with each party receiving one-half of the community property interest in those plans. The stipulated judgment stated Wayne was to prepare and transmit to Laurie's counsel a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to effectuate the assignment provisions concerning the division of all four of his retirement benefit plans. The stipulated judgment further stated the QDRO concerning the PARB "will provide that [Laurie's] share will be paid to her as [Wayne's] share is paid to him." The stipulated judgment indicated the court retained jurisdiction for certain purpo


CourtListener opinion 9369048

CourtListener opinion 9369048 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9369048 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 9369048


CourtListener opinion 9369048

domestic relations order: Defendant made threatening social media posts and calls to the victim, in violation of a domestic violence restraining order. Defendant was charged with stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)),1 criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)), misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)), misdemeanor domestic violence contempt of court (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)(A)), and misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant made several Marsden2 motions; the trial court held hearings on each motion and denied each. Defendant then entered into a stipulated plea agreement to felony stalking in exchange for fo


CourtListener opinion 9369353

CourtListener opinion 9369353 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SUE A. BLOOMQUIST AND ROBERT L. BLOOMQUIST Upon the Petition of SUE A. BLOOMQUIST. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 21-1631. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9369353 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 9369353


CourtListener opinion 9369353

QDRO: r sell the house. The court also awarded each party the retirement funds in that party's name. However, the court also ordered that $100,000 of Sue's retirement accounts be transferred from Sue's accounts to Robert via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and that her pension be divided equally using 1 While several issues were disputed at trial, the number of issues has been trimmed on appeal. So, we highlight only those portions of the district court's ruling that remain or influence issues on appeal. 3 the Benson formula. See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255–56 (Iowa 1996) (providing a f


CourtListener opinion 9369353

retirement benefits: lity for the mortgage indebtedness, with the direction that he remove Sue from the mortgage indebtedness or sell the house. The court also awarded each party the retirement funds in that party's name. However, the court also ordered that $100,000 of Sue's retirement accounts be transferred from Sue's accounts to Robert via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and that her pension be divided equally using 1 While several issues were disputed at trial, the number of issues has been trimmed on appeal. So, we highlight only those portions of the district court's ruling that remain or influence issues on appeal. 3 the Be


CourtListener opinion 9369353

pension: he court also awarded each party the retirement funds in that party's name. However, the court also ordered that $100,000 of Sue's retirement accounts be transferred from Sue's accounts to Robert via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and that her pension be divided equally using 1 While several issues were disputed at trial, the number of issues has been trimmed on appeal. So, we highlight only those portions of the district court's ruling that remain or influence issues on appeal. 3 the Benson formula. See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255–56 (Iowa 1996) (providing a formula for dividing de


CourtListener opinion 9369353

401(k): tion statement, which incorporates our findings of values based on the record as well as the valuation determinations previously discussed:4 Description of Asset/Debt Sue Robert Sue—Pension Equal5 Equal Sue—Fidelity Rollover IRA $134,504 Sue—Prudential 401(k) $299,755 Robert—IRA $11,352 House $271,000 House mortgage ($205,055) Sue—Checking Account $1,460 Sue—Savings Account $4,700 Robert—Checking Account $1,661 Robert—Savings Account $300 Robert—Pen Fed Account $30 Sue—Citi Card Credit Card ($1,626) Sue—Mastercard Credit Card ($157) Sue—Visa Credit Card ($198) Robert—Total of Three Credit Cards ($1,9


CourtListener opinion 9370683

CourtListener opinion 9370683 Extracted case name: WARREN v. STEPHENS. Extracted reporter citation: 676 F.3d 1193. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0337 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9370683 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 9370683


CourtListener opinion 9370683

QDRO: ies to submit supplemental briefing. ¶5 After taking the matter under advisement, the superior court awarded Wife the full $150,000 of equity in the marital home protected by the homestead exemption, ordered Husband's Allstate Plan divided by Wife's proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), and ordered each party responsible for their separate debts. Husband timely moved to alter or amend the court's order. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 83. After responsive briefing, the court amended its order to reflect that Husband's bankruptcy proceedings were ongoing and to clarify that the parties were entitled to any personal property in their poss


CourtListener opinion 9370683

retirement benefits: vided Retirement Assets." The superior court set an evidentiary hearing to determine the proper division of the parties' community property and debts. The contested issues included the division of equity in the marital home, the division of Husband's Allstate Retirement Plan ("Allstate Plan"), and the division of community debts. At the close of the hearing, the superior court denied Husband's request for more time to present evidence but permitted the parties to submit supplemental briefing. ¶5 After taking the matter under advisement, the superior court awarded Wife the full $150,000 of equity in the marital home protected b


CourtListener opinion 9370683

pension: idence and is contrary to law." Even so, he acknowledges the portion of the Allstate Plan earned during the parties' marriage is community property subject to equitable division. See Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. at 451, ¶ 14. ¶16 The community interest in a spouse's pension plan can be calculated under either the "present cash value method" or the "reserved jurisdiction method." Johnson v. Johnson, 131 Ariz. 38, 41 (1981). Though the present cash value method is preferred, the reserved jurisdiction method is appropriate if the pension rights cannot be accurately valued, and the marital estate has insufficient property to satis


