CourtListener opinion 4025078

domestic relations order: obligation of $572.00. In the agreed-upon interim order [dated] March 21, 2005, arrearages were set at $0.00. In any event, [Father's] basic support obligation remained at $572.00. [Father] retired from ATI in 2008, after which the necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") were entered by the Court to ensure that [Father's] monthly support obligation would be paid from his ATI pension. The QDROs were entered on December 4, 2008 and February 2, 2009. [Father's] basic monthly support obligation did not change. [Mother] filed a petition to modify the support obligation on February 4, 2010. In her petition, [Mo


CourtListener opinion 4025883

CourtListener opinion 4025883 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MELISSA A. GANSEN BEAUCHAMP AND CORY J. BEAUCHAMP Upon the Petition of MELISSA A. Extracted reporter citation: 824 N.W.2d 481. Docket: 15-0107. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4025883 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 4025883

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 4025883

QDRO: y equal division of assets which fully factors in all of the claims and arguments made by each party. The court then found: [T]hose claims substantially offset each other and that a fair and equitable division of property can be accomplished by using a qualified domestic relations order to set off an appropriate amount of Missy's retirement account to Cory as set forth below and by distributing the net proceeds from the sale of the marital home as set forth below, without any further adjustment regarding personal property. The district court ordered the parties to sell the house and equally divide the proceeds. The court also held C


CourtListener opinion 4025883

retirement benefits: nge the custody or child support provisions of the decree. In deciding how to distribute the marital property, the district court discussed the parties' division of personal belongings and vehicles, before setting out the following information: Cory has retirement accounts with a value of approximately $145,000. Missy has a 401K with her employer with a balance of about $210,000 plus a cash balance plan with a balance of almost 4 $78,000. As discussed elsewhere, Missy claims a premarital contribution to her retirement plan of over $8000. Cory asserts that he brought assets into the marriage and that the parties jointl


CourtListener opinion 4025883

pension: half of the installation of the new furnace and air conditioner. The district court next discussed division of the parties' other major assets, their pensions and Missy's life insurance policy: Since Missy earns substantially more money than Cory, her pension plan is much larger . . . . Missy asserts that the retirement accounts should not be divided equally because she should be granted credit for the portion attributed to her premarital balance . . . . The court FINDS that it is not fair and equitable to set off to Missy the portion of her pension attributed to her premarital contributions, without consid


CourtListener opinion 4025883

401(k): how to distribute the marital property, the district court discussed the parties' division of personal belongings and vehicles, before setting out the following information: Cory has retirement accounts with a value of approximately $145,000. Missy has a 401K with her employer with a balance of about $210,000 plus a cash balance plan with a balance of almost 4 $78,000. As discussed elsewhere, Missy claims a premarital contribution to her retirement plan of over $8000. Cory asserts that he brought assets into the marriage and that the parties jointly paid off Missy's student loan debt. It is difficult, if


CourtListener opinion 4026742

CourtListener opinion 4026742 Extracted reporter citation: 799 A.2d 345. Docket: of the final judgment. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4026742 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 4026742


CourtListener opinion 4026742

QDRO: . The October 14, 2015 Order addressed the Husband's motion, which was filed on August 7, 2015, seeking clarification of 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties. the division of the Husband's retirement account for purposes of drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("the Clarification Order"). Although the parties have filed briefs addressing the merits of the Property Division Order, we conclude that the Husband's appeal from the Property Division Order is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments that the Husband raises in his opening brief. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. (2) The


CourtListener opinion 4026742

retirement benefits: e of discovery ("the Property Division Order"). The October 14, 2015 Order addressed the Husband's motion, which was filed on August 7, 2015, seeking clarification of 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties. the division of the Husband's retirement account for purposes of drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("the Clarification Order"). Although the parties have filed briefs addressing the merits of the Property Division Order, we conclude that the Husband's appeal from the Property Division Order is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments that the Husband raises in his open


