CourtListener opinion 4671816

pension: t impression, that an attorney's contingent-fee contracts should be considered marital property to be divided as part of the equitable division of the marital estate. The Court found that a contingent-fee contract is comparable to an unvested interest in a pension or retirement plan. 1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. -6- So while the right to the actual funds from the pension had not vested yet, what did vest was the plan-holding spouse's right to participate in the pension and bring a cause of action if denied that participation. This is exactly the interest that an attorney spouse has in a contingent-


CourtListener opinion 4671816

2020-CA-0017-MR JOHNNY WADE BELL APPELLANT

domestic relations order: 0.35. Johnny's account had a fair market value of $352,362.13 as of December 31, 2018. However, there was evidence that this account was subject to attachment by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), except for any portion assigned to Carla under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). To protect Carla's interest, the family court awarded her $49,600.00 -4- from this account, representing the amount of Johnny's maintenance arrearage. The court further ordered that the remaining balance shall be split equally between Carla and Johnny. The family court next turned to the division of marital debts. Most relevant to this appe


CourtListener opinion 4672360

CourtListener opinion 4672360 Extracted reporter citation: 414 S.W.3d 685. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4672360 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 4672360

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 4672360

QDRO: court found that "those were all incurred as part of this failed painting business. That's marital debt." The trial court awarded Husband half of the portions of Wife's TCRS pension and Edward Jones IRA that accrued during the marriage "to be distributed by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order." Wife moved the court for a new trial or to alter or amend its order. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed. 2 Wife cites testimony that she worked overtime to earn the money for the $50,000 kitchen remodel and cites Husband's admission that he did not contribute to the kitchen remodel at all. 3 There is no dis


CourtListener opinion 4672360

pension: g a two-story addition, a large storage garage, a kitchen remodel,2 and a sunroom. The trial, conducted on November 18, 2019, focused on determining Husband's equitable interest in: (1) the marital home; (2) Wife's Tennessee Consolidated Retirement Services pension ("TCRS") which increased in value during the marriage; and (3) Wife's IRA which increased in value during the marriage. Wife testified that the value of the marital home at the time of the marriage was approximately $150,000, despite Husband's claim that a 1996 tax appraisal showed a value of $42,500. The parties later agreed that the value submitted by Hus


CourtListener opinion 4672360

domestic relations order: d that "those were all incurred as part of this failed painting business. That's marital debt." The trial court awarded Husband half of the portions of Wife's TCRS pension and Edward Jones IRA that accrued during the marriage "to be distributed by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order." Wife moved the court for a new trial or to alter or amend its order. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed. 2 Wife cites testimony that she worked overtime to earn the money for the $50,000 kitchen remodel and cites Husband's admission that he did not contribute to the kitchen remodel at all. 3 There is no dis


CourtListener opinion 4672360

valuation/division: 414 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2013). Our review of a trial court's conclusions of law is de novo upon the record with no presumption of correctness. Tyron v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tenn. 2008). The trial court has broad discretion in fashioning an equitable distribution of marital property, and an appellate court will defer to a trial court's distribution unless it is inconsistent with the statutory factors or is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Baggett v. Baggett, 422 S.W.3d 537, 543 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). IV. DISCUSSION A. &. B. Wife first takes issue with the trial court's valuation of the marital


CourtListener opinion 4672678

CourtListener opinion 4672678 Extracted reporter citation: 615 N.E.2d 689. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4672678 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 4672678


CourtListener opinion 4672678

QDRO: court. Kubasco v. Kubasco, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2011CA00282, 2012-Ohio-4072. {¶7} Since 2011, appellee has received appellant's full pension amount because appellant was incarcerated. Appellee gets her monthly payment directly from the pension fund via a Qualified Domestic Relations order. {¶8} Appellant filed a motion to modify spousal support on September 27, 2019. Appellant filed a memorandum in support of his motion to modify on February 4, 2020. Appellant argued a substantial change in circumstances has occurred because he is no longer incarcerated. {¶9} The trial court issued a judgment entry on July 31, 2020. The trial court s


CourtListener opinion 4672678

pension: al court's November 2011 judgment entry, this Court overruled appellant's objections and affirmed the decision of the trial court. Kubasco v. Kubasco, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2011CA00282, 2012-Ohio-4072. {¶7} Since 2011, appellee has received appellant's full pension amount because appellant was incarcerated. Appellee gets her monthly payment directly from the pension fund via a Qualified Domestic Relations order. {¶8} Appellant filed a motion to modify spousal support on September 27, 2019. Appellant filed a memorandum in support of his motion to modify on February 4, 2020. Appellant argued a substantial change i


CourtListener opinion 4672678

domestic relations order: ubasco v. Kubasco, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2011CA00282, 2012-Ohio-4072. {¶7} Since 2011, appellee has received appellant's full pension amount because appellant was incarcerated. Appellee gets her monthly payment directly from the pension fund via a Qualified Domestic Relations order. {¶8} Appellant filed a motion to modify spousal support on September 27, 2019. Appellant filed a memorandum in support of his motion to modify on February 4, 2020. Appellant argued a substantial change in circumstances has occurred because he is no longer incarcerated. {¶9} The trial court issued a judgment entry on July 31, 2020. The trial court s


CourtListener opinion 4673224

CourtListener opinion 4673224 Extracted reporter citation: 3 N.E.3d 179. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4673224 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 4673224


CourtListener opinion 4673224

QDRO: esidential property by limited warranty deed. {¶5} We also cannot find the trial court abused its discretion in finding Mr. Schneider in contempt for failing to effectuate the transfer of Ameriprise funds pursuant to the divorce decree and the subsequent qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), 2 and that he failed to pay the mortgages on the residential property. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding that Mr. Schneider is obligated to transfer Ms. Daugherty's agreed-upon personal property in Joint Exhibit A, attached to the divorce decree, and that if he cannot locate the property, he must pay the item's assigned


CourtListener opinion 4673224

retirement benefits: edule; and (2) timely refinance the marital real estate; and by finding him in contempt of court for his failure to (3) pay the financial obligations of the parties' marital home; and (4) effectuate the transfer of Ms. Daugherty's portion of the Ameriprise retirement account. He further contends the trial court erred by (5) requiring him to deliver the personal property items listed on Joint Exhibit A, attached to the divorce decree; and (6) assigning values to the personal property and ordering him to either deliver the property or pay the amount equal to the value. {¶3} After a review of the record and pertinent law, we


CourtListener opinion 4673224

domestic relations order: property by limited warranty deed. {¶5} We also cannot find the trial court abused its discretion in finding Mr. Schneider in contempt for failing to effectuate the transfer of Ameriprise funds pursuant to the divorce decree and the subsequent qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), 2 and that he failed to pay the mortgages on the residential property. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding that Mr. Schneider is obligated to transfer Ms. Daugherty's agreed-upon personal property in Joint Exhibit A, attached to the divorce decree, and that if he cannot locate the property, he must pay the item's assigned


CourtListener opinion 4674208

CourtListener opinion 4674208 Extracted reporter citation: 937 N.E.2d 1077. Docket: 28961 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4674208 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 4674208


CourtListener opinion 4674208

QDRO: Horvath Sullivan, 46.52 percent of his disposable military retirement pay. The divorce decree also required Brendan to directly pay Lisa this amount until "a separate document captioned MILITARY RETIRED PAY DIVISION ORDER," which was to be prepared by the "QDRO Group," became effective.2 {¶ 3} On October 12, 2018, Lisa filed a motion requesting that Brendan be found in contempt of court for his failure to directly pay Lisa her portion of the retirement benefit. A hearing before a magistrate was conducted on February 22, 2019. The magistrate concluded Brendan had not paid Lisa the entire amount of retirement p


CourtListener opinion 4674208

retirement benefits: TARY RETIRED PAY DIVISION ORDER," which was to be prepared by the "QDRO Group," became effective.2 {¶ 3} On October 12, 2018, Lisa filed a motion requesting that Brendan be found in contempt of court for his failure to directly pay Lisa her portion of the retirement benefit. A hearing before a magistrate was conducted on February 22, 2019. The magistrate concluded Brendan had not paid Lisa the entire amount of retirement pay to which she was entitled and that Brendan was therefore in contempt of court. According to the magistrate's decision, the deficit was $4,394.18. The magistrate ordered that Brendan could purge the co


