CourtListener opinion 10321839

ERISA: DISCUSSION I. Beneficiary Designation Change Where, as here, an employee benefit plan grants a plan administrator discretionary authority to construe the terms of the plan, a district court must deferentially review a denial of benefits challenged under ERISA. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bitch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, (1989). The court may reverse the denial only if the administrator's decision was arbitrary and capricious, that is, "without reason, unsupported by substantial evidence or erroneous as a matter of law." Zervos v. Verizon New York Inc., 277 F.3d 635, 646 (2d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); see a


CourtListener opinion 10321839

401(k): attorney on February 23, 2016, which is the date it became effective. Ent. Defs.' R. 56.1 Smt. ⁋18. Early in October of 2016, Daniel suffered a stroke. Ind. Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ⁋ 24. Shortly thereafter, on October 26, 2016, Bloomberg's administrator for 401(k) benefits, Empower, submitted the power of attorney to Bloomberg for review. Ent. Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ⁋ 20. In part, the purpose of the review was for Bloomberg to determine whether restrictions on the attorney- in-fact applied to the management of Daniel's 401(k) benefits. Id. ⁋ 21. On October 31, 2016, in a conversation between Bloomberg's representat


CourtListener opinion 1033631

CourtListener opinion 1033631 Extracted reporter citation: 646 F.3d 504. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1033631 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 1033631

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 1033631

QDRO: separate non-marital property of the party who is the participant or owner of the benefit or account (the "Participant"), except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement. Each of the parties agree that they will not seek the imposition of any Qualified Domestic Relations Order or other Order which would attempt to assign any rights in the Retirement Benefits from the Participant to the non-participant party. The Participant will receive 100% of the Retirement Benefit and the non- participant party will receive none of the Retirement Benefit, regardless of when it is paid. .... 3. DISPOSITION OF SEPARATE PROPERTY. Each pa


CourtListener opinion 1033631

retirement benefits: herein contemplated, Wife hereby disclaims any and all rights to any of the property as set forth in Exhibit "A," or any property acquired from proceeds thereof, or any replacement property, or any additional property belonging to Husband. .... g. Any retirement benefit, account or right, including any distributions or other payments to a party and any increase in such benefit or account during the term of the marriage, either by -3- contributions, earnings or appreciation whether the Participant or others make investment decisions ("Retirement Benefit"), will be the separate non-marital property of the party who is


CourtListener opinion 1033631

pension: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3563 ___________________________ MidAmerican Pension and Employee Benefits Plans Administrative Committee lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Michael G. Cox, Sr.; Joleen Cox lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants Kathy L. Cox lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ________


CourtListener opinion 1033631

ERISA: 8. RETIREMENT PLANS AND INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS. a. To the extent that either party is entitled to benefits receivable under a retirement plan or individual retirement account, subject to the terms of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) as now existing or hereafter amended, 29 USCS §§ 1001-1461, which require joint and survivor annuities, pre- retirement survivor annuities, or any other similar benefit, the other party hereby irrevocably consents to the participant employee's change in beneficiary or change in the form of -4- payment of benefits without further consent by the non-


CourtListener opinion 1034489

CourtListener opinion 1034489 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of JOAN M. and. Extracted reporter citation: 18 Cal.3d 365. Docket: and location. Donald asked the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1034489 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 1034489


CourtListener opinion 1034489

QDRO: no basis in the present record on appeal for finding that Donald receives a pension that Joan is entitled to share. On remand, Joan may present the trial court with evidence that Donald failed to disclose a source of income and ask the trial court to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) directing payment of half of Donald‟s pension to Joan. 4. Social Security Benefits Joan makes an indecipherable argument about Donald‟s Social Security being subject to spousal support. The trial court did, in fact, direct Donald to pay Joan $300 per month in support from his SSDI benefits, inasmuch as this is the only income that Donald testified h


CourtListener opinion 1034489

retirement benefits: ocial Security disability income (SSDI) of $551 (Joan) and $1,500 (Donald). They divided the proceeds from the sale of their house equally: each received between $45,000 and $50,000, after costs. They have spent the sale proceeds, and have no stocks, bonds or retirement accounts. Donald has not worked since his employer went out of business in 1996. Before his layoff, he was earning about $50,000 annually. He testified that he does not receive a company pension. Donald admitted that he has not been paying court-ordered spousal support to Joan because he spends all of his $1,500 SSDI. Joan received a worker‟s compensation settleme


CourtListener opinion 1034489

pension: xhibits listing community property such as furniture, appliances, knives and cars. She asked the court to order an appraisal for various collectibles, such as books, magazines, model cars, Zippo lighters, comic books, and so on. She requested half of Donald‟s pension. In response, Donald stated that he "is legally blind, and neither party is capable of gainful employment." On May 4, 2009, the court ordered the parties to list for sale three classic cars; to either sell their guns and split the proceeds or purchase them; to divide the knives among themselves; and to divide the pension. Donald was ordered to pay spousal


CourtListener opinion 1034489

domestic relations order: in the present record on appeal for finding that Donald receives a pension that Joan is entitled to share. On remand, Joan may present the trial court with evidence that Donald failed to disclose a source of income and ask the trial court to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) directing payment of half of Donald‟s pension to Joan. 4. Social Security Benefits Joan makes an indecipherable argument about Donald‟s Social Security being subject to spousal support. The trial court did, in fact, direct Donald to pay Joan $300 per month in support from his SSDI benefits, inasmuch as this is the only income that Donald testified h


CourtListener opinion 10346325

CourtListener opinion 10346325 Docket: 430. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10346325 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 10346325


CourtListener opinion 10346325

QDRO: with husband. It reasoned that, although the general dissolution judgment does not 2 The general dissolution judgment provides in part: "[E]ach party has a PERS OPSRP defined benefit plan. Both PERS OPSRP defined benefit plans are being divided equally by QDRO. Therefore Wife shall be entitled to half of the marital value of Husband's PERS OPSRP plan. Husband shall likewise be entitled to half of the marital value of Wife's PERS OPSRP plan. The parties will each be responsible for hiring and paying for their own attorney to handle their QDRO to receive the funds from the other parties' account. The end date


CourtListener opinion 10346325

retirement benefits: use the term "state" generically to refer to public bodies that participate in PERS. 4 The court explained the time rule in Kiser: "The ‘coverature' or ‘time rule' is typically used to calculate the ‘mari- tal portion' of benefits under a defined benefit retirement plan. The marital portion is determined by multiplying the benefit to be divided by a fraction, the numerator of which is the years (or months) of service during which the couple were married and the denominator is the total years (or months) of employment." 176 Or App at 632 n 1. 5 Wife proposed determining the marital value of each party's pension ben- e


CourtListener opinion 10346325

pension: judgment, arguing that it is inconsistent with the general dissolution judgment. We affirm. Husband and wife were married in 2000. During their marriage, they were both members of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and each will receive a pension from PERS on retirement. Although the PERS statutes provide different methods for calculat- ing a member's pension benefits, see Piller and Piller, 318 Or App 836, 842-43, 843 n 7, 508 P3d 553 (2022), the parties agree that each of them will receive a defined benefit plan on retirement. That is, the parties agree that, when they retire, PERS will calculate


CourtListener opinion 10346325

valuation/division: nt is dif- ficult to square with her argument in the trial court. In her lawyer's initial remarks to the trial court, wife's lawyer told the court, "Well, I would first say that the general judgment does not specify which option to use in dealing—awarding the marital portion." And he contended that, even though Kiser stated that the time rule "typically" will be used when the general dissolution judgment does not specify how the marital portion of a defined benefit plan will be determined, Kiser "does not say that the married time ratio is always used" to fill gaps in a general judgment that divides defined 450 Jarvie and Csav


CourtListener opinion 10352375

CourtListener opinion 10352375 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10352375 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 10352375


CourtListener opinion 10352375

retirement benefits: nd then renewed a non-marital relationship, and the contributions at issue occurred during the non- married period. The arbitrator awarded the Harshaw plaintiff a judgment for $435,000, which the defendant could satisfy through assignment of his pension or retirement benefits, a qualified domestic relations order, or any manner acceptable to the parties. In re Harshaw, 26 F.4th at 772. The defendant filed for bankruptcy, and the plaintiff argued her arbitration award comprised a non-dischargeable property interest in the debtor's retirement accounts (as opposed to a dischargeable money judgment). Id. In concluding the debt


CourtListener opinion 10352375

pension: divorced and then renewed a non-marital relationship, and the contributions at issue occurred during the non- married period. The arbitrator awarded the Harshaw plaintiff a judgment for $435,000, which the defendant could satisfy through assignment of his pension or retirement benefits, a qualified domestic relations order, or any manner acceptable to the parties. In re Harshaw, 26 F.4th at 772. The defendant filed for bankruptcy, and the plaintiff argued her arbitration award comprised a non-dischargeable property interest in the debtor's retirement accounts (as opposed to a dischargeable money judgment). Id.


