CourtListener opinion 2637613

retirement benefits: ssolution of his marriage to Cleone Lewis (wife). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions. The parties had been married twenty-five years, and at the time of the final orders they had two principal assets, the family home and husband's retirement plan. The court found that the fair market value of the family home was $167,000, with an equity of $20,000, and awarded it to wife. The court divided husband's pension equally by means of a qualified domestic relations order. *205 During the marriage


CourtListener opinion 2637613

pension: e time of the final orders they had two principal assets, the family home and husband's retirement plan. The court found that the fair market value of the family home was $167,000, with an equity of $20,000, and awarded it to wife. The court divided husband's pension equally by means of a qualified domestic relations order. *205 During the marriage


CourtListener opinion 2637613

domestic relations order: principal assets, the family home and husband's retirement plan. The court found that the fair market value of the family home was $167,000, with an equity of $20,000, and awarded it to wife. The court divided husband's pension equally by means of a qualified domestic relations order. *205 During the marriage


CourtListener opinion 2643043

CourtListener opinion 2643043 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2643043 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 2643043

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 2643043

domestic relations order: adly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and the infliction of great bodily injury involving domestic violence 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), four counts of criminal threats (§ 422), four counts of disobeying a domestic relations order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)), two counts of vandalism (§ 594, subds. (b)(1) & (b)(2)(A)), one count of premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664) with the use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and the infliction of great bodily injury involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), one count of aggravated mayhem (§ 205) with use of a deadly


CourtListener opinion 2645677

CourtListener opinion 2645677 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of NATHAN and ROBIN LA MOURE. NATHAN D. LA MOURE. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2645677 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 2645677

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 2645677

QDRO: fined benefit trust plan governed exclusively by ERISA. Therefore the trial court did not have authority to determine whether the plan was a qualified ERISA plan, and funds in the pension plan could only be accessed by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The court ordered the release of any funds held by the levying officer. Robin immediately filed an ex parte motion for reconsideration of the October 18, 2010 order granting Nathan's claim of exemption. Robin requested the trial court to 11 vacate the order, deny Nathan's claim of exemption, and order the Orange County sheriff to hold the pension


CourtListener opinion 2645677

retirement benefits: law as a sole practitioner, to pay Robin spousal and child support. Nathan fell behind on his support obligations. In April 2009, the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) issued an order to Morgan Stanley to withhold funds from Nathan's retirement accounts for the purpose of collecting child support arrears. On April 20, 2009, Nathan filed a claim of exemption and ex parte motion to quash the levy on his Morgan Stanley IRA rollover and IRA accounts. 3 In May 2009, the trial court heard and denied Nathan's claim of exemption and motion to quash/recall the IRA levy. On June 5, 2009, Nathan faxed the DCS


CourtListener opinion 2645677

pension: e & Williams, Rick D. Williams and Shelly L. Hanke for Respondent. 1 I INTRODUCTION1 This matter arises out of the dissolution of Nathan D. La Moure's marriage to Robin La Moure and consequential division of assets, including Nathan's defined benefit pension plan (pension plan). Nathan appeals two orders: (1) a July 23, 2010 order restraining disbursements from Nathan's pension plan and (2) a December 1, 2010 order granting reconsideration of the court's October 18, 2010 order, granting Nathan's claim of exemption and motion to quash orders restraining him from transferring assets from his pension plan. N


CourtListener opinion 2645677

ERISA: is pension plan. Nathan contends the trial court erred in ordering restraints on his pension plan assets and denying his claim of exemption, because ERISA2 preempts state law and prohibits alienation of pension plan assets and benefits. Nathan argues that ERISA's anti-alienation provisions prohibit payment of funds from Nathan's pension plan to Robin's attorney for attorney's fees. Nathan further argues that his pension plan is exempt from levy on the writ of execution, and the trial court erred in issuing the writ of execution upon the custodian of the assets of his pension plan. In addition, Nathan 1 On Ma


CourtListener opinion 2645953

CourtListener opinion 2645953 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Strassner. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: of months. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2645953 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 2645953


CourtListener opinion 2645953

QDRO: of an additional court date." The next day Jason's attorney notified the superior court that: (1) the parties had agreed to amended findings of fact; (2) the only issues remaining before the court related to the military qualifying domestic relations order (QDRO); and (3) the parties agreed that the court could sign either QDRO that it received from the parties. Jason's attorney also explained that Jason still would "like the opportunity to address the Court on October 14, and to have his QDRO expert . . . available by phone to answer any of the Court's questions or concerns regarding the dueling QDRO's." Three day


CourtListener opinion 2645953

retirement benefits: t violated federal law; (4) the superior court erred by awarding Beverly additional compensation, outside the scope of the settlement agreement, without explanation; and (5) the superior court erred by barring the parties' children from coverage under Jason's retirement plan. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW "We construe property settlement agreements in divorce actions in accordance with basic principles of contract law. Questions of contract interpretation are reviewed de novo."1 "We review the equitable division of marital property for abuse of discretion . . . ."2 We review factual findings supporting a property division for clear


CourtListener opinion 2645953

pension: ger, Justices. WINFREE, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A husband and wife divorced in 2011. They entered into a property settlement agreement, providing that the wife would receive 55% of the marital estate and 50% of the marital share of the husband's military pension. The parties then disputed how to properly effectuate the settlement agreement — disagreeing over what portion of the husband's pension was divisible, whether the division could require indemnification for reductions in disposable retirement pay, and whether the division could include a survivor benefit plan annuity not mentioned in the settlement agreemen


CourtListener opinion 2645953

domestic relations order: order to prevent the need of an additional court date." The next day Jason's attorney notified the superior court that: (1) the parties had agreed to amended findings of fact; (2) the only issues remaining before the court related to the military qualifying domestic relations order (QDRO); and (3) the parties agreed that the court could sign either QDRO that it received from the parties. Jason's attorney also explained that Jason still would "like the opportunity to address the Court on October 14, and to have his QDRO expert . . . available by phone to answer any of the Court's questions or concerns regarding the dueling QDRO's." Thr


CourtListener opinion 2646302

CourtListener opinion 2646302 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Strassner. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: of months. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2646302 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 2646302


CourtListener opinion 2646568

CourtListener opinion 2646568 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Shelstead. Extracted reporter citation: 439 U.S. 573. Docket: years of marriage. It is the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2646568 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 2646568


CourtListener opinion 2646568

QDRO: KI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTEENTH DIVISION V. [NO. DR-2011-4346] HONORABLE VANN SMITH, JUDGE ANNETTE COOPER APPELLEE AFFIRMED JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge In this divorce case, Larry Cooper appeals from the Pulaski County Circuit Court's entry of two qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) dividing his railroad-retirement benefits with his wife, appellee Annette Cooper. We affirm. The parties were married in 1963 and separated in September 2011, when appellee filed for divorce. At the time of the divorce, the parties owned a marital home in Sherwood that was unencumbered and valued at $275,000. Appellee accepted appellant's offer


CourtListener opinion 2646568

retirement benefits: They also owned vehicles, a credit-union account, and life-insurance policies. During the marriage, appellant worked at Union Pacific Railroad and Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad. He retired before the divorce and began receiving Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 748 retirement benefits from both (administered by Union Pacific and distributed in one payment each month). The circuit court entered a divorce decree on May 30, 2012, granting appellee a divorce. It accepted the parties' agreement concerning the marital home; ordered the Scottrade accounts to be divided equally; ordered appellant to pay appellee $10,135.50 to equalize the


CourtListener opinion 2646568

pension: mony to appellee in the amount of $1,000 per month for twelve months. The circuit court addressed the retirement accounts as follows: 26. Retirement accounts. Both parties are retired. [Appellant] was an employee of Union Pacific Railroad and receives a pension from Union Pacific Railroad as well as one from the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad. 27. The Court orders that the parties divide, pursuant to Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 573, 99 S.Ct. 802 (1979), the Defendant's Tier 2 benefits. The [Appellant] worked at Union Pacific and Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad during the parties' marriage and these ben


CourtListener opinion 2646568

ERISA: nsidered marital property subject to division. See Day v. Day, 281 Ark. 261, 663 S.W.2d 719 (1986); Meinholz v. Meinholz, 283 Ark. 509, 678 S.W.2d 348 (1984)). 4 Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 748 not qualified under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) because of the inclusion of a third party, Tim Cooper. He asserted that Tim was not an "alternate payee" within the statute's meaning. Appellant filed a second motion for reconsideration of the QDRO on the Missouri- Kansas-Texas Railroad pension on October 12, 2012. He stated: 6. That no Court Order exist [sic] which Divides [appellant's] interest i


CourtListener opinion 2647833

CourtListener opinion 2647833 Extracted case name: CONNIE JUNE TIPTON STOUT v. JACKIE HAROLD STOUT. Extracted reporter citation: 854 S.W.2d 87. Docket: E2013-00760-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2647833 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 2647833

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 2647833

QDRO: the proper adjudication of the parties' interests in certain marital retirement assets post divorce. The sole issue raised is whether the trial court properly retained jurisdiction over the retirement assets pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Based on prior precedent, we find that the trial court did properly retain jurisdiction, and we therefore affirm the trial court's decision in this case. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed; Case Remanded T HOMAS R. F RIERSON, II, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which C HARLES D. S USANO, J R., P.