CourtListener opinion 4674208

pension: retired pay. But the trial court's calculations fail to support that assertion. He also suggests that Lisa has not paid the "survivor benefit premium" as required. Under the terms of the divorce decree, however, Lisa's percentage of Brendan's military pension was reduced from 50 percent to 46.52 percent -5- to account for her obligation to pay that premium. Thus, Lisa is paying the premium through this reduction. Brendan further argues that this deduction of 3.48 percent does not cover the full cost of the premium. But Brendan consented to this percentage when he signed the agreed divorce decree conta


CourtListener opinion 4674208

survivor benefits: setting forth any assignments of error, articulated the following issues for review: 1. The Appellant requests the Honorable court's review of 10 U.S. Code 1408. The Appellant is subject to the effects of two Trial Court Orders "Agreed Order Regarding Survivor Benefit Designation and Premium" dated 21 Sept 2017 and the Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce" dated 21 June 2018. In an attempt to bypass 10 U.S. Code 1408 Section (e) protections of 50% of his disposable retired income. 2. The Appellant requests the Honorable court's review of "The Military Pay Division Order" prior to signature. The order is not in


CourtListener opinion 4674780

CourtListener opinion 4674780 Extracted reporter citation: 778 N.W.2d 154. Docket: 2020AP1082-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4674780 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 4674780

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 4674780

QDRO: 2-20 (electronic copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/ raw/002515.html). ¶6 In 2013, Attorney Harris' license was suspended for five months for misconduct consisting of failing to timely file a judgment of divorce and promptly prepare a QDRO; failing to respond to a client's emails and telephone calls; failing to notify a client of his license suspension; failing to consult 3 No. 2020AP1082-D with a client regarding the method and means of pursing the client's claim; failing to advise a client of the dismissal of a case; and failing to respond in a timely fashion to the OLR's written req


CourtListener opinion 4679107

CourtListener opinion 4679107 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Tang. Extracted reporter citation: 836 P.2d 832. Docket: 54219-6-II A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES We review the superior. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4679107 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 4679107

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 4679107

QDRO: rty's mistake at the time of acceptance and unfairly exploited the mistaken party's error." Lietz, 166 Wn. App. at 579 n.10. 13 No. 54219-6-II McClain fails to demonstrate that contract principles apply to the pay order.13 A pay order is more similar to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), in that it is intended to enforce or facilitate the acquisition of a right or interest awarded under the divorce decree, not to establish the parties' rights in the first instance. See Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 107 (Tex. App. 2006) ("A QDRO is a species of post-divorce enforcement or clarification order.") And because the pay order is


CourtListener opinion 4679107

retirement benefits: ," but not the exact 4 LaVergne and McClain agree that former Alabama Code section 30-2-51(b) (1995) applied. This statute provided: The judge, at his or her discretion, may include in the estate of either spouse the present value of any future or current retirement benefits that a spouse may have a vested interest in or may be receiving on the date the action for divorce is filed, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) The parties have been married for a period of 10 years during which the retirement was being accumulated. (2) The court shall not include in the estate the value of any retirement benefits ac


CourtListener opinion 4679107

domestic relations order: ake at the time of acceptance and unfairly exploited the mistaken party's error." Lietz, 166 Wn. App. at 579 n.10. 13 No. 54219-6-II McClain fails to demonstrate that contract principles apply to the pay order.13 A pay order is more similar to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), in that it is intended to enforce or facilitate the acquisition of a right or interest awarded under the divorce decree, not to establish the parties' rights in the first instance. See Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 107 (Tex. App. 2006) ("A QDRO is a species of post-divorce enforcement or clarification order.") And because the pay order is


CourtListener opinion 4679107

valuation/division: ] of his disposable military retirement pay, as they were married more than 10 years and required by the parties' divorce decree." Id. at 183. This pay order thus awarded McClain 50 percent of LaVergne's total military retirement pay, not 50 percent of the marital portion of LaVergne's military retirement pay. In October 2017, the DFAS notified LaVergne that McClain had applied to receive "50 [percent] of [his] retired/retainer pay." Id. at 154. The DFAS advised LaVergne that if he did not 1 If a formula had been used in this instance, it would have been: 0.5 x 14/[total years of service]. Given LaVergne served 28 year


CourtListener opinion 4679831

CourtListener opinion 4679831 Extracted case name: GPC-MSB v. CARLA YOUNG. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4679831 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 4679831


CourtListener opinion 4679831

ERISA: he was a party, then there is jurisdiction and state law determines whether the defendant prevails under principles of preclusion." Id. at 293 (cleaned up). Lundstrom's remaining claims allege that Ligand and Young breached various fiduciary duties under ERISA and state law. Lundstrom seeks damages, equitable relief, and injunctive relief. These claims do not expressly seek "relief from the [Texas] state court judgment" or assert that Lundstrom was injured by an "error or errors by the [Texas] state court." See Kougasian, 359 F.3d at 1140. These claims 4 are independent, even though they "den[y] a legal con


CourtListener opinion 4679831

401(k): 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004). Second, the federal complaint must seek "relief from the state court judgment" as the remedy. Id. 1. In Claims 4 and 5, Lundstrom challenges Texas state court judgments directly, petitioning the district court to declare that a 401(k) Qualified Domestic Relations Order and a Stock Domestic Relations Order issued by a Texas state court are invalid. Counsel for Lundstrom conceded this during oral argument. Because Claims 4 and 5 meet the two-part test from Kougasian, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider those claims under Rooker-Feldman and properly dismissed them. See i


CourtListener opinion 4679831

domestic relations order: int must seek "relief from the state court judgment" as the remedy. Id. 1. In Claims 4 and 5, Lundstrom challenges Texas state court judgments directly, petitioning the district court to declare that a 401(k) Qualified Domestic Relations Order and a Stock Domestic Relations Order issued by a Texas state court are invalid. Counsel for Lundstrom conceded this during oral argument. Because Claims 4 and 5 meet the two-part test from Kougasian, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider those claims under Rooker-Feldman and properly dismissed them. See id. 3 2. Lundstrom's remaining claims are not barred by Rooker-Feldman.


CourtListener opinion 4679847

CourtListener opinion 4679847 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4679847 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 4679847


CourtListener opinion 4679847

domestic relations order: ing counts 2 through 5 he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). Appellant also pleaded no contest to unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 6), violating a domestic relations order (§ 273.6, subd. (a); count 7), infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or partner (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 10), and making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 14). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 39 years to life in state prison. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial alleging spectator


CourtListener opinion 4681046

CourtListener opinion 4681046 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4681046 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 4681046


CourtListener opinion 4681046

QDRO: such decree." Code § 20-109.1. Code § 20-107.3(K) provides for the continuing jurisdiction of a circuit court to enter orders - 10 - "necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to [that] section." This includes the authority to enter qualified domestic relations orders dividing a party's retirement account after the expiration of twenty-one days following the entry of the final decree. See Caudle v. Caudle, 18 Va. App. 795, 797 (1994) (noting that Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) "creates a limited exception to the strict directive of Rule 1:1"). However, the qualified domestic relations order entered may not "modify a final di


CourtListener opinion 4681046

retirement benefits: il she dies, remarries, or is in a relationship analogous to marriage for a period of one (1) year or more. Husband and wife shall share the cost of maintaining the Survivor Benefit equally. Subsections b and d of Paragraph 14 of the MSA, titled "Pension/Retirement Plans and Accounts," read in part as follows: -4- b. Wife will receive the non-modifiable amount of Two Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($2,400.00) per month for a period of ten (10) years, from March 1, 2020 to March 1, 2030, from Husband's FERS Disability Retirement Annuity . . . . The Two Thousand Four Hundred dollar ($2,400.00) per month amount will not


CourtListener opinion 4681046

pension: iary until she dies, remarries, or is in a relationship analogous to marriage for a period of one (1) year or more. Husband and wife shall share the cost of maintaining the Survivor Benefit equally. Subsections b and d of Paragraph 14 of the MSA, titled "Pension/Retirement Plans and Accounts," read in part as follows: -4- b. Wife will receive the non-modifiable amount of Two Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($2,400.00) per month for a period of ten (10) years, from March 1, 2020 to March 1, 2030, from Husband's FERS Disability Retirement Annuity . . . . The Two Thousand Four Hundred dollar ($2,400.00) per month