CourtListener opinion 10352375

domestic relations order: ationship, and the contributions at issue occurred during the non- married period. The arbitrator awarded the Harshaw plaintiff a judgment for $435,000, which the defendant could satisfy through assignment of his pension or retirement benefits, a qualified domestic relations order, or any manner acceptable to the parties. In re Harshaw, 26 F.4th at 772. The defendant filed for bankruptcy, and the plaintiff argued her arbitration award comprised a non-dischargeable property interest in the debtor's retirement accounts (as opposed to a dischargeable money judgment). Id. In concluding the debt was a dischargeable money judgment, th


CourtListener opinion 1035522

CourtListener opinion 1035522 Extracted reporter citation: 677 F.3d 178. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1035522 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 1035522

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 1035522

QDRO: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 12-3497 ______________ NICHOLAS DANZA, individually and on behalf of defined contribution plans that used Defendants as their qualified domestic relations order service provider and all similarly situated beneficiaries of such ERISA-covered employee benefit plans, Appellant v. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY INC. ______________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civ. Action No. 1-11-cv-02893) Distric


CourtListener opinion 1035522

retirement benefits: tion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm. II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY As we write principally for the benefit of the parties, we recite only the essential facts and procedural history. Plaintiff was a participant in a 401(k) retirement plan sponsored by his employer, the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. ("A&P"). In 2008, A&P and Fidelity entered into a Trust Agreement under which Fidelity agreed to provide recordkeeping and administrative services for the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. Savings Plan ("A&P Plan"), which included the review of DROs for compliance with E


CourtListener opinion 1035522

ERISA: CIRCUIT ______________ No. 12-3497 ______________ NICHOLAS DANZA, individually and on behalf of defined contribution plans that used Defendants as their qualified domestic relations order service provider and all similarly situated beneficiaries of such ERISA-covered employee benefit plans, Appellant v. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY INC. ______________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civ. Action No. 1-11-cv-02893) District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas ______________ Submitted Under Thi


CourtListener opinion 1035522

401(k): NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 12-3497 ______________ NICHOLAS DANZA, individually and on behalf of defined contribution plans that used Defendants as their qualified domestic relations order service provider and all similarly situated beneficiaries of such ERISA-covered employee benefit plans, Appellant v. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY INC. ______________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH


CourtListener opinion 1036323

CourtListener opinion 1036323 Extracted reporter citation: 635 P.2d 1186. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1036323 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 1036323


CourtListener opinion 1036323

QDRO: cause not otherwise provided for may be commenced within 10 years after the cause of action has accrued." 18 AS 09.10.010 (emphasis added). -8- 6803 of Van Brocklin as authorizing only an independent action. Third, Theresa argues that, before the use of qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) was commonplace, our stated preference for dividing pensions in divorce actions was for a court to retain jurisdiction in order to make the actual division at a later time. Theresa quotes at length from our opinion in Thomas v. Thomas:19 In Laing we stated our preference for reserving jurisdiction as an alternative to valuing non-vested pensions


CourtListener opinion 1036323

retirement benefits: Before: Carpeneti, Chief Justice, Fabe, Winfree, and Stowers, Justices, and Eastaugh, Senior Justice.* CARPENETI, Chief Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A couple divorced in 1992. The divorce decree did not divide the parties' property. The man receives military retirement benefits from over 22 years of service in the United States military. In October 2010 the woman filed a motion seeking a post * Sitting by assignment made under article IV, section 11 of the Alaska Constitution and Alaska Administrative Rule 23(a). decree equitable division of property. The man opposed, arguing that the woman's claim was barred by (1) the stat


CourtListener opinion 1036323

pension: ate the absent spouse. .... THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: .... 3. This decree does not bar future action on the issues not resolved in this decree. Hank was in the United States military for over 22 years and has received $1,471.00 per month from a military pension since sometime in either 2002 or 2003. Theresa worked for the Anchorage School District for about six years, from which she also receives a pension. B. Proceedings On June 14, 2010, Theresa filed a motion under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b), in which she sought to have the court "set aside the dissolution decree for fraud upon the court." Theresa claimed that,


CourtListener opinion 1036323

domestic relations order: otherwise provided for may be commenced within 10 years after the cause of action has accrued." 18 AS 09.10.010 (emphasis added). -8- 6803 of Van Brocklin as authorizing only an independent action. Third, Theresa argues that, before the use of qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) was commonplace, our stated preference for dividing pensions in divorce actions was for a court to retain jurisdiction in order to make the actual division at a later time. Theresa quotes at length from our opinion in Thomas v. Thomas:19 In Laing we stated our preference for reserving jurisdiction as an alternative to valuing non-vested pensions


CourtListener opinion 10374035

CourtListener opinion 10374035 Extracted reporter citation: 108 F.3d 86. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10374035 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 10374035


CourtListener opinion 10374035

QDRO: the 1974 Pension Plan. As set forth in his Complaint, Plaintiff is a participant in the 1974 Pension Plan, who is currently collecting his benefits, which commenced on August 1, 2014, and continue to date. Plaintiff's Complaint is based on the effect of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")2 on Plaintiff's pension benefits under the UMWA 1974 Pension Plan ("the 1974 Pension Plan"). Pursuant to the QDRO, the 1974 Pension Plan was to pay Plaintiff's ex-wife, Laureen C. Mulvey, a pension benefit as part of the Mulvey's property distribution from their divorce. The terms of the QDRO allowed Ms. Mulvey to commence her benefits at any t


CourtListener opinion 10374035

pension: v. JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH Magistrate Judge Deavers UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA HEALTH AND RETIREMENT FUND, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America ("UMWA") 1974 Pension Trust's ("1974 Pension Trust")1 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff has filed several letters with the Court as well as two separate Responses in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (Docs. 11, 13, 15, and 19). Additionally, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Jury Trial and Motion to Stay. (Doc. 14). These motions are fully briefed an


CourtListener opinion 10374035

ERISA: Court on June 7, 2019. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff asserts that he retired from the McElroy coal mine after 45 years of service and was entitled to receive his union pension from UMWA. (Doc. 3, Compl.). The 1974 Pension Plan is an employee benefit plan regulated by ERISA as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et. seq., and the 1974 Pension Trust is a trust fund established pursuant to and in accordance with the requirements of Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act as amended, and 29 U.S.C. § 186. The 1974 Pension Trust provides pension benefits to eligible mine workers under the terms of the 1974 Pension Plan. As set


CourtListener opinion 10374035

alternate payee: rovided that her benefit be based on her life expectancy and payable for her lifetime. The relevant language assigning the interest in Plaintiff's benefits to his ex-wife is set forth in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the QDRO, which state as follows: 7. Amount of Alternate Payee's Benefit: This Order assigns to Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of 50 percent 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 . . . 2 The QDRO at issue is referred to in Plaintiff's C


CourtListener opinion 1038717

CourtListener opinion 1038717 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of RICHARD J. and. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1038717 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 1038717


CourtListener opinion 1038717

QDRO: A decade later they returned to court to resolve their respective interests in Richard's Wells Fargo Retirement Annuity (Annuity).1 The trial court awarded each party a 50 percent interest in the Annuity and left it to the parties to resolve the language of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) consistent with the court's findings and order. They could not agree on the language. Without notice to either Diane or the court, Richard waived any survivor benefits in the Annuity and began 1 \As is customary in family law proceedings


CourtListener opinion 1038717

domestic relations order: ater they returned to court to resolve their respective interests in Richard's Wells Fargo Retirement Annuity (Annuity).1 The trial court awarded each party a 50 percent interest in the Annuity and left it to the parties to resolve the language of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) consistent with the court's findings and order. They could not agree on the language. Without notice to either Diane or the court, Richard waived any survivor benefits in the Annuity and began 1 \As is customary in family law proceedings


CourtListener opinion 1038717

survivor benefits: the Annuity and left it to the parties to resolve the language of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) consistent with the court's findings and order. They could not agree on the language. Without notice to either Diane or the court, Richard waived any survivor benefits in the Annuity and began 1 \As is customary in family law proceedings


CourtListener opinion 10396361

CourtListener opinion 10396361 Extracted case name: OPINION & ORDER v. HILLSBORO MEDICAL CENTER. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 28. Frozen Plan in any of those years. Accordingly. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10396361 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 10396361

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 10396361

retirement benefits: ica Retirement Advisor's Motion for Entry of Judgment. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Maritta Erickson began working as a registered nurse with Defendant Hillsboro Medical Center ("HMC")1 on October 20, 1986. Plaintiff was a participant in the Tuality Healthcare Retirement Plan (the "Frozen Plan")2 from November 1, 1987, through August 31, 2012, at which time the Frozen Plan was amended to freeze participation and benefit accruals. Plaintiff was a participant in the Tuality Healthcare Cash Balance Pension Plan (the "Cash Balance Plan") from September 1, 2012, through May 31, 2020. Plaintiff retired from HMC on June 15, 2020.