CourtListener opinion 2647833

retirement benefits: e parties were married for twenty-four years. A hearing regarding the parties' divorce was held on February 19, 1997. The April 13, 1998 final decree of divorce recited, inter alia, that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the division of Husband's retirement benefits and provided that Wife was immediately awarded $6,000.00 from Husband's "Thrift retirement plan," plus an additional $2,400.00 from said plan as alimony in solido. The court reserved jurisdiction with regard to this asset to effectuate the transfer of funds. The decree further stated that "in the event that any of the foregoing provisions are deemed to be


CourtListener opinion 2647833

pension: ing a certain percentage of the benefits at the time of payment should lessen the administrative burden of the court. Courts routinely retain jurisdiction to supervise payments of alimony and child support and have, in the past, successfully divided vested pension rights by awarding each spouse a share. An administrative burden should not excuse an inequitable distribution of marital property. The choice of valuation method remains within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine after consideration of all relevant factors and circumstances. Cohen, 937 S.W.2d at 831 (internal citations omitted). Th


CourtListener opinion 2647833

alternate payee: paid anything from the Kennametal Retirement Plan." On July 29, 1999, an additional order was entered1 titled "Domestic Relations Order" ("DRO"), which stated that Husband was a participant in the Kennametal Inc. Retirement Income Plan and that Wife was the alternate payee. The DRO recognized that under Tennessee law, the accrued benefits under the plan constitute marital property subject to division, and that Wife was entitled to share in those benefits. The DRO assigned Wife fifty percent of Husband's accrued benefit as of February 28, 1997, and expressly provided that "there are not other orders which purport to dispose of


CourtListener opinion 2650774

CourtListener opinion 2650774 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of MAGGIE and. Extracted reporter citation: 81 Cal.App.4th 1131. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2650774 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 2650774


CourtListener opinion 2650774

QDRO: rt found that the marital residence on Sherbourne Drive in Los Angeles was community property and ordered the parties to meet and confer on the disposition of that residence. With respect to Jesse's pension benefits, the court ordered the parties to prepare a qualified domestic relations order for Jesse's pension plans with Exxon Mobil, McDonnell Douglas, and the United States Air Force. With respect to the household furniture and furnishings, the court awarded each party all furniture and furnishings currently in his or her possession as that party's sole and separate property. The trial court reserved its jurisdiction to make any orders that mi


CourtListener opinion 2650774

pension: ital dissolution action between her and respondent Jesse E. Ward, Jr.1 On appeal, Maggie argues that the trial court erred in (1) awarding certain real property to Jesse as his sole and separate property, (2) awarding all rights and benefits in an Exxon Mobil pension plan to Jesse as his sole and separate property, and (3) failing to award certain furniture and furnishings in the marital residence to Maggie as her sole and separate property. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment without prejudice to Maggie's right to seek further relief in the trial court. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY M


CourtListener opinion 2650774

alternate payee: s to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent or participant" and "is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law." (29 U.S.C. § 1056, subd. (d)(3)(B)(ii).) A domestic relations order is qualified if it "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or 7 reserved its jurisdiction to divide any community assets or liabilities that were not divided in the judgment and to make any other orders that might be necessary to carry out the terms of the judgment. While Maggie contends on appeal that there was evidence showing that Jesse fr


CourtListener opinion 2650774

domestic relations order: hat the marital residence on Sherbourne Drive in Los Angeles was community property and ordered the parties to meet and confer on the disposition of that residence. With respect to Jesse's pension benefits, the court ordered the parties to prepare a qualified domestic relations order for Jesse's pension plans with Exxon Mobil, McDonnell Douglas, and the United States Air Force. With respect to the household furniture and furnishings, the court awarded each party all furniture and furnishings currently in his or her possession as that party's sole and separate property. The trial court reserved its jurisdiction to make any orders that mi


CourtListener opinion 2650980

CourtListener opinion 2650980 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of SIGALIT VARDI. Extracted reporter citation: 172 Cal.App.4th 830. Docket: H038931 and a timely notice of. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2650980 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 2650980


CourtListener opinion 2650980

QDRO: APPELLATE DISTRICT In re the Marriage of SIGALIT VARDI H038931, H039676 AND EITAN ELIAHU. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. FL116729) SIGALIT VARDI, Respondent, v. EITAN ELIAHU, Appellant. I. INTRODUCTION In this marital dissolution action, the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)1 filed on March 12, 2010, awarded respondent Sigalit Vardi her community property interest in appellant Eitan Eliahu's retirement account. Finding that Eliahu had previously transferred the funds in the retirement account to his own accounts, on September 21, 2010, the trial court ordered issuance of a judgment in favor of Vardi and against Eliahu in


CourtListener opinion 2650980

retirement benefits: ndent, v. EITAN ELIAHU, Appellant. I. INTRODUCTION In this marital dissolution action, the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)1 filed on March 12, 2010, awarded respondent Sigalit Vardi her community property interest in appellant Eitan Eliahu's retirement account. Finding that Eliahu had previously transferred the funds in the retirement account to his own accounts, on September 21, 2010, the trial court ordered issuance of a judgment in favor of Vardi and against Eliahu in the amount of $52,466. The judgment was not satisfied and on 1 A " ‘QDRO is a subset of "domestic relations orders" that recognizes the right


CourtListener opinion 2650980

401(k): e reasons stated below, we will affirm both orders. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Eliahu and Vardi were married in 1993 and separated in 2004. The issues in the present case arise from the disposition of the parties' community property interest in a defined contribution plan known as the Quality Kernel, LLC profit sharing plan. Eliahu was a participant in the plan (hereafter, the retirement account) and Vardi was an alternate payee. On March 12, 2010, the trial court issued a QDRO that assigned Vardi as her sole and separate property more than $41,000 from the retirement account. The QDRO also provided that Vardi's funds


CourtListener opinion 2650980

alternate payee: n September 21, 2010, the trial court ordered issuance of a judgment in favor of Vardi and against Eliahu in the amount of $52,466. The judgment was not satisfied and on 1 A " ‘QDRO is a subset of "domestic relations orders" that recognizes the right of an alternate payee to "receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under [a retirement benefits] plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I).' [Citations.]" (In re Marriage of Padgett (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 830, 840-841.) September 20, 2012, the trial court ordered that the amount of $63,558.62 ($52,466 plus attorney's fees and interest), be pai


CourtListener opinion 2651358

CourtListener opinion 2651358 Extracted reporter citation: 532 U.S. 141. Docket: for such purposes as may be necessary to grant full. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2651358 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 2651358


CourtListener opinion 2651358

QDRO: ief), for appellant. W. Hunter Old (Christopher T. Page; Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Sandra D.T. Griffin ("Mrs. Griffin") appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Sussex County ("circuit court") denying her request for entry of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), which she pursues so that a certain term of her prior divorce decree might be enforced. For the following reasons, we reverse the circuit court's order. I. BACKGROUND "When reviewing a [circuit] court's decision on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, granting it the benefit of any reasonable


CourtListener opinion 2651358

retirement benefits: he marriage as co-beneficiaries under all 401K Plans and other such plans which would be distributed upon the death of either party." At the time of his death, Mr. Griffin was employed by Dominion Virginia Power ("Dominion"). At Dominion, he qualified for retirement benefits and he elected a 401(k) plan, known as Dominion's Salaried Savings Plan ("Salaried Savings Plan" or "Plan"), which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The Salaried Savings Plan is a defined contribution plan designed to encourage retirement savings. Dominion's contributions to the plan depend on the participant's contr