CourtListener opinion 9370683

domestic relations order: mit supplemental briefing. ¶5 After taking the matter under advisement, the superior court awarded Wife the full $150,000 of equity in the marital home protected by the homestead exemption, ordered Husband's Allstate Plan divided by Wife's proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), and ordered each party responsible for their separate debts. Husband timely moved to alter or amend the court's order. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 83. After responsive briefing, the court amended its order to reflect that Husband's bankruptcy proceedings were ongoing and to clarify that the parties were entitled to any personal property in their poss


CourtListener opinion 9371474

CourtListener opinion 9371474 Extracted case name: TOMSICH v. TOMSICH. Docket: 1 CA-CV 22-0314 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9371474 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 9371474

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 9371474

QDRO: stated agreement did not mention or otherwise account for the single largest 2 TOMSICH v. TOMSICH Decision of the Court community asset—Husband's retirement account—even though both parties' pretrial statements requested the account be divided equally by QDRO. Nevertheless, the parties agreed on the record that each would keep the personal property in their possession, and the court approved the agreement as fair and equitable. ¶5 After trial, the court denied Wife's request for spousal maintenance, finding that Wife did not meet any of the five qualifying criteria under A.R.S. § 25-319(A). The court also award


CourtListener opinion 9371474

retirement benefits: er returning to the U.S., paid for in part with Husband's G.I. Bill benefits. ¶3 Wife filed and served her petition for dissolution of marriage in December 2020. She declined Husband's March 2021 settlement offer, which would have assigned Husband his entire retirement account (valued at over $93,000 and earned entirely during the marriage) and granted no spousal maintenance. The parties ultimately reported that they had reached informal agreements on the division of community property and debts, and the court set trial on Wife's request for spousal maintenance of $1,500 per month for 3 years. ¶4 At the beginning of trial, the p


CourtListener opinion 9371474

valuation/division: , which would have assigned Husband his entire retirement account (valued at over $93,000 and earned entirely during the marriage) and granted no spousal maintenance. The parties ultimately reported that they had reached informal agreements on the division of community property and debts, and the court set trial on Wife's request for spousal maintenance of $1,500 per month for 3 years. ¶4 At the beginning of trial, the parties recited the terms of a property settlement agreement on the record. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. ("Rule") 69(a)(2). They agreed that Wife would receive $37,720 and Husband $30,113.23 (in effect, an equalization


CourtListener opinion 9371915

CourtListener opinion 9371915 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 359437 Genesee Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9371915 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 9371915


CourtListener opinion 9371915

QDRO: urt Family Division LISA MARIE LYNCH, LC No. 20-331146-DO Defendant-Appellee. Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and BOONSTRA and CAMERON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals by right from the judgment of separate maintenance and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered by the trial court after a two-day evidentiary hearing. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties were married in 1984 and have three adult children and no minor children. The parties separated in 2018, and defendant filed an action for separate maintenance. The


CourtListener opinion 9371915

pension: th 50%--with her getting 50% of the pension1 upon [plaintiff's] retirement and the difference, which will be approximately $360, will be done by an income withholding order . . . . During his testimony, plaintiff agreed that there was an agreement on "the pension and the spousal support issue." Plaintiff also agreed with his counsel's statements that his pension benefits would be reduced if he took early retirement, but that in any event "the plan is still to pay [defendant] $4500 a month[.]" Defendant also testified and agreed that her understanding was that she would receive $4,500 per month for the length of her


CourtListener opinion 9371915

domestic relations order: 359437 Genesee Circuit Court Family Division LISA MARIE LYNCH, LC No. 20-331146-DO Defendant-Appellee. Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and BOONSTRA and CAMERON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals by right from the judgment of separate maintenance and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) entered by the trial court after a two-day evidentiary hearing. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties were married in 1984 and have three adult children and no minor children. The parties separated in 2018, and defendant filed an action for separate maintenanc


CourtListener opinion 9371915

survivor benefits: hat's the way the union set it up." For simplicity, we will continue to use the singular. -2- After the evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a judgment of separate maintenance providing, relevant to this appeal, that defendant would be designated a surviving spouse with plaintiff's pension plans through a QDRO if required by the pension plans. The judgment further awarded one-half of the daughter's student loan debt to each party as a division of marital debt, with $25,000 of the debt to be paid from the shared proceeds of the sale of the marital home. The judgment also awarded defendant a .22-caliber handgun, amongst


CourtListener opinion 9372616

CourtListener opinion 9372616 Extracted reporter citation: 514 N.E.2d 1122. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9372616 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 9372616

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 9372616

QDRO: 5) November 19, 2020 Agreed Judgment Entry adopting Shared Parenting Plan and Order Appointing Parenting Coordinator with all subsequent decisions of Parenting Coordinator (dated January 20, 2021, April 27, 2021, and December 20, 2021). (6) July 13, 2021 Qualified Domestic Relations Order. {¶8} Appellant claimed that her prior counsel, Attorney Baioni, officed at the same office as Attorney Reardon and was as an "employee, contractor, member, agent, and/or representative of Attorney Reardon and/or Carrabine & Reardon Co., LPA at said office. Attorney Baioni's advertising expenses are paid, at least in part, by Attorney Reardon and/or C


CourtListener opinion 9372616

domestic relations order: r 19, 2020 Agreed Judgment Entry adopting Shared Parenting Plan and Order Appointing Parenting Coordinator with all subsequent decisions of Parenting Coordinator (dated January 20, 2021, April 27, 2021, and December 20, 2021). (6) July 13, 2021 Qualified Domestic Relations Order. {¶8} Appellant claimed that her prior counsel, Attorney Baioni, officed at the same office as Attorney Reardon and was as an "employee, contractor, member, agent, and/or representative of Attorney Reardon and/or Carrabine & Reardon Co., LPA at said office. Attorney Baioni's advertising expenses are paid, at least in part, by Attorney Reardon and/or C