CourtListener opinion 4681046

domestic relations order: ee." Code § 20-109.1. Code § 20-107.3(K) provides for the continuing jurisdiction of a circuit court to enter orders - 10 - "necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to [that] section." This includes the authority to enter qualified domestic relations orders dividing a party's retirement account after the expiration of twenty-one days following the entry of the final decree. See Caudle v. Caudle, 18 Va. App. 795, 797 (1994) (noting that Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) "creates a limited exception to the strict directive of Rule 1:1"). However, the qualified domestic relations order entered may not "modify a final di


CourtListener opinion 4681733

CourtListener opinion 4681733 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ADRIANA SIKYTA AND JASON SIKYTA Upon the Petition of ADRIANA SIKYTA. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 19-2136. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4681733 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 4681733

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 4681733

QDRO: eductions for both children. The court awarded Jason $1837 in monthly child support, which would decrease to $1343 when only one child remained eligible. The court ordered Adriana's IPERS benefits to be divided pursuant to the Benson formula4 by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court awarded 4See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996) (approving a percentage method of allocating pension benefits). 7 Adriana $183,426 in assets and assigned her $437,823 of debt. The court awarded Jason $20,500 in assets and assigned him $57,257 in debt. This debt allocation required each of the parties be responsible for


CourtListener opinion 4681733

pension: ourt ordered Adriana's IPERS benefits to be divided pursuant to the Benson formula4 by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court awarded 4See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996) (approving a percentage method of allocating pension benefits). 7 Adriana $183,426 in assets and assigned her $437,823 of debt. The court awarded Jason $20,500 in assets and assigned him $57,257 in debt. This debt allocation required each of the parties be responsible for their own student loan debts, most of which accrued during the marriage. The court highlighted that Adriana's student loan debt in th


CourtListener opinion 4681733

domestic relations order: for both children. The court awarded Jason $1837 in monthly child support, which would decrease to $1343 when only one child remained eligible. The court ordered Adriana's IPERS benefits to be divided pursuant to the Benson formula4 by way of a qualified domestic relations order. The court awarded 4See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996) (approving a percentage method of allocating pension benefits). 7 Adriana $183,426 in assets and assigned her $437,823 of debt. The court awarded Jason $20,500 in assets and assigned him $57,257 in debt. This debt allocation required each of the parties be responsible for


CourtListener opinion 4681733

valuation/division: contributions by one party with the expectation of future reciprocation or compensation by the other party. .... (j) Other factors the court may determine to be relevant in an individual case. 9 Iowa Code § 598.21A(1) (2018). "We consider alimony and property division together in assessing their individual sufficiency. They are neither made nor subject to evaluation in isolation from one another." In re Marriage of McLaughlin, 526 N.W.2d 342, 345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994); see also In re Marriage of Smario, No. 10-1274, 2011 WL 2089593, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 25, 2011). Our supreme court recently affirmed a complete d


CourtListener opinion 4681734

CourtListener opinion 4681734 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JEFFERY MAU AND ANN MARIE MAU Upon the Petition of JEFFERY MAU. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 20-1422. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4681734 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 4681734


CourtListener opinion 4681734

QDRO: AU, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Patrick A. McElyea, Judge. Jeffery Mau appeals from the district court's ruling on the entry of the parties' qualified domestic relations order. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Paul L. Macek of Hopkins & Huebner, P.C., Davenport, for appellant. Ryan M. Beckenbaugh of H.J. Dane Law Office, Davenport, for appellee. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. 2 VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge. This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to approve a qualified domestic relations o


CourtListener opinion 4681734

retirement benefits: tipulation stated: ASSETS IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED the Petitioner, JEFFERY MAU, is awarded all right, title, and interest in the following assets: . . . the petitioner's Ameriprise Account. Provided that the Ameriprise qualified accounts (the retirement accounts) shall be divided as follows: $100,000 of the qualified accounts shall be rolled over into a 401k, IRA or other retirement account to be established or designated by the Respondent and shall be the property of the Respondent. $11,000.00 of the qualified accounts shall remain in the qualified account and shall be the property of the petitioner. In res


CourtListener opinion 4681734

pension: f the parties' assets and liabilities and [was] in the 1 In In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 257 (Iowa 1996), the court expressed the equation as follows: [Wife]'s # of years [Husband] was share = both married and covered by x 50% x value of the pension plan monthly pension benefit # of years covered by plan prior to conclusion (maturity) 545 N.W.2d at 255. 3 best interest of the parties." (Emphasis added.) The district court filed a dissolution decree making "the terms and provisions" of the parties' "Stipulation and Agreement . . . a part of [the] Decree" and incorporating them and making them "


CourtListener opinion 4681734

401(k): , title, and interest in the following assets: . . . the petitioner's Ameriprise Account. Provided that the Ameriprise qualified accounts (the retirement accounts) shall be divided as follows: $100,000 of the qualified accounts shall be rolled over into a 401k, IRA or other retirement account to be established or designated by the Respondent and shall be the property of the Respondent. $11,000.00 of the qualified accounts shall remain in the qualified account and shall be the property of the petitioner. In respect to this sum of $11,000.00, the Petitioner shall benefit by any increase in value of this sum or


CourtListener opinion 4682042

CourtListener opinion 4682042 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of McDonald. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4682042 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 4682042


CourtListener opinion 4682042

QDRO: ppellant a reasonable time in which to comply. Specifically, Appellee requested the court clarify the order to include date of service in the armed forces, the date of marriage and the date of divorce. Moreover, Appellee requested the court sign a Military QDRO. At the hearing on Appellee's motion to clarify, the trial court heard no testimony; instead, counsel for both parties presented argument. Appellee requested a clarification of the Decree to show that the parties were married for nine years and to provide for Appellant's dates of service in months and years. The additional information, counsel indicate


CourtListener opinion 4682042

retirement benefits: 2DCM04038) § OPINION This appeal concerns a motion to clarify a decree of divorce between Appellant Barry Watret and Appellee Teresita Watret. In two issues, Appellant asserts the trial court lacked jurisdiction to clarify the division of his Air Force retirement benefits because the terms in the decree were unambiguous, and the statute of limitations barred Appellee from seeking such clarification. Finding no error, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND On August 27, 2012, Appellant and Appellee appeared before the trial court in person and through their respective attorneys of record to enter an agreed final divorce judgment. 1


CourtListener opinion 4682042

pension: ty to Husband ... H-3: All sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits existing by reason of the husband's past, present, or future employment, including but not limited to: a. Texas Dept. of Corrections 2 H-4: All sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise,


CourtListener opinion 4682042

401(k): er matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits existing by reason of the husband's past, present, or future employment, including but not limited to: a. Texas Dept. of Corrections 2 H-4: All sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the


CourtListener opinion 4682306

CourtListener opinion 4682306 Extracted case name: C.D.G. v. N.J.S. Extracted reporter citation: 35 S.W.3d 841. Docket: 2016-CA-0392 OLDHAM CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4682306 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 4682306


CourtListener opinion 4682306

QDRO: pal factors to be considered, but the court should include other relevant factors. For instance, RSUs, unlike plans regulated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), may not qualify for division via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) resulting in adverse tax consequences if immediately divided.45 Deferred compensation arrangements are generally taxed fully to the earning 44 Sexton v. Sexton, 125 S.W.3d 258, 265 (Ky. 2004). 45 Brett R. Turner, 18 No. 1 Divorce Litig. 1 (January 2006). See also Atkisson v. Atkisson, 298 S.W.3d 858, 867 (Ky. App. 2009) ("Trial court should consider th


CourtListener opinion 4682306

pension: sted.24 Laura argues that Scott's right to participate 20 Id. at 195. 21 See McGinnis v. McGinnis, 920 S.W.2d 68 (Ky. App. 1995) (holding nonvested shares of stock as marital property); Poe v. Poe, 711 S.W.2d 849 (Ky. App. 1986) (holding nonvested military pension to be marital property); In re Marriage of Short, 890 P.2d 12, 13 (Wash. 1995) (Unvested stock options were part community property and part separate property.); but see In re Marriage of Miller, 915 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1996) (Shares of restricted stock granted during marriage constituted marital property in their entirety.). 22 411 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. App. 2013)


CourtListener opinion 4682306

ERISA: gment in equitably dividing the marital property.44 KRS 403.190 outlines principal factors to be considered, but the court should include other relevant factors. For instance, RSUs, unlike plans regulated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), may not qualify for division via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) resulting in adverse tax consequences if immediately divided.45 Deferred compensation arrangements are generally taxed fully to the earning 44 Sexton v. Sexton, 125 S.W.3d 258, 265 (Ky. 2004). 45 Brett R. Turner, 18 No. 1 Divorce Litig. 1 (January 2006). See also Atkisson v.