CourtListener opinion 10396361

pension: ality Healthcare Retirement Plan (the "Frozen Plan")2 from November 1, 1987, through August 31, 2012, at which time the Frozen Plan was amended to freeze participation and benefit accruals. Plaintiff was a participant in the Tuality Healthcare Cash Balance Pension Plan (the "Cash Balance Plan") from September 1, 2012, through May 31, 2020. Plaintiff retired from HMC on June 15, 2020. On June 24, 2020, Plaintiff wrote to HMC and Defendant Transamerica Retirement Advisors ("TRA") asserting that HMC erred in the calculation of her retirement benefits under the Frozen Plan. Specifically, Plaintiff asserted HMC faile


CourtListener opinion 10396361

ERISA: HMC was Tuality Medical Center at the time Plaintiff was hired until November 2019. 2 It is undisputed that HMC is the plan sponsor and administrator of the Frozen Plan and a fiduciary under the provisions of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). sent a second letter to HMC and TRA noting she had received employer-matched benefits from her 403(b) retirement account3 in 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001, therefore, she believed she also met the Frozen Plan 1,000-hour threshold to be credited with a year of benefit service in each of those years. Plaintiff attached some of her paystubs and asserted they s


CourtListener opinion 10396361

domestic relations order: the plans, or administration of the plans, nor does it provide TRA with authority to manage the plans or to administer the plans' assets. Rather, Section II reflects TRA agreed to assume fiduciary responsibility for things such as reviewing and evaluating domestic relations orders, preparing benefit election forms, reviewing benefit election forms for accuracy, conducting "weekly death audits for retirees," and notifying "terminated vested participants." Tr. 1227-28. The provision of the PSA that Plaintiff relies on for her assertion that TRA had relevant fiduciary duties is contained in the portion of the PSA addressing "float


CourtListener opinion 10401958

CourtListener opinion 10401958 Extracted reporter citation: 850 F.3d 526. Docket: 25. Mr. Bowman incorporates an earlier. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10401958 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 10401958


CourtListener opinion 10401958

QDRO: 's eventual share in a monthly stream of pension benefits offered by a retirement plan sponsored by his Laborers' Union based upon a specified calculation. The state court approving the divorce or the spouses' lawyers unfortunately never docketed the draft qualified domestic relations order confirming the wife's share of the monthly stream of his pension payments upon retirement. The laborer retired in 2018. The former spouses now could not agree as to the sharing of the pension payments and the ex-wife's lawyer threatened to sue the pension fund. The pension fund interpleaded earlier this year asking our direction and deposited the chal


CourtListener opinion 10401958

retirement benefits: : MEMORANDUM KEARNEY, J. October 19, 2021 A lifelong laborer divorced his wife over fifteen years ago. He signed a property settlement agreement in January 2003 confirming his wife's eventual share in a monthly stream of pension benefits offered by a retirement plan sponsored by his Laborers' Union based upon a specified calculation. The state court approving the divorce or the spouses' lawyers unfortunately never docketed the draft qualified domestic relations order confirming the wife's share of the monthly stream of his pension payments upon retirement. The laborer retired in 2018. The former spouses now could n


CourtListener opinion 10401958

pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, LABORERS' : CIVIL ACTION DISTRICT COUNCIL : CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY : PENSION PLAN : : v. : NO. 21-1965 : ANTHONY BOWMAN, et al. : MEMORANDUM KEARNEY, J. October 19, 2021 A lifelong laborer divorced his wife over fifteen years ago. He signed a property settlement agreement in January 2003 confirming his wife's eventual share in a monthly stream of pension benefits offered by a retirement plan sponsored by his Laborers'


CourtListener opinion 10401958

ERISA: d to Mr. and Ms. Bowman, and begin paying Mr. Bowman his benefits during the pendency of this litigation. We find the property settlement agreement incorporated into the divorce decree is sufficient to qualify as a qualified domestic relations order under ERISA and the Plan terms. The Plan prohibits participants from assigning, alienating, transferring, selling or otherwise encumbering his or her pension benefits.24 But the Plan excepts this prohibition if the participant grants a right in his or her pension benefits through a "qualified domestic relations order as defined by Section 414(p)" of the Internal R


CourtListener opinion 10402432

CourtListener opinion 10402432 Extracted reporter citation: 605 F.3d 223. Docket: 1-1. The State. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10402432 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 10402432


CourtListener opinion 10402432

QDRO: s. 29 & 31 – Dismissed Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. January 5, 2022 United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Bruce Clark and his ex-wife divorced several years ago. During their divorce proceedings, the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County entered a qualified domestic relations order that diverted a portion of Clark's pension to his ex-wife. Specifically, Clark's ex-wife received a payment of $782.20 each month from his pension plan. According to Clark, the monthly payments to his ex-wife were supposed to stop after thirty months. However, his ex-wife has received payments for approximately sixty months and continues to receive pa


CourtListener opinion 10402432

pension: States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Bruce Clark and his ex-wife divorced several years ago. During their divorce proceedings, the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County entered a qualified domestic relations order that diverted a portion of Clark's pension to his ex-wife. Specifically, Clark's ex-wife received a payment of $782.20 each month from his pension plan. According to Clark, the monthly payments to his ex-wife were supposed to stop after thirty months. However, his ex-wife has received payments for approximately sixty months and continues to receive payments to this day. Believing that Alight


CourtListener opinion 10402432

ERISA: mestic relations order" explaining how certain property, payments from a pension plan, should be split between divorced parties. See Prol v. Prol, 935 A.2d 547, 549 n.2 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). Normally, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts "any and all State laws insofar as they may . . . relate to any employee benefit plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). However, ERISA does "not apply to qualified domestic relation orders" such as the QDRO. Id. § 1144(b)(7). The definition of a qualified domestic relations order is provided in ERISA. See id. §§ 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)–(ii) Clark does not cha


CourtListener opinion 10402432

domestic relations order: – Dismissed Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. January 5, 2022 United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Bruce Clark and his ex-wife divorced several years ago. During their divorce proceedings, the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County entered a qualified domestic relations order that diverted a portion of Clark's pension to his ex-wife. Specifically, Clark's ex-wife received a payment of $782.20 each month from his pension plan. According to Clark, the monthly payments to his ex-wife were supposed to stop after thirty months. However, his ex-wife has received payments for approximately sixty months and continues to receive pa


CourtListener opinion 10402876

CourtListener opinion 10402876 Extracted reporter citation: 605 F.3d 223. Docket: 1-1. The State. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10402876 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 10402876


CourtListener opinion 10402876

QDRO: Defendant. : ____________________________________ O P I N I O N Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 44 – Granted Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. March 11, 2022 United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Following Bruce Clark's divorce, the State Court issued a qualified domestic relations order, which split Clark's retirement payments between him and his ex-wife. According to Clark, the partial payments to his ex-wife should have stopped in January 2017. However, the payments continued, so he filed multiple lawsuits against his ex-wife in the State Court attempting to stop the payments to her. Clark's efforts failed in the State Court, so he


CourtListener opinion 10402876

pension: t matter jurisdiction, it is barred from reviewing his claim, or would abstain from adjudicating his claim, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and domestic relations doctrine. II. BACKGROUND a. Alleged Facts1 Clark is currently the beneficiary of a PECO Pension Plan. See Orig. Compl. 3, ECF No. 1. Under the Plan, the Plan Administrator makes monthly payments to Clark. 2 However, in December 2016, the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County (the State Court) certified a qualified domestic relations order (the QDRO) that diverted a portion of the Plan's monthly payments to Clark's ex-wife. See generally QDRO,