CourtListener opinion 2651358

pension: an. Under the Salaried Savings Plan, the surviving spouse is the beneficiary upon the participant's death unless she has consented to another beneficiary. The Salaried Savings Plan documents also provide that "if you are divorced, benefit payments from the Pension Plan or Savings Plan may be made to your former spouse, your child, or other dependent only in response to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)." The Dominion Plan Administrator testified that the Salaried Savings Plan is not a survivor annuity and it is strictly payable to the designated beneficiary. In 2002, Mr. Griffin had named his children


CourtListener opinion 2651358

ERISA: n Virginia Power ("Dominion"). At Dominion, he qualified for retirement benefits and he elected a 401(k) plan, known as Dominion's Salaried Savings Plan ("Salaried Savings Plan" or "Plan"), which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The Salaried Savings Plan is a defined contribution plan designed to encourage retirement savings. Dominion's contributions to the plan depend on the participant's contributions and years of service. There is no actuarial analysis to determine the participant's benefits, and the participant's life expectancy is not a consideration in the Salaried Sav


CourtListener opinion 2653183

CourtListener opinion 2653183 Extracted case name: ROBERT L. MACY v. OUIDA J. MACY. Extracted reporter citation: 193 S.W.3d 495. Docket: M2012-02370-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2653183 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 2653183

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 2653183

QDRO: ovember 19, 2013 Session ROBERT L. MACY v. OUIDA J. MACY Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for DeKalb County No. 2011-CV-1 Ronald Thurman, Chancellor No. M2012-02370-COA-R3-CV - Filed February 11, 2014 This appeal challenges the effectiveness of a QDRO which requires Wife to pay taxes on a $115,000.00 divorce settlement. The trial court held that the amount should not be reduced by taxes. We conclude that the trial court erred in holding that Wife's $115,000.00 divorce settlement was not subject to reduction for taxes, and we reverse its holding in that regard. The case is remanded for further proceedings


CourtListener opinion 2653183

retirement benefits: Wife was required to execute quitclaim deeds conveying her interest in the above-properties to Husband. The MDA further provided: 2.5 As a division of marital property, the husband will pay to the wife the sum of $115,000.00, which shall be paid from his retirement account pursuant to paragraph 4.0 below, for any and all interest she has in the marital property which will become the property of the husband, included but not limited to, all of the realty ow[n]ed by the parties, and the husband's retirement account.2 .... 4.0 PENSION/RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS: Husband maintains a 401(k) account through his employment with Joh


CourtListener opinion 2653183

pension: suant to paragraph 4.0 below, for any and all interest she has in the marital property which will become the property of the husband, included but not limited to, all of the realty ow[n]ed by the parties, and the husband's retirement account.2 .... 4.0 PENSION/RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS: Husband maintains a 401(k) account through his employment with Johnson Controls, with the present balance being approximately $200,000.00, after deducting the loans outstanding on said account in the amount of approximately $16,000.00. The parties agree that wife shall receive the total sum of one hundred fifteen 1 Appellee's nam


CourtListener opinion 2653183

401(k): terest she has in the marital property which will become the property of the husband, included but not limited to, all of the realty ow[n]ed by the parties, and the husband's retirement account.2 .... 4.0 PENSION/RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS: Husband maintains a 401(k) account through his employment with Johnson Controls, with the present balance being approximately $200,000.00, after deducting the loans outstanding on said account in the amount of approximately $16,000.00. The parties agree that wife shall receive the total sum of one hundred fifteen 1 Appellee's name is spelled both Ouida and Quida throughout the


CourtListener opinion 2653513

CourtListener opinion 2653513 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2653513 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 2653513


CourtListener opinion 2653513

QDRO: COUNTY R. Terrence Ney, Judge Heather L. Mehigan (Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A., on briefs), for appellant. Deborah N. Arthur for appellee. William G. Sylvester (husband) appeals from the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which set forth Claudette G. Sylvester's (wife) entitlement to a portion of husband's military retired pay. Husband presents two assignments of error on appeal: (1) the circuit court abused its discretion and committed an error of law when it entered the QDRO because it impermissibly modified the final divorce decree; and (2) the circuit court abuse


CourtListener opinion 2653513

pension: sed its discretion and committed an error of law when it entered the QDRO because it impermissibly modified the final divorce decree; and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion and committed an error of law when it entered the QDRO dividing husband's pension because the final divorce decree violated the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the ruling of the circuit court.1  Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 We need not address husband's second assignment of error because of our decision on the


CourtListener opinion 2653513

domestic relations order: in spite of the terms of the final divorce decree, that wife is not entitled to any of his pension.2 We disagree. Under Rule 1:1, courts ordinarily lose jurisdiction twenty-one days after entry of a decree, but when qualifying or maintaining a qualified domestic relations order, courts may "[m]odify any order . . . intended to . . . divide any pension [plan] . . . to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order." Such modification, however, must be "consistent with the substantive provisions of the original decree" and not "simply to adjust its terms in light of the parties' changed circu


CourtListener opinion 2653513

valuation/division: O from the circuit court to revise the formula. In a QDRO, the circuit court revised the formula.3 Husband argues that our decision in Hastie v. Hastie, 29 Va. App. 776, 514 S.E.2d 800 (1999), is controlling. In Hastie, the wife was entitled to 40% of the marital portion of the husband's military pension. The marital portion was defined as 60.1% of the total pension. Accordingly, the trial court awarded the wife a total of $102,496.40 payable in monthly installments until paid in full. The husband sought an order to conform the terms of the divorce decree to reflect that the payments would total $102,496.40. The wife so


CourtListener opinion 2654760

CourtListener opinion 2654760 Extracted reporter citation: 290 U.S. 111. Docket: 1764-12S. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2654760 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 2654760


CourtListener opinion 2654760

QDRO: c. 4975(c). Sec. 4975(f)(6)(A) and (B)(i)(II) excepts from the exemption individual retirement accounts and annuities. See sec. 7701(a)(37). - 11 - described in section 404(k); (7) to an employee for medical care; or (8) to an alternate payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Sec. 72(t)(2); see also sec. 72(t)(2)(A)(vii), (B)-(G) (setting forth other exceptions not applicable here). When petitioner received the distribution, he had not reached the age of 59- 1/2, and he has not alleged or shown that he comes within any of the other exceptions under section 72(t). Therefore, respondent's determination that petitioners are


CourtListener opinion 2654760

retirement benefits: income tax of $14,165 and an accuracy- related penalty under section 6662(a) of $2,833. The issues for decision are whether petitioners: (1) failed to report as income a taxable retirement distribution from a simplified employee pension (SEP) individual retirement account (IRA); (2) are liable for the 10% additional tax under section 72(t); and (3) are liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).1 A few of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received in evidence are incorporated herein by reference. Petitioners resided in Florida when the petition


CourtListener opinion 2654760

pension: determined a deficiency in income tax of $14,165 and an accuracy- related penalty under section 6662(a) of $2,833. The issues for decision are whether petitioners: (1) failed to report as income a taxable retirement distribution from a simplified employee pension (SEP) individual retirement account (IRA); (2) are liable for the 10% additional tax under section 72(t); and (3) are liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).1 A few of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received in evidence are incorporated herein by reference. Petitioners


CourtListener opinion 2654760

alternate payee: 4975(d)(1) are exempt from sec. 4975(c). Sec. 4975(f)(6)(A) and (B)(i)(II) excepts from the exemption individual retirement accounts and annuities. See sec. 7701(a)(37). - 11 - described in section 404(k); (7) to an employee for medical care; or (8) to an alternate payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Sec. 72(t)(2); see also sec. 72(t)(2)(A)(vii), (B)-(G) (setting forth other exceptions not applicable here). When petitioner received the distribution, he had not reached the age of 59- 1/2, and he has not alleged or shown that he comes within any of the other exceptions under section 72(t). Therefore,


CourtListener opinion 2657109

CourtListener opinion 2657109 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2657109 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 2657109

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 2657109

domestic relations order: order that [appellant] have no contact with Linda Kalish nor come within 100 yards of Linda Kalish; . . . and number five, the 5 defendant intentionally violated the court order." [¶] [¶] [¶] [¶] [¶] "You must not find [appellant] guilty of disobeying [a] domestic relations order in . . . count 4–unless all of you agree that . . . the People have proved specifically that the [appellant] committed the offense on September 28, 2011. [¶] Evidence that the [appellant] may have committed the alleged offense on another day is not sufficient for you to find him guilty of the offense charged." Evidence was presented that Kalish obtained a


CourtListener opinion 2657174

CourtListener opinion 2657174 Extracted reporter citation: 383 S.W.3d 833. Docket: of other accounts were raised in circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2657174 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 2657174