CourtListener opinion 4682306

401(k): h Aetna regarding a merger, clouding Scott's job outlook due to likely restructuring. This merger was never consummated. In addition to the RSUs, the parties contested the classification and equitable distribution of two other pieces of property: Scott's 401k and a plot of unimproved land in Wyoming. The 401k was valued at $499,879. At issue was the portion of the 401k deemed Scott's nonmarital property. The account consisted of funds derived from Scott's employment at Humana during the marriage, Honeywell both prior to and during the marriage, and the Secret Service and British Aerospace prior to the marri


CourtListener opinion 4682678

CourtListener opinion 4682678 Docket: 353272 Grand Traverse Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4682678 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 4682678

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 4682678

QDRO: purposes of plaintiff's federal pension, and spousal support was waived. One of the provisions stated: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff, Kurt J. Hein's, Office of Personnel Management pension shall be divided equally between the parties pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and Terri J. Hein, shall be considered a surviving spouse for purposes of distribution of this pension benefit. The meaning of "divided equally" would prove contentious and underlies this appeal. Initially, however, both parties confirmed their agreement with those terms, although defendant asked for a delay in the proceedings so she could attend a medica


CourtListener opinion 4682678

retirement benefits: n MCL 552.101(4), which provides: For any divorce or separate maintenance action filed on or after September 1, 2006, if a judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance provides for the assignment of any rights in and to any pension, annuity, or retirement benefits, a proportionate share of all components of the pension, annuity, or retirement benefits shall be included in the assignment unless the judgment of divorce or judgment of separate maintenance expressly excludes 1 or more components. Components include, but are not limited to, supplements, subsidies, early retirement benefits, postretirement benefit in


CourtListener opinion 4682678

pension: e: JANSEN, P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE and GADOLA, JJ. RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. In this consolidated appeal in this divorce proceeding, plaintiff, Kurt J. Hein, appeals by right and by leave granted1 the trial court's order directing that 50% of plaintiff's federal pension annuity would be paid to defendant, Terri Jo Hein, for the entire existence of the annuity, even if defendant were to predecease plaintiff. We vacate and remand for further proceedings. 1 Plaintiff apparently was uncertain whether the trial court's order was appealable by right, so he simultaneously pursued an appeal by right and an appeal by leave. Both


CourtListener opinion 4682678

domestic relations order: of plaintiff's federal pension, and spousal support was waived. One of the provisions stated: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff, Kurt J. Hein's, Office of Personnel Management pension shall be divided equally between the parties pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and Terri J. Hein, shall be considered a surviving spouse for purposes of distribution of this pension benefit. The meaning of "divided equally" would prove contentious and underlies this appeal. Initially, however, both parties confirmed their agreement with those terms, although defendant asked for a delay in the proceedings so she could attend a medica


CourtListener opinion 4682977

CourtListener opinion 4682977 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of STEPHEN. Extracted reporter citation: 126 Cal.App.4th 726. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4682977 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 4682977


CourtListener opinion 4682977

QDRO: lso 7 "may order a specific security interest designed to reduce or eliminate the likelihood that a postmortem enforcement proceeding would be ineffective or unduly burdensome to the surviving party," including "[a]n order to provide a security interest by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from that party's share of a retirement plan or plans" or "an interim order requiring the party to pay or cause to be paid, and to post adequate security for the payment of, any survivor benefit that would have been payable to the other party on the death of the party but for the judgment granting a dissolution of the status of the marriage, pending entry o


CourtListener opinion 4682977

retirement benefits: for late adjudication. Appellant wife contends that the trial court erred because its orders issued in conjunction with the termination of marriage adversely impact her health insurance coverage and do not adequately protect her interest in community property retirement accounts. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Stephen Saltzman (Husband) and Randy Schienberg Saltzman (Wife) married on August 17, 1991. They have a 17- year-old daughter and an adult son. On December 14, 2017, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage based on irreconcilable differences, contending that the parti


CourtListener opinion 4682977

pension: gment consistent with the Findings and Order After Hearing issued September 17, 2019. Husband attached a proposed judgment, consisting of Judicial Council Forms FL-180 (Judgment), FL-347 (Bifurcation of Status of Marriage or Domestic Partnership), and FL-348 (Pension Benefits—Attachment to Judgment). Wife opposed the proposed judgment and request for order, and after briefing the matter came on for hearing on December 6, 2019. The trial court concluded that the form of the proposed judgment was appropriate and accurately reflected the order after hearing, rejected Wife's arguments that the orders on 4 health insuran


CourtListener opinion 4682977

domestic relations order: may order a specific security interest designed to reduce or eliminate the likelihood that a postmortem enforcement proceeding would be ineffective or unduly burdensome to the surviving party," including "[a]n order to provide a security interest by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from that party's share of a retirement plan or plans" or "an interim order requiring the party to pay or cause to be paid, and to post adequate security for the payment of, any survivor benefit that would have been payable to the other party on the death of the party but for the judgment granting a dissolution of the status of the marriage, pending entry o


CourtListener opinion 4683294

CourtListener opinion 4683294 Extracted case name: MARY CUNNINGHAM v. GERARD CUNNINGHAM. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4683294 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 4683294


CourtListener opinion 4683294

retirement benefits: t to a third party, (2) requiring the plaintiff to share in the cost of the 50 percent joint survivor annuity election under the pension plan, and (3) adopting a formula that could result in an unjustified reduction to the plaintiff's mari- tal portion of the retirement benefit that she receives under the pension plan. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are neces- sary to our determination of the issues presented on appeal. On March 9, 2011, the trial court rendered a dissolution judgment, terminating the parties' marriage. In its memorandum of decision, the court is


CourtListener opinion 4683294

pension: Js. Syllabus The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the decision of the trial court granting the defendant's motion for a domestic relations order relating to distribu- tions from his pension plan. In the trial court's memorandum of decision dissolving the parties' marriage, the court ordered that the defendant's pension benefit held with his employer, D Co., be divided with the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently filed a motion seeking the entry of a domestic relations order with regard to the pension benefit, attached to which was a pro


CourtListener opinion 4683294

alternate payee: motion, the court, in stating its intention to enter an order substantially as submitted by the defendant, indi- cated that, without paragraph 10, if the defendant prede- ceased the plaintiff, the plaintiff ‘‘may get the entire [survivor benefit] as . . . the alternate payee. But that clearly is not what the court intended.'' Furthermore, the court anticipated at the time that it rendered the dissolution judgment that an order like the 2019 order might be necessary by stating in the judgment that the court retained jurisdiction ‘‘to deal with any issues which may arise with regard to . . . the division of the [pension benefit].


