CourtListener opinion 2694029

retirement benefits: ticipate in several retirement pension plans, which the court divided between them in identical terms. The present appeal concerns the following provisions of the divorce decree dividing Donna's military retirement pension plan: MS. REISING'S MILITARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS As stated, Ms. Reising is a captain in the United States Air Force and began her service in 1985. Therefore, approximately 10 years of her military service accrued prior to the parties' marriage and some portion has accrued after the de facto termination date of the parties' marriage on October 5, 2007. The portion which accrued during the partie


CourtListener opinion 2694029

pension: ried on April 7, 1995. In a contested action for divorce that Daniel1 commenced, the parties stipulated, and the trial court found, that their marriage terminated on October 5, 2007. {¶ 3} The parties had the right to participate in several retirement pension plans, which the court divided between them in identical terms. The present appeal concerns the following provisions of the divorce decree dividing Donna's military retirement pension plan: MS. REISING'S MILITARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS As stated, Ms. Reising is a captain in the United States Air Force and began her service in 1985. Therefore, approxi


CourtListener opinion 2694029

domestic relations order: documents necessary to effectuate his award in her military retirement benefits and it is ORDERED that each of the parties shall have an affirmative duty to sign all documents necessary to effectuate the foregoing. {¶ 4} A MQCO is a form of qualified domestic relations order required by the uniformed military services in order to effectuate a judicial division of rights in a military pension retirement plan. After the divorce decree was filed, Daniel submitted a proposed MQCO to the court. Paragraph six of that proposed MQCO indicated that Daniel was to 4 receive "an amount equal to 50 percent (50%) of the marital portion


CourtListener opinion 2694070

CourtListener opinion 2694070 Extracted reporter citation: 661 N.E.2d 175. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2694070 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 2694070

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 2694070

QDRO: J. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Kathleen A. Majeski appeals a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, overruling her objections and adopting the decision of the magistrate dismissing her motion to modify the 2 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In her motion to modify, Kathleen sought an order from the trial court awarding her survivor benefit rights regarding defendant-appellee Michael C. Majeski's retirement benefits. In the alternative, Kathleen requested a modified QDRO awarding her a share of Michael's retirement benefits in a separate interest QDRO which would allow Kathleen to r


CourtListener opinion 2694070

retirement benefits: f the magistrate dismissing her motion to modify the 2 Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In her motion to modify, Kathleen sought an order from the trial court awarding her survivor benefit rights regarding defendant-appellee Michael C. Majeski's retirement benefits. In the alternative, Kathleen requested a modified QDRO awarding her a share of Michael's retirement benefits in a separate interest QDRO which would allow Kathleen to receive benefits for the remainder of her lifetime. {¶ 2} The magistrate's decision was filed on January 5, 2011. The judgment and entry adopting the decision of the magistrate was file


CourtListener opinion 2694070

pension: r entitlement to a post-retirement survivor benefit. Further, Kathleen asserts that the intent of the parties when the QDRO and final divorce decree were drafted was to entitle her to post-retirement survivor benefits. {¶ 10} It is well established that "pension or retirement benefits accumulated during the course of the marriage are marital assets subject to property division in a divorce action." Erb v. Erb, 75 Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 661 N.E.2d 175 (1996). Regarding the division of pension or retirement benefits, the "trial court must have the flexibility to make an equitable decision based upon the circumstances


CourtListener opinion 2694070

alternate payee: nd the QDRO do not contain inconsistent terms and are not ambiguous. {¶ 14} The stipulated QDRO filed by the parties on January 14, 1998, states in pertinent part: {¶ 15} If the Participant, "defendant," dies prior to the commencement of benefits, the alternate Payee, "plaintiff," shall be a surviving spouse under IRC Sections 401(a) (11) and 417 and shall be entitled to pre-retirement survivor annuity or other survivor annuity provided to the surviving spouse under the plan, but only to the extent of the benefit described above, and only if the Plan so provides. Because husband and wife were married for at le


CourtListener opinion 2694501

CourtListener opinion 2694501 Docket: 23538 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2694501 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 2694501


CourtListener opinion 2694501

QDRO: t-Appellant ............. HALL, J. {¶ 1} This case concerns the validity and enforceability of the 1992 decree dissolving Richard Lamb's marriage to Jane Lamb. Pursuant to the separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution decree, Jane sought a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) allocating to her a portion of Richard's pension benefits. Richard contends that the decree is 2 invalid because the decree contains only a rubber stamp of the judge's signature, which this Court, and others, has held is improper. {¶ 2} The Montgomery County Domestic Relations Court would not allow Richard to collaterally attack the decree n


CourtListener opinion 2694501

retirement benefits: t's decision and affirm its judgment. 1. Case History {¶ 3} In December 1992, after a 23-year marriage, Richard and Jane were divorced. Incorporated into the dissolution decree was their separation agreement, which included a provision dividing Richard's retirement benefits: {¶ 4} "10. Pensions; Divided Upon Distribution. At the present time, the Husband is the beneficial owner of vested, non-contingent pension rights in the following pension plan: Federal Government. * * * {¶ 5} "* * * The parties agree, and the Court may order, that Fiduciary shall pay to Wife a specified portion, namely 50% percent [sic], of any and


CourtListener opinion 2694501

pension: forceability of the 1992 decree dissolving Richard Lamb's marriage to Jane Lamb. Pursuant to the separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution decree, Jane sought a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) allocating to her a portion of Richard's pension benefits. Richard contends that the decree is 2 invalid because the decree contains only a rubber stamp of the judge's signature, which this Court, and others, has held is improper. {¶ 2} The Montgomery County Domestic Relations Court would not allow Richard to collaterally attack the decree now, 18 years after it was entered. We agree with the lowe


CourtListener opinion 2694501

domestic relations order: t ............. HALL, J. {¶ 1} This case concerns the validity and enforceability of the 1992 decree dissolving Richard Lamb's marriage to Jane Lamb. Pursuant to the separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution decree, Jane sought a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) allocating to her a portion of Richard's pension benefits. Richard contends that the decree is 2 invalid because the decree contains only a rubber stamp of the judge's signature, which this Court, and others, has held is improper. {¶ 2} The Montgomery County Domestic Relations Court would not allow Richard to collaterally attack the decree n


CourtListener opinion 2694536

CourtListener opinion 2694536 Docket: 24391 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2694536 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 2694536


CourtListener opinion 2694536

QDRO: (B), all of which have been denied. Mrs. White has appealed five times to this court. We affirmed in each of those cases, and we do so again here. {¶ 3} On December 24, 2009, Mrs. White filed a motion asking the domestic relations court for an order, and QDRO, allocating her a portion of Mr. White's pension benefits. At the hearing that was held before a magistrate, Mrs. White testified that she believes she is vested in the plan and therefore equally entitled to a portion of the pension benefits. She told the magistrate that she contacted the pension plan administrator, Fidelity Investments, and asked why s


CourtListener opinion 2694536

retirement benefits: judgment." Id. (Citation omitted.). It is, as one court has put it, an apparent "‘blunder[] in execution.'" Kuehn v. Kuehn (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 245, 247 (Citation omitted.). The divorce decree here is utterly silent concerning Mr. White's pension plan or retirement benefits generally. It is not at all apparent from the record that the domestic relations court inadvertently omitted to divide retirement benefits. Indeed, combing through the entire record, we found no reference whatsoever to retirement benefits. There is simply no evidence that the court intended to divide the retirement benefits but forgot to mention it in t


CourtListener opinion 2694536

pension: ney for Defendant-Appellee ............. HALL, J. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Vondelere White appeals a domestic relations court's denial of her motion asking the court to allocate her a portion of her former husband's, defendant-appellee Curtis White's, pension benefits. {¶ 2} Mrs. White was granted a divorce in July 1979, when a domestic relations court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce. Since then, she has filed numerous pro 2 se motions seeking relief from that judgment under Civ.R. 60(B), all of which have been denied. Mrs. White has appealed five times to this court. We affirmed in each o


CourtListener opinion 2696104

CourtListener opinion 2696104 Docket: 8-13-16 contempt finding is whether the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696104 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 2696104


CourtListener opinion 2696104

QDRO: nt part, EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: Each party shall retain exclusive ownership, free and clear of any claims of the other, of any interest either party may have in * * * 401-K plans * * * except Wife shall also receive as marital property rights, pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, the sum of $51,000.00 together with interest thereon from 04/28/08 of Husband's interest/assets/benefits in the 401-K Plan sponsored by his -2- Case No. 8-13-16 employer, EMI Corp. * * * Wife shall be responsible for all tax liabilities incurred as a result of cashing in her portion of Husband's 401-K. (Doc. 61). {¶4} On July 3, 2008, a Qualif