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 2657174

QDRO: ground Brook and Dena married in June 1993 and divorced in March 2005. The March 2005 divorce decree divided their property, including individual retirement accounts. Approximately three years after the divorce decree was entered, orders purporting to be Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) were entered. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-18-101 (Repl. 2009) defines a QDRO as being a state domestic-relations order that creates or recognizes an alternate payee's right to receive benefits of a participant's 1 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 192 retirement plan. Section 9-18-102(a) (Repl. 2009) empowers circuit courts to enter qualified dome


CourtListener opinion 2657174

retirement benefits: ION [NO.DR-2004-720] V. HONORABLE RICHARD A. DENA A. ROGERS MOORE, JR., JUDGE APPELLEE REVERSED AND REMANDED BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge Brook Rogers appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court's decision ordering him to pay Dena Rogers certain marital retirement benefits. Brook argues that the circuit court erred in ruling that he owed Dena $40,709.85 in retirement benefits. We reverse the court's order that awarded Dena $40,709.85 and remand the case for further proceedings. I. Factual and Procedural Background Brook and Dena married in June 1993 and divorced in March 2005. The March 2005 divorce decree divided the


CourtListener opinion 2657174

pension: count, that was titled solely in her name during the marriage, but it is not at issue in this appeal. Brook held three retirement accounts solely in his name during the marriage. Specifically, when the divorce decree was entered he held an AT&T (later SBC) Pension Plan; an AT&T/SBC 401(k) Savings Plan; and a Janus Fund IRA. Dena has not challenged how the circuit court distributed Brook's AT&T/SBC Pension Plan, so it is not at issue. Only the AT&T/SBC 401(k) plan and the Janus Fund IRA are important to this appeal. And the two retirement accounts created after the divorce, the 2006 USAA Roth IRA and the 2008 USA


CourtListener opinion 2657174

401(k): ely in her name during the marriage, but it is not at issue in this appeal. Brook held three retirement accounts solely in his name during the marriage. Specifically, when the divorce decree was entered he held an AT&T (later SBC) Pension Plan; an AT&T/SBC 401(k) Savings Plan; and a Janus Fund IRA. Dena has not challenged how the circuit court distributed Brook's AT&T/SBC Pension Plan, so it is not at issue. Only the AT&T/SBC 401(k) plan and the Janus Fund IRA are important to this appeal. And the two retirement accounts created after the divorce, the 2006 USAA Roth IRA and the 2008 USAA IRA, are at issue. Dur


CourtListener opinion 2659058

CourtListener opinion 2659058 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2659058 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 2659058


CourtListener opinion 2659058

QDRO: equiring him to pay wife $144,966.33, contending that the only existing asset from which he could satisfy the monetary award was his 401(K) retirement account; (3) refusing to allow him to satisfy wife's equitable distribution award from his 401(K) by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); and (4) requiring him to satisfy the equitable distribution award to wife by June 30, 2015. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. I. BACKGROUND Husband and wife married on June 24, 2000 and separated on August 19, 2011.1 Husband


CourtListener opinion 2659058

retirement benefits: urt erred by (1) incorrectly valuing his interest in the law firm; (2) failing to consider the tax consequences of requiring him to pay wife $144,966.33, contending that the only existing asset from which he could satisfy the monetary award was his 401(K) retirement account; (3) refusing to allow him to satisfy wife's equitable distribution award from his 401(K) by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); and (4) requiring him to satisfy the equitable distribution award to wife by June 30, 2015. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is n


CourtListener opinion 2659058

401(k): rial court erred by (1) incorrectly valuing his interest in the law firm; (2) failing to consider the tax consequences of requiring him to pay wife $144,966.33, contending that the only existing asset from which he could satisfy the monetary award was his 401(K) retirement account; (3) refusing to allow him to satisfy wife's equitable distribution award from his 401(K) by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); and (4) requiring him to satisfy the equitable distribution award to wife by June 30, 2015. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413


CourtListener opinion 2659058

domestic relations order: im to pay wife $144,966.33, contending that the only existing asset from which he could satisfy the monetary award was his 401(K) retirement account; (3) refusing to allow him to satisfy wife's equitable distribution award from his 401(K) by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO); and (4) requiring him to satisfy the equitable distribution award to wife by June 30, 2015. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. I. BACKGROUND Husband and wife married on June 24, 2000 and separated on August 19, 2011.1 Husband


CourtListener opinion 2660521

CourtListener opinion 2660521 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2660521 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 2660521


CourtListener opinion 2660521

retirement benefits: Plaintiff Cheryl Rivera was married to Luis Rivera, a District of Columbia police officer, until their divorce in February 2009. Mr. Rivera died later that year, and Ms. Rivera sought survivor benefits from the District of Columbia Police and Firefighters Retirement Plan (hereinafter "Plan"). When the District of Columbia Retirement Board (hereinafter "DCRB") and the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of D.C. Pensions (hereinafter "ODCP") denied her request, Ms. Rivera filed the instant suit against DCRB; the Plan; the United States Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew; 1 and Mr. Rivera's two surviving children, A.R. and G


CourtListener opinion 2660521

pension: cts Not in Dispute (Dkt. #44-4) (hereinafter "Pl.'s SOF") ¶¶ 1–2. Until his death in December 2009, Mr. Rivera served as a District of Columbia Police Officer and was an active participant in the D.C. Police and Firefighters Retirement Plan, which provides pension, survivor, and other benefits to its members and their beneficiaries. See id. ¶¶ 4–6; Treasury's Statement of Facts (Dkt. #49) (hereinafter "Treasury's SOF") ¶ 8; see also generally D.C. Code §§ 5-701 et seq. Pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as amended, D.C. Code §§ 1-801 et seq., the Plan is funded by both the District of Columbia and the f


CourtListener opinion 2660521

domestic relations order: n her appeal. See A.R. 65–88. In January 2011, DCRB and Treasury jointly issued a decision denying Ms. Rivera appeal. 3 See A.R. 2–10. The decision reasoned that "[n]either the Plan nor the Spouse Equity Act expressly define[s] a posthumous nunc pro tunc [domestic relations order] as a qualifying court order." Id. at 6 (citing D.C. Code §§ 1-529.02(c), 1-529.03(b)–(c)). "Absent a qualifying order entered into prior to an active Plan participant's death," DCRB and ODCP went on to explain, a survivor's legal entitlement to Plan benefits "are fixed at the time of the participant's death by operation of law." Id. Accordingly, becaus


CourtListener opinion 2660521

survivor benefits: of the United States Department of the Treasury, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Cheryl Rivera was married to Luis Rivera, a District of Columbia police officer, until their divorce in February 2009. Mr. Rivera died later that year, and Ms. Rivera sought survivor benefits from the District of Columbia Police and Firefighters Retirement Plan (hereinafter "Plan"). When the District of Columbia Retirement Board (hereinafter "DCRB") and the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of D.C. Pensions (hereinafter "ODCP") denied her request, Ms. Rivera filed the instant suit against DCRB; the Plan; the United States Secretary of the T


CourtListener opinion 2660681

CourtListener opinion 2660681 Extracted case name: PBGC v. LTV. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2660681 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 2660681


CourtListener opinion 2660681

QDRO: February 2003, John sought to substitute Gaylyn as the survivor beneficiary under his retirement plan through a Domestic Relations Order ("DRO") entered by a Texas state court. 1 The Plan initially approved the DRO as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") and substituted Gaylyn as an alternate survivor beneficiary. In 2005, however, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") became statutory trustee of the Plan, and in the course of reviewing John's benefit payments, PBGC determined that Gaylyn's purported substitution as an alternate beneficiary was invalid and that Melissa remained the survivo


CourtListener opinion 2660681

retirement benefits: tion No. 09-cv-1907 (RLW) v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION and MELISSA VANDERKAM, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Upon his retirement from the Huffy Corporation in August 1994, John VanderKam began receiving benefits under the Huffy Corporation Retirement Plan in the form of a Joint and 100% Survivor Annuity. At that time, John was married to Melissa VanderKam, whom he had designated as the survivor beneficiary under the Plan. John and Melissa divorced eight years later, and, after remarrying Gaylyn Dieringer in February 2003, John sought to substitute Gaylyn as the survivor beneficiary under his retirement p