CourtListener opinion 10402876

domestic relations order: nt. : ____________________________________ O P I N I O N Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 44 – Granted Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. March 11, 2022 United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Following Bruce Clark's divorce, the State Court issued a qualified domestic relations order, which split Clark's retirement payments between him and his ex-wife. According to Clark, the partial payments to his ex-wife should have stopped in January 2017. However, the payments continued, so he filed multiple lawsuits against his ex-wife in the State Court attempting to stop the payments to her. Clark's efforts failed in the State Court, so he


CourtListener opinion 10404492

CourtListener opinion 10404492 Extracted reporter citation: 71 F.3d 29. Docket: 21. Alight then timely. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10404492 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 10404492

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 10404492

QDRO: 21-1855 : v. : : ALIGHT SOLUTIONS, LLC and EXELON : CORPORATION, : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Smith, J. December 14, 2022 This action involves the pro se plaintiff's claim that the defendants did not comply with a state-court issued qualified domestic relations order when they continued to pay his ex-wife certain benefits after the court-ordered period to do so had expired. Nine months ago, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the operative complaint and dismissed this action with prejudice, primarily for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the plaintiff was dissatisfied with this dismissal,


CourtListener opinion 10404492

pension: t Alight (Doc. No. 9), (2) a motion for entry of a default judgment (Doc. No. 3 In the first document, it seems as if Clark wanted Judge Leeson to "concur" with "directives" he presented to Alight via a May 12, 2021 "Formal Legal Notification to the Exelon Pension Plan Administrator." Doc. No. 6 at ECF pp. 1, 2. In this "Legal Notification", Clark explained that by Alight not having responded to his complaint, "it is conclusively presumed that [it] is conceding to the criminal charges as presented and is by default entering a guilty plea and is willing to accede to the requested payments and penalties as presented


CourtListener opinion 10404492

domestic relations order: : v. : : ALIGHT SOLUTIONS, LLC and EXELON : CORPORATION, : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Smith, J. December 14, 2022 This action involves the pro se plaintiff's claim that the defendants did not comply with a state-court issued qualified domestic relations order when they continued to pay his ex-wife certain benefits after the court-ordered period to do so had expired. Nine months ago, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the operative complaint and dismissed this action with prejudice, primarily for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the plaintiff was dissatisfied with this dismissal,


CourtListener opinion 10407029

CourtListener opinion 10407029 Extracted reporter citation: 550 U.S. 544. Docket: 12. The verdict and judgment were upheld on. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10407029 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 10407029


CourtListener opinion 10407029

QDRO: d)(1), "[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). With very few exceptions, the alienation or assignment of benefits under a pension plan are thus clearly proscribed. Qualified domestic relations orders constitute one exception,2 while a few other exceptions exist for "any offset of a participant's benefits provided under [a plan] against an amount that the participant is ordered or required to pay to the plan if the order or requirement to pay arises out of a conviction for a crime involving the plan," or pursuant to a civil judgment or settlement a


CourtListener opinion 10407029

pension: n provisions which are intended to ensure that employee benefit plan regulation would be exclusively a federal concern." Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 208 (2004) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Under Section 206(d)(1), "[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). With very few exceptions, the alienation or assignment of benefits under a pension plan are thus clearly proscribed. Qualified domestic relations orders constitute one exception,2 while a few other exceptions exist for "any offset of a pa


CourtListener opinion 10407029

ERISA: lah Burns on the monies held in a 401(k) savings plan belonging to Defendant Blakely Cooper, a Merck employee. Because those funds are exempt from garnishment and execution under the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d), the motion shall be granted. BACKGROUND In 2019, Plaintiff Jamiylah Burns obtained a $75,000 judgment in the Montgomery County (Pennsylvania) Court of Common Pleas against her former husband, Defendant Blakely Cooper, in a defamation action. Pl.'s Mem. Law Opp'n. Mot. Dismiss 2, ECF No. 12. The verdict and judgment were upheld on


CourtListener opinion 10407029

401(k): ON v. : : NO. 23-5086 BLAKELEY COOPER, et. al. : MEMORANDUM Judge Juan R. Sánchez April 1, 2024 Garnishee Merck, Sharp and Dohme LLC (Merck) moves to dismiss and quash the writ of execution filed by Plaintiff Jamiylah Burns on the monies held in a 401(k) savings plan belonging to Defendant Blakely Cooper, a Merck employee. Because those funds are exempt from garnishment and execution under the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d), the motion shall be granted. BACKGROUND In 2019, Plaintiff Jamiylah Burns obtained a $75,000 judgment in the


CourtListener opinion 10407410

CourtListener opinion 10407410 Extracted reporter citation: 550 U.S. 544. Docket: 10. The verdict and judgment were upheld on. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10407410 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 10407410


CourtListener opinion 10407410

QDRO: 206(d)(1), "[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). With few exceptions, the alienation or assignment of benefits under a pension plan are thus clearly proscribed. Qualified domestic relations orders constitute one exception,2 while a few other exceptions exist for "any offset of a participant's benefits provided under [a plan] against an amount that the participant is ordered or required to pay to the plan if the order or requirement to pay arises out of a conviction for a crime involving the plan," or pursuant to a civil judgment or settlement a


CourtListener opinion 10407410

pension: n provisions which are intended to ensure that employee benefit plan regulation would be exclusively a federal concern." Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 208 (2004) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Under Section 206(d)(1), "[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). With few exceptions, the alienation or assignment of benefits under a pension plan are thus clearly proscribed. Qualified domestic relations orders constitute one exception,2 while a few other exceptions exist for "any offset of a partic


CourtListener opinion 10407410

ERISA: on for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Because the funds are exempt from garnishment and execution under the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d), the motion will be granted. BACKGROUND In 2019, Burns obtained a $75,000 judgment in the Montgomery County (Pennsylvania) Court of Common Pleas against Cooper, her former husband, in a defamation action. Pl.'s Mem. Law Opp'n 2, ECF No. 10. The verdict and judgment were upheld on appeal, but Cooper has yet to pay anything on the


CourtListener opinion 10407410

401(k): HE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMIYLAH BURNS : CIVIL ACTION : v. : No. 23-5090 : BLAKELY COOPER, et. al. : MEMORANDUM Judge Juan R. Sánchez June 13, 2024 Plaintiff Jamiylah Burns brings this garnishment action to collect monies held in a 401(k) savings plan belonging to Defendant Blakely Cooper, a Pfizer employee. Garnishee Pfizer Inc. ("Pfizer") moves to dismiss Burns' garnishment action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Because the funds are exempt from garnishment and execution under the anti-alienation provision of


CourtListener opinion 10407815

CourtListener opinion 10407815 Extracted reporter citation: 428 F.3d 478. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10407815 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 10407815


CourtListener opinion 10407815

QDRO: ommon Pleas. She brings claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") as well as claims of breach of contract. We previously granted R.P. Mills' motion to dismiss on the basis that the Schuylkill County divorce decree is not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), as is necessary for Ashline to state a claim for relief under ERISA, and on the basis that there was no alleged contract between Ashline and R.P. Mills, as is necessary for Ashline to state a breach-of-contract claim. Currently pending are motions for summary judgment filed by Michael Ashline and Tri-State. Michael Ashline died on July 22, 2


CourtListener opinion 10407815

pension: contract 1 For a discussion of QDROs, and why the Schuylkill County divorce decree is not a QDRO see our Memorandum Opinion of November 27, 2018. Doc. 39. Ashline suggests that she yet may be able to obtain a QDRO. And she might. See Files v. ExxonMobil Pension Plan, 428 F.3d 478, 491 (3d Cir. 2005) ("Nothing in the statute, or in our precedent, requires that a QDRO be in place prior to the death of a plan participant when the QDRO that is ultimately obtained by engaging the statutory process simply seeks to enforce a separate interest in a pension benefit that 2 between Ashline and Tri-State, as is necessar


CourtListener opinion 10407815

ERISA: ssociates, Inc. ("R.P. Mills"), and Michael E. Ashline ("Michael Ashline"). Ashline's claims are based on a divorce decree issued by the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas. She brings claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") as well as claims of breach of contract. We previously granted R.P. Mills' motion to dismiss on the basis that the Schuylkill County divorce decree is not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), as is necessary for Ashline to state a claim for relief under ERISA, and on the basis that there was no alleged contract between Ashline and R.P. Mills