CourtListener opinion 4026742

pension: ent on the merits of any request for ancillary relief is not final until an outstanding related application for an award of attorney's fees has been decided."). 3 Pinkert v. Wion, 431 A.2d 1269, 1270 (Del. 1981). 4 The Cooper formula is a method of dividing pension benefits, which was approved by this Court in Jerry L.C. v. Lucille H.C., 448 A.2d 223, 225-26 (Del. 1982). 5 In fact, in discussing the appropriate division of the parties' respective retirement and pension accounts, the Family Court twice indicated that only the pension accounts were subject to the Cooper formula. See Woods v. Woods, File No. CK08-03006,


CourtListener opinion 4026742

domestic relations order: ber 14, 2015 Order addressed the Husband's motion, which was filed on August 7, 2015, seeking clarification of 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties. the division of the Husband's retirement account for purposes of drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("the Clarification Order"). Although the parties have filed briefs addressing the merits of the Property Division Order, we conclude that the Husband's appeal from the Property Division Order is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments that the Husband raises in his opening brief. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. (2) The


CourtListener opinion 4027505

CourtListener opinion 4027505 Docket: 208-6-11 Wndm Trial Judge: Thomas J. Devine. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4027505 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 4027505


CourtListener opinion 4027505

QDRO: ion, the court found that both parties had need of some retirement income. It rejected husband's request to divide the pension equally without limitation to the marital portion, and instead ordered that the marital portion of the pension be divided equally by QDRO. In considering its division of the pension, the court noted that wife has hopes to retire soon, but husband will need to retire someday, and has variable income from his solo law practice. The court acknowledged that husband's vocational skills and employability were greater than wife's, but concluded that all the other relevant factors pointed to an equal


CourtListener opinion 4027505

retirement benefits: 00. Wife has a credit union savings account of about $6,500, stock worth $500, and revolving credit card debt of $9,000. Husband had an IRA worth $986 and two kinds of stock worth $5047 and $282, respectively. He had credit card debt of $88,500.2 Wife had two retirement plans, a deferred compensation plan worth $21,370, and a state pension which, based on the testimony of wife's expert, the court found to have present value 1 Both parties were represented by counsel at trial. 2 In its specific findings, the trial court listed husband's credit card debt borne by husband totaling $88,500. In its conclusions, the court descri


CourtListener opinion 4027505

pension: 500, and revolving credit card debt of $9,000. Husband had an IRA worth $986 and two kinds of stock worth $5047 and $282, respectively. He had credit card debt of $88,500.2 Wife had two retirement plans, a deferred compensation plan worth $21,370, and a state pension which, based on the testimony of wife's expert, the court found to have present value 1 Both parties were represented by counsel at trial. 2 In its specific findings, the trial court listed husband's credit card debt borne by husband totaling $88,500. In its conclusions, the court describes husband's debt as exceeding $68,000. We use the more specific


CourtListener opinion 4027505

valuation/division: , Washington Unit, v. } Family Division } } Edwin Hobson } DOCKET NO. 208-6-11 Wndm Trial Judge: Thomas J. Devine In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: Wife appeals pro se from a final divorce judgment.1 She challenges the trial court's property division. Although we uphold nearly all of the trial court's findings and conclusions, we reverse and remand so that the trial court can address one outstanding issue. The trial court made the following findings of fact. The parties were married in 1984 and separated in 2009. Their children are grown. At the time of the trial, husband was sixty-five years old and


CourtListener opinion 4028365

CourtListener opinion 4028365 Extracted case name: ERIC P. SOUSA v. DONNA M. SOUSA. Extracted reporter citation: 422 A.2d 271. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4028365 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 4028365


CourtListener opinion 4028365

QDRO: tested proceeding on December 19, 2001. Both parties were represented by counsel. . . . ‘‘A separation agreement was prepared and executed which, among other things, provided that the plaintiff's [B]orough of Naugatuck police pension be divided equally via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . .5 [That order] was prepared by the defendant's counsel, who received information about the pension from the plaintiff's counsel . . . . A further provision in the agreement called for the plaintiff to pay periodic ali- mony of $130 per week, subject to termination at the end of five years, or earlier upon the [defendant's] cohabitation or the death