CourtListener opinion 2696104

401(k): ainst her former husband, defendant-appellee Gregory Scott Erter ("Greg"). Lisa specifically argues that pursuant to the separation agreement incorporated in the parties' final divorce decree she was entitled to receive $51,000.00 plus interest from Greg's 401(K) plan, and that while Greg's 401(K) account was split and she was allocated $51,000.00 on April 28, 2008, by the time she received the money on December 1, 2008, she only received $29,639.02 due to market losses. {¶2} The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. Lisa and Greg were married June 28, 2003. On June 29, 2007, Lisa filed for divorce, all


CourtListener opinion 2696104

alternate payee: estic Relations Order ("QDRO") was filed. (Doc. 62). The QDRO was amended twice, once on October 27, 2008, and the second and final time on November 14, 2008. (Docs. 73, 78). The final amended QDRO read, in pertinent part, 2. The amount to be paid to the Alternate Payee [Lisa] from the accounts of the Participant [Greg] in the Plan shall be $51,000.00, plus interest from 04/28/08, such amount hereinafter referred to as the "Transferred Amount." *** 4. * * * If the Transferred Amount is in excess of $3,500.00, the Transferred Amount shall be credited to an account in the name of Alternate Payee in which she shall b


CourtListener opinion 2696104

domestic relations order: EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: Each party shall retain exclusive ownership, free and clear of any claims of the other, of any interest either party may have in * * * 401-K plans * * * except Wife shall also receive as marital property rights, pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, the sum of $51,000.00 together with interest thereon from 04/28/08 of Husband's interest/assets/benefits in the 401-K Plan sponsored by his -2- Case No. 8-13-16 employer, EMI Corp. * * * Wife shall be responsible for all tax liabilities incurred as a result of cashing in her portion of Husband's 401-K. (Doc. 61). {¶4} On July 3, 2008, a Qualif


CourtListener opinion 2696122

CourtListener opinion 2696122 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Couture. Extracted reporter citation: 532 U.S. 141. Docket: 4-13-13 which will produce. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696122 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 2696122

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 2696122

QDRO: constructive trust over the proceeds of the life insurance policy for the benefit of decedent's children, T. Crites and L. Crites. B. Crites first argues that the equitable remedy of constructive trust violates ERISA, and the parties should have created a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to designate T. Crites and L. Crites beneficiaries of the life insurance policy. Second, B. Crites argues that T. Crites and L. Crites failed to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that she waived her rights to the insurance proceeds. {¶16} As noted in our prior appeal, the parties agree that the subject life insurance policy was employer-pr


CourtListener opinion 2696122

pension: district of the Ohio Court of Appeals has approved of this practice, albeit with little discussion. Blevins v. Estate of Blevins, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-554, 2013-Ohio-947, ¶ 16 (trial court appropriately imposed a constructive trust on proceeds of a pension plan paid to decedent's wife for the benefit of decedent's ex-wife). Consequently, we turn to federal court decisions, beginning with the two U.S. Supreme Court cases we cited in our prior opinion. {¶19} In Egelhoff, the decedent had an employer-issued life insurance policy subject to ERISA. 532 U.S. 141. The decedent had named his wife as the benefic


CourtListener opinion 2696122

ERISA: No. 8) {¶6} On December 19, 2011, the parties filed stipulations of fact with the trial court. (Doc. No. 13). All parties conceded that the life insurance policy was an employer-provided benefit governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The stipulations also stated that the named beneficiary of the policy was B. Crites. Finally, the stipulations stated that the separation agreement provided that each party released his or her rights to be the beneficiary of any insurance policy issued to the other. The parties then filed their respective motions for summary judgment on January 17, 2


CourtListener opinion 2696122

domestic relations order: ive trust over the proceeds of the life insurance policy for the benefit of decedent's children, T. Crites and L. Crites. B. Crites first argues that the equitable remedy of constructive trust violates ERISA, and the parties should have created a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to designate T. Crites and L. Crites beneficiaries of the life insurance policy. Second, B. Crites argues that T. Crites and L. Crites failed to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that she waived her rights to the insurance proceeds. {¶16} As noted in our prior appeal, the parties agree that the subject life insurance policy was employer-pr


CourtListener opinion 2696184

CourtListener opinion 2696184 Docket: I The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696184 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 2696184


CourtListener opinion 2696184

QDRO: gation on the parties' home following foreclosure proceedings; award Teresa the 2010 Dodge Caliber but require Jacob to continue making payments on the vehicle; award Jacob the 2008 Dodge Caravan and the payments; equally divide Jacob's 401(K) plans via a qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO"); and, grant no spousal support to either party. (Doc. No. 32). {¶7} Following an extension by the trial court for the preparation of the final hearing transcript, on April 30, 2013, Teresa filed objections to the magistrate's decision. (Doc. No. 38). Relevant to this appeal, Teresa argued in her second objection that the magistrate erred by


CourtListener opinion 2696184

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


CourtListener opinion 2696184

401(k): ally divide any obligation on the parties' home following foreclosure proceedings; award Teresa the 2010 Dodge Caliber but require Jacob to continue making payments on the vehicle; award Jacob the 2008 Dodge Caravan and the payments; equally divide Jacob's 401(K) plans via a qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO"); and, grant no spousal support to either party. (Doc. No. 32). {¶7} Following an extension by the trial court for the preparation of the final hearing transcript, on April 30, 2013, Teresa filed objections to the magistrate's decision. (Doc. No. 38). Relevant to this appeal, Teresa argued in her


CourtListener opinion 2696184

domestic relations order: the parties' home following foreclosure proceedings; award Teresa the 2010 Dodge Caliber but require Jacob to continue making payments on the vehicle; award Jacob the 2008 Dodge Caravan and the payments; equally divide Jacob's 401(K) plans via a qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO"); and, grant no spousal support to either party. (Doc. No. 32). {¶7} Following an extension by the trial court for the preparation of the final hearing transcript, on April 30, 2013, Teresa filed objections to the magistrate's decision. (Doc. No. 38). Relevant to this appeal, Teresa argued in her second objection that the magistrate erred by


CourtListener opinion 2696221

CourtListener opinion 2696221 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 10-13-05 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696221 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 2696221


CourtListener opinion 2696221

QDRO: ualified domestic relations order.2 The parties' personal property was appraised, and it 2 We computed this number by adding Daniel's pension, $56,566.46, Daniel's 401(k), $8,719.11, and a life insurance policy, $775.83. (Pl.'s Exs. 12, 13, 14). The actual qualified domestic relations order purporting to divide these amounts equally was not included in the record. -6- Case No. 10-13-05 was valued at $4,535.00. The personal property was distributed in an itemized list, and was not objected to by Christina.3 {¶16} In the division of the parties' vehicles, the parties agreed that Christina would keep the parties' 2000 Chevy Blazer, which


CourtListener opinion 2696221

retirement benefits: roperty divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; -12- Case No. 10-13-05 (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the parties


CourtListener opinion 2696221

pension: daughter, and a licensed auctioneer who appraised the parties' personal property. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that they were incompatible, and that they owned no real property. In addition, the parties agreed to an equal distribution of Daniel's pension with Minster Machine. The magistrate 1 The Complaint for divorce was filed as "without children." (Doc. 3). The parties actually had three children together, but at the time of the filing of the complaint, the youngest was 26 years old. All three children were emancipated. -2- Case No. 10-13-05 was left to determine the issues of whether spousal suppo


CourtListener opinion 2696221

401(k): hio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). When applying the abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Id. {¶15} In this case, the marital property to be divided consisted of Daniel's pension, his 401(k), a life insurance policy, three vehicles, and various items of personal property. The retirement funds and the life insurance amounted to $66,061.40, and the parties agreed to split those funds evenly via a qualified domestic relations order.2 The parties' personal property was appraised, and it 2 We computed this number by adding Daniel's pension, $56


CourtListener opinion 2696313

CourtListener opinion 2696313 Extracted reporter citation: 532 U.S. 141. Docket: 4-12-21 that concession. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696313 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 2696313


CourtListener opinion 2696313

QDRO: rced his wife, but never changed the beneficiary. Upon his death, his children tried to recover the proceeds from the policy. The Court held that the plan administrators must follow the plan and could only pay the proceeds to the named beneficiary absent a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). {¶6} The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Kennedy v. Plan Adm'r. for Dupont Sav. and Inv. Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 129 S.Ct. 865, 172 L.Ed.2d 662 (2009). In Kennedy, the decedent had divorced his wife several years before his death. The divorce decree ordered that the wife was divested of all claims to the husband's pension plan.