CourtListener opinion 2660681

pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN VANDERKAM and GAYLYN DIERINGER, Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 09-cv-1907 (RLW) v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION and MELISSA VANDERKAM, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Upon his retirement from the Huffy Corporation in August 1994, John VanderKam began receiving benefits under the Huffy Corporation Retirement Plan in the form of a Joint and 100% Survivor Annuity. At that time, John was married to Melissa VanderKam, whom he had desig


CourtListener opinion 2660681

ERISA: name, the Court refers to John, Melissa, and Gaylyn by their first names. 1 Through this action, John and Gaylyn (collectively, "Plaintiffs") seek reversal of PBGC's determination under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), arguing that PBGC's decision was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, et seq. Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that, even if the Court upholds PBGC's decision, the Court should impose a constructive trust under Texas common law on any survivor benefits received by


CourtListener opinion 2670200

CourtListener opinion 2670200 Extracted case name: NATALE v. NATALE. Extracted reporter citation: 167 P.3d 705. Docket: 1 CA-CV 12-0765. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2670200 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 2670200

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 2670200

QDRO: e to file the enforcement action. (3.) His position that he was somehow entitled to a 20% "contractor's fee." 7 NATALE v. NATALE Decision of the Court (4.) His endorsement of Wife's name on the insurance proceeds check. (5.) His failure to sign the "QDRO" in a timely manner, which required Wife to file the enforcement action. (6.) His failure to facilitate the division of the parties' personal property, which remains in his exclusive control, which required Wife to file the enforcement action. (7.) His failure to pay Wife her one-half interest in the parties' 2010 federal and state income tax refunds


CourtListener opinion 2670200

retirement benefits: on for contempt and enforcement and all unresolved issues. After the hearing on July 9, the court issued a signed minute entry on August 9, 2012, rejecting Husband's claim that he was entitled to a 20 percent contractor's fee, dividing Husband's non-qualified retirement accounts and ordering Husband to pay Wife $22,000 before he retires, requiring Wife to reimburse Husband if Husband's employer does not pay him a commensurate amount upon retirement, and finding that the current fair market value of the house equals $760,000. The minute entry also required Husband to timely purchase the house. If he failed to do so, Wife would be e


CourtListener opinion 2670200

pension: h subject matter jurisdiction over all domestic relations matters. In re Marriage of Dorman, 198 Ariz. 298, 301, ¶ 7, 9 P.3d 329, 332 (App. 2000). And the Arizona Supreme Court made clear in Johnson v. Johnson, 131 Ariz. 38, 41, 638 P.2d 705, 708 (1981), that pension rights, whether vested or non-vested, are community property if the rights were acquired during marriage and are subject to equitable division upon divorce. See also Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 180-81, 713 P.2d 1234, 1238-39 (1986) (holding non-mature pension benefits are community property subject to equitable division if acquired during the marriag


CourtListener opinion 2670200

valuation/division: ed or non-vested, are community property if the rights were acquired during marriage and are subject to equitable division upon divorce. See also Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176, 180-81, 713 P.2d 1234, 1238-39 (1986) (holding non-mature pension benefits are community property subject to equitable division if acquired during the marriage); Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. at 451-52, ¶ 16, 167 P.3d at 708- 5 NATALE v. NATALE Decision of the Court 09 (confirming that Johnson should be applied to non-mature pensions); see generally Rinegar v. Rinegar, 231 Ariz. 85, 90, ¶21, 290 P.3d 1208, 1213 (App. 2012) (explaining that the trial court h


CourtListener opinion 2670581

CourtListener opinion 2670581 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2670581 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 2670581


CourtListener opinion 2670581

QDRO: the other part[y's] pension benefit earned to date" and "[a]ppropriately worded qualified domestic relations orders will be drafted and submitted to the court for signature." Pursuant to the settlement, Jean's former counsel, Terry C. Aglietti,1 prepared two qualified domestic relations orders, which were subscribed as approved by Daryl's counsel and entered by the court on May 7, 1992. 1 Jean claims that Daryl's counsel drafted his order. However, the superior court specifically found that Aglietti prepared both orders, and this finding is supported by the fact that both orders were drafted on Aglietti's pleading paper. -2- 6895 The order


CourtListener opinion 2670581

retirement benefits: l Management, and distribution began when he retired in 2007. In 2007 Jean received a letter from the Office of Personnel Management informing her that the Office had "received and approved your application for a portion of your former spouse's civil service retirement benefit." The letter referenced federal regulations2 and went on to state that [b]y court order we are to pay you a lump sum of $22,459.81 from your former spouse's retirement benefit. By regulation we must pay this lump sum to you in installments equal to one half of your former spouse's gross monthly annuity until the lump sum is paid in full. Currently you


CourtListener opinion 2670581

pension: , Anchorage, for Appellant. David W. Baranow, Law Offices of David Baranow, Anchorage, for Appellee. Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and Bolger, Justices. FABE, Chief Justice. I. INTRODUCTION Jean Kollander seeks to modify the pension division in a qualified domestic relations order originally entered by the superior court in 1992. The federal pension administrator paid Jean's share of her former spouse's pension in accelerated lump sum payments from 2007 to 2008. In 2012 Jean brought a claim that she was instead entitled to lifetime monthly payments. After an evidentiary hearing, the su


CourtListener opinion 2670581

alternate payee: wever, the superior court specifically found that Aglietti prepared both orders, and this finding is supported by the fact that both orders were drafted on Aglietti's pleading paper. -2- 6895 The order entered on behalf of Jean reads, in relevant part: 6. Alternate payee, Jean R. Kollander, is entitled to one- half the sum of participant, Daryl E. Kollander's benefits as of April 1, 1990, payable from the contributions to the plan made by or on behalf of participant. 7. Distribution and calculation of these benefits pursuant to this order shall be pursuant to guidelines accepted by the Internal Revenue Service. (Empha


CourtListener opinion 2671358

CourtListener opinion 2671358 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Pennington. Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2671358 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 2671358


CourtListener opinion 2671358

QDRO: account with a non-spouse;2 and (2) the court erred by determining 1 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (2006). ERISA governs payment of federal pension plans to individuals other than the pension holder (termed "alternate payees"), id. § 1056(d)(3)(A), and defines a "qualified domestic relations order" as "creat[ing] or recogniz[ing] the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan," id. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i). An "alternate payee" is defined as "any spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant who is recognized by a domestic relations order a


CourtListener opinion 2671358

retirement benefits: property was domestic partnership property and divided that property equally between the parties. The superior court also considered three employment benefits that Boulds accumulated during his relationship with Nielsen: an insurance death benefit, a 401(k) retirement account, and a union pension. The court determined that the insurance death benefit and the 401(k) retirement account were not domestic partnership assets and belonged to Boulds alone. But the court determined that the union pension was a domestic partnership asset and was subject to division. Because Boulds appealed to this court, the superior court has not yet is


CourtListener opinion 2671358

pension: ip property and divided that property equally between the parties. The superior court also considered three employment benefits that Boulds accumulated during his relationship with Nielsen: an insurance death benefit, a 401(k) retirement account, and a union pension. The court determined that the insurance death benefit and the 401(k) retirement account were not domestic partnership assets and belonged to Boulds alone. But the court determined that the union pension was a domestic partnership asset and was subject to division. Because Boulds appealed to this court, the superior court has not yet issued an order dividin


CourtListener opinion 2671358

ERISA: re together. During the relationship Boulds accumulated three employment benefits through his employer: an insurance death benefit, a 401(k) retirement account, and a union pension governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act -2- 6901 (ERISA).1 When Boulds was first hired by his employer, he listed Nielsen as his intended pre-retirement death beneficiary for the union pension, even though the form specified that only a spouse, child, parent, or sibling could be listed. Boulds's employer told him approximately one year later that he could not list a cohabitant. He then listed his children as the


CourtListener opinion 2671783

CourtListener opinion 2671783 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of RONALD T. and. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2671783 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 2671783


CourtListener opinion 2671783

retirement benefits: Ronald anticipated his only income would be his social security retirement income of $2,113 a month and an estimated $1,933.84 in retirement from his employer. Ronald estimated that Margaret was earning approximately $2,873 per month based on her share of his retirement benefits and her disability payments. Ronald also filed an income and expense declaration with the court. In the declaration, Ronald indicated that his rental property income was approximately -$47. The rental property generated around $3,270 per month and had expenses including a $2,433.50 mortgage, a $327 property management fee, an average of $337.38 in gardeni