CourtListener opinion 10407815

domestic relations order: s. She brings claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") as well as claims of breach of contract. We previously granted R.P. Mills' motion to dismiss on the basis that the Schuylkill County divorce decree is not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), as is necessary for Ashline to state a claim for relief under ERISA, and on the basis that there was no alleged contract between Ashline and R.P. Mills, as is necessary for Ashline to state a breach-of-contract claim. Currently pending are motions for summary judgment filed by Michael Ashline and Tri-State. Michael Ashline died on July 22, 2


CourtListener opinion 10408757

qualified_domestic_relations_order erisa pension preemption

CourtListener opinion 10408757 Extracted reporter citation: 527 F.3d 358. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10408757 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 10408757

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 10408757

QDRO: contradictory and misleading. To the extent there is a contradiction between the Summary Plan Description and the terms of the Pension Trust, the latter prevails. However, notwithstanding whether the Summary Plan Description is misleading, ERISA requires a QDRO in order for the divorce settlement to be dispositive. The time for a QDRO long since expired. Under these circumstances guided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, counsel did not challenge defendant's motion for summary judgment. Counsel advise Mr. Nathan Kakazu, attorney for defendant, that he would not contest the motion, but was not authorized to concur in the re


CourtListener opinion 10408757

pension: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARK MOYER, : Civil No. 3:19-CV-01270 : Plaintiff, : : v. : : TRUSTEES OF THE : BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH : NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, : : Defendant. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson MEMORANDUM Before the court is Defendant Trustees of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust's ("Pension Trust") motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 14.) The court finds that this declaratory judgment action is actually a benefits dispute claim pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Sec


CourtListener opinion 10408757

ERISA: Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust's ("Pension Trust") motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 14.) The court finds that this declaratory judgment action is actually a benefits dispute claim pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), and that Plaintiff Mark Moyer's ("Moyer") claim is time barred. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the motion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 In considering the Pension Trust's motion for summary judgment, the court relied on the uncontested facts, or where the facts were disputed, viewed the facts and deduced all reasonable infe


CourtListener opinion 10408757

survivor benefits: s the court to examine the terms of the Plan Document. (Id. at 5–6.) Further, the Pension Trust submits that this ERISA action is a benefits dispute claim because Moyer's main contention is that the Pension Trust "improperly refused to remove Ms. Allen as survivor annuitant on [Moyer's] pension." (Id. at 6–7.) ERISA's preemption power is broad and will preempt "any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter related to any employee benefit plan." Pilot Life Ins. CP. V. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 44–45 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a)). When the state law claim relates to an ERISA claim, ERISA preempts that state l


CourtListener opinion 10419781

CourtListener opinion 10419781 Extracted case name: NAACP v. N. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10419781 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 10419781


CourtListener opinion 10419781

retirement benefits: parties' consolidated factual statements and responses, which appear at ECF No. 143, and are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Defendant PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. sponsors the Incentive Savings Plan (the "Plan"), which is a defined contribution retirement plan funded through employee contributions and matching employer contributions. ECF No. 143 ¶ 1. The Plan is open to nearly all U.S.-based salaried and hourly employees of PNC, including Plaintiff John McCauley. Id. ¶ 2. The employees that participate in the Plan may choose how to invest the contributions among a variety of professionally managed funds. Id.


CourtListener opinion 10419781

ERISA: OPINION Plaintiff John McCauley claims that Defendants PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Incentive Savings Plan Administrative Committee (collectively "PNC") violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., when they paid excessive recordkeeping fees for their employees' Incentive Savings Plan. ECF No. 42. PNC now moves for summary judgment on all claims and seeks to exclude Mr. McCauley's expert witness. ECF Nos. 101, 111. For the following reasons, the Court will grant both of PNC's Motions. I. Material Facts The followi


CourtListener opinion 10419781

401(k): ts are drawn from the parties' consolidated factual statements and responses, which appear at ECF No. 143, and are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Defendant PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. sponsors the Incentive Savings Plan (the "Plan"), which is a defined contribution retirement plan funded through employee contributions and matching employer contributions. ECF No. 143 ¶ 1. The Plan is open to nearly all U.S.-based salaried and hourly employees of PNC, including Plaintiff John McCauley. Id. ¶ 2. The employees that participate in the Plan may choose how to invest the contributions among a variety of professionally man


CourtListener opinion 10419781

domestic relations order: vices to the Plan's participants. Id. ¶¶ 4–6. Alight charged the Plan a flat dollar amount per participant for its core services. Id. ¶ 8. It then charged additional fees for certain participant-elected services, such as loan processing and qualification of domestic relations orders. Id. ¶ 8. Alight never received fees from PNC or the Plan that were calculated as asset-based fees. Id. The Plan allocated the cost of Alight's recordkeeping services to participants' individual accounts on a pro-rata "asset-based" charge. Id. ¶ 9. In 2014, the Plan's base recordkeeping fee was $46.55 per participant, and it declined to $32.00 per part


CourtListener opinion 1042269

CourtListener opinion 1042269 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1042269 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 1042269

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 1042269

domestic relations order: sent an abbreviated discussion of the facts underlying the convictions because they are not germane to the claims of error on appeal. 2 (§ 666; count 2); unauthorized entry into a dwelling, a misdemeanor (§ 602.5, subd. (a); count 3); and disobedience of a domestic relations order, a misdemeanor (§ 273.6, subd. (a); count 4). It was also alleged as enhancements that defendant had suffered two prior violent or serious felonies, i.e., strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12), namely, robbery (§ 211) and receiving stolen property (§ 496); had three prior felony convictions (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)); and had two prior convictions for which


CourtListener opinion 10440385

CourtListener opinion 10440385 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 317. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10440385 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 10440385


CourtListener opinion 10440385

QDRO: most state laws, and divorce decrees purporting to affect the benefits payable under an ERISA plan are not exempt. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a); Unicare Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Craig, 157 F. App'x 787, 791 (6th Cir.2005). However, if a divorce decree counts as a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), it is exempt from ERISA's coverage. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). In this instance, the Court need not decide whether the Divorce Decree qualifies as a QDRO, as the Sixth Circuit has noted that "once the benefits [of an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan] have been released to the properly designated beneficiary, the district court has the discreti


CourtListener opinion 10440385

pension: benefit plan] have been released to the properly designated beneficiary, the district court has the discretion to impose a constructive trust upon those benefits in accordance with applicable state law if equity so requires." Cent. States, S.E. & S.W. Areas Pension Fund. v. Howell, 227 F.3d 672, 679 (6th Cir.2000). Here, the Court has permitted Unum to deposit the life insurance benefit into the Court's funds and Unum has done so. Therefore, because Unum properly released the benefits, the Court turns to Tennessee law to determine whether to impose a constructive trust. See Gray v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 11-220


CourtListener opinion 10440385

ERISA: blish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. ANALYSIS Unum's life insurance policy falls under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Generally, ERISA completely preempts most state laws, and divorce decrees purporting to affect the benefits payable under an ERISA plan are not exempt. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a); Unicare Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Craig, 157 F. App'x 787, 791 (6th Cir.2005). However, if a divorce decree counts as a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), it is exempt fro


CourtListener opinion 10440385

domestic relations order: e laws, and divorce decrees purporting to affect the benefits payable under an ERISA plan are not exempt. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a); Unicare Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Craig, 157 F. App'x 787, 791 (6th Cir.2005). However, if a divorce decree counts as a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), it is exempt from ERISA's coverage. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). In this instance, the Court need not decide whether the Divorce Decree qualifies as a QDRO, as the Sixth Circuit has noted that "once the benefits [of an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan] have been released to the properly designated beneficiary, the district court has the discreti


CourtListener opinion 10441247

CourtListener opinion 10441247 Extracted reporter citation: 237 F.3d 598. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10441247 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 10441247

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 10441247

QDRO: icipants as of November 11, 2013 in Plan, including (i) beneficiaries of deceased participants who, as of November 11, 2013, were receiving benefit payments or will be entitled to receive benefit payments in the future, and (ii) alternate payees under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who, as of November 11, 2013, were receiving benefit payments or will be entitled to receive benefit payments in the future; and (b) all persons, other than AutoZone, who have been participants or beneficiaries in either the Plan and had account balances in the Plan at any time between November 11, 2013 through the date of judgment. (ECF No. 173 at


CourtListener opinion 10441247

retirement benefits: ments concerning little, if anything, to make clear to the Court "those issues that are dispositive and contentious." Currie, 50 F.3d at 380; see also Arn, 474 U.S. at 147. For example, why is the Report's finding that "[t]he Plan is a defined-contribution retirement plan funded through employee contributions and matching contributions from AutoZone" (ECF No. 205 at PageID 4801) objectionable to Defendants when they have explained in their own submissions to the Court that "[t]he Plan is a defined contribution plan" that is "funded through both employee contributions and matching contributions from AutoZone . . . "? (EC