CourtListener opinion 2696313

pension: Adm'r. for Dupont Sav. and Inv. Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 129 S.Ct. 865, 172 L.Ed.2d 662 (2009). In Kennedy, the decedent had divorced his wife several years before his death. The divorce decree ordered that the wife was divested of all claims to the husband's pension plan. However, the husband never changed the beneficiary listed on the pension from the ex-wife to his daughter. The Court unanimously held that absent a valid QDRO, the plan administrator must follow the terms of the plan and make any payment to the designated beneficiary. Id. at 286-87. "ERISA provides no exception to the plan administrator's duty to


CourtListener opinion 2696313

ERISA: e funds from Anthem. {¶4} On December 19, 2011, the parties filed stipulations of fact with the trial court. All parties conceded that the life insurance policy was an employer provided benefit governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The stipulations also stated that the named beneficiary of the policy was B. Crites. Finally, the stipulations stated that the separation agreement provided that each party released his or her rights to be the beneficiary of any 1 The parties opposed allowing Anthem to deposit the money with the court because they did not want to have to pay the fees


CourtListener opinion 2696313

domestic relations order: ife, but never changed the beneficiary. Upon his death, his children tried to recover the proceeds from the policy. The Court held that the plan administrators must follow the plan and could only pay the proceeds to the named beneficiary absent a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). {¶6} The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Kennedy v. Plan Adm'r. for Dupont Sav. and Inv. Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 129 S.Ct. 865, 172 L.Ed.2d 662 (2009). In Kennedy, the decedent had divorced his wife several years before his death. The divorce decree ordered that the wife was divested of all claims to the husband's pension plan.


CourtListener opinion 2696440

CourtListener opinion 2696440 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Beckman. Extracted reporter citation: 599 P.2d 1004. Docket: 10-11-09 the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696440 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 2696440

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 2696440

QDRO: . Just recently, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a case in which the trial court awarded the spouse "one-half of the coverture value of the plaintiff's unvested Teamsters pension, if and when it becomes vested," was a final divorce decree, even though the QDRO to implement the property division was not yet able to be completed. (Emphasis added.) Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268 (2007). {¶57} Although Sean's military pension had not yet vested, it was potentially only a few years away from vesting and being a significant asset. A majority of the qualified service for Sean's pension was earned during the


CourtListener opinion 2696440

retirement benefits: efendant-appellee, Sean M. Daniel ("Sean"). On appeal, Christen contends that the trial court erred by failing to divide certain marital property and debts, specifically part of the student loans obtained by Christen during the marriage and Sean's military retirement benefits. We affirm. {¶2} Christen and Sean were married on January 21, 1995, and three children were born as issue of the marriage, who were 13, 11, and 7 years old at the time of the divorce hearings. (Tr. at 13). The parties separated for a final time in January or March 2008, and Christen filed a complaint for divorce on June 24, 2009. (Id. at 114, 118, 2


CourtListener opinion 2696440

pension: , with the children spending alternating weeks with each parent, was also entered into by agreement. -2- Case No. 10-11-09 The three contested issues were the amount of child support,1 Christen's student loan debt, and Sean's potential unvested military pension. {¶4} The trial court heard testimony from Christen, Sean, and Casey Kearns, an assistant financial aid director at Ohio State University. In addition, numerous exhibits were admitted, consisting primarily of financial records such as student loan documents, income tax records from 2005 through 2008, and numerous receipts and credit card statements.


CourtListener opinion 2696440

valuation/division: 02CA008057, 2002-Ohio-4862, ¶ 43. Marital debt has been defined as any debt incurred during the marriage for the joint benefit of the parties or for a valid marital purpose. Ketchum v. Ketchum, 7th Dist. No. 2001 CO 60, 2003-Ohio-2559, ¶ 47, citing Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property (2 Ed.1994, Supp.2002) 455, Section 6.29. {¶20} Student loans obtained by one spouse during the marriage may be categorized as marital debt subject to equitable distribution of the court. Harris v. Harris, 5th Dist. No. 2006-CA-00003, 2007-Ohio-1232, ¶ 34; Webb v. Webb, 12th Dist. No. CA97-09-167, *4 (Nov. 30, 1998). Including student loan


CourtListener opinion 2696453

CourtListener opinion 2696453 Docket: I The Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696453 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 2696453


CourtListener opinion 2696453

QDRO: James K. Weaner and James Hitchcock for Appellant Jude T. Aubry for Appellee Case No. 4-12-10 PRESTON, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Larry K. Casteel, appeals the Defiance County Court of Common Pleas' judgment entry denying his motion to issue a new Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") in conformity with the parties' final judgment entry of divorce and denying his motion to terminate spousal support following his retirement. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. {¶2} Larry and Joyce A. Casteel, plaintiff-appellee, were married on January 2, 1968. (Doc. No. 1). On July 28, 2005, Joyce filed a complaint for divorce, allegin


CourtListener opinion 2696453

retirement benefits: the August 25, 2006 value date. {¶25} "A division or disbursement of property or a distributive award * * * is not subject to future modification by the court." R.C. 3105.171(I). However, a trial court can clarify the meaning of an ambiguous division of a retirement plan in a final divorce decree without violating R.C. 3105.171(I). Kelley v. Kelley, 3d Dist. Nos. 4-04-28, 4-04-32, 2005-Ohio-2355, ¶ 16, citing McKinney v. McKinney, 142 Ohio App.3d 604, 608 (2d Dist.2001), citing Weller v. Weller, 115 Ohio App.3d 173, 179 (6th Dist.1996). More specifically, a trial court may modify a QDRO to be consistent with the divorc


CourtListener opinion 2696453

pension: . 3). {¶4} On December 11, 2006, a magistrate granted the parties a divorce, divided the parties' property, and ordered, in relevant part, that Larry pay Joyce $2,800.00 per month in spousal support. (Doc. No. 20). Concerning Larry's First Energy defined pension benefit, the magistrate found that: The parties agree that the defined benefit plan should be split equally through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In accordance with -2- Case No. 4-12-10 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11, the accrued monthly benefit as of April 1, 2006 is $2,789.50 beginning at age 65[], $1,494.75 to each * * *. The appropriate dat


CourtListener opinion 2696453

alternate payee: } On January 18, 2008, a QDRO for Larry's First Energy defined benefit plan was filed with the trial court, with both parties agreeing to the terms therein. (Doc. No. 48). In pertinent part, the QDRO provides, at paragraph seven, the following: Amount of Alternate Payee's Benefit Based on "Coverture Approach": This Order assigns to Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of Fifty Percent (50.00%) of the Marital Portion of the Participant's Accrued Benefit under the Plan as of the Participant's benefit commencement date, or the Alternate Payee's Benefit commencement date, if earlier. The Marita


CourtListener opinion 2696505

CourtListener opinion 2696505 Extracted reporter citation: 655 N.E.2d 1381. Docket: 5-11-38 Assignment of Error The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696505 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 2696505


CourtListener opinion 2696505

QDRO: 0 life insurance policy). The remainder of the assets and liabilities, including the home and the credit card debts, were to be assigned to Mark, giving him $42,369.24 in net assets. The marital portion of the Westfield pension was to be equally divided by QDRO. {¶12} As to spousal support, Mark's monthly obligation was to be $1,000 monthly for eleven years, until Valerie turned 65. For the first 36 months, the obligation would be satisfied by Mark paying Valerie $545 per month spousal support and paying the $455 COBRA payments. The magistrate recommended that the trial court retain jurisdiction to modify th


CourtListener opinion 2696505

retirement benefits: to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; -9- Case No. 5-11-38 (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of


CourtListener opinion 2696505

pension: {¶5} Mark also had a 401(k) plan with a current value of $64,192, subject to a $12,000 loan that Mark had taken out to pay expenses during the pendency of the divorce. There were no other significant marital assets,2 although Mark would be eligible for a pension from his employer, Westfield Insurance, with a projected monthly benefit of approximately $1,481 at age 65. At the time of the hearing, Mark was 55 years old, and Valerie was 53. 1 During his testimony, Mark discussed withdrawing this stipulation, saying that if he had to sell the house through a "short sale" and did not receive sufficient funds to pay