CourtListener opinion 4683294

domestic relations order: ARD CUNNINGHAM (AC 43297) Bright, C. J., and Elgo and Cradle, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the decision of the trial court granting the defendant's motion for a domestic relations order relating to distribu- tions from his pension plan. In the trial court's memorandum of decision dissolving the parties' marriage, the court ordered that the defendant's pension benefit held with his employer, D Co., be divided with the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently filed a motion seeking the entry of a domestic relations order with regard to the


CourtListener opinion 4683781

CourtListener opinion 4683781 Extracted case name: HILLMAN v. HILLMAN. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0121 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4683781 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 4683781


CourtListener opinion 4683781

QDRO: of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Michael Hillman appeals from a superior court order reinstating a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) allocating his pension and from the denial of his motion to alter, amend, or vacate that order. Because the superior court needed a hearing to determine whether a dissolution agreement was merged into the dissolution decree or incorporated by reference, we vacate the superior court's previous orders and remand for reconsideration. FACTUAL AND PROCE


CourtListener opinion 4683781

pension: elivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Michael Hillman appeals from a superior court order reinstating a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) allocating his pension and from the denial of his motion to alter, amend, or vacate that order. Because the superior court needed a hearing to determine whether a dissolution agreement was merged into the dissolution decree or incorporated by reference, we vacate the superior court's previous orders and remand for reconsideration. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Before the m


CourtListener opinion 4683781

domestic relations order: rt MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Michael Hillman appeals from a superior court order reinstating a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) allocating his pension and from the denial of his motion to alter, amend, or vacate that order. Because the superior court needed a hearing to determine whether a dissolution agreement was merged into the dissolution decree or incorporated by reference, we vacate the superior court's previous orders and remand for reconsideration. FACTUAL AND PROCE


CourtListener opinion 4683781

valuation/division: the Court pursuant to its minute entry dated October 4, 2016, and filed on October 5, 2016. ¶4 The decree makes similar references on several issues, including joint legal decision-making, parenting time, child support, tax deductions, spousal maintenance, community property, and the marital residence. For example, the superior court ordered husband to pay monthly spousal maintenance of $1,600, noting "details of same are set forth in the parties' Rule 69 Agreement." ¶5 Several months after the decree, the parties met with a series of QDRO attorneys because disputes arose over spousal maintenance and wife's share of husband's


CourtListener opinion 4685607

CourtListener opinion 4685607 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4685607 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 4685607

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 4685607

QDRO: had not paid her for her interest in the marital vehicles, marital personal property, marital debt, and marital home, as previously ordered by the circuit court. Lastly, she requested an award of attorney's fees because she had incurred fees to prepare the qualified domestic relations orders after husband had failed to do so. On August 13, 2019, the circuit court entered an order finding that husband had not complied with its previous orders. The circuit court entered an income withholding order for the monthly spousal support and a "temporary arrearage amount." In addition, the circuit court ordered husband to pay a portion of wife's at


CourtListener opinion 4685607

domestic relations order: id her for her interest in the marital vehicles, marital personal property, marital debt, and marital home, as previously ordered by the circuit court. Lastly, she requested an award of attorney's fees because she had incurred fees to prepare the qualified domestic relations orders after husband had failed to do so. On August 13, 2019, the circuit court entered an order finding that husband had not complied with its previous orders. The circuit court entered an income withholding order for the monthly spousal support and a "temporary arrearage amount." In addition, the circuit court ordered husband to pay a portion of wife's at


CourtListener opinion 4685607

valuation/division: order continuing the matter. In his reply brief, husband argues that Code § 20-107.3(K) allows a circuit court "to 2 make any additional orders necessary to effectuate and enforce" its previously entered orders. The provisions of Code § 20-107.3 refer to equitable distribution, not spousal support. -5- permitted to ‘approbate and reprobate' by ‘disavow[ing] on appeal the very argument [he] made at trial' because ‘a litigant may not take successive positions in the course of litigation that are either inconsistent with each other or mutually contradictory.'" (quoting Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Areva NP, Inc., 292 Va. 165, 204 (2


CourtListener opinion 4686239

CourtListener opinion 4686239 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SHIRLEY A. FLAHERTY AND JEFFREY B. FLAHERTY Upon the Petition of SHIRLEY A. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 20-0068. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4686239 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 4686239

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 4686239

QDRO: by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ. 2 SCHUMACHER, Judge. Jeffrey Flaherty appeals from an award of spousal support and certain economic provisions of a dissolution decree, including the approval of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), the amount of the cash settlement to offset Jeffrey's receipt of personal property, and the award of attorney fees. Upon our de novo review, we find it equitable to affirm the monthly amount of spousal support but modify its duration. We reduce the property equalization payment to reflect the agreement recited on the record. We affirm the other provis


CourtListener opinion 4686239

retirement benefits: ation payment in the amount of $279,888. The payment was to be satisfied as follows: 1. $40,000 cash by January 15, 2020; 2. Prompt execution of a QDRO, prepared by [Shirley's] counsel, for the transfer of $160,000 from [Jeffrey's] 401(k) to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) set up by [Shirley] to receive those funds; 3. $40,000 from [Jeffrey's] share of proceeds from the sale of the marital homestead . . . ; and 4. Installment payments of $500 on the 15th day of each month, beginning February 15, 2020, and continuing until the property judgment is fully satisfied. As explained in section III.B below, we reduce the


CourtListener opinion 4686239

pension: member working on the factory floor. He worked his way up to his current position in logistics, where he is responsible for the long-term planning and scheduling of the manufacturing lines. Jeffrey's employment at Kraft Heinz affords him a 401(k) plan, a pension plan, and a health savings account. His salary in 2018 was $81,690. Jeffrey finds the obligations of his employment stressful. He consistently works fifty to sixty hours per week. The recent merger between Kraft and Heinz has made his job more demanding, with fewer employees in the logistics department and the introduction of new products. Jeffrey fee


CourtListener opinion 4686239

401(k): Heinz as a team member working on the factory floor. He worked his way up to his current position in logistics, where he is responsible for the long-term planning and scheduling of the manufacturing lines. Jeffrey's employment at Kraft Heinz affords him a 401(k) plan, a pension plan, and a health savings account. His salary in 2018 was $81,690. Jeffrey finds the obligations of his employment stressful. He consistently works fifty to sixty hours per week. The recent merger between Kraft and Heinz has made his job more demanding, with fewer employees in the logistics department and the introduction of new prod


CourtListener opinion 4688382

CourtListener opinion 4688382 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Heroy. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4688382 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 4688382


CourtListener opinion 4688382

QDRO: ses were to be paid from the spousal maintenance payments; at the time of the dissolution of marriage in 2012, the parties had three minor children in Anne's care, but there was currently only one minor child in her care; at the time of the dissolution, Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) were entered, which equally divided Greg's retirement and deferred compensation plans between the parties; at the 7 time of the parties' MSA, Greg had base gross income of $38,380 per month plus significant additional short-term and long-term incentive pay; on July 1, 2017, defendant opted to retire as the result of being forced to choose


CourtListener opinion 4688382

retirement benefits: ings in 2011 (valued at $309,000 with a $245,000 mortgage). The property division also included the equal division of the parties' checking, savings, and investment accounts (total approximate value of $1,365,155), as well as an equal division of Greg's retirement benefits—a pension plan, 2 a supplemental pension plan, 401(k) ($1,449,386), individual retirement account (IRA) ($287,946), and Caterpillar stock options (valued at $604,464). The parties also had college savings plans for the children valued at $881,000, which they agreed to continue to maintain for the benefit of the children. ¶5 In 2012, at the time o


CourtListener opinion 4688382

pension: at $309,000 with a $245,000 mortgage). The property division also included the equal division of the parties' checking, savings, and investment accounts (total approximate value of $1,365,155), as well as an equal division of Greg's retirement benefits—a pension plan, 2 a supplemental pension plan, 401(k) ($1,449,386), individual retirement account (IRA) ($287,946), and Caterpillar stock options (valued at $604,464). The parties also had college savings plans for the children valued at $881,000, which they agreed to continue to maintain for the benefit of the children. ¶5 In 2012, at the time of the disso


CourtListener opinion 4688382

401(k): erty division also included the equal division of the parties' checking, savings, and investment accounts (total approximate value of $1,365,155), as well as an equal division of Greg's retirement benefits—a pension plan, 2 a supplemental pension plan, 401(k) ($1,449,386), individual retirement account (IRA) ($287,946), and Caterpillar stock options (valued at $604,464). The parties also had college savings plans for the children valued at $881,000, which they agreed to continue to maintain for the benefit of the children. ¶5 In 2012, at the time of the dissolution judgment, four of the parties' nine chil


CourtListener opinion 4688963

CourtListener opinion 4688963 Extracted case name: MR KEVIN NEAL CROSS-APPELLANT CROSS-APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DEANNA WISE HENSCHEL. Extracted reporter citation: 540 S.W.3d 384. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4688963 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 4688963


CourtListener opinion 4688963

QDRO: ehicles, the husband shall pay the wife $10,000 within 60 days of this Order. 11. Retirement. All retirement plans, specifically including the husband's Fidelity IRA, shall be divided equally from the date of the marriage until the date of divorce via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Scottrade account shall also be divided equally. The estimated values of the accounts are $95,668 (Fidelity) and $1,643 (Scottrade). .... 13. Health Insurance. The wife shall be responsible for obtaining her own health insurance. She has not had health insurance coverage since 2008. She was unable to provide the Court with any information or