CourtListener opinion 4028365

retirement benefits: ems by exceeding authority, deemed subject matter jurisdictional in nature, granted by federal statutes. See Cline v. Cline, 90 P.3d 147, 153–54 (Alaska 2004) (sustaining collateral attack on state court order that distributed more than 50 percent of military retirement benefits, in excess of federal statute that ‘‘established a limited grant of subject matter jurisdiction to state courts''); In re Marriage of Hulstrom, 342 Ill. App. 3d 262, 271–72, 794 N.E.2d 980 (2003) (property division subject to collateral attack under § 12 of Restatement [Second] of Judgments because, given federal preemption principles, it divided Social Se


CourtListener opinion 4028365

pension: oyd Cutsumpas, judge trial referee, denying a motion of the defendant, Donna M. Sousa, to vacate a prior judgment, rendered by the court, Resha, J., which ‘‘modified, by stipulation, a por- tion of the judgment of dissolution that ordered that the plaintiff's pension benefits be divided equally between the parties.''3 Sousa v. Sousa, 157 Conn. App. 587, 590, 116 A.3d 865 (2015). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly failed to consider aspects of the doctrine of finality of judgments on the basis of its conclusion that it was ‘‘entirely obvi- ous'' that, under General Statutes § 46b-81 (a) a


CourtListener opinion 4028365

domestic relations order: ceeding on December 19, 2001. Both parties were represented by counsel. . . . ‘‘A separation agreement was prepared and executed which, among other things, provided that the plaintiff's [B]orough of Naugatuck police pension be divided equally via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . .5 [That order] was prepared by the defendant's counsel, who received information about the pension from the plaintiff's counsel . . . . A further provision in the agreement called for the plaintiff to pay periodic ali- mony of $130 per week, subject to termination at the end of five years, or earlier upon the [defendant's] cohabitation or the death


CourtListener opinion 4028785

CourtListener opinion 4028785 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 331605 Lenawee Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4028785 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 4028785

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 4028785

domestic relations order: 694 NW2d 65 (2005), but instead dismiss this claim, an option included in our Supreme Court's order. We have determined that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this parenting time order and the appeal is properly dismissed. 8 Before 1994, most postjudgment domestic relations orders were appealable by right. The Staff Comment to the February 1994 amendment to MCR 7.203 indicates that the court rule change "eliminates appeals of right as to certain types of judgments or orders. . . . In domestic relations cases, the only postjudgment orders that will be appealable by right are those involving the custody of minors." 9 An issue is moot


CourtListener opinion 4029252

CourtListener opinion 4029252 Extracted reporter citation: 341 S.W.3d 360. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4029252 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 4029252


CourtListener opinion 4029252

QDRO: a legal assistant, Mitan Sudatu, at Busby's law firm office three days after relator had retained the firm. 2 Busby was not present at the consultation and he did not meet Garcia. Garcia brought to her consultation a copy of a 2013 divorce decree containing QDRO information, a warranty deed for the house, and a list of debts. Garcia and Sudatu went over the inventory during the meeting. Garcia and Sudatu discussed the fact that relator had been served in 2013, but that he did not respond. 1 See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. 2 Julie Sanchez, a senior paralegal at the fi


CourtListener opinion 4030508

CourtListener opinion 4030508 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Ard. Extracted reporter citation: 414 S.W.3d 288. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4030508 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 4030508

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 4030508

QDRO: ortionate division of the community estate. The trial court divided Brentley's retirement benefits in his Matco Tools 401(k) plan, fifty- two percent to Bobbye and forty-eight percent to Brentley. That portion of the property division was memorialized in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The trial court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Finding of Fact 2 provides that the divorce was granted on grounds of insupportability and adultery. The trial court found that Bobbye complied with the scheduling order by presenting an inventory and appraisement and proposed disposition of property and debt, while Brentley failed to p