CourtListener opinion 2696505

401(k): f the date of the hearing. The proceeds of the sale of the home were to be used to pay off the credit card balances, with Mark assuming responsibility for any balances left owing if the proceeds were not sufficient.1 (Tr., pp. 53-54) {¶5} Mark also had a 401(k) plan with a current value of $64,192, subject to a $12,000 loan that Mark had taken out to pay expenses during the pendency of the divorce. There were no other significant marital assets,2 although Mark would be eligible for a pension from his employer, Westfield Insurance, with a projected monthly benefit of approximately $1,481 at age 65. At the time


CourtListener opinion 2696542

CourtListener opinion 2696542 Docket: 17-11-28 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696542 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 2696542


CourtListener opinion 2696542

QDRO: er covered under Vernon's Veteran's benefits, which heavily subsidized the cost of her prescriptions. Specifically, Marty testified that her monthly expenses for prescriptions will increase from two to three hundred dollars a year, being covered 1 In the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") entered in this case, the parties agreed to equally divide Vernon's Sprint pension, which produces a total monthly income stream of $987.54. A QDRO is an order in aid of execution on the property division ordered in the divorce decree dividing retirement or pension assets. More specifically, it is an order that "creates or recognizes the existence


CourtListener opinion 2696542

retirement benefits: to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the parties


CourtListener opinion 2696542

pension: t. {¶4} On August 19, 2010, a hearing was held on Marty's motion for temporary spousal support. Marty testified that her only income was $573.00 per month in social security and that Vernon received $5,579.54 per month in disability, social security, and pension benefits. Marty requested the magistrate equally divide the total monthly income between the parties of $6,152.54, so that each party would receive $3,076.27 a month. In order to accomplish this, Vernon -2- Case No. 17-11-28 would have to pay Marty $2,503.27 a month in temporary spousal support in addition to the $573.00 a month she received in socia


CourtListener opinion 2696542

401(k): National Bank CD $114,527.00 Insurance Policy National Guard Life 6,320.00 5/3 Bank IRA $48,053.00 Policy National Guard Life $3,164.00 Golf Cart $2,500.00 Policy 1st National Account $1,973.00 House at Dorothy Love $151,443.00 5/3 Account $58,224.00 401K $268,878.00 2009 Impala $12,610.00 Total $386,994.00 Total $467,849.00 -9- Case No. 17-11-28 In order to equalize the value of the marital assets received by each party in the divorce, Marty paid Vernon the sum of $40,418.00 from the liquid assets in her column. The parties agree that the distribution of the marital assets is fair and equitable. Th


CourtListener opinion 2696578

CourtListener opinion 2696578 Extracted reporter citation: 421 N.E.2d 1293. Docket: 9-11-32 by this. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696578 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 2696578

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 2696578

QDRO: nted exhibits for the family court to consider in dividing their marital and separate property. {¶4} On August 26, 2010, the family court filed its judgment entry in this matter. The court ordered that the parties equally divide their retirement funds by QDRO (Amanda had one, with STRS, and David had two, with STRS and PERS). The court awarded the marital home to David and ordered that he be responsible for the mortgage debt thereon. The court further awarded both of the parties the vehicles each had in their respective possession, including any debt on the vehicle in his or her possession. Amanda was ordere


CourtListener opinion 2696578

valuation/division: : Kevin P. Collins for Appellant Keith A. Kochheiser for Appellee Case No. 9-11-32 WILLAMOWSKI, J. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, David W. Collins ("David"), appeals the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, finalizing the property division and other issues in his divorce from Plaintiff- Appellee, Amanda M. Collins, nka Amanda M. Wood ("Amanda"). On appeal, David contends that the family court erred in calculating his salary for child support purposes; that it erred in valuing one of the vehicles; and that the property division was unequal and inequitable. For the reasons set forth below,


CourtListener opinion 2696666

CourtListener opinion 2696666 Extracted reporter citation: 450 N.E.2d 1140. Docket: I THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696666 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 2696666

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 2696666

QDRO: ly during the marriage. (Aug. 9, 2010 Tr. at 159-63); (P's Ex. 35). Therefore, all of the funds in the Minster Machine Co. Pension were marital assets. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d at 178. To divide the parties' retirement assets, the trial court decided to issue a QDRO ordering that a portion -9- Case No. 10-11-08 of John's retirement benefits be paid from his T. Rowe Price IRA account to Virginia upon the earliest of: (1) John's death; (2) John's retirement; (3) John's termination from the plan's sponsor and its affiliates; (4) Virginia's consent to the lump sum distribution; or (5) Virginia's request to roll the


CourtListener opinion 2696666

retirement benefits: {¶18} In his third assignment of error, John argues that the trial court erred in dividing the parties' retirement funds by using the future value of John's pension plan, instead of the pension plan's present-day value. {¶19} The division of a pension or retirement benefit must be left to the trial court's broad discretion. Hoyt v. Hoyt (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 180, 559 N.E.2d 1292. "The trial court must have the flexibility to make an equitable decision based upon the circumstances of the case, the status of the parties, the -7- Case No. 10-11-08 nature, terms and conditions of the pension plan, and the reasonablene


CourtListener opinion 2696666

pension: inal divorce hearing, John III was a minor but Constance was not. (Id. at 33, 123). {¶3} On August 9, 2010, the matter came on for final hearing. (Doc. No. 25). John had not yet provided account statements/records reflecting the present- day value of his pension plan, IRA, and 401(k) through discovery, so the parties stipulated at the final hearing that John would supplement the record with those account statements/records. (Aug. 9, 2010 Tr. at 195); (Doc. No. 30). {¶4} On August 25, 2010, John filed a supplement to the record with statements from his ITW Savings and Investment Plan, T. Rowe Price IRA account


CourtListener opinion 2696666

401(k): ohn III was a minor but Constance was not. (Id. at 33, 123). {¶3} On August 9, 2010, the matter came on for final hearing. (Doc. No. 25). John had not yet provided account statements/records reflecting the present- day value of his pension plan, IRA, and 401(k) through discovery, so the parties stipulated at the final hearing that John would supplement the record with those account statements/records. (Aug. 9, 2010 Tr. at 195); (Doc. No. 30). {¶4} On August 25, 2010, John filed a supplement to the record with statements from his ITW Savings and Investment Plan, T. Rowe Price IRA account, and Minster Machine


CourtListener opinion 2696725

CourtListener opinion 2696725 Extracted reporter citation: 523 N.E.2d 846. Docket: of exhibits for the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2696725 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 2696725


CourtListener opinion 2696725

QDRO: roperty. {¶4} On August 26, 2010, the trial court filed its judgment entry in this matter. The court ordered that the parties equally divide their retirement funds (Amanda had one and David had two), which had all been accumulated during the marriage, by QDRO and to equally share any costs incurred to complete this division. The trial court awarded the marital home to David and ordered that he be responsible for the mortgage debt thereon. The trial court further awarded both of the parties the vehicles each had in their respective possession, including any debt on the vehicle in his or her possession. The co


CourtListener opinion 2696725

retirement benefits: RROR THE FAMILY COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DAVID BY DETERMINING AMANDA'S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION TO BE $123.73 PER MONTH. DAVID'S THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE FAMILY COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DAVID BY ORDERING EACH OF THE PARTIES' THREE RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS BE DIVIDED EQUALLY BY DIVISION OF PROPERTY ORDERS. DAVID'S FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE FAMILY COURT ERRED TO DAVID'S PREJUDICE AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY VALUING AMANDA'S STRS AS OF JUNE 30, 2009. DAVID'S FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE FAMILY COURT ERRED TO DAVID'S PREJUDICE AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE 2000 FO


CourtListener opinion 2697121

CourtListener opinion 2697121 Citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Extracted reporter citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Docket: I -2- Case No. 8-08-12 THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2697121 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 2697121


CourtListener opinion 2697121

domestic relations order: o. 8-08-12 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. V THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT ORDERING THE $20,128.90 IN THE MARITAL ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE TO BE AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF FOR FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT AND FOR NOT ORDERING A QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO RECEIVE THE $20,128.90. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. VI THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND WENT AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN NOT AWARDING PLAINTIFF MORE SPOUSAL SUPPORT FOR LONGER DURATION. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. VII THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT RENDERING ORDERS ON THE $15,