CourtListener opinion 4688963

retirement benefits: debt. The wife has a Maxima with no debt, however an estimated value was not provided to the Court. 10. To equitably resolve the awards of accounts and vehicles, the husband shall pay the wife $10,000 within 60 days of this Order. 11. Retirement. All retirement plans, specifically including the husband's Fidelity IRA, shall be divided equally from the date of the marriage until the date of divorce via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Scottrade account shall also be divided equally. The estimated values of the accounts are $95,668 (Fidelity) and $1,643 (Scottrade). .... 13. Health Insurance. The wife


CourtListener opinion 4688963

pension: es. We held that under these circumstances it was an abuse of discretion to award the wife maintenance past her retirement age because at that point "the parties' income levels will be more equal since [the wife] will be entitled to half of [the husband's] pension, as he will be entitled to half of hers." Id. at 286. We disagree with Kevin that Weldon is dispositive. While Tonya was awarded half of Kevin's retirement, approximately $50,000, unlike the wife in Weldon, Tonya does not have her own retirement account or the realistic prospect -15- of securing employment that will fund a retirement or ever equal Ke


CourtListener opinion 4688963

domestic relations order: he husband shall pay the wife $10,000 within 60 days of this Order. 11. Retirement. All retirement plans, specifically including the husband's Fidelity IRA, shall be divided equally from the date of the marriage until the date of divorce via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Scottrade account shall also be divided equally. The estimated values of the accounts are $95,668 (Fidelity) and $1,643 (Scottrade). .... 13. Health Insurance. The wife shall be responsible for obtaining her own health insurance. She has not had health insurance coverage since 2008. She was unable to provide the Court with any information or


CourtListener opinion 4691600

CourtListener opinion 4691600 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Ramsey & Echols. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: of hours worked or offer any other details. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4691600 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 4691600

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 4691600

domestic relations order: trial, the court granted Patricia a divorce on her alleged grounds and awarded her 55% of Billy's disposable military retired pay, $5,000 in attorney's fees, and an additional $30,000 in conditional appellate attorney's fees. A final decree of divorce and domestic relations order reflecting the same, along with other relief, was entered thereafter. Billy timely filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, Billy argues the trial court erred by awarding Patricia (1) a portion of his disability payments, (2) attorney's fees, and (3) conditional appellate attorney's fees. DISCUSSION A. Disposable Retired Pay and Disability Payments In


CourtListener opinion 4691600

valuation/division: 9, 614 (Tex. 2007). A trial court does not abuse its discretion if there is some evidence of a substantive and probative character to support its decision. Garza, 217 S.W.3d at 549. Moreover, a trial court's mere mischaracterization of separate property as community property does not require reversal for abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Ramsey & Echols, 487 S.W.3d 762, 766-67 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied). Instead, an appellant has the burden of showing that any disparity in the property division was caused by the mischaracterization and the disparity was so substantial that it constituted an abuse of the tria


CourtListener opinion 4691646

CourtListener opinion 4691646 Extracted case name: VERZAL v. VERZAL. Extracted reporter citation: 906 N.W.2d 300. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4691646 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 4691646

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 4691646

QDRO: ther than another. 3. Divorce: Property Division: Equity. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. 4. Divorce: Pensions. A qualified domestic relations order implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. 5. Divorce: Property Division. In a divorce action, the purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. 6. Property Division. Equitable property division is a three-step process. The first step is


CourtListener opinion 4691646

retirement benefits: stribution of their household goods and vehicles. Michelle's request for alimony was denied. The district court valued the marital residence at $300,000 and awarded it to Michelle, subject to its mortgage of $197,673. Michelle was also awarded her employment retirement account valued at $93,154 and an investment account valued at $11,057. To Joshua, the court awarded his employment 401K retirement account with a value of $208,828, his employment 457 retire- ment account with a value of $12,277, his employment pension with a value of $103,408, and personal debt totaling $3,336. To equalize the distribution of the marital estate, t


CourtListener opinion 4691646

pension: 65 (Reissue 2016) authorizes a trial court to equitably distribute the marital estate according to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. 4. Divorce: Pensions. A qualified domestic relations order implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. 5. Divorce: Property Division. In a divorce action, the purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties. 6. Property Division. Equitable property division is a three-step process. The first step is to classify the parties' property as marital or nonma


CourtListener opinion 4691646

401(k): rital residence at $300,000 and awarded it to Michelle, subject to its mortgage of $197,673. Michelle was also awarded her employment retirement account valued at $93,154 and an investment account valued at $11,057. To Joshua, the court awarded his employment 401K retirement account with a value of $208,828, his employment 457 retire- ment account with a value of $12,277, his employment pension with a value of $103,408, and personal debt totaling $3,336. To equalize the distribution of the marital estate, the district court ordered Joshua to pay to Michelle, within 6 months of the entry of the decree, an equalization


CourtListener opinion 4693031

CourtListener opinion 4693031 Extracted case name: In re Estate of MacAnally. Extracted reporter citation: 20 P.3d 1197. Docket: 20CA0038 El Paso County District. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4693031 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 4693031


CourtListener opinion 4693031

QDRO: , superseding state laws that "relate to any employee benefit plan," id. § 1144(a). Id. at 885. 24 ¶ 41 Notably, Congress created an exception from ERISA's preemption and anti-alienation provisions for a narrow category of state court orders known as qualified domestic relations orders. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). "Where Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of evidence of a contrary legislative intent." Andrus v. Glover Constr. Co., 446 U.S. 608, 616-17 (1980). As the district court in this case noted in its well-reasoned order,


CourtListener opinion 4693031

retirement benefits: RISA does not contain a statutory order of precedence, "the protection of beneficiaries . . . [is] a paramount ERISA objective." VanderKam v. VanderKam, 776 F.3d 883, 886 (D.C. Cir. 2015). As the District of Columbia Circuit has explained, ERISA protects retirement benefits for millions of pension plan participants and their beneficiaries. 29 U.S.C. § 1001(b). Finding that the stability of retirement benefits directly affects the national economy, id. § 1001(a), Congress acted to ensure that accrued benefits remain unaltered by individuals and states alike. It accomplished this by prohibiting participants from assigni


CourtListener opinion 4693031

pension: personally liable for the amount of the payment . . . , to the person who would have been entitled to it were this section or part of this section not preempted. § 15-11-804(8)(b). C. ERISA ¶ 17 "ERISA is a comprehensive statute regulating employee pension and welfare plans." Estate of MacAnally, 20 P.3d at 1199. "The purpose of ERISA is ‘to protect the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans and to ensure that plans and plan sponsors are subject to a uniform body of benefit law . . . .'" Id. at 1201 (quoting Barrett v. Hay, 893 P.2d 1372, 1380 (Colo. App. 1995)). ¶


CourtListener opinion 4693031

ERISA: not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion. SUMMARY May 27, 2021 2021COA75 No. 20CA0038 Ragan v. Ragan — Employment Law — ERISA; General Provisions Concerning Probate and Nonprobate Transfers — Revocation of Probate and Nonprobate Transfers by Divorce This appeal concerns the interplay between Colorado's divorce revocation statute, section 15-11-804, C.R.S. 2020, under which any beneficiary designation of a former spouse is automatically revoked upon divorce, and the Employee R


CourtListener opinion 4693299

CourtListener opinion 4693299 Extracted reporter citation: 787 F.2d 1569. Docket: 20-1034C. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4693299 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 4693299


CourtListener opinion 4693299

QDRO: D]esignated as a survivor beneficiary at her cost (if the same is necessary to assure the continuation of pension benefits to [Diane]) in the event of [Colonel Filo's] death. Counsel for [Diane] shall promptly prepare and submit to the Court an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this purpose. 1 All references here to the provisions of the SBP Act are to the law applicable at the time of the disputed deemed election in 2002. (See Defendant's Appendix ("DA") to Def. MJAR, ECF No. 21-1). 2 The Administrative Record is split between Exhibits 5 & 6 to ECF No. 20. However, these two volumes are consecutively paginated, t