CourtListener opinion 4030508

retirement benefits: eir own but do have children from previous relationships. As grounds for divorce, Bobbye alleged insupportability, cruel treatment, and adultery. Based on those grounds, she also sought a disproportionate share of the community estate, including Brentley's retirement account. At the time of the divorce, Bobbye worked as director of a residential healthcare partnership for University Medical Center making $94,500 annually, as an accountant. Brentley worked for Matco Tools and testified his base salary at the time of divorce was $75,000 plus certain expenses and commissions. At the final hearing, he introduced a copy of his


CourtListener opinion 4030508

401(k): property. At the conclusion of the final hearing, the trial court found Brentley in contempt, and using Bobbye's values, ordered a disproportionate division of the community estate. The trial court divided Brentley's retirement benefits in his Matco Tools 401(k) plan, fifty- two percent to Bobbye and forty-eight percent to Brentley. That portion of the property division was memorialized in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The trial court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Finding of Fact 2 provides that the divorce was granted on grounds of insupportability and adultery. The trial court fou


CourtListener opinion 4030508

domestic relations order: division of the community estate. The trial court divided Brentley's retirement benefits in his Matco Tools 401(k) plan, fifty- two percent to Bobbye and forty-eight percent to Brentley. That portion of the property division was memorialized in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The trial court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Finding of Fact 2 provides that the divorce was granted on grounds of insupportability and adultery. The trial court found that Bobbye complied with the scheduling order by presenting an inventory and appraisement and proposed disposition of property and debt, while Brentley failed to p


CourtListener opinion 4033606

CourtListener opinion 4033606 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SARA ROSE CRANDALL AND JONATHAN CHRISTIAN CRANDALL Upon the Petition of SARA ROSE. Extracted reporter citation: 715 N.W.2d 242. Docket: 15-1783. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4033606 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 4033606


CourtListener opinion 4033606

QDRO: ted stock assets4 based on the market value Jonathan 2 Jonathan's father holds the $44,000 mortgage on the rental property. 3 Jonathan proposed splitting equally his IRA ($50,155.94) and 401K ($107,894.86). The court agreed, ordered those assets divided by QDRO, and neither party appeals that resolution. See In re Marriage of Veit, 797 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 2011) ("[T]he QDRO is not itself a property settlement, but is merely a method of effectuating the property division."). 4 Jonathan testified his Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) account held shares of Skyworks stock that he owned and he could immediately s


CourtListener opinion 4033606

retirement benefits: tions ($198,450) and divided that value equally between the parties, the court failed to further specify distribution of this asset. In Jonathan's rule 1.904(2) motion, he asked the court to modify the decree,6 asserting his vested stock options "are not a retirement account and cannot be split by a QDRO. They can only be distributed to [Sara] by [Jonathan] exercising them, and then paying income taxes on the amount received." Jonathan asked the court to award each party 1250 stock options. According to Jonathan, the court should further order him "to exercise [Sara's] 1250 shares, have an accountant determine the amount o


CourtListener opinion 4033606

401(k): n's valuations and also adopted his proposal to equally split his vested stock assets4 based on the market value Jonathan 2 Jonathan's father holds the $44,000 mortgage on the rental property. 3 Jonathan proposed splitting equally his IRA ($50,155.94) and 401K ($107,894.86). The court agreed, ordered those assets divided by QDRO, and neither party appeals that resolution. See In re Marriage of Veit, 797 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 2011) ("[T]he QDRO is not itself a property settlement, but is merely a method of effectuating the property division."). 4 Jonathan testified his Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) account


CourtListener opinion 4033606

valuation/division: nal contact with both parents can be satisfied by liberal visitation in various forms). All the witnesses at the dissolution hearing testified the children are doing well under the existing schedule. We affirm the district court's visitation schedule. C. Property Division Jonathan also challenges the economic provisions of the dissolution decree. He claims the court erred in valuing and distributing vested and unvested assets associated with his employment at Skyworks. Concerning his equalization payment to Sara, Jonathan contends the court should have ordered 11 the sale of his property and allowed him to deduct taxe


CourtListener opinion 4033607

CourtListener opinion 4033607 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KAREN K. KORN AND JOHN C. KORN Upon the Petition of KAREN K. KORN. Extracted reporter citation: 874 N.W.2d 103. Docket: 15-2014. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4033607 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 4033607