CourtListener opinion 2697121

valuation/division: ERTY SOLD. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND WENT AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN NOT CLEARLY EXPLAINING THE BALANCE SHEET AND CLEARLY INDICATING DEADLINES ON HOW APPELLANT IS TO RECEIVE HER MARITAL PORTION AND AWARDS. -3- Case No. 8-08-12 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. V THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT ORDERING THE $20,128.90 IN THE MARITAL ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE TO BE AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF FOR FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT AND FOR NOT ORDERING A QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO RECEIVE THE $20,128.90. ASSIG


CourtListener opinion 2697627

CourtListener opinion 2697627 Extracted reporter citation: 514 N.E.2d 1122. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2697627 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 2697627


CourtListener opinion 2697627

QDRO: she had not actually withdrawn her complaint for divorce. {¶5} Despite the original divorce decree granting Young the proceeds of Appellant's pension, despite allegedly learning in 1995 that Young had indeed divorced him, and despite attempting to amend a qualified domestic relations order Lawrence App. No. 11CA19 3 that issued in July 2010 Appellant waited until April 22, 2011 to file a motion pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), requesting the court vacate its judgment entry, presumably the divorce decree from 1989. Appellant's basis for his motion was Young had committed fraud and perjury by listing an inaccurate address for Appellant, fabricat


CourtListener opinion 2697627

pension: wer the complaint for divorce, the trial court entered its divorce decree. The decree awarded all marital assets to Young, including the marital debt. In exchange for Young having to pay the marital debts, the court awarded her the proceeds of Appellant's pension and his two life insurance policies. {¶4} Appellant claims Young visited him in 1989 while he was incarcerated and told him she had "put a stop to the divorce." Appellant claims in 1995 he attempted to add Young to his list of approved visitors while he was still incarcerated, but prison staff informed him it was improper to list Young as his "wife" b


CourtListener opinion 2697627

domestic relations order: t actually withdrawn her complaint for divorce. {¶5} Despite the original divorce decree granting Young the proceeds of Appellant's pension, despite allegedly learning in 1995 that Young had indeed divorced him, and despite attempting to amend a qualified domestic relations order Lawrence App. No. 11CA19 3 that issued in July 2010 Appellant waited until April 22, 2011 to file a motion pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), requesting the court vacate its judgment entry, presumably the divorce decree from 1989. Appellant's basis for his motion was Young had committed fraud and perjury by listing an inaccurate address for Appellant, fabricat


CourtListener opinion 2697842

CourtListener opinion 2697842 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 10CA15 5 THE TRIAL. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2697842 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 2697842


CourtListener opinion 2697842

QDRO: __ APPEARANCES: Mark J. Donatelli, Xenia, Ohio, for Della Patten.1 ______________________________________________________________________ Per Curiam {¶1} Della Patten appeals after the trial court vacated the original qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") that distributed the pension plan benefits of her former husband, Jerry Patten. Some fifteen years after their divorce, Mr. Patten petitioned the court to "correct" the QDRO after he realized it designated Della Patten the surviving spouse beneficiary of his pension. As a result, Ms. Patten, rather than his current wife, would receive his entire pensi


CourtListener opinion 2697842

retirement benefits: or divorce to end their marriage of 16 years. The referee recommended granting a divorce and making an equitable distribution of their marital property, which included Mr. Patten's pension plan with Ford Motor Co. The referee found "that [Mr. Patten] has a retirement benefit, which by agreement of the parties[,] [Ms. Patten] is entitled to $7,200.00 of that benefit at the present time or 24% of his retirement." The referee recommended "the Court order that [Ms. Patten] be entitled to receive from the husbands [sic] pension, 24% of whatever his pension is at the time he retires." {¶5} In mid 1994, the trial court overruled


CourtListener opinion 2697842

pension: natelli, Xenia, Ohio, for Della Patten.1 ______________________________________________________________________ Per Curiam {¶1} Della Patten appeals after the trial court vacated the original qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") that distributed the pension plan benefits of her former husband, Jerry Patten. Some fifteen years after their divorce, Mr. Patten petitioned the court to "correct" the QDRO after he realized it designated Della Patten the surviving spouse beneficiary of his pension. As a result, Ms. Patten, rather than his current wife, would receive his entire pension benefit if he should predece


CourtListener opinion 2697842

alternate payee: this case was set forth in the final decree, adopted by the trial court in June 1994. The November 1994 QDRO implemented the property distribution of Mr. Patten's Ford pension. {¶16} A QDRO is an "an order that ‘creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan.'" State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355, 2010-Ohio-252, 922 N.E.2d 214 (per curiam), at ¶18, citing Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I), Title 29,


CourtListener opinion 2697902

CourtListener opinion 2697902 Extracted reporter citation: 351 N.E.2d 113. Docket: 10CA15 9 inherent power of the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2697902 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 2697902

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 2697902

QDRO: __________________________ McFarland, J.: {¶1} Appellant, William Blaine, appeals the trial court's decision that overruled his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. He asserts that he is entitled to relief from the court's judgment approving the QDRO, because the QDRO is inconsistent with the terms of the parties' separation agreement that the court incorporated into its dissolution decree. Because appellant alleged that the QDRO is inconsistent with the dissolution decree, Civ.R. 60(B) does not apply. Instead, if the QDRO conflicts with the decree, then the trial court possessed inherent authority


CourtListener opinion 2697902

retirement benefits: rdingly, we overrule appellant's two assignments of error and affirm the trial court's judgment. I. FACTS {¶2} On November 26, 2008, the parties filed a petition for dissolution of marriage accompanied with a separation agreement. With regards to the retirement benefits, the parties' separation agreement states: "The parties have no retirement plans other than a 401(k) account with an approximate value of $170,501.08. The parties agree to split equally the value of the account with each party receiving approximately $85,250.54." The parties also submitted a financial disclosure affidavit in which the value of appella


CourtListener opinion 2697902

pension: ccount with an approximate value of $170,501.08. The parties agree to split equally the value of the account with each party receiving approximately $85,250.54." The parties also submitted a financial disclosure affidavit in which the value of appellant's pension is listed as $170,501.08. On February 2, 2009, the trial court entered a dissolution decree that incorporated the parties' separation agreement. Jackson App. No. 10CA15 3 {¶3} On May 21, 2009, the court entered a QDRO. Paragraph seven of the QDRO states: "Amount of Assignment: This Order assigns to [appellee] a portion of [appellant's] Total Accoun


CourtListener opinion 2697902

401(k): 2} On November 26, 2008, the parties filed a petition for dissolution of marriage accompanied with a separation agreement. With regards to the retirement benefits, the parties' separation agreement states: "The parties have no retirement plans other than a 401(k) account with an approximate value of $170,501.08. The parties agree to split equally the value of the account with each party receiving approximately $85,250.54." The parties also submitted a financial disclosure affidavit in which the value of appellant's pension is listed as $170,501.08. On February 2, 2009, the trial court entered a dissolution decr


CourtListener opinion 2697978

CourtListener opinion 2697978 Extracted reporter citation: 723 N.E.2d 1117. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2697978 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 2697978


CourtListener opinion 2697978

QDRO: e and "Court Order Acceptable 1 for Processing under the Civil Service Retirement System" (COAP). {¶ 2} James A. Pontious, defendant below and appellee herein, raises the following assignment of error for review: 1 A "COAP" is essentially the same as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See 5 CFR 838.103; Stare v. Stare, Licking App. No. 03CA109, 2004-Ohio-4770, at ¶19. ROSS, 10CA3157 2 "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT RELIEF PURSUANT TO HIS POST-DECREE MOTION." {¶ 3} Appellant began employment with the federal government in 1972. The parties married on June 17, 1980 and divorced on Febr


CourtListener opinion 2697978

retirement benefits: {¶ 3} Appellant began employment with the federal government in 1972. The parties married on June 17, 1980 and divorced on February 5, 2008. {¶ 4} At the final divorce hearing, appellee's counsel recited the parties' agreement with respect to appellant's retirement benefits: "The temporary order of support will continue as previously Ordered by this Court until such time as the defendant goes into active retirement, which is expected to occur in the near future, at which time that pension * * * will be divided equally. He does have a pension, and a T.S.P through his employment with the V.A., and that that would, is all


CourtListener opinion 2697978

pension: respect to appellant's retirement benefits: "The temporary order of support will continue as previously Ordered by this Court until such time as the defendant goes into active retirement, which is expected to occur in the near future, at which time that pension * * * will be divided equally. He does have a pension, and a T.S.P through his employment with the V.A., and that that would, is all marital at this time, is that she would receive a marital portion, [sic] today's date being the ending date of the marriage." Appellant and his counsel indicated to the court that appellee's counsel accurately recited the