CourtListener opinion 9372779

CourtListener opinion 9372779 Extracted reporter citation: 578 F.3d 1337. Docket: of months of marriage included. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9372779 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 9372779


CourtListener opinion 9372779

QDRO: 2th District Court in Harris County, Texas , issued a final decree of divorce for the appellant and the intervenor. Id. at 27-59. That same day, the court issued a document entitled "Qualified Domestic Relations Order Federal Employee's Retirement System" (QDRO), which was sent to OPM for processing as a qualifying court order for dividing retirement benefits. See Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-16- 0461-I-2, Appeal File (I-2 AF), Tab 9 at 9-13. However, OPM disapproved the QDRO as unacceptable on February 26, 1998, and returned it to the attorney for the intervenor. I-2 AF,


CourtListener opinion 9372779

retirement benefits: appellant and the intervenor. Id. at 27-59. That same day, the court issued a document entitled "Qualified Domestic Relations Order Federal Employee's Retirement System" (QDRO), which was sent to OPM for processing as a qualifying court order for dividing retirement benefits. See Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. DE-0831-16- 0461-I-2, Appeal File (I-2 AF), Tab 9 at 9-13. However, OPM disapproved the QDRO as unacceptable on February 26, 1998, and returned it to the attorney for the intervenor. I-2 AF, Tab 15 at 4-5. ¶3 Subsequently, the presiding court issued an "Amended Order Dividing Civil Servic


CourtListener opinion 9372779

survivor benefits: egard are far from clear and are no doubt confusing to lay people and divorce attorneys engaged in developing property settlements involving Federal retirement benefits. 7 This figure does not include the $138.00 deduction for the cost of providing for a survivor annuity benefit to the intervenor in the event that the appellant predeceases her. The appellant does not challenge this. ID at 4. 8 In reaching these figures, it appears that the appellant modified his calculations in the following manner: (1) by dropping the repeating decimal places and rounding up the "creditable service" calculation (from .9652777… to .96


CourtListener opinion 9373588

CourtListener opinion 9373588 Extracted reporter citation: 48 F.3d 1237. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9373588 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 9373588

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 9373588

QDRO: of the amendments to the Civil Service Retirement Spouse Equity Act of 1984. In Davenport v. Office of Personnel Management, 62 F.3d 1384, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1995), the court found that OPM could consult a divorce decree when it clarified the meaning of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order at issue. Here, we have found that the order was not ambiguous and therefore it needed no clarification. 7 issue here, including the provision she now challenges, which, she acknowledges, assured that she would continue to have needed health benefits following the divorce. To the extent the appellant now seeks to substitute terms in the order that wo


CourtListener opinion 9373588

retirement benefits: of her former husband's annuity because he died while in service and had not yet applied for a retirement annuity, but that she was entitled to a survivor annuity in the amount of $1 per month, as provided for in the "Court Order Acceptable for Processing Retirement Benefits (Federal Employees Retirement System….)," signed by the parties and submitted by the appellant to OPM in 2012. Id. at 5-7. ¶4 On appeal, the appellant renewed her claim that the court order was not acceptable for processing when it was submitted because of confusing and ambiguous language between the divorce decree and the court order incident to the


CourtListener opinion 9373588

domestic relations order: mendments to the Civil Service Retirement Spouse Equity Act of 1984. In Davenport v. Office of Personnel Management, 62 F.3d 1384, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1995), the court found that OPM could consult a divorce decree when it clarified the meaning of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order at issue. Here, we have found that the order was not ambiguous and therefore it needed no clarification. 7 issue here, including the provision she now challenges, which, she acknowledges, assured that she would continue to have needed health benefits following the divorce. To the extent the appellant now seeks to substitute terms in the order that wo


CourtListener opinion 9373588

survivor benefits: Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Member Tristan L. Leavitt, Member FINAL ORDER ¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which affirmed the decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denying her survivor benefits as a former spouse. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the


CourtListener opinion 9373706

CourtListener opinion 9373706 Extracted reporter citation: 578 F. App'x 973. Docket: NUMBER MARSHALL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9373706 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 9373706


CourtListener opinion 9373706

QDRO: Arlene Smith In re Paul D. Marshall v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. AT-0831-10- 0059-B-2, Final Order (Jan. 22, 2014), in which the Board determined that the appellant was not entitled to a former spouse survivor annuity based on a 1987 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Smith v. Office of Personnel Management, 578 F. App'x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit remanded the appeal, instructing the Board to consider the effect, if any, of a 1999 modification of the QDRO. Id. The relevant language of the 1987 QDRO is as follows: 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff, ARLENE MARSHA


CourtListener opinion 9373706

retirement benefits: SHALL . . . , shall receive a sum equal to 20% of the Defendant's presently vested amount; 3 C. Said distribution to the Plaintiff, ARLENE MARSHALL, as alternative recipient shall be for the rest of her life, subject to the terms and conditions of said Retirement Plan. In the event of the death of the primary participant, . . . the said alternative recipien t, ARLENE MARSHALL, . . . shall be entitled to the surviving spouse's allowance as alternative beneficiary in the event said interest is greater than 20%, and in the event the primary participant has not named one or more alternative beneficiaries; however , in n