CourtListener opinion 2671783

pension: ement benefits without penalties. Ronald explained that there was an exception that allowed for penalty-free early withdrawals from the retirement fund if an individual was disabled. Ronald also said Margaret did not list the income she would receive from his pension fund pursuant to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order previously filed with the court. Ronald estimated Margaret would receive approximately $1,300 a month from the pension fund. He also asserted his bank records showed that Margaret was receiving $1,544 a month in disability payments, not $1,459 or $1,449. Ronald noted that Margaret had previously stated


CourtListener opinion 2671783

domestic relations order: d explained that there was an exception that allowed for penalty-free early withdrawals from the retirement fund if an individual was disabled. Ronald also said Margaret did not list the income she would receive from his pension fund pursuant to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order previously filed with the court. Ronald estimated Margaret would receive approximately $1,300 a month from the pension fund. He also asserted his bank records showed that Margaret was receiving $1,544 a month in disability payments, not $1,459 or $1,449. Ronald noted that Margaret had previously stated in court that she wished to remain the beneficiary of h


CourtListener opinion 2672048

CourtListener opinion 2672048 Extracted case name: DAVID R. SEATON ET AL. v. WISE PROPERTIES-TN. Extracted reporter citation: 356 S.W.3d 384. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2672048 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 2672048

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


CourtListener opinion 2672048

QDRO: settled. See Seaton, 2012 WL 2362144 at *8; see, e.g., Clark v. Clark, No. M2006-00934-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 1462226 at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 18, 2007) -10- (reversing the trial court's post-remand award of attorney's fees for services rendered in drafting a QDRO and stating: "By entertaining Wife's subsequent request for attorney's fees, the lower court acted in excess of its authority when it considered a previously settled issue outside its scope on remand."); Melton v. Melton, No. M2003-01420-COA-R10-CV, 2004 WL 63437 at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2004) (reversing the trial court's decision to conduct an eviden


CourtListener opinion 2672634

CourtListener opinion 2672634 Docket: was entry of the final order and COAPs. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2672634 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 2672634

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 2672634

QDRO: ty to . . . [m]odify any order . . . intended to affect or divide any pension, profit-sharing or deferred compensation plan or retirement benefits . . . only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order [QDRO] or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order. "The QDRO may not ‘modify a final divorce decree simply to adjust its terms in light of the parties' changed circumstances' but must be ‘consistent with the substantive provisions of the original decree.'" Hastie v. Hastie, 29 Va. App. 776, 780-81, 514 S.E.2d 800,


CourtListener opinion 2672634

retirement benefits: make any additional orders necessary to effectuate and enforce any order entered pursuant to this section, including the authority to . . . [m]odify any order . . . intended to affect or divide any pension, profit-sharing or deferred compensation plan or retirement benefits . . . only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order [QDRO] or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order. "The QDRO may not ‘modify a final divorce decree simply to adjust its terms in light of the parties' changed circumstances' but must be ‘consistent


CourtListener opinion 2672634

pension: e for Unpaid Marital Debts," including attorney's fees; (4) approving a Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP) regarding husband's interest in the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) with language that enables wife to obtain a portion of his pension even if she remarries, which was not part of the final decree of divorce; and (5) failing to modify child support.1 Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not d


CourtListener opinion 2672634

valuation/division: or her interest in husband's TSP. It also stated: By order entered on February 19, 2010 this Court awarded husband seven thousand one hundred thirty dollars ($7,130.00) for attorney's fees to be credited against wife's receipt of money and/or property in equitable distribution. This sum may be credited to her by an exchange in equitable distribution or paid by wife directly to husband. (Emphasis added.) Neither party appealed the final decree of divorce. At the hearing in July 2013, the trial court followed the final decree of divorce and ordered that wife would receive $53,827.50 for her share in the TSP. In his opening br


CourtListener opinion 2672717

CourtListener opinion 2672717 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: 2:11-cr-14051-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2672717 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 2672717


CourtListener opinion 2672717

QDRO: enerally cannot be assigned or alienated, see 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), there is a specific exception to this rule for "qualified domestic relations orders," which is what the distribution orders in this case were, id. § 1056(d)(3)(A). The law recognizes that a qualified domestic relations order creates "an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under the plan," id. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), and explicitly provides that a person designated as an "alternate payee under [such an order] shall be considered . . . a beneficiary under the plan," id. § 1056(d)(3)(J). For purposes of our di


CourtListener opinion 2672717

retirement benefits: appeal, filed in the hope of a lesser sentence. That hope, like the hopes that motivate many multiple matrimonies, will not be realized. I. Dr. Alfred Massam was an orthopedic surgeon in Sebring, Florida. In 1980 he set up two pension plans to provide retirement benefits for himself and the employees of his surgical practice. He served as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act administrator and trustee for both pension plans. In 2005 he and his fifth wife were divorced. The state court on March 9, 2005 entered two distribution orders allocating to his ex-wife $64,216 of his share in one of the pension plans and $


CourtListener opinion 2672717

pension: human breast," 1 can often be seen in matters of matrimony. Unfortunately for the defendant in this case, what sprang from his fifth matrimonial go round was a substantial property award to his fifth ex-wife. From that award sprang his embezzlement of the pension funds of his employees and his sentence of imprisonment for that crime. From that sentence sprang this appeal, filed in the hope of a lesser sentence. That hope, like the hopes that motivate many multiple matrimonies, will not be realized. I. Dr. Alfred Massam was an orthopedic surgeon in Sebring, Florida. In 1980 he set up two pension plans to prov


CourtListener opinion 2672717

ERISA: sed solely on intended loss. A credit against loss based on money returned is not available for intended loss alone. It is not available because the guidelines commentary concerning the credit requires that the money be returned 3 Although benefits under ERISA plans generally cannot be assigned or alienated, see 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), there is a specific exception to this rule for "qualified domestic relations orders," which is what the distribution orders in this case were, id. § 1056(d)(3)(A). The law recognizes that a qualified domestic relations order creates "an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all


CourtListener opinion 2673169

CourtListener opinion 2673169 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of LESLIE and TERRY MOORE. Extracted reporter citation: 203 Cal.App.3d 705. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2673169 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 2673169


CourtListener opinion 2673169

QDRO: e case for the trial 16 court to award Leslie one-half of $18,897.60, or $9,448.80, in the form of a reduction in the amount of her equalization payment. C. PERS The parties stipulated to, and the trial court entered, a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that divided the amount of Terry's PERS retirement account, at the time of separation, in half. The order was entered on May 20, 2010. Leslie asserts she began receiving her PERS benefits in September 2010. Leslie complains she was entitled to her share of PERS benefits beginning on March 26, 2009, and she contends the loss of this income was waste. We dis


CourtListener opinion 2673169

retirement benefits: pears to have been Terry's other employment benefits and, in particular, his accrued vacation and sick leave. The trial court never addressed the motion. 2. Analysis The medical trust is a community asset. Similar to a nonvested pension and other contingent retirement benefits, the medical trust's benefits are property rights because they represent a form of deferred compensation for services rendered. In this case, they are a contractual right derived from Terry's employment agreement with the City and earned by him while married to Leslie. They are thus a divisible community property asset. "Generally, all property acquired b


CourtListener opinion 2673169

pension: l trust. The other "asset" appears to have been Terry's other employment benefits and, in particular, his accrued vacation and sick leave. The trial court never addressed the motion. 2. Analysis The medical trust is a community asset. Similar to a nonvested pension and other contingent retirement benefits, the medical trust's benefits are property rights because they represent a form of deferred compensation for services rendered. In this case, they are a contractual right derived from Terry's employment agreement with the City and earned by him while married to Leslie. They are thus a divisible community property ass


CourtListener opinion 2673169

401(k): As president of the CPOA, Terry designed the entire trust. The medical trust is a unique asset designed to pay retirees a monthly benefit up to a certain maximum for covered medical expenses and health insurance premiums. To an extent, the medical trust is a defined contribution plan. The City pays a set amount each month into the trust for each public safety employee. That amount was $200 per month until January 1, 2009, when it was raised to $250 per month, and until January 1, 2010, when it was raised to $300 per month. The City began contributing to Terry's account in 2004, and as of April 2009, Terry had earned $7,324.24 in th


CourtListener opinion 2673609

CourtListener opinion 2673609 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Busch. Extracted reporter citation: 301 S.W.3d 104. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2673609 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 2673609


CourtListener opinion 2673609

QDRO: sting the information contained in the attached judgment was true and accurate. The trial court entered judgment pursuant to the settlement agreement on December 29, 2011. Husband retired on January 1, 2012. He filed a motion for the trial court to approve a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assigning Wife 40.14 percent of Husband's pension, After a hearing on April 17, 2012, the trial court issued an order, apparently based on an oral motion made at the hearing, ordering that the difference between what Wife received in maintenance and what she would be receiving from Ameren in pension payments be calculated, possibly resulting in a