CourtListener opinion 4033607

QDRO: forts of the parties. No compelling reason exists to deviate from the well-established principal that the parties share equitably in the assets accumulated during the marriage. Accordingly, Karen is awarded one-half of all of John's retirement accounts. A qualified domestic relations order shall be prepared by Karen's attorney to effectuate this transfer. (Emphasis added.) The district court's reasoning is akin to the reasoning of the dissent in In re Marriage of Rhinehart, 704 N.W.2d 677, 684-87 (Iowa 2005). In Rhinehart, the majority concluded a husband should be awarded his entire retirement account 5 Section 598.21(6) provides: P


CourtListener opinion 4033607

retirement benefits: parties seek an award of appellate attorney fees. We affirm as modified on Karen's appeal, and affirm as modified on John's cross-appeal. We modify the spousal support award and fix the same in the amount of $825. We also award the entirety of the Vanguard retirement account to John. Finally, we require John to maintain insurance coverage upon the parties' disabled child as he agreed. I. Scope and Standard of Review. Marriage dissolution proceedings are equitable and our review is de novo. In re Marriage of Mauer, 874 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Iowa 2016). Although we give weight to the factual findings of the district court, we a


CourtListener opinion 4033607

pension: . Karen objects to the trial court's failure to order John to pay child support for their twenty-two-year-old autistic son. She also challenges the amount of spousal support ordered and the property distribution. John requests that a greater portion of his pension accounts be awarded to him. Both parties seek an award of appellate attorney fees. We affirm as modified on Karen's appeal, and affirm as modified on John's cross-appeal. We modify the spousal support award and fix the same in the amount of $825. We also award the entirety of the Vanguard retirement account to John. Finally, we require John to maintain


CourtListener opinion 4033607

domestic relations order: he parties. No compelling reason exists to deviate from the well-established principal that the parties share equitably in the assets accumulated during the marriage. Accordingly, Karen is awarded one-half of all of John's retirement accounts. A qualified domestic relations order shall be prepared by Karen's attorney to effectuate this transfer. (Emphasis added.) The district court's reasoning is akin to the reasoning of the dissent in In re Marriage of Rhinehart, 704 N.W.2d 677, 684-87 (Iowa 2005). In Rhinehart, the majority concluded a husband should be awarded his entire retirement account 5 Section 598.21(6) provides: P


CourtListener opinion 4035344

CourtListener opinion 4035344 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hunt. Extracted reporter citation: 567 F.2d 1252. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4035344 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 4035344


CourtListener opinion 4035344

QDRO: vernment is all marital property up until August 31, 1994," and that: "[t]he Petitioner is awarded one-half of [William's] pension benefits accrued as of August 31, 1994, said benefits to be divided pursuant to the same formula in assessing or ordering Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO), to wit: 50% of the accrued benefits for the period November 1, 1968 to August 31, 1994. Payment of said benefit shall commence when the pension goes into pay status." ¶4 In 2012, William retired from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after 43 years of employment. William's pension is held by the Civil Service Retirement System and ad


CourtListener opinion 4035344

retirement benefits: ed a request for the marital portion of the annuity payments" with the OPM. This request included a copy of the July 1996 court order. On September 6, 2012, OPM responded in a letter stating that "[b]y court order your marital share of your former spouse's retirement benefit is 50% of 322 months of service during the marriage divided by 532 months of Federal service or 30.26% of your spouse's retirement benefit. The marital share times your former spouse's gross annuity benefit of $8936 provides for a $2,704.03 monthly payment to you." Beginning October 1, 2012, OPM issued Stella monthly distributions of $2,704.03. ¶6 Will


CourtListener opinion 4035344

pension: of Hunt, 78 Ill. App. 3d 653 (1979) (Hunt formula). We affirm. ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 On August 31, 1994, the circuit court entered a judgment dissolving William and Stella Sanders' 26-year marriage. The judgment reserved the issue of the division of William's pension. On July 11, 1996, after a trial before Judge James G. Donegan, a supplemental 1-14-3681 judgment for dissolution was entered, finding the "pension of the Respondent through his employment with the United States Government is all marital property up until August 31, 1994," and that: "[t]he Petitioner is awarded one-half of [William's] pension benefits