CourtListener opinion 9373706

pension: nsider the effect, if any, of a 1999 modification of the QDRO. Id. The relevant language of the 1987 QDRO is as follows: 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff, ARLENE MARSHALL, shall retain a vested interest in the Defendant's pension with the Federal Civil Service Retirement System pursuant to a duly Qualified Domestic Order which the Court creates herein as follows: . . . B. At the time the primary participant, PAUL MARSHALL, actually receives his share of the pension; however, no later than his attaining the age of 65 years, Plaintiff, ARLENE MARSHALL . . . , shall receive a su


CourtListener opinion 9373706

domestic relations order: th In re Paul D. Marshall v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. AT-0831-10- 0059-B-2, Final Order (Jan. 22, 2014), in which the Board determined that the appellant was not entitled to a former spouse survivor annuity based on a 1987 qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Smith v. Office of Personnel Management, 578 F. App'x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit remanded the appeal, instructing the Board to consider the effect, if any, of a 1999 modification of the QDRO. Id. The relevant language of the 1987 QDRO is as follows: 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiff, ARLENE MARSHA


CourtListener opinion 9376915

CourtListener opinion 9376915 Extracted reporter citation: 806 S.W.2d 791. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9376915 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 9376915

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 9376915

QDRO: ade impossible by husband and when the order was not an impermissible substantive change from the decree). We can analogize this 2009 agreed enforcement order—requiring Puls to make payments to Gaffin instead of to the organization or school—to an amended QDRO that requires payments to be made to a different alternate payee. In Quijano v. Quijano, the appellant contended that an amended QDRO was void because it made the child of the marriage the alternate payee when the decree had named the wife as the original alternate payee. 347 S.W.3d 345, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no 13 pet.). Father a


CourtListener opinion 9376915

alternate payee: impermissible substantive change from the decree). We can analogize this 2009 agreed enforcement order—requiring Puls to make payments to Gaffin instead of to the organization or school—to an amended QDRO that requires payments to be made to a different alternate payee. In Quijano v. Quijano, the appellant contended that an amended QDRO was void because it made the child of the marriage the alternate payee when the decree had named the wife as the original alternate payee. 347 S.W.3d 345, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no 13 pet.). Father argued that the trial court changed the substantive division of pro


CourtListener opinion 9376915

valuation/division: ruary 2008 and March 2009. At the hearing, the trial court "disposed" of the child-support arrearages that had occurred between February 2008 and March 2009.3 Gaffin then filed a supplemental motion for child-support enforcement and a motion to enforce the property division on June 4, 2009, arguing that Puls had failed to pay child support between April 2007 and January 2008, had failed to pay the children's tuition for the 2006 through 2009 school years, and had failed to make installment payments on the cash settlement since June 2004. Gaffin again requested contempt punishment and "confirmation of all arrearages and ren


CourtListener opinion 9376981

CourtListener opinion 9376981 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF LILLIAN R. KRILICH. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9376981 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 9376981


CourtListener opinion 9376981

pension: 1985; thus, it retains jurisdiction to enforce its judgment. ¶ 15 Smithberg, 192 Ill. 2d 291, is instructive. A judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered for James and Nancy Smithberg requiring James to designate Nancy as the sole recipient of his pension death benefit. Id. at 292-93. Subsequently, in violation of the court's order, James designated his second wife, Delores, as the recipient of his death benefit. Nancy filed a petition for rule to show cause why James should not be held in contempt for violating the judgment, but James died before the petition was ruled upon. Id. at 293-94. Our supreme


CourtListener opinion 9376981

domestic relations order: n of the assets of a Florida estate." ¶8 Petitioners filed a response arguing that the trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce its dissolution judgment under Smithberg v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 192 Ill. 2d 291, 297-98 (2000) ("Where a domestic relations order has been entered, the trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce its order [citation], as further performance by the parties is often contemplated."). They argued that respondents' assertion that "Donna and Walter, individually, do not have sufficient contacts with the State of Illinois for this Court to exert personal 1 The Krilich Children addit


CourtListener opinion 9377978

CourtListener opinion 9377978 Extracted case name: WARNER v. DRIGGS-WARNER. Extracted reporter citation: 943 F.2d 1048. Docket: 1 CA-CV 21-0732 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9377978 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 9377978

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 9377978

QDRO: orating his testimony. Husband asserted he ran out of time at trial to introduce any trial exhibits supporting his testimony, but we do not perceive any lack of opportunity to refer to the exhibits. Finding no error, we affirm this portion of the decree. 4. QDRO Specialist ¶37 Husband also contends that the court erred by not allowing a QDRO specialist to perform a tracing analysis of the retirement accounts. But the court is not required to appoint experts to help Husband prove his case. On remand, if implementation of the decree would benefit from the services of a QDRO specialist, the parties are free to engage


CourtListener opinion 9377978

retirement benefits: . Husband challenges the superior court's evidentiary rulings, characterization and valuation date of several financial accounts, spousal maintenance award, child support award, and attorney's fees award. We vacate and remand the court's division of Husband's retirement accounts. We reverse Wife's spousal maintenance award. We vacate and remand Husband's child support obligation. In all other aspects, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife divorced after more than twenty years of marriage. In November 2020, the superior court set trial for June 2021. Husband, a retired attorney, moved unsuccessfully to cont