CourtListener opinion 10441247

ERISA: he Court OVERRULES Defendants' objections and ADOPTS the Report. BACKGROUND This litigation involves Plaintiffs' claims that AutoZone, Inc. ("AutoZone") and others breached their fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). (ECF No. 85 at PageID 1169.) Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges one count of breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1109. (Id. at PageID 1265.) They seek certification of the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1): All persons, other than Defendants, who were participants as of November 11, 2013 in Plan, including (i) ben


CourtListener opinion 10441247

401(k): ISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ MICHAEL J. IANNONE, JR. and ) NICOLE A. JAMES, as plan participants, ) on behalf of the AUTOZONE, INC. 401(k) ) Plan, and on behalf of others similarly ) situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 2:19-cv-02779-MSN-tmp ) v. ) ) AUTOZONE, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ___________________________________________________________


CourtListener opinion 1044207

CourtListener opinion 1044207 Extracted case name: MICHAEL DANIEL FRY v. YURIKO SHINODA FRY. Extracted reporter citation: 18 S.W.3d 621. Docket: M2012-01541-COA-R3-CV-. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1044207 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 1044207


CourtListener opinion 1044207

QDRO: etirement benefits as follows: 9. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Wife is awarded one-half (½) of Mr. Fry's pension through the U.S. Navy that has vested during the term of the marriage. The parties will cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Counsel for Mother shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Wife attempted to establish her right to a portion of Husband's retirement pay with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service ("DFAS"), but she was unsuccessful because she did not provide DFAS with a decree including a specific amount or a formula by which a specific amount could


CourtListener opinion 1044207

retirement benefits: y to comply with the Act. The Court of Appeals agreed with Husband on appeal and issued a mandate directing the trial court to amend its Final Decree using language meant to comply with the Act's requirements to enable Wife to receive her portion of Husband's retirement benefits directly from the military. Wife still has not been able to collect her portion of Husband's retirement benefits and filed another Rule 60 motion seeking to amend the Final Decree again to comply with the Act's requirements. The trial court denied Wife's motion and we reverse the trial court's judgment. Wife presents extraordinary circumstances entitling h


CourtListener opinion 1044207

pension: January 2000 after being married for a little over ten years. The Final Decree of Divorce awarded Wife a portion of Husband's Navy retirement benefits as follows: 9. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Wife is awarded one-half (½) of Mr. Fry's pension through the U.S. Navy that has vested during the term of the marriage. The parties will cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Counsel for Mother shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Wife attempted to establish her right to a portion of Husband's retirement pay with the Defense Finance and Accounting Serv


CourtListener opinion 1044207

domestic relations order: benefits as follows: 9. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Wife is awarded one-half (½) of Mr. Fry's pension through the U.S. Navy that has vested during the term of the marriage. The parties will cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Counsel for Mother shall prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Wife attempted to establish her right to a portion of Husband's retirement pay with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service ("DFAS"), but she was unsuccessful because she did not provide DFAS with a decree including a specific amount or a formula by which a specific amount could


CourtListener opinion 1044305

CourtListener opinion 1044305 Extracted case name: SHARON LYNN PUCKETT v. BOBBY WAYNE PUCKETT. Extracted reporter citation: 38 S.W.3d 560. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1044305 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 1044305

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 1044305

QDRO: t, that Wife "felt belittled by [the judge's] comments to me and could not understand this with his knowledge that [Wife is] on disability for both psychiatric and physical conditions," and that the judge had "refused to believe [Wife's] fears about using the QDRO funds and he wanted to incarcerate [Wife] for not paying bills that [Wife] had been forced to agree to pay at mediation." Wife's affidavit also alleged that Wife felt she could not obtain a "fair and impartial hearing" from this judge. Husband filed a response to Wife's motion for recusal asking the Trial Court to deny the motion. After a hearing on Wife'


CourtListener opinion 1044313

CourtListener opinion 1044313 Extracted case name: VIOLET CORROZZO v. JOSEPH CORROZZO. Extracted reporter citation: 826 S.W.2d 443. Docket: M2012-01317-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1044313 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 1044313


CourtListener opinion 1044313

QDRO: Court of Appeals of Tennessee.2 In June 2003, the parties entered into an Agreed Order of Non-Dischargeability in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy order stated that Husband owed Wife the following sums for attorney's fees and costs: $500 for obtaining a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in Illinois; $7,850 resulting from a prior appeal to this court; $4,063.94 from Husband's attempts to reopen the divorce case in Illinois; and $1,490.50 in Husband's bankruptcy proceedings, for a total sum of $13,904.44. The 2003 bankruptcy order additionally stated that Wife was entitled to "intercept and receive" Husband's 60% share of the pension payment


CourtListener opinion 1044313

pension: urt for Rutherford County No. 00-DR-1329 Royce Taylor, Judge No. M2012-01317-COA-R3-CV - Filed August 13, 2013 Ex-wife appeals from a trial court's adoption of a report by the clerk and master that her ex- husband had fully satisfied a judgment for unpaid pension payments arising from the parties' 1996 divorce and the determination that she is not entitled to recover attorney's fees incurred in the underlying case and other proceedings. The clerk and master found that an October 2001 judgment for an unpaid arrearage in pension payments had been satisfied and the ex- wife did not timely file an objection. The trial c


CourtListener opinion 1044313

domestic relations order: ppeals of Tennessee.2 In June 2003, the parties entered into an Agreed Order of Non-Dischargeability in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy order stated that Husband owed Wife the following sums for attorney's fees and costs: $500 for obtaining a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in Illinois; $7,850 resulting from a prior appeal to this court; $4,063.94 from Husband's attempts to reopen the divorce case in Illinois; and $1,490.50 in Husband's bankruptcy proceedings, for a total sum of $13,904.44. The 2003 bankruptcy order additionally stated that Wife was entitled to "intercept and receive" Husband's 60% share of the pension payment


CourtListener opinion 1045226

CourtListener opinion 1045226 Extracted case name: FRANCESCA MARIA PIER v. KATHERINE JUNGKIND. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: W2012-00872-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1045226 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 1045226

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 1045226

QDRO: uitable settlement of property rights in the MDA. The trial court incorporated the MDA into the final decree of divorce. Ms. Jungkind filed the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") with the trial court on January 30, 2009. On June 9, 2009, an amended QDRO was entered for the pension plan. On October 23, 2009, Ms. Pier, acting pro se, filed complaints alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against Katherine Jungkind (Ms. Jungkind), Evans Petree, Wanda Shea (Ms. Shea), Mary Morgan Whitfield (Ms. Whitfield) and Shea Moskovitz (collectively, "Defendants") in the Circuit Court for Shelby County


CourtListener opinion 1045226

pension: of divorce. The MDA provided, in relevant part, that Ms. Pier would receive one-half of Mr. Pier's Northwest Retirement Savings Plan ("the 401k"), fifty-five percent of the "marital portion" of Mr. Pier's entitlement in the defined benefit Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Pilot Employees ("the pension plan"), and fifty-five percent of the "marital portion" of Mr. Pier's entitlement in a Prudential Preferred Live Fixed Dollar Annuity ("the annuity"). It further provided that the Piers "agree[d] to use Kitty Jungkind and/or Blake Bourland . . . with the law firm of Evans and Petree to draft any and all Qualified Dome


CourtListener opinion 1045226

401(k): ) and Raymond Pier (Mr. Pier; collectively, "the Piers") entered a marital dissolution agreement ("MDA") in anticipation of divorce. The MDA provided, in relevant part, that Ms. Pier would receive one-half of Mr. Pier's Northwest Retirement Savings Plan ("the 401k"), fifty-five percent of the "marital portion" of Mr. Pier's entitlement in the defined benefit Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Pilot Employees ("the pension plan"), and fifty-five percent of the "marital portion" of Mr. Pier's entitlement in a Prudential Preferred Live Fixed Dollar Annuity ("the annuity"). It further provided that the Piers "agree[d] t