CourtListener opinion 4693299

retirement benefits: Court concludes the United States reasonably awarded the survivorship benefits to Diane. Accordingly, the United States' Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record is GRANTED, and Gayle 's Cross-Motion is DENIED. I. Background United States military retirement benefits include payments to survivors of retired military personnel under the Survivor Benefit Plan ("SBP"), 10 U.S.C. § 1447 et seq. Upon the death of a retired service member enrolled in the SBP, a percentage of the decedent's retirement benefits will continue to be paid as a monthly annuity to the surviving beneficiary. (Id.). When a service member becomes elig


CourtListener opinion 4693299

pension: . 20). 2 The Judgment of Divorce issued by the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and dated March 6, 2001, provided that Diane would be: [D]esignated as a survivor beneficiary at her cost (if the same is necessary to assure the continuation of pension benefits to [Diane]) in the event of [Colonel Filo's] death. Counsel for [Diane] shall promptly prepare and submit to the Court an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this purpose. 1 All references here to the provisions of the SBP Act are to the law applicable at the time of the disputed deemed election in 2002. (See Defendant


CourtListener opinion 4693299

domestic relations order: d as a survivor beneficiary at her cost (if the same is necessary to assure the continuation of pension benefits to [Diane]) in the event of [Colonel Filo's] death. Counsel for [Diane] shall promptly prepare and submit to the Court an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this purpose. 1 All references here to the provisions of the SBP Act are to the law applicable at the time of the disputed deemed election in 2002. (See Defendant's Appendix ("DA") to Def. MJAR, ECF No. 21-1). 2 The Administrative Record is split between Exhibits 5 & 6 to ECF No. 20. However, these two volumes are consecutively paginated, t


CourtListener opinion 4693688

CourtListener opinion 4693688 Extracted reporter citation: 787 F.2d 1569. Docket: 20-1034C. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4693688 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 4693688


CourtListener opinion 4696072

CourtListener opinion 4696072 Extracted case name: T.C. v. K.C. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 20 NO 0472 Civil. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4696072 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 4696072

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 4696072

retirement benefits: al court "shall consider all of the following factors": (a) The income of the parties, from all sources, * * *; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the parties;


CourtListener opinion 4696072

domestic relations order: iction over the division of assets and liabilities; improperly ordered marital assets to be liquidated at public auction; utilized an exhibit that was not offered or admitted at trial; and failed to dispose of all assets and liabilities. {¶26} "[W]e review a domestic relations order dividing marital assets and liabilities on an abuse of discretion standard." Locke v. Locke, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 99-CO- 18, 2000 WL 1847661, * 2 (Dec. 12, 2000), citing Kaechele v. Kaechele (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 93, 94. "An abuse of discretion connotes more than a mere error of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is arbitrary, unreasonable o


CourtListener opinion 4696072

valuation/division: property, and then divide the marital property equitably between the spouses. R.C. 3105.171(B)." Lunger v. Lunger, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 16 CO 0026, 2017-Ohio-9008, ¶ 9. {¶28} In its January 13, 2020 judgment entry, the trial court stated the following: PROPERTY DIVISION The assets and liabilities are set forth in Defendant's exhibit A (attached). There is also the law suit against the Schleappi's. The assets and liabilities are marital. Plaintiff is awarded the 2015 Kia and should pay any debt thereon. Defendant is awarded 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and shall pay any debt thereon. Unless otherwise agreed by the par


CourtListener opinion 4696743

CourtListener opinion 4696743 Extracted reporter citation: 960 F.3d 736. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4696743 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 4696743


CourtListener opinion 4696743

QDRO: 20641 contribution plus interest. Thus, Chetlin was due a lump sum payment of $3,311.96 as of August 1, 2019. Exxon explained that Chetlin was limited to Broussard's contribution plus interest because he was divorced at his date of death and there was no Qualified Domestic Relations Order in place that would have provided her with a spouse's benefit such as an annuity. The letter advised Chetlin that she had 60 days to appeal the benefits determination. She did not pursue an administrative appeal and instead filed this lawsuit. Exxon filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not the proper defendant, that Chetlin failed t


CourtListener opinion 4696743

retirement benefits: or the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CV-1986 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Medora Chetlin filed this suit against Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation ("Exxon") after it denied her claim for her deceased ex-husband's retirement benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2021 No. 20-20641 1974 ("ERISA


CourtListener opinion 4696743

ERISA: the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2021 No. 20-20641 1974 ("ERISA"). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Exxon. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. I. Facts & Procedural History Nathan Broussard was employed by Exxon from 1968 to March 1982. He was enrolled in the Mobil Oil Retirement Annuity Plan. Broussard and Chetlin were married the first six years that Broussard worked for Exxon and divorc


CourtListener opinion 4696743

domestic relations order: ntribution plus interest. Thus, Chetlin was due a lump sum payment of $3,311.96 as of August 1, 2019. Exxon explained that Chetlin was limited to Broussard's contribution plus interest because he was divorced at his date of death and there was no Qualified Domestic Relations Order in place that would have provided her with a spouse's benefit such as an annuity. The letter advised Chetlin that she had 60 days to appeal the benefits determination. She did not pursue an administrative appeal and instead filed this lawsuit. Exxon filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not the proper defendant, that Chetlin failed t


CourtListener opinion 4700508

CourtListener opinion 4700508 Extracted case name: GARCIA v. GARCIA. Docket: 1 CA-CV 20-0524 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4700508 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 4700508


CourtListener opinion 4700508

QDRO: the Public Safety Pension Retirement System ("PSRS Plan"). ¶3 The divorce was finalized in August 2013. In the dissolution decree, the court (1) awarded Wife "the entirety of the deferred compensation," and (2) appointed James Popp to prepare "any necessary" qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") using the reserved jurisdiction method to equitably divide the remaining assets, including Wife's PSRS Plan. The court also granted Wife's request for reasonable attorney fees and costs because "Husband acted unreasonably in the litigation." Though the court stated it had "signed the submitted order" granting attorney fees, it had not. II. Post-D


CourtListener opinion 4700508

retirement benefits: ever collect on a personal judgment against Husband. ¶9 In the end, however, the court awarded Wife an independent $40,000 judgment against Husband with simple interest to accrue at 5.5% per annum. The court concluded it was likely "impossible to divide the retirement accounts and compensate Wife in the way the Decree 3 GARCIA v. GARCIA Decision of the Court described." On one hand, the reserve jurisdiction method would deprive Wife of accrued interest, and Wife might still not recover $40,000 from Husband depending on "the amount of the monthly retirement payments" and "how long she lived." On the other hand, the court cou


CourtListener opinion 4700508

pension: e court found Husband wasted $40,000 in community assets and determined this case "present[s] a unique set of facts or circumstance" in which an "unequal division of community property [was] appropriate to achieve equity." The court also found that Wife had a pension and deferred compensation plan through the Public Safety Pension Retirement System ("PSRS Plan"). ¶3 The divorce was finalized in August 2013. In the dissolution decree, the court (1) awarded Wife "the entirety of the deferred compensation," and (2) appointed James Popp to prepare "any necessary" qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") using the reserv


CourtListener opinion 4700508

domestic relations order: Safety Pension Retirement System ("PSRS Plan"). ¶3 The divorce was finalized in August 2013. In the dissolution decree, the court (1) awarded Wife "the entirety of the deferred compensation," and (2) appointed James Popp to prepare "any necessary" qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") using the reserved jurisdiction method to equitably divide the remaining assets, including Wife's PSRS Plan. The court also granted Wife's request for reasonable attorney fees and costs because "Husband acted unreasonably in the litigation." Though the court stated it had "signed the submitted order" granting attorney fees, it had not. II. Post-D


CourtListener opinion 4701742

CourtListener opinion 4701742 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4701742 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 4701742


CourtListener opinion 4701742

QDRO: serting that Wife was in contempt of the final decree due to her failure to return his personal belongings to him as ordered by the trial court. In March 2019, the trial court granted Husband's motion to file a corrected qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) clarifying the proper distribution of his retirement benefits. Wife filed a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 in December 2019 seeking amendment of the trial court's final divorce decree. She alleged that, since the divorce, she had learned of Husband's entitlement to a pension from the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund and that this inform