CourtListener opinion 9377978

valuation/division: ena Cruz and Judge Angela K. Paton joined. S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 Peter C. Warner ("Husband") appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Kimberly Driggs-Warner ("Wife"). Husband challenges the superior court's evidentiary rulings, characterization and valuation date of several financial accounts, spousal maintenance award, child support award, and attorney's fees award. We vacate and remand the court's division of Husband's retirement accounts. We reverse Wife's spousal maintenance award. We vacate and remand Husband's child support obligation. In all other aspects, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband


CourtListener opinion 9378518

CourtListener opinion 9378518 Extracted reporter citation: 197 N.E.3d 1014. Docket: WD-22-002 nka Margaret A. Korfhage Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9378518 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 9378518


CourtListener opinion 9378518

QDRO: CISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: March 10, 2023 ***** Theodore B. Tucker, III, for appellee. Sean P. Fitzgerald, Pro se. ***** DUHART, J. {¶ 1} In this appeal, appellant, Sean Fitzgerald, appeals from a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") issued by the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, awarding appellee, Margaret Korfhage, a partial assignment of benefits under appellant's alternative retirement plan. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Statement of the Case {¶ 2} On November 14, 2019, the trial court issued a divorce


CourtListener opinion 9378518

retirement benefits: , Sean Fitzgerald, appeals from a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") issued by the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, awarding appellee, Margaret Korfhage, a partial assignment of benefits under appellant's alternative retirement plan. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Statement of the Case {¶ 2} On November 14, 2019, the trial court issued a divorce decision establishing the appellee would receive from appellant's TIAA Bowling Green State University Alternative Retirement Plan "an amount to award her 70% of the parties' combined accounts."


CourtListener opinion 9378518

pension: the court, but is rather an enforcement mechanism pertaining to a trial court's previous judgment entry of divorce or dissolution. Ware v. Ware, 5th Dist. Licking No. 14 CA 28, 2014-Ohio-5410, ¶ 14. A QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. A QDRO does not in any way constitute a further adjudication on the merits of the pension division, because its sole purpose is to implement the terms of the divorce decree. Id. at ¶ 16. When a QDRO is inconsistent with th


CourtListener opinion 9378518

ERISA: rts the following assignment of error on appeal: I. The trial court committed reversible error when it journalized a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in Appellant's public retirement program under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) rather than as a Division of Property Order as required by R.C. 3105.80 et. seq. 17. Analysis {¶ 16} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the retirement plan at issue is a public retirement program account and must be divided only pursuant to a Division of Property Order ("DOPO"), as provided under R.C. 3105.80 et seq., as oppose


CourtListener opinion 9378579

CourtListener opinion 9378579 Extracted case name: L.L.C. v. MSMC. Docket: 1-22-0530 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9378579 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 9378579


CourtListener opinion 9378579

QDRO: marriage between petitioner Keith Frisz and respondent Marilyn Frisz, Marilyn was to receive a percentage share of Keith's thrift savings plan account. The plan administrator of Keith's thrift savings plan account transferred money to Marilyn pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. However, Keith believed that Marilyn received an overpayment and brought a combined petition for an adjudication of indirect civil contempt and motion to enforce prior court orders as well as a motion for postjudgment relief, essentially seeking the court enforce its judgment for a dissolution of marriage and the qualified domestic relations order by r


CourtListener opinion 9378579

retirement benefits: ltimately, on April 17, 2020, the circuit court entered a judgment for a dissolution of marriage that incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement. As part of the agreement, the parties settled how to divide Keith's thrift savings plan account, a retirement plan for federal employees. Under that provision, Marilyn was to receive "a transfer equal to 39% of the value of the marital portion" of the plan "on the date of division as her sole and separate property, free and clear of any interest of Keith." The parties agreed that the transfer would be made pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order and any cost


CourtListener opinion 9378579

domestic relations order: between petitioner Keith Frisz and respondent Marilyn Frisz, Marilyn was to receive a percentage share of Keith's thrift savings plan account. The plan administrator of Keith's thrift savings plan account transferred money to Marilyn pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. However, Keith believed that Marilyn received an overpayment and brought a combined petition for an adjudication of indirect civil contempt and motion to enforce prior court orders as well as a motion for postjudgment relief, essentially seeking the court enforce its judgment for a dissolution of marriage and the qualified domestic relations order by r


CourtListener opinion 9378579

valuation/division: arital settlement agreement. As part of the agreement, the parties settled how to divide Keith's thrift savings plan account, a retirement plan for federal employees. Under that provision, Marilyn was to receive "a transfer equal to 39% of the value of the marital portion" of the plan "on the date of division as her sole and separate property, free and clear of any interest of Keith." The parties agreed that the transfer would be made pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order and any costs associated with the transfer would be divided equally. The remaining balance of Keith's thrift savings plan account would be a


CourtListener opinion 9378758

CourtListener opinion 9378758 Extracted reporter citation: 176 P.3d 645. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9378758 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 9378758


CourtListener opinion 9378758

QDRO: o way alter the 50% adjudicated to Wife. As such, Wife's requested clarification or correction would not modify the original judgment. [¶15] This case is similar to Wyland, 2006 WY 93, 138 P.3d 1165. There, the wife petitioned the district court to clarify a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) when the United States Air Force was unable to divide husband's retirement benefits without further guidance. Id. ¶ 5, 138 P.3d at 1167. The court clarified its previous QDRO, adding a formula to effectuate the divorce decree's grant of 50% of husband's retirement benefits to the wife. Id. ¶ 6, 138 P.3d at 1167. This Court affirmed under Rule 60(a),