CourtListener opinion 1045226

domestic relations order: permanent parenting plan, and finding that the Piers had made adequate and sufficient provision for the equitable settlement of property rights in the MDA. The trial court incorporated the MDA into the final decree of divorce. Ms. Jungkind filed the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") with the trial court on January 30, 2009. On June 9, 2009, an amended QDRO was entered for the pension plan. On October 23, 2009, Ms. Pier, acting pro se, filed complaints alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against Katherine Jungkind (Ms. Jungkind), Evans Petree, Wanda Shea (Ms. Shea), Mary Morgan Whitfield (Ms. Whitfield)


CourtListener opinion 10454761

CourtListener opinion 10454761 Extracted reporter citation: 943 F.3d 434. Docket: entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10454761 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 10454761


CourtListener opinion 10454761

QDRO: ed as "a person who is entitled to benefits 13 in respect of a participant following the participant's death or an alternate payee as described in 14 § 1.457-10(c)."39 An alternate payee described in § 1.457-10(c) is only applicable in cases 15 involving a qualified domestic relations order.40 16 17 D. Application of the Law to the Facts of this Case 18 This Court finds that there were extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief under 19 Rule 60(b)(6) for several reasons. First, Debtor has been represented by two attorneys and made 20 multiple appearances pro se in this bankruptcy. This resulted in inconsistent and at times 21 unfocu


CourtListener opinion 10454761

retirement benefits: re fixed and determined at the time of the bankruptcy 6 petition under the "snapshot" rule.37 7 A.R.S. § 33-1126(B) states: 8 Any money or other assets payable to a participant in or beneficiary of, or any interest of any participant or beneficiary in, a retirement plan…or a deferred 9 compensation plan under § 457 of the United States internal revenue code of 1986, 10 as amended, whether the beneficiary's interest arises by inheritance, designation, appointment or otherwise, is exempt from all claims of creditors of the beneficiary 11 or participant. 12 Under 26 U.S.C. § 457,38 a beneficiary is defined as "a person


CourtListener opinion 10454761

alternate payee: or otherwise, is exempt from all claims of creditors of the beneficiary 11 or participant. 12 Under 26 U.S.C. § 457,38 a beneficiary is defined as "a person who is entitled to benefits 13 in respect of a participant following the participant's death or an alternate payee as described in 14 § 1.457-10(c)."39 An alternate payee described in § 1.457-10(c) is only applicable in cases 15 involving a qualified domestic relations order.40 16 17 D. Application of the Law to the Facts of this Case 18 This Court finds that there were extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief under 19 Rule 60(b)(6) for several reasons. Fir


CourtListener opinion 10454761

domestic relations order: erson who is entitled to benefits 13 in respect of a participant following the participant's death or an alternate payee as described in 14 § 1.457-10(c)."39 An alternate payee described in § 1.457-10(c) is only applicable in cases 15 involving a qualified domestic relations order.40 16 17 D. Application of the Law to the Facts of this Case 18 This Court finds that there were extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief under 19 Rule 60(b)(6) for several reasons. First, Debtor has been represented by two attorneys and made 20 multiple appearances pro se in this bankruptcy. This resulted in inconsistent and at times 21 unfocu


CourtListener opinion 10454767

CourtListener opinion 10454767 Extracted reporter citation: 217 F.3d 1072. Docket: entry in this administrative bankruptcy case 2:18-b. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10454767 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 10454767


CourtListener opinion 10454767

QDRO: d to Debtor and that the parties intended this result. 24 Trustee also argues that if the parties intended to equally divide Ex-Husband's and 25 Debtor's interest in the Compensation Account, under New Mexico law, the parties would have 26 had to execute a qualified domestic relations order ("QRDO") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 414(p). 27 The Trustee claims that Debtor's possible attempt to remedy this situation by amending the MSA 28 1 to include a QRDO would be ineffective because, for exemption purposes, the status of the 2 Compensation Account must be determined on the Petition Date. 3 4 C. Debtor's Position 5 Debtor argues that her inte


CourtListener opinion 10454767

retirement benefits: everal categories of retirement funds to be exempt from the reach 9 of creditors. Specifically, A.R.S. § 33-1126(B) states: 10 Any money or other assets payable to a participant in or beneficiary of, or any interest of any participant or beneficiary in, a retirement plan…or a deferred 11 compensation plan under § 457 of the United States internal revenue code of 1986, 12 as amended, whether the beneficiary's interest arises by inheritance, designation, appointment or otherwise, is exempt from all claims of creditors of the beneficiary 13 or participant. 14 15 B. Trustee's Position 16 Trustee argues that Debtor's i


CourtListener opinion 10454767

domestic relations order: r and that the parties intended this result. 24 Trustee also argues that if the parties intended to equally divide Ex-Husband's and 25 Debtor's interest in the Compensation Account, under New Mexico law, the parties would have 26 had to execute a qualified domestic relations order ("QRDO") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 414(p). 27 The Trustee claims that Debtor's possible attempt to remedy this situation by amending the MSA 28 1 to include a QRDO would be ineffective because, for exemption purposes, the status of the 2 Compensation Account must be determined on the Petition Date. 3 4 C. Debtor's Position 5 Debtor argues that her inte


CourtListener opinion 10455629

CourtListener opinion 10455629 Extracted reporter citation: 560 U.S. 770. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10455629 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 10455629


CourtListener opinion 10455629

QDRO: court entered a dissolution of divorce decree awarding the debtor seventy (70%) percent of her now ex-spouse's non-qualified pension plan valued at $87,232.53 with Lincoln Financial Group ("Lincoln"), which amounted to $62,362.12.5 On September 3, 2013, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") was submitted to Lincoln and thereafter, Lincoln sent the debtor a check in the amount of $62,362.12 payable to the debtor ("Lincoln Funds").6 During trial, Linda Ursin was qualified as an expert witness as to the rollover of funds from qualified and non-qualified retirement plans. She testified that when a payment is made from a non-qualified


CourtListener opinion 10455629

retirement benefits: aria McKeon, Esq. McKeon Law Group, LLC 117 Senate Brook Drive Counsel for Claimant Amston, Connecticut 06231 I. INTRODUCTION This opinion determines whether and to what extent a debtor is entitled to claim an exemption in funds held in an individual retirement account ("IRA") pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 522(d)(10)(E), (d)(11)(E), (d)(12), (b)(3)(C), and (b)(4).1 Prior to filing bankruptcy, the debtor, Sharon Brainard (the "debtor") established an IRA account using funds received following a divorce judgment from her now ex-husband's non-qualified pension plan. Mistakes were made when the IRA was established and the cons


CourtListener opinion 10455629

pension: .S.C. §§ 522(d)(10)(E), (d)(11)(E), (d)(12), (b)(3)(C), and (b)(4).1 Prior to filing bankruptcy, the debtor, Sharon Brainard (the "debtor") established an IRA account using funds received following a divorce judgment from her now ex-husband's non-qualified pension plan. Mistakes were made when the IRA was established and the consequence of those mistakes is disputed. After filing a voluntary Chapter 7 petition, the debtor claimed numerous exemptions in the IRA account pursuant to various provisions of Bankruptcy Code § 522. The Chapter 7 Trustee, originally Thomas C. Boscarino, and now as successor Trustee, Bon


CourtListener opinion 10455629

ERISA: ployee waived all of her rights to all future earnings from Ford). Internal Revenue Code § 408 Congress enacted § 408(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, providing for the creation of IRAs, as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), Pub.L. 93–406, 88 Stat. 829. The "goal of Congress was to create a system whereby employees not covered by qualified retirement plans would have the opportunity to set aside at least some retirement savings on a tax-sheltered basis." Campbell v. Comm'r, 108 T.C. 54, 62–63, 1997 WL 65944 (1997)(citing H. Rept. 93–807 (1974), 1974–3 C.B. (Supp.) 236, 3


CourtListener opinion 10457501

CourtListener opinion 10457501 Extracted reporter citation: 564 U.S. 462. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10457501 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 10457501

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 10457501

QDRO: cation of retirement funds. That provision says, in part: "The Respondent shall receive $75,000.00 from the Petitioner's Lake County Plasters and Cement Mason Retirement Savings Plan to pay off her credit card debt. This shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order." In addition to the $75,000 from the retirement account, the provision also required the Debtor's ex-husband to pay 1 The case was captioned: In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey P. Steinke, Petitioner, v. Kimberly J. Steinke, Respondent, case #21-D-8. her an additional amount up to $22,500 in monthly installments of $375 to cover the potential tax consequ