CourtListener opinion 4035344

ERISA: share of his pension benefits that she has not received, and (4) an award of attorney fees. ¶9 In response, William argued that his retirement plan is a federal government plan exempt from the previsions of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (2006)) and managed by the OPM; according to OPM regulations Stella was required to follow procedures to apply for pension benefits; OPM's September 2012 letter miscalculated Stella's benefits based on 322 months of service during marriage where the marriage lasted only 303 months; therefore, OPM properly recalculated Stella's


CourtListener opinion 4036750

CourtListener opinion 4036750 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of O'Malley. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4036750 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 4036750

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 4036750

QDRO: olution of marriage incorporated a MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent's retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that " ‘[i]t is the intention of this [article] that [petitioner] is to receive fifty percent (50%) of the account balance of each of [respondent's] retirement plans


CourtListener opinion 4036750

retirement benefits: court did here. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 164. ¶ 43 In Hall, the petitioner and respondent's judgment for dissolution of marriage incorporated a MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent's retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that " ‘[i]t is the intention of thi


CourtListener opinion 4036750

pension: respondent's] retirement plans valued as of the date of the entry of this [judgment for dissolution of marriage].' " Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 163. After the division of assets, the petitioner noticed that she had not received benefits from two additional pension plans belonging to the respondent and filed a petition to modify or reform the dissolution judgment, alleging that the pension plans had been omitted from the MSA due to a mutual 5 Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, any party, within 30 days after the entry of the judgment, may file a motion for a rehearing, retrial, or modification of the jud


CourtListener opinion 4036750

domestic relations order: marriage incorporated a MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent's retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that " ‘[i]t is the intention of this [article] that [petitioner] is to receive fifty percent (50%) of the account balance of each of [respondent's] retirement plans


CourtListener opinion 4037924

CourtListener opinion 4037924 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JESSE JACOB LEIB AND ABBY JO LEIB Upon the Petition of JESSE JACOB LEIB. Extracted reporter citation: 824 N.W.2d 481. Docket: 15-1918. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4037924 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 4037924


CourtListener opinion 4037924

QDRO: 682 (Iowa 2013). In this case, the Benson formula would equitably divide this asset, and we see no reason to deviate from its application. We remand for the district court 16 to order the appropriate allocation and direct counsel to prepare the necessary qualified domestic relations order. 4. Income Tax Exemptions Abby appeals the district court's deviation from the pretrial stipulation in its award of tax exemptions and credits for the children. In light of the above change in the physical-care arrangement, we remand for the district court to determine the appropriate division of the income tax exemptions and credits for the childre


CourtListener opinion 4037924

pension: In May 2015, the parties filed a pretrial stipulation in which they agreed to the following relevant things: (1) the distribution of the dependency exemptions, (2) the distribution of their vehicles, checking and savings accounts, Abby's horses, and Abby's pension; and (3) the distribution of their liabilities, including an approximate $31,000 loan owed on Jesse's 401(k) policy, for which Jesse accepted liability. The parties disputed physical care and visitation, alimony, attorney fees, and the distribution of Jesse's 401(k), Jesse's pension, and monies held in a trust account. At the conclusion of a three-day


CourtListener opinion 4037924

401(k): 1) the distribution of the dependency exemptions, (2) the distribution of their vehicles, checking and savings accounts, Abby's horses, and Abby's pension; and (3) the distribution of their liabilities, including an approximate $31,000 loan owed on Jesse's 401(k) policy, for which Jesse accepted liability. The parties disputed physical care and visitation, alimony, attorney fees, and the distribution of Jesse's 401(k), Jesse's pension, and monies held in a trust account. At the conclusion of a three-day trial, the district court allowed Abby to move to Wisconsin and lifted any restrictions on her taking the ch