CourtListener opinion 2697978

domestic relations order: rt Order Acceptable 1 for Processing under the Civil Service Retirement System" (COAP). {¶ 2} James A. Pontious, defendant below and appellee herein, raises the following assignment of error for review: 1 A "COAP" is essentially the same as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). See 5 CFR 838.103; Stare v. Stare, Licking App. No. 03CA109, 2004-Ohio-4770, at ¶19. ROSS, 10CA3157 2 "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT RELIEF PURSUANT TO HIS POST-DECREE MOTION." {¶ 3} Appellant began employment with the federal government in 1972. The parties married on June 17, 1980 and divorced on Febr


CourtListener opinion 2698043

CourtListener opinion 2698043 Docket: reflects that the trial court issued a qualified do. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698043 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 2698043


CourtListener opinion 2698043

QDRO: Wendy contends that the trial court erred by indicating that Wendy was to receive 50% of the value of Paul's interest in the Globe Metallurgical pension plan. The basis of her argument is that the trial court should have divided "the retirement plan via a qualified domestic relations order that deferred the actual division until the participant spouse begins collecting on the pension[.]" Wendy's Brief at 21. But the docket reflects that the trial court issued a qualified domestic relations order, and Wendy states in her brief "one [qualified domestic relations order] has been issued to divide this benefit, the Plan Administrator has rejec


CourtListener opinion 2698043

retirement benefits: mited to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; * * * (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the parties; (i) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties, including but not limited to any court-ordered payments by the parties; (j) The contribution of each party to the


CourtListener opinion 2698043

pension: financial misconduct; (3) failing to articulate a factual basis for the amount of spousal support; (4) failing to award spousal support for an indefinite time period; (5) failing to consider the offset of Wendy's Social Security benefits against her public pension; and (6) improperly dividing Paul's qualified pension plan. {¶2} Having reviewed the record, we find that there is ample evidence to support each of the trial court's findings of fact and that none of the trial court's conclusions of Washington App. No. 10CA8 2 law constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial cou


CourtListener opinion 2698043

401(k): or reasons other than Paul's ability to pay. Washington App. No. 10CA8 6 substantial charges on the credit cards. Trial Transcript at 94; Paul's Exhibit 3. Paul further testified that, several times, he took out a home mortgage, borrowed money against his 401K, and cashed out his life insurance policy in order to pay credit card bills. Trial Transcript at 89-96. At trial, Wendy's counsel made the point several times that Paul did not claim the expenses were frivolous, but rather the fact that those expenses were put on a credit card. Trial Transcript at 129, 137-42. Even accepting that these expenses were not


CourtListener opinion 2698120

CourtListener opinion 2698120 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698120 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 2698120


CourtListener opinion 2698120

QDRO: peal. {¶3}. On April 7, 2010, appellant filed a complaint for divorce in the trial court. Appellee filed an answer on May 6, 2010. {¶4}. The case proceeded to a trial on June 18, 2012. The court first heard the testimony of pension expert Brian Hogan of QDRO Consultants in Medina Ohio, followed by the testimony of appellant and appellee. {¶5}. The basic economic situation of the parties herein is not in factual dispute. Appellee is employed by Mt. Carmel Health Systems as a registered ER nurse. Appellant commenced employment in 1985 with the Ohio Department of Health and has been a participant in the Ohio


CourtListener opinion 2698120

pension: commencement of the present appeal. {¶3}. On April 7, 2010, appellant filed a complaint for divorce in the trial court. Appellee filed an answer on May 6, 2010. {¶4}. The case proceeded to a trial on June 18, 2012. The court first heard the testimony of pension expert Brian Hogan of QDRO Consultants in Medina Ohio, followed by the testimony of appellant and appellee. {¶5}. The basic economic situation of the parties herein is not in factual dispute. Appellee is employed by Mt. Carmel Health Systems as a registered ER nurse. Appellant commenced employment in 1985 with the Ohio Department of Health and has bee


CourtListener opinion 2698383

CourtListener opinion 2698383 Extracted reporter citation: 541 N.E.2d 64. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698383 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 2698383

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 2698383

QDRO: ng that appellee was in contempt. Appellant, in his motion, alleged that appellee had violated three provisions of the trial court's November 12, 2009 Judgment Entry. Appellant alleged, in part, that appellee had violated such order by failing to prepare a QDRO to secure appellant's marital portion of her retirement benefits and by failing to pay him $1,500.00 within one year of the date of the order. A hearing assignment notice was filed on July 24, 2013 stating that an oral hearing on appellant's motion was scheduled for September 30, 2013. The notice stated that failure to appear may result in dismissal. Th


CourtListener opinion 2698383

valuation/division: tempt. Appellant, in his motion, alleged that appellee had violated three provisions of the trial court's November 12, 2009 Judgment Entry. Appellant alleged, in part, that appellee had violated such order by failing to prepare a QDRO to secure appellant's marital portion of her retirement benefits and by failing to pay him $1,500.00 within one year of the date of the order. A hearing assignment notice was filed on July 24, 2013 stating that an oral hearing on appellant's motion was scheduled for September 30, 2013. The notice stated that failure to appear may result in dismissal. The notice was sent to appellant at Mari


CourtListener opinion 2698639

CourtListener opinion 2698639 Extracted reporter citation: 554 N.E.2d 83. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698639 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 2698639

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 2698639

QDRO: milies' living expenses. {¶29} The trial court equally divided the 401(K), IRA, and life insurance cash value between Husband and Wife. In order to accomplish an equal division, the trial court found Husband should receive $6,732.70 of Wife's 401(K) via a QDRO. Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2013 AP 04 0018 9 {¶30} R.C. 3105.171(B) requires the trial court to determine what constitutes marital property and what constitutes separate property. "In either case, upon making such a determination, the court shall divide the marital and separate property equitably between the spouses * * *." R.C. 3105.171(B). The Rev


CourtListener opinion 2698639

retirement benefits: sed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2013 AP 04 0018 6 (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the partie


CourtListener opinion 2698639

401(k): review. The trial court remanded the matter to the magistrate. {¶12} On January 31, 2013, the magistrate issued her decision. Relevant to this appeal, the magistrate denied both parties' requests for spousal support; awarded Husband $6,732.70 from Wife's 401(K) plan; awarded Husband certain personal property in possession of Wife; made Wife responsible for the debt consolidation loan; and adopted Husband's shared parenting plan naming Husband as the primary residential parent. The parties filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The trial court overruled the objections and adopted the recommendations of


CourtListener opinion 2698639

valuation/division: manner the court determines equitable." R.C. 3105.171(C)(1). The court may make a distributive award to facilitate, effectuate, or supplement a division of marital property. R.C. 3105.171(E)(1). {¶31} Trial courts have "broad discretion to determine what property division is equitable in a divorce proceeding." Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348, 421, 421 N.E.2d 1293 (1981), paragraph two of the syllabus. A trial court's decision allocating marital property and debt will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. "Abuse of discretion" connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitu


CourtListener opinion 2698834

CourtListener opinion 2698834 Extracted reporter citation: 421 N.E.2d 1293. Docket: CT2012-0056 4 payment of spousal support. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698834 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 2698834


CourtListener opinion 2698834

QDRO: s. Exhibits A – J were attached in support of the appellee's filings (Child Support Computation Worksheet, HUD-1 Settlement Statement, Division of Household Items, Vehicles and Personal Property, Statement of Participation in Christian Church Pension Plan, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, insurance policies annual statements, debts, appellee's expenses, and division of property and liabilities). The certificate of service filed by appellee states a file-stamped copy of appellee's statement of case, marital balance sheets, and proposed division of assets and liabilities was served on appellant by regular mail on October 26, 2012. {¶5}


CourtListener opinion 2698834

retirement benefits: {¶9} R.C. 3105.171(F)(9) provides as follows: (F) In making a division of martial property and in determining whether to make and the amount of any distributive award under this section, the court shall consider all of the following factors: (9) Any retirement benefits of the spouses, excluding the social security benefits of a spouse, except as may be relevant for purposes of dividing a public pension * * *. {¶10} In this case, both appellee and appellant have contributed into social security and appellant has a private retirement pension. There is no evidence that either party contributed to a public pension. P