CourtListener opinion 10457501

retirement benefits: STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS In Re ) ) Case No. 21-90618 KIMBERLY JO STEINKE, ) ) Chapter 7 Debtor. ) Before the Court is the Trustee's objection to the Debtor's amended claim of exemption in a portion of her ex-husband's retirement account awarded to her in a dissolution of marriage. For the reasons set forth herein, the Trustee's objection will be denied. I. Factual and Procedural Background Kimberly Jo Steinke ("Debtor") filed her voluntary Chapter 7 petition on December 21, 2021. Relevant to the issues here, she scheduled ownership of "Annuity: Interest in ex-husband's retirement


CourtListener opinion 10457501

alternate payee: ts in retirement funds, including the right to receive distributions in the future. 735 ILCS 5/12-1006. Also important, the absence of a finalized QDRO does not change the Debtor's right to the exemption. A QDRO "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan[.]" 26 U.S.C. §414(p)(1)(A). The QDRO is necessary to complete the separation of the Debtor's funds from the balance of her ex-husband's funds, but the finality of the division for purposes of determining her rights in this case occurred when th


CourtListener opinion 10457501

domestic relations order: retirement funds. That provision says, in part: "The Respondent shall receive $75,000.00 from the Petitioner's Lake County Plasters and Cement Mason Retirement Savings Plan to pay off her credit card debt. This shall be accomplished by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order." In addition to the $75,000 from the retirement account, the provision also required the Debtor's ex-husband to pay 1 The case was captioned: In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey P. Steinke, Petitioner, v. Kimberly J. Steinke, Respondent, case #21-D-8. her an additional amount up to $22,500 in monthly installments of $375 to cover the potential tax consequ


CourtListener opinion 10457748

CourtListener opinion 10457748 Extracted reporter citation: 504 U.S. 753. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10457748 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 10457748


CourtListener opinion 10457748

QDRO: ment Agreement that benefit Dennis will be abrogated. Dennis therefore objects to confirmation. He also moves for relief from stay to return to state court to enforce a term of the Settlement Agreement whereby under certain circumstances he is entitled to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with respect to Debtor's exempt pension plan asset. Trial on the Motion for Relief from Stay1 was held on December 19, 2019.2 At the close of the evidence and after hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court ordered that the record remain open and continued the matter for further consideration at the hearing on Dennis Pittman's Objection to Con


CourtListener opinion 10457748

retirement benefits: n. It also states that the $35,000.00 debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy and [s]hould wife default on the monthly payment for (2) two consecutive months or more, the Court will grant husband an unqualified Domestic Relations Order against wife's retirement account. Husband shall be granted the full-unpaid amount including interest. The Court will retain jurisdiction of this case and approve the Unqualified Domestic Relations Order in the event such provision needs to be implicated (sic).5 Paragraph G of Article IV provides: "The debts and obligation assigned herein above are in the nature of alimony, mainten


CourtListener opinion 10457748

pension: jects to confirmation. He also moves for relief from stay to return to state court to enforce a term of the Settlement Agreement whereby under certain circumstances he is entitled to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with respect to Debtor's exempt pension plan asset. Trial on the Motion for Relief from Stay1 was held on December 19, 2019.2 At the close of the evidence and after hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court ordered that the record remain open and continued the matter for further consideration at the hearing on Dennis Pittman's Objection to Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan.3 Thereafter, the


CourtListener opinion 10457748

ERISA: king relief from stay to obtain payment from Shelly personally. 7 A TSP is a defined contribution plan offered to federal employees that operates similarly to 401(k) plans offered by private employers.7 Funds held in a TSP, like funds in plans subject to ERISA, are excluded from the Bankruptcy estate by § 541(c)(2).8 This Court therefore has no jurisdiction to determine interests in the TSP. Dennis contends that cause for relief from stay exists under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). It provides, "On request of a party in interest and after notice and hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay . . . (1) for cau


CourtListener opinion 1045778

CourtListener opinion 1045778 Extracted case name: UNA P. IRVIN v. ERNEST J. IRVIN. Extracted reporter citation: 676 S.W.2d 554. Docket: M2011-02424-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1045778 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 1045778


CourtListener opinion 1045778

QDRO: rs of service at retirement. The Wife shall not receive any disability that does not offset retirement, such as combat related disability. 4. The remaining retirement account not used to offset equity in the house (IRA or TSP) shall be divided equally by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Paragraph five of the trial court's order refers to the Stipulation signed by the parties and filed with the court. The Stipulation states: -9- 1. That the parties have previously agreed to divide the marital estate, pursuant to the Mediation Agreement; 2. In addition to receiving the marital home, two (2) vehicles, and the other items in the [M]ed


CourtListener opinion 1045778

retirement benefits: fees. The parties' mediation agreement was attached to the trial court's order and incorporated into it by reference. Pertinent to this appeal, the mediation agreement addressed the marital residence, Husband's military retirement, and the parties' remaining retirement account: 1. The Wife shall receive all interest in the [marital residence], for which she will be financially responsible. She shall refinance the mortgage or sell the house within three years of the entry of the Final Decree of Divorce. As long as the Husband is responsible on the mortgage, he shall have access to the mortgage account, and if the mortgage be


CourtListener opinion 1045778

pension: or the Thrift Savings Plan ["TSP"] that is closest to the face balance of $36,000.00, as of the date of this agreement. This is to equalize equity in the marital residence. 3. The Wife will receive twenty-five percent of the Husband's military retirement pension, based on a Major (04) with twenty years of service at retirement. The Wife shall not receive any disability that does not offset retirement, such as combat related disability. 4. The remaining retirement account not used to offset equity in the house (IRA or TSP) shall be divided equally by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Paragraph five of the tr


CourtListener opinion 1045778

domestic relations order: ice at retirement. The Wife shall not receive any disability that does not offset retirement, such as combat related disability. 4. The remaining retirement account not used to offset equity in the house (IRA or TSP) shall be divided equally by Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Paragraph five of the trial court's order refers to the Stipulation signed by the parties and filed with the court. The Stipulation states: -9- 1. That the parties have previously agreed to divide the marital estate, pursuant to the Mediation Agreement; 2. In addition to receiving the marital home, two (2) vehicles, and the other items in the [M]ed


CourtListener opinion 10457789

CourtListener opinion 10457789 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Johnston. Extracted reporter citation: 894 F.2d 371. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10457789 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 10457789


CourtListener opinion 10457789

QDRO: nterest in the other party…."40 In addition, Creditor Elam seeks a readjustment of her rights in the Debtor's retirement accounts. This Court and others have also found equitable rights of an ex-spouse creditor in situations such as this case to pursue a QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order) in the state court.41 A QDRO is an order typically issued by a state family law court that provides that a former spouse, child or other dependent is entitled to receive a portion of an account holder's retirement assets.42 It is an exception to ERISA's normally strict bar against the alienation of pension plan fund


CourtListener opinion 10457789

retirement benefits: violations.18 Debtor does not dispute most of the allegations about how the credit card account and house ownership have been handled but argues that under state law it is too late to amend the divorce decree, that Creditor holds no lien in the house or retirement account, and that the debt Creditor seeks to hold Debtor responsible for is an unsecured, in personam debt that is dischargeable in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. II. Analysis A. Jurisdiction A creditor's motion to modify the automatic stay for cause under § 362(d)(1)19 and Rule 4001(a) is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), over which this Court


CourtListener opinion 10457789

pension: pically issued by a state family law court that provides that a former spouse, child or other dependent is entitled to receive a portion of an account holder's retirement assets.42 It is an exception to ERISA's normally strict bar against the alienation of pension plan funds. Regarding the readjustment of awarded rights in a retirement account, the Tenth Circuit affirmed stay relief allowing a debtor's ex-spouse to pursue a QDRO in the state court, even in the absence of an express QDRO in the divorce decree.43 In Carbaugh, as in this case, the debtor claimed that his ex-spouse did not have any 39 In re Dona


CourtListener opinion 10457789

ERISA: ons Order) in the state court.41 A QDRO is an order typically issued by a state family law court that provides that a former spouse, child or other dependent is entitled to receive a portion of an account holder's retirement assets.42 It is an exception to ERISA's normally strict bar against the alienation of pension plan funds. Regarding the readjustment of awarded rights in a retirement account, the Tenth Circuit affirmed stay relief allowing a debtor's ex-spouse to pursue a QDRO in the state court, even in the absence of an express QDRO in the divorce decree.43 In Carbaugh, as in this case, the debtor cla


CourtListener opinion 10458328

CourtListener opinion 10458328 Extracted reporter citation: 721 F.3d 241. Docket: 1. A hearing is not necessary to resolve the present. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10458328 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 10458328

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.