CourtListener opinion 9378758

retirement benefits: rced in 2003. During their marriage, Husband served in the military. The parties' stipulated Decree of Divorce (the "Decree") granted Wife "an amount equal to Fifty Percent (50%) of the Marital Portion of [Husband's] disposable retired pay" under his military retirement plan and provided a formula to calculate the marital portion based on Husband's months of service. The use of "months" rather than "reserve points" in the formula prevented Wife from being able to collect her share of Husband's military retired pay. In 2021, Wife filed a motion for relief under W.R.C.P. 60(a) and (b)(6). The district court denied Wife's motion f


CourtListener opinion 9378758

domestic relations order: r the 50% adjudicated to Wife. As such, Wife's requested clarification or correction would not modify the original judgment. [¶15] This case is similar to Wyland, 2006 WY 93, 138 P.3d 1165. There, the wife petitioned the district court to clarify a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) when the United States Air Force was unable to divide husband's retirement benefits without further guidance. Id. ¶ 5, 138 P.3d at 1167. The court clarified its previous QDRO, adding a formula to effectuate the divorce decree's grant of 50% of husband's retirement benefits to the wife. Id. ¶ 6, 138 P.3d at 1167. This Court affirmed under Rule 60(a),


CourtListener opinion 9378758

valuation/division: L. Stone (Wife) and Daryl D. Stone (Husband) were married in 1979 and divorced in 2003. During their marriage, Husband served in the military. The parties' stipulated Decree of Divorce (the "Decree") granted Wife "an amount equal to Fifty Percent (50%) of the Marital Portion of [Husband's] disposable retired pay" under his military retirement plan and provided a formula to calculate the marital portion based on Husband's months of service. The use of "months" rather than "reserve points" in the formula prevented Wife from being able to collect her share of Husband's military retired pay. In 2021, Wife filed a motion for relief


CourtListener opinion 9381606

CourtListener opinion 9381606 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9381606 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 9381606

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 9381606

QDRO: on how much was in the 401k. Williamson informed the family court she was unaware of the amount in the 401k, but after she had the decree, she would contact the Plan Administrator to find out how she should prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Williamson then failed to contact Dalton for a period of several months. Dalton eventually resorted to contacting the Circuit Court Clerk and she learned nothing had been filed finalizing her divorce. Dalton requested her case be put on the court's docket. At a hearing on July 30, 2019, at which Williamson appeared, the judge entered the final decr


CourtListener opinion 9381606

401(k): se No. 18-CI-00035). Dalton paid Williamson $800 for her representation. Williamson filed the Verified Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on February 23, 2018. At the final hearing, Williamson informed the family court Dalton wanted half of her husband's 401k. The Judge asked Williamson to draft the decree and asked Williamson how much was in the 401k. Williamson informed the family court she was unaware of the amount in the 401k, but after she had the decree, she would contact the Plan Administrator to find out how she should prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Williamson then failed


CourtListener opinion 9383516

CourtListener opinion 9383516 Extracted reporter citation: 231 A.3d 928. Docket: 806 WDA 2022. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9383516 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 9383516


CourtListener opinion 9383516

QDRO: retirement benefit being paid as "Disabled." N.T. at 14- 15; 12/4/19 Pension Plan Authorization. Husband was 52 years old at the -2- J-S42043-22 time that he applied for and was found qualified for these benefits. 12/4/19 Pension Plan Authorization. No Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) had been prepared and Husband did not provide the Marital Settlement Agreement to his employer or to the Plan. N.T. at 6, 19-20. The Plan paid the full monthly $3,249.81 benefits to Husband. Id. at 18-19; Pension Plan Payment Deposit Confirmations. On March 28, 2022, Wife filed a motion to enforce the Marital Settlement Agreement alleging that


CourtListener opinion 9383516

retirement benefits: ment) and a divorce decree was issued on November 7, 2014. The ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S42043-22 Marital Settlement Agreement provided the following with respect to pension and retirement benefits: Wife shall receive 40% of the marital portion of Husband's Municipal Police Pension fund valued at the date of separation. It is acknowledged that Husband began his employment with the Wilkinsburg Police Department on April 12, 1994, the parties married on May 20, 1995 and separated on February 4, 2012. It is also acknowledged that the parties shal


CourtListener opinion 9383516

pension: lement Agreement) and a divorce decree was issued on November 7, 2014. The ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S42043-22 Marital Settlement Agreement provided the following with respect to pension and retirement benefits: Wife shall receive 40% of the marital portion of Husband's Municipal Police Pension fund valued at the date of separation. It is acknowledged that Husband began his employment with the Wilkinsburg Police Department on April 12, 1994, the parties married on May 20, 1995 and separated on February 4, 2012. It is also acknowledg


CourtListener opinion 9383516

domestic relations order: t benefit being paid as "Disabled." N.T. at 14- 15; 12/4/19 Pension Plan Authorization. Husband was 52 years old at the -2- J-S42043-22 time that he applied for and was found qualified for these benefits. 12/4/19 Pension Plan Authorization. No Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) had been prepared and Husband did not provide the Marital Settlement Agreement to his employer or to the Plan. N.T. at 6, 19-20. The Plan paid the full monthly $3,249.81 benefits to Husband. Id. at 18-19; Pension Plan Payment Deposit Confirmations. On March 28, 2022, Wife filed a motion to enforce the Marital Settlement Agreement alleging that