CourtListener opinion 2698834

pension: for the rest of her life, and must be tested regularly for certain cancers and sexually transmitted diseases. {¶3} During the marriage, appellant was the assistant minister at North Terrace Church of Christ. He was a participant in the Christian Churches Pension Plan and currently has two life insurance policies. Appellant is no longer employed and receives social security disability of $1,600.00 per month. Appellant currently resides with his parents. Appellee is employed by North Terrace Church of Christ and pays into social security. B.H. receives $819.00 per month as a dependency allotment from social secu


CourtListener opinion 2698834

domestic relations order: s A – J were attached in support of the appellee's filings (Child Support Computation Worksheet, HUD-1 Settlement Statement, Division of Household Items, Vehicles and Personal Property, Statement of Participation in Christian Church Pension Plan, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, insurance policies annual statements, debts, appellee's expenses, and division of property and liabilities). The certificate of service filed by appellee states a file-stamped copy of appellee's statement of case, marital balance sheets, and proposed division of assets and liabilities was served on appellant by regular mail on October 26, 2012. {¶5}


CourtListener opinion 2698871

CourtListener opinion 2698871 Extracted reporter citation: 690 N.E.2d 515. Docket: 12-CA-36 6 other party as a party to the case. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698871 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 2698871


CourtListener opinion 2698871

QDRO: the divorce, Decedent was a retired educator, receiving retirement benefits as provided by the State Teacher Retirement System of Ohio ("STRS"). {¶3} With respect to Decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: {¶4} "(a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00 per month (44.41% of Defendant's gross monthly benefit), plus poundage and cost-of-living increases, for Plaintiff's interest in the STRS Plan as spousal support, p


CourtListener opinion 2698871

retirement benefits: n. Appellee and Decedent were divorced via Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce filed November 26, 1997. The Decree incorporated this Separation Agreement reached by Appellee and Decedent. At the time of the divorce, Decedent was a retired educator, receiving retirement benefits as provided by the State Teacher Retirement System of Ohio ("STRS"). {¶3} With respect to Decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: {¶4} "(a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Def


CourtListener opinion 2698871

pension: "STRS"). {¶3} With respect to Decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: {¶4} "(a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00 per month (44.41% of Defendant's gross monthly benefit), plus poundage and cost-of-living increases, for Plaintiff's interest in the STRS Plan as spousal support, payable until the death of either Defendant or the Plaintiff. {¶5} "(b) Said payments from the STRS shall be de


CourtListener opinion 2698871

alternate payee: her Retirement System of Ohio ("STRS"). {¶3} With respect to Decedent's STRS benefits, the Decree of Divorce provides: {¶4} "(a) Until such time a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") assigning the portion of Defendant's benefits to Plaintiff as alternate payee under the STRS pension plan is permitted by law, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,374.00 per month (44.41% of Defendant's gross monthly benefit), plus poundage and cost-of-living increases, for Plaintiff's interest in the STRS Plan as spousal support, payable until the death of either Defendant or the Plaintiff. {¶5} "(b) Said payments f


CourtListener opinion 2698949

CourtListener opinion 2698949 Extracted reporter citation: 514 N.E.2d 1122. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2698949 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 2698949


CourtListener opinion 2698949

QDRO: of $10,000.00 over a period of 24 months. If Defendant can pay it sooner he may and is encouraged to. At the least, [Defendant] shall pay $5,000 in 12 months. Plaintiff shall also receive the amount of $25,000.00 from the Defendant's 401(K) to be by a QDRO. {¶5} During the marriage, Wife applied for private student loans to fund her college and graduate education. In the settlement agreement, Wife agreed to be responsible for her student loan debt. {¶6} The settlement agreement was filed with the court on July 20, 2011. {¶7} After the July 14, 2011 hearing, Wife realized she could not immediately with


CourtListener opinion 2698949

401(k): pay to wife the sum of $10,000.00 over a period of 24 months. If Defendant can pay it sooner he may and is encouraged to. At the least, [Defendant] shall pay $5,000 in 12 months. Plaintiff shall also receive the amount of $25,000.00 from the Defendant's 401(K) to be by a QDRO. {¶5} During the marriage, Wife applied for private student loans to fund her college and graduate education. In the settlement agreement, Wife agreed to be responsible for her student loan debt. {¶6} The settlement agreement was filed with the court on July 20, 2011. {¶7} After the July 14, 2011 hearing, Wife realized she could not


CourtListener opinion 2698949

alternate payee: aring, Wife realized she could not immediately withdraw the $25,000 from Husband's 401(K) plan. Husband is enrolled in an employee benefits plan entitled the "B Plan" at his place of employment. The "B Plan" does not permit a withdrawal from the fund by an alternate payee until the employee's retirement or separation from employment. Based on this discovery, Wife filed a Motion to Set Aside Settlement and/or Vacate Judgment on September 7, 2011. In the motion, she alleged the settlement agreement should be set aside due to accident, misrepresentation, or fraud. During the settlement negotiations, it was Wife's understan


CourtListener opinion 2699180

CourtListener opinion 2699180 Extracted reporter citation: 480 N.E.2d 1112. Docket: 2012CA00041 13. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2699180 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 2699180

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 2699180

QDRO: d accumulated some value in the ESOP. Husband stated he thought there was "probably a few thousand dollars", "[l]ess than $10,000 at the time" in the accounts. Subsequently, when counsel for Wife presented Husband with evidence from Pension Evaluators and QDRO Consultants, Husband conceded the ESOP was all marital. December 27, 2011 Trial Transcript at 51. {¶35} Based upon Husband's own admission, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the ESOP was a marital asset. Furthermore, Husband failed to definitely establish the amount of his pre-marital contribution to the ESOP. {¶36}


CourtListener opinion 2699180

pension: e of the marriage, he had accumulated some value in the ESOP. Husband stated he thought there was "probably a few thousand dollars", "[l]ess than $10,000 at the time" in the accounts. Subsequently, when counsel for Wife presented Husband with evidence from Pension Evaluators and QDRO Consultants, Husband conceded the ESOP was all marital. December 27, 2011 Trial Transcript at 51. {¶35} Based upon Husband's own admission, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the ESOP was a marital asset. Furthermore, Husband failed to definitely establish the amount of his pre-marital contribution


CourtListener opinion 2699180

valuation/division: 9} It is from this judgment entry Husband appeals, raising as error: {¶10} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DIVIDING THE MARITAL PROPERTY. {¶11} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING DE FACTO SPOUSAL SUPPORT IN THE FORM OF A PROPERTY DIVISION. {¶12} "III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN CALCULATING THE DE FACTO AWARD OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT. {¶13} "IV. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DETERMINING THAT ALL OF THE ASHLAND HERCULES LEVERAGED EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN WAS A MARITAL ASSET. {¶14} "V. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DETERMINING THAT ALL OF THE FUNDS I


CourtListener opinion 2699338

CourtListener opinion 2699338 Extracted reporter citation: 471 N.E.2d 785. Docket: 11 CAF 11 0102 7. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2699338 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 2699338


CourtListener opinion 2699338

QDRO: , in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. On May 10, 2010, the trial court, via judgment entry, granted the parties a divorce. The decree sets forth, among other things, that four retirement assets are to be divided via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). These assets are (1) appellant's General Motors 401(k) plan, (2) appellant's Honda 401(k) plan, (3) appellant's General Motors retirement plan, and (4) appellant's Honda retirement plan. {¶3} On February 22, 2011, appellee filed a motion for contempt against appellant on the issues of spousal support, transference of certain bonds, and issua


CourtListener opinion 2699338

retirement benefits: ad Dublin, Ohio 43016 Columbus, Ohio 43235 Delaware County, Case No. 11 CAF 11 0102 2 Wise, J. {¶1} Appellant Gerald A. Flint appeals the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, which approved certain proposed QDROs affecting appellant's retirement plans in a post-decree contempt action initiated by Appellee Denise L. Flint, appellant's former spouse. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows. {¶2} Appellant Gerald and Appellee Denise were married on July 31, 1982. Two children, presently emancipated, were born of the marriage. Appellee filed a complaint for divorce on January 16, 2008,


CourtListener opinion 2699338

401(k): the trial court, via judgment entry, granted the parties a divorce. The decree sets forth, among other things, that four retirement assets are to be divided via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). These assets are (1) appellant's General Motors 401(k) plan, (2) appellant's Honda 401(k) plan, (3) appellant's General Motors retirement plan, and (4) appellant's Honda retirement plan. {¶3} On February 22, 2011, appellee filed a motion for contempt against appellant on the issues of spousal support, transference of certain bonds, and issuance of the QDROs. The trial court thereupon issued a show cause o