CourtListener opinion 2673609

pension: 011, which provided that Husband would pay maintenance to Wife in the amount of $1,850 per month. Husband's maintenance obligation would terminate upon Husband's retirement from Ameren, at which point Husband and Wife would each receive a portion of Husband's pension benefits. The settlement agreement further provided that "[a]ny pension payments made to [Wife] within 30 days of the iast maintenance payment shall be reimbursed to [Husband] on a prorated basis of $61.67 per day." The settlement agreement stated that the parties "warrant[ed] that they ha[d] each disclosed to the other the full extent of their respective


CourtListener opinion 2673609

domestic relations order: information contained in the attached judgment was true and accurate. The trial court entered judgment pursuant to the settlement agreement on December 29, 2011. Husband retired on January 1, 2012. He filed a motion for the trial court to approve a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) assigning Wife 40.14 percent of Husband's pension, After a hearing on April 17, 2012, the trial court issued an order, apparently based on an oral motion made at the hearing, ordering that the difference between what Wife received in maintenance and what she would be receiving from Ameren in pension payments be calculated, possibly resulting in a


CourtListener opinion 2673958

CourtListener opinion 2673958 Extracted case name: DAVID RAY HOGGATT v. LORI ANN HOGGATT. Extracted reporter citation: 60 S.W.3d 721. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2673958 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 2673958

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 2673958

QDRO: al estate the full amount of the marital debt but that it erroneously used the figure of "$9,500" rather than the correct amount of "$12,500." We have adjusted the figures accordingly. 6 [Wife] is entitled to one-half (1/2) of 2/3 of [Husband's] pension by Qualified Domestic Relations order or $56.00 per month when [Husband] begins receiving his pension.5 Each party shall be solely responsible for the payment of their own [a]ttorney fees. * * * Each party shall be responsible for one-half (1/2) of the court costs in this cause. (Emphasis and footnotes added.) On February 8, 2013, the trial court entered an order on Wife's motion to


CourtListener opinion 2673958

pension: gross marital estate the full amount of the marital debt but that it erroneously used the figure of "$9,500" rather than the correct amount of "$12,500." We have adjusted the figures accordingly. 6 [Wife] is entitled to one-half (1/2) of 2/3 of [Husband's] pension by Qualified Domestic Relations order or $56.00 per month when [Husband] begins receiving his pension.5 Each party shall be solely responsible for the payment of their own [a]ttorney fees. * * * Each party shall be responsible for one-half (1/2) of the court costs in this cause. (Emphasis and footnotes added.) On February 8, 2013, the trial cou


CourtListener opinion 2673958

domestic relations order: the full amount of the marital debt but that it erroneously used the figure of "$9,500" rather than the correct amount of "$12,500." We have adjusted the figures accordingly. 6 [Wife] is entitled to one-half (1/2) of 2/3 of [Husband's] pension by Qualified Domestic Relations order or $56.00 per month when [Husband] begins receiving his pension.5 Each party shall be solely responsible for the payment of their own [a]ttorney fees. * * * Each party shall be responsible for one-half (1/2) of the court costs in this cause. (Emphasis and footnotes added.) On February 8, 2013, the trial court entered an order on Wife's motion to


CourtListener opinion 2673958

valuation/division: Lori Ann Hoggatt ("Wife"). The trial court classified, valued, and distributed the parties' property. On this appeal, Husband challenges aspects of the division of marital property. We modify the amount that the trial court ordered Wife to pay Husband in the property division. In all other respects, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed as Modified; Case Remanded C HARLES D. S USANO, JR., C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which T HOMAS R. F RIERSON, II, J., joined. D. M ICHAEL S WINEY, J., filed a separate dissenting opinion. Philip M


CourtListener opinion 2674602

CourtListener opinion 2674602 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Link. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2-13-1306 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2674602 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 2674602

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 2674602

domestic relations order: time, as equivalent to setting the amount of maintenance at zero until further order of court. Such an award is immediately enforceable and appealable. Id. ¶ 20 This court has long held that a trial court's "reservation" of jurisdiction over an issue in a domestic relations order does not necessarily indicate that the order is nonfinal. See In re Marriage of Wojcik, 362 Ill. App. 3d 144, 167-68 (2005) (discussing the "reserved-jurisdiction" approach to maintenance awards); In re Marriage of Marriott, 264 Ill. App. 3d 23, 41 (1994); In re Marriage of Bingham, 181 Ill. App. 3d 966, 971 (1989). Rather, trial courts often refer to "


CourtListener opinion 2674602

valuation/division: appropriate education, training, and employment; the standard of living established during the marriage; the duration of the marriage; the age and physical and emotional condition of each party; the tax - 22 - 2014 IL App (2d) 131306 consequences of the property division; any contribution and services by the recipient spouse to the other spouse; any valid agreement of the parties; and any other factor that the trial court expressly finds to be just and equitable. 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2012). A court is not limited to the enumerated factors in reaching an equitable determination, and no one factor is dispositive. In re


CourtListener opinion 2675302

CourtListener opinion 2675302 Extracted reporter citation: 909 P.2d 314. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2675302 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 2675302


CourtListener opinion 2675302

QDRO: s ("Mr. Ross") 2 survivor benefits to Jeannette Pritchow, Mr. Ross's former wife. Ms. Pritchow appeals the denial of her request for attorneys' fees. We affirm. (1) The district court did not err in interpreting the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") agreed to between Ms. Pritchow and Mr. Ross as awarding 100% of the survivor benefits to Ms. Pritchow. The plain language of the QDRO states that Ms. Pritchow is entitled to "the entirety of the survivor benefit payable pursuant to the Plan." Although Washington law applies a community property presumption that when a spouse continues to accumulate p


CourtListener opinion 2675302

pension: BLICATION MAY 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOINT TRUSTEES OF THE No. 13-35071 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION - PACIFIC D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01379-JLR MARITIME ASSOCIATION PENSION PLAN, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-counter-defendant, JEANETTE PRITCHOW, Defendant-cross-defendant - Appellee, v. KIM E ROSS, Defendant-cross-claimant - Appellant. JEANETTE PRITCHOW, No. 13-35074 Defendant-cross-defendant - D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01379-JLR Appellant, And * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except


CourtListener opinion 2675302

survivor benefits: vor pension benefits by the Joint Trustees of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union – Pacific Maritime Association Pension Plan ("the Plan"). Kim E. Ross ("Mrs. Ross") appeals the district court's award of 100% of Joseph E. Ross's ("Mr. Ross") 2 survivor benefits to Jeannette Pritchow, Mr. Ross's former wife. Ms. Pritchow appeals the denial of her request for attorneys' fees. We affirm. (1) The district court did not err in interpreting the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") agreed to between Ms. Pritchow and Mr. Ross as awarding 100% of the survivor benefits to Ms. Pritchow. The plain language of th


CourtListener opinion 2675302

valuation/division: Pritchow and Mr. Ross as awarding 100% of the survivor benefits to Ms. Pritchow. The plain language of the QDRO states that Ms. Pritchow is entitled to "the entirety of the survivor benefit payable pursuant to the Plan." Although Washington law applies a community property presumption that when a spouse continues to accumulate pension benefits following divorce, the former spouse should receive only those benefits that accrued during the marriage, state law does not mandate that approach. See Chavez v. Chavez (In re Chavez), 909 P.2d 314, 316 (Wash. App. 1996). Here, the QDRO is entirely clear with respect to survivor b


CourtListener opinion 2676785

CourtListener opinion 2676785 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Green. Extracted reporter citation: 400 S.W.3d 869. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2676785 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 2676785


CourtListener opinion 2676785

QDRO: ERTS, ) FILED: June 3, 2014 Respondent. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County The Honorable Twila K. Rigby, Judge Before Division Two: Victor C. Howard, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Mark D. Pfeiffer, JJ. Deborah Roberts ("Wife") appeals from a qualified domestic relations order or "QDRO" entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, which specifies that, under a 1990 dissolution decree, Wife is entitled to one-half of only the marital portion of her ex-husband‟s retirement benefits. We affirm. Factual Background Wife was married to Michael Roberts ("Husband") on April 9, 1976. Wife filed a petition to dissolve the marria