CourtListener opinion 9387995

CourtListener opinion 9387995 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9387995 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 9387995


CourtListener opinion 9387995

QDRO: hat: (1) The pro se appellant ("Husband") filed this appeal from a Family Court order, dated November 30, 2022, that dismissed Husband's petition for a rule to show cause concerning a dispute regarding whether the appellee ("Wife") was required to sign a qualified domestic relations order dividing her 401(k) account. The Family Court scheduled a case management teleconference for October 30, 2022. The notice of the conference directed the parties to provide the court with a 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). phone number where they could be reached for the teleconference. Wife'


CourtListener opinion 9387995

401(k): d this appeal from a Family Court order, dated November 30, 2022, that dismissed Husband's petition for a rule to show cause concerning a dispute regarding whether the appellee ("Wife") was required to sign a qualified domestic relations order dividing her 401(k) account. The Family Court scheduled a case management teleconference for October 30, 2022. The notice of the conference directed the parties to provide the court with a 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). phone number where they could be reached for the teleconference. Wife's counsel complied


CourtListener opinion 9387995

domestic relations order: The pro se appellant ("Husband") filed this appeal from a Family Court order, dated November 30, 2022, that dismissed Husband's petition for a rule to show cause concerning a dispute regarding whether the appellee ("Wife") was required to sign a qualified domestic relations order dividing her 401(k) account. The Family Court scheduled a case management teleconference for October 30, 2022. The notice of the conference directed the parties to provide the court with a 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). phone number where they could be reached for the teleconference. Wife'


CourtListener opinion 9388732

CourtListener opinion 9388732 Extracted reporter citation: 351 N.E.2d 113. Docket: that each party accepted. As the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9388732 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 9388732


CourtListener opinion 9388732

QDRO: ENTITLED TO HALF OF HIS MILITARY RETIREMENT PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 60(B)(5)." THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PARTY'S INTENT ONCE IT DETERMINED THAT QDRO WAS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY TO APPELLANT'S MILITARY RETIREMENT." {¶2} On November 2, 2002, the parties married for the third time. On July 30, 2020 the parties filed their petition for dissolution and separation agreement that, inter alia, addressed appellant's military retirement: The wife will receive a monthly sum of $1445.00 per month from milit


CourtListener opinion 9388732

retirement benefits: s married for the third time. On July 30, 2020 the parties filed their petition for dissolution and separation agreement that, inter alia, addressed appellant's military retirement: The wife will receive a monthly sum of $1445.00 per month from military retirement benefits. This shall begin August 2, [2]020 payable on or before the 10th of each month. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) will issue. The husband will pay the benefits directly to the wife until the month they are withheld from his retirement. Each party will receive and maintain all rights to any other retirement benefits, annuities, 401K or sim


CourtListener opinion 9388732

pension: and ended September 2020, and (2) appellee waived all spousal support because the parties agreed that appellee would receive one-half of appellant's military retirement benefit. Further, appellee agreed not to pursue any division of appellant's teacher's pension because he had only taught for the past 10 or 11 years - "I just felt like that's what we were together through was the military career. We made an agreement that I would take care of the kids and everything, he would do his military career." {¶6} Appellee's trial counsel also testified at the hearing and recalled appellant's statement in a July offi


CourtListener opinion 9388732

401(k): lified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) will issue. The husband will pay the benefits directly to the wife until the month they are withheld from his retirement. Each party will receive and maintain all rights to any other retirement benefits, annuities, 401K or similar benefits or work-related benefits he/she has at the time of this Agreement except as may be otherwise set forth herein. {¶3} At the parties' September 25, 2020 hearing, appellee appeared with counsel and appellant appeared pro se. When asked 3 LAWRENCE, 22CA2 if he wished to retain counsel, appellant stated, "Um, there's some things in t


CourtListener opinion 9389175

CourtListener opinion 9389175 Docket: of bases upon which the family. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9389175 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 9389175

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 9389175

QDRO: 82 S.E.2d 510 (1989). i ARMSTEAD, Justice: Petitioner Carl A. ("Husband") and Respondent Deborah A. ("Wife") were divorced by final order entered by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County ("circuit court") in September of 2000. The circuit court entered a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") in March of 2001. Over nineteen years later, Husband filed a motion to vacate the QDRO. The Family Court of Kanawha County ("family court") denied this motion on August 31, 2021. It determined that the QDRO and the final divorce order contained conflicting terms regarding the division of Husband's retirement benefit, and that when such a confl


CourtListener opinion 9389175

retirement benefits: r, Husband filed a motion to vacate the QDRO. The Family Court of Kanawha County ("family court") denied this motion on August 31, 2021. It determined that the QDRO and the final divorce order contained conflicting terms regarding the division of Husband's retirement benefit, and that when such a conflict exists, the QDRO must be enforced. On appeal, Husband argues that the family court erred by concluding that the QDRO, rather than the final divorce order, must control the division of his retirement benefit. After review, we find that Husband's motion to vacate the QDRO, filed over nineteen years after the QDRO was enter


CourtListener opinion 9389175

pension: ere divorced by final order entered by the circuit court on September 25, 2000. Both parties were represented by counsel when the divorce order was entered. The divorce order lists the following as a marital asset belonging to Wife: "[Husband]'s Retirement Pension as of [the] date of the parties['] separation on April 30, 2000. [Wife] shall be responsible for payment of all taxes and penalties incurred as a result of the transfer of the retirement to her." Additionally, the divorce order provides: 1 "RETIREMENT - [Wife] shall receive pursuant to a QDRO as her sole property [Husband]'s pension/retirement in the