CourtListener opinion 4037924

domestic relations order: 2013). In this case, the Benson formula would equitably divide this asset, and we see no reason to deviate from its application. We remand for the district court 16 to order the appropriate allocation and direct counsel to prepare the necessary qualified domestic relations order. 4. Income Tax Exemptions Abby appeals the district court's deviation from the pretrial stipulation in its award of tax exemptions and credits for the children. In light of the above change in the physical-care arrangement, we remand for the district court to determine the appropriate division of the income tax exemptions and credits for the childre


CourtListener opinion 4042719

CourtListener opinion 4042719 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 13-15-00150-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4042719 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 4042719


CourtListener opinion 4042719

retirement benefits: Paul"). By three issues, which we address as one, appellant Tracie Marie Scheffler f/k/a Tracie Marie Parson ("Tracie") contends the trial court erred in (1) dismissing her petition to correct or amend a domestic relations order ("DRO") concerning military retirement benefits and (2) failing to grant the relief she requested in her petition to correct or amend the DRO. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND1 Tracie and Paul were married in 2004. On May 24, 2011, the trial court and the parties signed a Corrected Final Decree of Divorce along with a DRO. The divorce decree provided that Tracie was to receive a portion of Paul's militar


CourtListener opinion 4042719

domestic relations order: to dismiss filed by appellee, Paul Michael Parsons ("Paul"). By three issues, which we address as one, appellant Tracie Marie Scheffler f/k/a Tracie Marie Parson ("Tracie") contends the trial court erred in (1) dismissing her petition to correct or amend a domestic relations order ("DRO") concerning military retirement benefits and (2) failing to grant the relief she requested in her petition to correct or amend the DRO. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND1 Tracie and Paul were married in 2004. On May 24, 2011, the trial court and the parties signed a Corrected Final Decree of Divorce along with a DRO. The divorce decree provided that T


CourtListener opinion 4042719

valuation/division: y or unreasonably, or without any reference to guiding rules and principles. Beshears, 423 S.W.3d at 499 (citing Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990)). "A judgment finalizing a divorce and dividing marital property bars relitigation of the property division, even if the decree incorrectly characterizes or divides the property." Pearson v. Fillingim, 332 S.W.3d 361, 363 (Tex. 2011). Seeking an order that alters or modifies a divorce decree's property division constitutes an impermissible collateral attack. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.007(a), (b); Hagen v. Hagen, 282 S.W.3d 899, 902 (Tex. 2009); see Seabron, 201


CourtListener opinion 4044353

CourtListener opinion 4044353 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Moncey. Extracted reporter citation: 286 S.W.3d 619. Docket: 06-14-00101-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4044353 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 4044353


CourtListener opinion 4044353

QDRO: e account after deduction of the amount owned by Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s[,] separate estate ($234,000.00), together with any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on the amount awarded to husband arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final Decree of Divorce is signed.6 6 The trial court also issued certain findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the 401(k) account. The court found: 8. Prior to the parties' marriage, Respondent began making contributions into the Texas Bank 401k Plan. As of the date of the marriage of the parties, the b


CourtListener opinion 4044353

retirement benefits: property" as separate property. Conversely, the Agreement classified account contributions as community property. The Agreement provided that "[a]ll employer or employee contributions made during this marriage to any retirement annuity contract, individual retirement account, profitsharing or pension plan or any other retirement savings arrangement . . . together with all future increment in value attributable to such contributions . . . shall be community property." 1 The trial court concluded that the Agreement was valid and enforceable. 2 Ben entered the marriage with a 401(k) account through his employer, Citizens Na


CourtListener opinion 4044353

pension: rsely, the Agreement classified account contributions as community property. The Agreement provided that "[a]ll employer or employee contributions made during this marriage to any retirement annuity contract, individual retirement account, profitsharing or pension plan or any other retirement savings arrangement . . . together with all future increment in value attributable to such contributions . . . shall be community property." 1 The trial court concluded that the Agreement was valid and enforceable. 2 Ben entered the marriage with a 401(k) account through his employer, Citizens National Bank. The account v