CourtListener opinion 2676785

retirement benefits: 9, 254 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998). "Conversely, if property was 4 acquired outside the marriage, it is presumed to be nonmarital." Petties v. Petties, 129 S.W.3d 901, 908 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). The distinction between marital and nonmarital property applies to retirement benefits. "It is well-settled in Missouri that only the portion of retirement benefits which are acquired during marriage are considered marital property subject to division under § 452.330." Rich v. Rich, 871 S.W.2d 618, 627 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994); see also Gambrel v. Gambrel, 943 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997); Mabon v. Mabon, 833 S.W.2d 488, 489 (Mo. App


CourtListener opinion 2676785

pension: decree incorporated a written Separation Agreement signed by both Husband and Wife. Husband was employed at the Marine Corps Finance Center in Kansas City, an agency of the federal government, during the marriage. His compensation package included certain pension rights through the Civil Service Retirement System. The Separation Agreement incorporated into the Dissolution Decree provided that Husband transferred to Wife Fifty percent (50%) of the Husband‟s Civil Service Retirement System "annuity with survivor benefit to named person having an insurable interest" as the surviving beneficiary thereof, subject to


CourtListener opinion 2676785

domestic relations order: LED: June 3, 2014 Respondent. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County The Honorable Twila K. Rigby, Judge Before Division Two: Victor C. Howard, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Mark D. Pfeiffer, JJ. Deborah Roberts ("Wife") appeals from a qualified domestic relations order or "QDRO" entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, which specifies that, under a 1990 dissolution decree, Wife is entitled to one-half of only the marital portion of her ex-husband‟s retirement benefits. We affirm. Factual Background Wife was married to Michael Roberts ("Husband") on April 9, 1976. Wife filed a petition to dissolve the marria


CourtListener opinion 2679768

CourtListener opinion 2679768 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of VIRGINIA C. and DAVID H. Extracted reporter citation: 937 F.2d 1450. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2679768 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 2679768

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 2679768

QDRO: of appellant Virginia C. Moon and respondent David H. Rush ended in September 1995 with a judgment of dissolution and a stipulated order to divide their 1 community interest in David's retirement plan.1 The stipulated order stated on its face that it was a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) intended to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Title 29 United States Code section 1001 et seq. More than 15 years later, Virginia's attorney wrote to the plan administrator at David's law firm asking about assets held by the 401(k) profit sharing plan (plan) for the benefit of Virginia as alternate payee. The plan admi


CourtListener opinion 2679768

retirement benefits: ABIB & MCKENNA 401(K) PROFIT-SHARING PLAN, Respondent. The marriage of appellant Virginia C. Moon and respondent David H. Rush ended in September 1995 with a judgment of dissolution and a stipulated order to divide their 1 community interest in David's retirement plan.1 The stipulated order stated on its face that it was a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) intended to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Title 29 United States Code section 1001 et seq. More than 15 years later, Virginia's attorney wrote to the plan administrator at David's law firm asking about assets held by the 401(


CourtListener opinion 2679768

pension: wishes." Habib offered to transfer the assets held for Virginia to another plan or distribute them to her or, alternatively, to provide her with annual account statements. Habib enclosed with the letter a detailed written summary of assets under the heading "Pension Benefits Statement Regarding Virginia Moon's Interest in Peters, et al. Profit Sharing Plan, as set 4 forth in Paragraph 9 of the Stipulation & Order Dividing Community Interest In Employee Benefit Plan entered September 26, 1995, in Marriage of Rush, Butte Superior Court Case No. FL004059." Fifteen months later, in October 2011, counsel for Virginia as


CourtListener opinion 2679768

ERISA: on and a stipulated order to divide their 1 community interest in David's retirement plan.1 The stipulated order stated on its face that it was a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) intended to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Title 29 United States Code section 1001 et seq. More than 15 years later, Virginia's attorney wrote to the plan administrator at David's law firm asking about assets held by the 401(k) profit sharing plan (plan) for the benefit of Virginia as alternate payee. The plan administrator, David's law partner Mark Habib, responded that David had managed Virgin


CourtListener opinion 2679799

CourtListener opinion 2679799 Extracted case name: JOHNSON v. JOHNSON. Extracted reporter citation: 270 P.3d 556. Docket: 20120229. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2679799 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 2679799


CourtListener opinion 2679799

QDRO: nthly payments would not start until he retired some time after it had vested. 2 Cite as: 2014 UT 21 Opinion of the Court was reduced by the amount that he received under the disability award. ¶ 5 In October 2008, Ms. Zoric filed in district court for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in another attempt to secure her portion of Mr. Johnson‘s retirement benefit. The district court, in an effort to comply with the 1984 divorce decree, awarded Ms. Zoric her marital share of Mr. Johnson‘s actual monthly benefit, based on his salary at the time of retirement and his number of years of service, less the disability reduction.3 The distri


CourtListener opinion 2679799

retirement benefits: PARRISH, and JUSTICE LEE joined. ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE NEHRING, opinion of the Court: INTRODUCTION ¶ 1 On certiorari, we consider whether our court of appeals erred when it held that an action to enforce the ongoing right to collect a portion of pension retirement benefits was not barred by the statute of limitations. We also consider whether the court of appeals erred when it determined that the petitioner‘s argument concerning laches was inadequately briefed according to the standards set by the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Lastly, we consider whether a panel majority of the court of appeals erred in applying the ―ma


CourtListener opinion 2679799

pension: JUSTICE PARRISH, and JUSTICE LEE joined. ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE NEHRING, opinion of the Court: INTRODUCTION ¶ 1 On certiorari, we consider whether our court of appeals erred when it held that an action to enforce the ongoing right to collect a portion of pension retirement benefits was not barred by the statute of limitations. We also consider whether the court of appeals erred when it determined that the petitioner‘s argument concerning laches was inadequately briefed according to the standards set by the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Lastly, we consider whether a panel majority of the court of appeals erred


CourtListener opinion 2679799

alternate payee: 5 13 A QDRO instructs ―the trustee of a retirement plan and specifies how distributions should be made, to whom, and when. Although a QDRO cannot order the payment of a benefit which is not allowed under a particular plan, it can order partial payment to an alternate payee (an ex-spouse, for example).‖ Bailey v. Bailey, 745 P.2d 830, 832 (Utah Ct. App. 1987). 14 Johnson v. Johnson, 2012 UT App 22, ¶ 5, 270 P.3d 556. In the district court‘s findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court concluded: It is uncontroverted that on August 7, 1998, [Ms. Zoric] made application to the Air Force to claim her interest in [Mr. Jo


CourtListener opinion 2679924

CourtListener opinion 2679924 Extracted case name: J. KENNEBEC COUNTY v. MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALEXANDER. Extracted reporter citation: 1 A.3d 431. Docket: for entry of a judgment vacating the Board. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2679924 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 2679924


CourtListener opinion 2679924

QDRO: matter. See, e.g., 5 M.R.S. § 17105 (2013) (setting forth the duties of the executive director); McPhee, 2009 ME 100, ¶¶ 20-21, 980 A.2d 1257 (noting the limits of the executive director's authority in deciding matters pursuant to the statute relating to a qualified domestic relations order and the resulting limitation on the Board's review of that decision).14 13 Contrary to MPERS's implied contention, the fact that the three employees at issue in this appeal ultimately enrolled in MPERS in 2010, becoming "members" then, does not confer authority on the Board to decide the enrollment matters at issue here when that authority did not exist


CourtListener opinion 2679924

retirement benefits: he employees were initially hired long before the employees began efforts to join MPERS; (2) at each employee's initial hiring, the County was obligated to adequately apprise its employees of MPERS's existence, their eligibility to participate in the MPERS retirement plan, and the terms of the plan; and (3) the County had failed to meet that obligation with respect to certain employees. 2 [¶2] Based on those conclusions, the Board ordered the County to pay the local government contribution, with interest, and the interest on each employee's contribution, for the many years between when these employees were hired full


CourtListener opinion 2679924

401(k): County action may be imported from 5 M.R.S. § 18252-A(2)(C), (D). [¶15] Title 5 M.R.S. § 18252-A(2)(C) and (D) addresses membership for employees of PLDs that, unlike Kennebec County, do not offer a Social Security coverage option but do offer a qualified defined contribution or deferred compensation retirement plan pursuant to 5 M.R.S § 18252-B (2013). In contrast to section 18252, which is silent on the matter, paragraphs (C) and, more particularly, (D) of section 18252-A(2) explicitly authorize MPERS and its Board to make final administrative decisions related to employee plan participation and membership, in matters in