CourtListener opinion 2699338

domestic relations order: elaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. On May 10, 2010, the trial court, via judgment entry, granted the parties a divorce. The decree sets forth, among other things, that four retirement assets are to be divided via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). These assets are (1) appellant's General Motors 401(k) plan, (2) appellant's Honda 401(k) plan, (3) appellant's General Motors retirement plan, and (4) appellant's Honda retirement plan. {¶3} On February 22, 2011, appellee filed a motion for contempt against appellant on the issues of spousal support, transference of certain bonds, and issua


CourtListener opinion 2699541

CourtListener opinion 2699541 Extracted reporter citation: 574 N.E.2d 457. Docket: 11CAF110109 8. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2699541 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 2699541

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 2699541

QDRO: . The magistrate issued a shared parenting plan. The magistrate further ordered Husband to pay Wife's attorney fees. {¶6} Husband filed objections to the magistrate's decision relative to the award of attorney fees; the cash property award rather than the QDRO to which the parties had agreed; his continued payment of Wife's automobile debt; and the shared parenting plan. Wife filed a memorandum contra. The parties worked with the guardian ad litem and resolved the shared parenting plan issues. An Agreed Shared Parenting Order was filed February 4, 2011. {¶7} Via Judgment Entry filed October 26, 2011, the tr


CourtListener opinion 2699541

valuation/division: sion filed June 7, 2010, the magistrate ordered the parties be granted a divorce. The magistrate found the parties had reached an agreement settling "all financial and property issues" pursuant to which Husband would pay Wife "$65,000 as satisfaction of an equitable distribution of marital assets and debts." Magistrate's June 7, 2010 Decision at para. 25. The magistrate also found, prior to the marriage, Wife owned real property located at 396 Shandon Court, Powell, Ohio, which became rental property after the marriage. Sometime in April or May, 2008, the parties discovered the exiting tenants had "trashed" the residence. Husba


CourtListener opinion 2699615

CourtListener opinion 2699615 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2699615 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 2699615


CourtListener opinion 2699615

QDRO: ed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. The Separation Agreement that was filed the same date stated, in paragraph 11, as follows: "Husband and Wife consent and agree that Wife is to receive ½ of IBEW 401K by use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)." {¶3} On August 14, 2006, appellant also filed a Financial Statement Affidavit in which she listed appellee's IBEW 401K as having a value of $32,118.60. Appellee, on October 2, 2006, filed an affidavit in which he stated that he had reviewed the Financial Statement Affidavit that was filed with the trial court and found it to be accurate. A Decree o


CourtListener opinion 2699615

retirement benefits: 10–Ohio–540, ¶ 12, citing In re Mittas, 5th Dist. No. 1994CA00053, 1994 WL 477799 (Aug. 6, 1994). {¶15} In the case sub judice, appellant maintains that appellee should have been held in contempt because she was denied her one-half interest in appellee's retirement accounts, thereby denying appellant her fair share of the marital property. Stark County App. Case No. 2011CA00091 6 Appellant contends that paragraph 11 of the parties' Separation Agreement entitled her to the same. {¶16} As is stated above, the Separation Agreement that was incorporated into the October 3, 2006 Decree stated, in paragraph 11, as follows: "H


CourtListener opinion 2699615

pension: ent was filed on October 3, 2006. {¶4} After problems arose involving the QDRO, a hearing regarding clarification of the QDRO was scheduled for June 17, 2010. At the hearing, a representative of IBEW Local 540 Security Plan clarified that appellee's IBEW pension plan was a Security Plan pension and that a separate 401(K) plan existed, but had no value. Appellee acknowledged that the pension accrued during the marriage had an approximate value of $30,000.00. Stark County App. Case No. 2011CA00091 3 {¶5} The trial court, as memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on June 21, 2010, stated, in relevant part, as f


CourtListener opinion 2699615

401(k): lant Valerie Woronka and appellee William Woronka filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. The Separation Agreement that was filed the same date stated, in paragraph 11, as follows: "Husband and Wife consent and agree that Wife is to receive ½ of IBEW 401K by use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)." {¶3} On August 14, 2006, appellant also filed a Financial Statement Affidavit in which she listed appellee's IBEW 401K as having a value of $32,118.60. Appellee, on October 2, 2006, filed an affidavit in which he stated that he had reviewed the Financial Statement Affidavit that was filed with th


CourtListener opinion 2699653

CourtListener opinion 2699653 Extracted reporter citation: 453 U.S. 210. Docket: of years the appellant participated. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2699653 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 2699653

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 2699653

QDRO: ry Decree of Divorce was filed on September 15, 2000. The Judgment Entry Decree of Divorce, which indicated that appellant had entered into full military service on November 10, 1999, stated, in relevant part, as follows: {¶ 3} "12. The Wife shall have a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in all the retirement benefits of the Husband whether designated as pension, profit- sharing, or otherwise. The Order shall not interfere with the timing or optional modes of settlement that the Husband may have under such plan. However, at the time that any benefits would be received under the retirement plan, the entire retirement benefit shall


CourtListener opinion 2699653

retirement benefits: The Judgment Entry Decree of Divorce, which indicated that appellant had entered into full military service on November 10, 1999, stated, in relevant part, as follows: {¶ 3} "12. The Wife shall have a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in all the retirement benefits of the Husband whether designated as pension, profit- sharing, or otherwise. The Order shall not interfere with the timing or optional modes of settlement that the Husband may have under such plan. However, at the time that any benefits would be received under the retirement plan, the entire retirement benefit shall be divided into two shares. The Wife


CourtListener opinion 2699653

pension: at appellant had entered into full military service on November 10, 1999, stated, in relevant part, as follows: {¶ 3} "12. The Wife shall have a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in all the retirement benefits of the Husband whether designated as pension, profit- sharing, or otherwise. The Order shall not interfere with the timing or optional modes of settlement that the Husband may have under such plan. However, at the time that any benefits would be received under the retirement plan, the entire retirement benefit shall be divided into two shares. The Wife's share shall equal the following fractional


CourtListener opinion 2699653

ERISA: llant, in his first assignment of error, argues that the trial court erred by ordering that all of appellant's military retirement was required to be apportioned. Appellant maintains that the Divorce Decree ordered that appellant's Navy Reserve pension and ERISA qualified plans be divided and did not include appellant's active duty Navy retirement. Delaware County App. Case No. 11CAF050039 8 {¶ 33} As noted by the court in Hasselback v. Hasselback, 10th Dist. No. 06AP- 776, 2007-Ohio-762. "The Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act ("USFSPA") was passed by Congress in 1982, and gives state courts the


CourtListener opinion 2699910

CourtListener opinion 2699910 Extracted reporter citation: 748 N.E.2d 528. Docket: used. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2699910 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 2699910


CourtListener opinion 2699910

QDRO: ty included, but was not limited to, the appellee's STRS retirement benefits. With regard to the STRS retirement benefits, the Final Decree stated: {¶4} "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Teachers' Retirement Pension (STRS) shall be divided pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Costs of the division shall be paid equally by each party. Survivorship and costs of living protection for the Defendant [Appellant Kory] shall be provided." {¶5} Subsequent to the parties' divorce, a delay ensued concerning the preparation and filing of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Specifically, appellant's attorney believed that the entr


CourtListener opinion 2699910

retirement benefits: brarian at Kenmore High School, where she earns a pension through the State Teachers' Retirement Pension (STRS). {¶3} The Final Decree of Divorce divided the couple's property; the division of property included, but was not limited to, the appellee's STRS retirement benefits. With regard to the STRS retirement benefits, the Final Decree stated: {¶4} "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Teachers' Retirement Pension (STRS) shall be divided pursuant to Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Costs of the division shall be paid equally by each party. Survivorship and costs of living protection for the Defendant [Appellant Kory]


CourtListener opinion 2699910

pension: divorced by a judgment entry filed September 23, 2003. The Judgment Entry of Divorce approved and incorporated the Magistrate Decision filed with the court on June 27, 2003. Appellee was, and still is, a librarian at Kenmore High School, where she earns a pension through the State Teachers' Retirement Pension (STRS). {¶3} The Final Decree of Divorce divided the couple's property; the division of property included, but was not limited to, the appellee's STRS retirement benefits. With regard to the STRS retirement benefits, the Final Decree stated: {¶4} "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Teachers' Retirement