CourtListener opinion 9389175

alternate payee: ded that [i]n West Virginia, it is the QDRO which determines the allocation of retirement benefits. As this Court has noted, under the Internal Revenue Code, a QDRO is defined as a domestic relations order ‘which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.' 26 U.S.C. §414(p)(1)(A)(I). Accordingly, the terms of the QDRO must control in this case. Id. at *16-17 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 5 discretion standard. We review questions of law de


CourtListener opinion 9390208

CourtListener opinion 9390208 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: NUMBER Appellant. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9390208 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 9390208

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 9390208

domestic relations order: S.P.R. 455, 460 (1994). ORDER ¶3 On remand, OPM is hereby ORDERED to take the following actions: (1) explain how the Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage meets the requirements of a court order acceptable for processing and whether the lack of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order renders the court order unacceptable; (2) determine 3 On April 12, 2019, May 24, 2019, August 29, 2020, March 30, 2021, May 10, 2021, and December 22, 2021, the appellant filed motions to submit additional pleadings in which, although unclear, he appears to raise arguments concerning the merits of the appeal. PFR File, Tabs 9, 12, 23, 27, 30, 34. We d


CourtListener opinion 9391406

CourtListener opinion 9391406 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: COA22-448. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9391406 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 9391406


CourtListener opinion 9391406

QDRO: relief the court deems necessary under equity or law. The trial court denied the motion on 28 January 2022, holding as conclusions of law: a. The Schwab IRA account has not been proven to be a "qualified retirement plan" pursuant to ERISA and, thus, a QDRO or DRO is inapplicable and not the appropriate mechanism for distribution thereof; -4- WELCH V. WELCH Opinion of the Court b. The 2008 Consent Order specifically addressed the rights and obligations of the parties regarding the Schwab IRA, and the Order did not include language for entry of a QDRO or DRO as the mechanism for division and distrib


CourtListener opinion 9391406

retirement benefits: a second appeal in the same matter.1 Where before this Court reviewed a trial court's denial of a contempt and Rule 70 motion, we now consider whether a motion for entry of a domestic relations order is a proper mechanism for distribution of an individual retirement account under the circumstances or constitutes an action subject to the statute of limitations. 1 For the previous case, see Welch v. Welch (Welch I), 278 N.C. App. 375, 859 S.E.2d 646 (2021) (unpublished). WELCH V. WELCH Opinion of the Court I. Background Mr. and Ms. Welch were married on 19 June 1981. On 30 January 2007, an action for divorce, child cu


CourtListener opinion 9391406

pension: Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or by domestic relations order or other -6- WELCH V. WELCH Opinion of the Court appropriate order." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20.1(g) (2022) (emphasis added). This method of distribution "appl[ies] to all vested and nonvested pension, retirement, and deferred compensation plans, programs, systems, or funds, including . . . individual retirement accounts within the definitions of Internal Revenue Code sections 408 and 408A." § 50-20.1(h) (emphasis added). Section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code defines an "individual retirement account" as "a trust created or organized in the Unite


CourtListener opinion 9391406

ERISA: part of all further relief the court deems necessary under equity or law. The trial court denied the motion on 28 January 2022, holding as conclusions of law: a. The Schwab IRA account has not been proven to be a "qualified retirement plan" pursuant to ERISA and, thus, a QDRO or DRO is inapplicable and not the appropriate mechanism for distribution thereof; -4- WELCH V. WELCH Opinion of the Court b. The 2008 Consent Order specifically addressed the rights and obligations of the parties regarding the Schwab IRA, and the Order did not include language for entry of a QDRO or DRO as the mechanism for di


CourtListener opinion 9392535

CourtListener opinion 9392535 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Jones. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9392535 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 9392535


CourtListener opinion 9392535

QDRO: aring plan transferred into her name although there is no corresponding domestic relations order. The plan at issue is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). To complete the transfer, ERISA requires the parties to obtain a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) pursuant to Iowa domestic relations law. At the time a petition was filed in this matter, Mary Kathryn and Douglas Wallace were happily married and opposed to seeking a domestic relations order through divorce or separate maintenance proceedings. In the absence of a divorce or separate maintenance proceeding, the district court refused to grant


CourtListener opinion 9392535

retirement benefits: full-time. In order to accomplish their retirement goals, Douglas executed a power of attorney authorizing Mary Kathryn to act as his attorney- in-fact. The Wallaces' financial advisor agreed with that position and recommended transferring Douglas's 401(k) retirement plan into Mary Kathryn's name for long-term estate and tax planning purposes. The Wallaces first attempted to transfer the plan in November 2021. They executed an interspousal agreement pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 597 and asked the district court to enforce it with a domestic relations order. The court denied their petition for three reasons: First, the


CourtListener opinion 9392535

pension: ISA is an enormously complicated statute," we provide an overview of the statute, its spendthrift (or nonalienation) provision, and QDROs. Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 482 F.3d 225, 237 (3d Cir. 2007). In 1974, Congress enacted 6 ERISA to regulate private pension plans in the United States. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93–406, 88 Stat. 829 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C. and 29 U.S.C.). ERISA "prescribe[s] various disclosure and reporting requirements, participation and vesting standards, fiduciary obligations, criminal penalties, and civil enforcement pro