CourtListener opinion 4701742

retirement benefits: ed by this court in November 2013. See Tomes v. Tomes, No. M2012-02441-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 6196296 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2013). In January 2017, Wife filed a petition for civil contempt alleging that Husband failed to pay temporary spousal support and TVA retirement benefits as ordered in the trial court's final decree. Wife further asserted that Husband failed to inform her whether he was receiving social security benefits and that she was entitled to half of those benefits. Husband answered, denying Wife's allegations, and filed a counterpetition asserting that Wife was in contempt of the final decree due to her failure to


CourtListener opinion 4701742

pension: roper distribution of his retirement benefits. Wife filed a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 in December 2019 seeking amendment of the trial court's final divorce decree. She alleged that, since the divorce, she had learned of Husband's entitlement to a pension from the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund and that this information had not been disclosed during the divorce proceedings. A hearing was held on May 6, 2020, on Wife's petition for contempt and Rule 60 motion as well as Husband's counterpetition. After the hearing, each party submitted a list of personal property items at issue and their estim


CourtListener opinion 4701742

domestic relations order: filed a counterpetition asserting that Wife was in contempt of the final decree due to her failure to return his personal belongings to him as ordered by the trial court. In March 2019, the trial court granted Husband's motion to file a corrected qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) clarifying the proper distribution of his retirement benefits. Wife filed a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 in December 2019 seeking amendment of the trial court's final divorce decree. She alleged that, since the divorce, she had learned of Husband's entitlement to a pension from the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund and that this


CourtListener opinion 4703080

CourtListener opinion 4703080 Extracted reporter citation: 166 N.E.3d 1180. Docket: from 12 years earlier. He said that he had not retr. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4703080 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 4703080

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 4703080

QDRO: rriage ended in divorce on October 17, 2001. In stipulations incorporated into the divorce decree, the Ostaneks agreed that Gregory's pension with the Federal Employees Retirement System would "be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO [qualified domestic-relations order]." The court clerk served the divorce decree on Gregory at his mother's address, 2250 Greenridge Drive in Wickliffe, Ohio. Gregory had used that address because he had moved out of the marital home, which was located at 2597 Townline Road in Madison, Ohio, and was relocating to 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO the Washington,


CourtListener opinion 4703080

retirement benefits: However, R.C. 3105.171(I) does not explicitly divest the domestic-relations court of its subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, any error in the domestic-relations court's exercise of its 2 January Term, 2021 jurisdiction in issuing an order that divides retirement benefits in a way that modifies a divorce decree in violation of R.C. 3105.171(I) renders the resulting order voidable, not void. See Harper at ¶ 26. {¶ 5} Appellee, Gregory F. Ostanek, moved to vacate an order that set forth how his federal retirement benefits would be shared with his former spouse, appellant, Julia M. Ostanek. In that motion, he asserted that th


CourtListener opinion 4703080

pension: ment of error that it declined to address as moot. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 7} Julia and Gregory Ostanek's 23-year marriage ended in divorce on October 17, 2001. In stipulations incorporated into the divorce decree, the Ostaneks agreed that Gregory's pension with the Federal Employees Retirement System would "be divided 50/50 with the court reserving jurisdiction to issue a QDRO [qualified domestic-relations order]." The court clerk served the divorce decree on Gregory at his mother's address, 2250 Greenridge Drive in Wickliffe, Ohio. Gregory had used that address because he had moved out of the marital home, w


CourtListener opinion 4703080

survivor benefits: April 23, 2001) and the denominator of which is the total number of months of the Employee's Creditable Service accrued under the Federal Employees Retirement System." (Emphasis sic.) The order also required OPM to 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO provide Julia a survivor benefit and for Julia and Gregory to share the cost of that benefit equally. {¶ 13} The domestic-relations court did not direct the clerk to serve the order on Gregory, nor is there an entry on the docket indicating that the clerk served it on him. See Civ.R. 58(B) ("When the court signs a judgment, the court shall endorse thereon a direction to the clerk to serve


CourtListener opinion 4704361

CourtListener opinion 4704361 Extracted case name: ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING v. PETITIONS FOR BOSCHAL LEE. Extracted reporter citation: 18 Cal.App.5th 340. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4704361 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 4704361


CourtListener opinion 4704361

QDRO: ir misconduct; Lisa was entitled to half of the net value of the community's bank accounts; and Boschal was not entitled to spousal support from Lisa. The court also ordered that Lisa's and Boschal's respective pension and retirement accounts be divided via a qualified domestic relations order, the cost of which was to be divided equally between the parties. The court ordered Lisa to pay child support to Boschal of $184 per month effective July 1, 2018, and confirmed that each person would retain the automobile that was in his or her possession. 3. The September 19, 2018 Judgment On September 19, 2018, the family court issued a judgment that in


CourtListener opinion 4704361

retirement benefits: ivision of the following property: "a. Former family residence on Arriba Drive, Monterey Park, CA [(Arriba Drive property)]; "b. Rental property on Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA [(Grand Avenue property)]; "c. Mitchell and Company; "d. Pensions and other retirement accounts; and "e. Three (3) automobiles. "(2) Reimbursement for payment of community debts; "(3) Watts[4] charges for [Boschal's] occupation of the family residence; "(4) [Lisa's] claims of breach of fiduciary duties, including" breaches of the restraining orders; "(5) Child support; "(6) [Boschal's] request for spousal support; "(7) [Lisa's] request for at


CourtListener opinion 4704361

pension: e to Lisa for her attorney fees and costs for their misconduct; Lisa was entitled to half of the net value of the community's bank accounts; and Boschal was not entitled to spousal support from Lisa. The court also ordered that Lisa's and Boschal's respective pension and retirement accounts be divided via a qualified domestic relations order, the cost of which was to be divided equally between the parties. The court ordered Lisa to pay child support to Boschal of $184 per month effective July 1, 2018, and confirmed that each person would retain the automobile that was in his or her possession. 3. The September 19, 2018


CourtListener opinion 4704361

domestic relations order: uct; Lisa was entitled to half of the net value of the community's bank accounts; and Boschal was not entitled to spousal support from Lisa. The court also ordered that Lisa's and Boschal's respective pension and retirement accounts be divided via a qualified domestic relations order, the cost of which was to be divided equally between the parties. The court ordered Lisa to pay child support to Boschal of $184 per month effective July 1, 2018, and confirmed that each person would retain the automobile that was in his or her possession. 3. The September 19, 2018 Judgment On September 19, 2018, the family court issued a judgment that in


CourtListener opinion 4704636

CourtListener opinion 4704636 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Trigg. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4704636 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 4704636


CourtListener opinion 4704636

QDRO: eave and earnings statement from April 30, 1994 reflects that at the time of the divorce, Husband had contributed $12,232.85 to the retirement fund and $8,673.44 to the TSP. After the divorce was final, counsel for both parties worked together on drafting the qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to be filed with the trial court and submitted to the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"), which is the federal agency that administers the CSRS. On January 13, 1995, then-counsel for Husband submitted a draft QDRO to OPM. On April 27, 1996, OPM responded by letter stating that it does not pre-approve court orders or advise attorneys on how to d


CourtListener opinion 4704636

retirement benefits: on. Darlene Christmas Murray ("Wife") filed a petition for contempt in the General Sessions Court for Roane County (the "trial court") in 2015, alleging that her former husband, Louis Wade Godsey ("Husband"), should be held in contempt for failing to pay Wife retirement benefits to which she was entitled under their final decree of divorce. The trial court found Husband in contempt and awarded Wife, inter alia, $25,000.00 in attorney's fees as punishment. Because the evidence in the record preponderates against the trial court's finding that Husband actually and willfully violated a court order, we reverse. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Ap


CourtListener opinion 4704636

pension: om the failure of counsel to draft a COAP, rather than a QDRO, in compliance with the pertinent federal laws and regulations. See Pruitt v. Pruitt, 293 S.W.3d 537, 543 n.8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (noting that QDROs are "creatures of [ERISA]" and address private pension plans) (emphasis added); see also 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d) (addressing QDROs); 29 U.S.C. §§ 1003(b)(1), 1051; 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32) 4 According to Mr. Camp, Husband would have been unable to contact or negotiate with OPM on Wife's behalf even if he attempted to do so. - 14 - (exempting governmental plans from ERISA coverage). Inasmuch as the final decree re