CourtListener opinion 4044353

401(k): ourt No. 2011-12-590-CCL Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION When Emma Ruth (Ruthie) Vinson and Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr. (Ben), were divorced, the trial court awarded $243,000.00 in Ben's 401(k) plan to him as his separate property. The trial court classified the remainder of the 401(k) plan funds as community property and divided it equally between the parties. Ben appeals, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in failing to classify $113,206.37 in interest and account earnings—as opposed to contributions to the account—as his separat


CourtListener opinion 4046778

CourtListener opinion 4046778 Extracted reporter citation: 133 S.W.3d 782. Docket: 06-14-00101-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4046778 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 4046778

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 4046778

QDRO: the account after deduction of the amount owned by Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s separate estate ($234,000.00), together with any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on the amount awarded to husband arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final Decree of Divorce is signed." (CR, 28) Property Awarded To Wife: W-5 "A portion of Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s retirement benefits in the Texas Bank 401k Plan arising out of Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s employment with Texas Bank as of the date that the Final Decree is signed by the Court, that portion being FIFTY


CourtListener opinion 4046778

retirement benefits: # ¶ 2.03 provides that separate property identified to the Agreement is to be preserved before, during, and after the marriage # ¶ 2.04 provides generally that property acquired during the marriage, including income, compensation and contributions to a retirement account, which is not otherwise defined as separate property by the Agreement, is community property, and contains a provision which transforms separate property to community property under certain, limited conditions. # ¶ 2.06 provides that income earned from and enhancement of value to the parties' separate property identified to and incorporated into th


CourtListener opinion 4046778

401(k): NO. 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 The trial court abused its discretion in failing to confirm the interest and accumulations upon Appellant's separate property interest in Appellant's Texas Bank 401k Plan as Appellant's separate property, and partitioning the same as property of the community estate. PRAYER FOR RELIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . .


CourtListener opinion 4046778

domestic relations order: nt after deduction of the amount owned by Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s separate estate ($234,000.00), together with any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on the amount awarded to husband arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day this Final Decree of Divorce is signed." (CR, 28) Property Awarded To Wife: W-5 "A portion of Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s retirement benefits in the Texas Bank 401k Plan arising out of Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.'s employment with Texas Bank as of the date that the Final Decree is signed by the Court, that portion being FIFTY


CourtListener opinion 4047899

CourtListener opinion 4047899 Extracted case name: APPELLANT v. TRISHA DUNAHOO. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 07-15-00029-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4047899 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 4047899


CourtListener opinion 4047899

QDRO: ee. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.002, 9.006(a), 9.008 (West). The court may enter a clarifying order to enforce compliance with the original division of the property. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.008(b); see also § 9.1045(a) (providing that a "court that renders a qualified domestic relations order retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to amend the order to correct the order or clarify the terms of the order to effectuate the division of property ordered by the court"). However, after its plenary power expires, a court may not alter, amend, or modify the substantive division of property in 13 the decree. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.007(a) (Wes


CourtListener opinion 4047899

retirement benefits: t 9.101 and 9.1045. (1R.R. at 16)He requested that the court enter a correct DRO. (1R.R. at 17) The parties agreed that if she testified she would say that her intention at the time of the divorce was to receive (1R.R. at 18) the standard division of the retirement benefits. (1R.R. at 19) 11 Appellant's Argument I The district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to remove the provision ending the award of military retirement because it modified an unambiguous substantive property division from the divorce decree and the 2008 domestic relations order. Response to Appellant Argument I: The Trial Court retains s


CourtListener opinion 4047899

alternate payee: ns Order, such as the one here, "is a species of post-divorce enforcement order." Quijano v. Quijano, 347 S.W.3d 345, 353 (Tex. App. 2011)(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). The purpose of a Domestic Relations Order is to create or recognize an alternate payee's right, or to assign an alternate payee the right, to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan. Id. at 353–54. The purpose is not to award separate property or to divest a party of property. A trial court that renders a divorce decree generally retains the power to enforce or clarify the property divisi


CourtListener opinion 4047899

domestic relations order: ........ 8 APPELLANT ARGUMENT I: The district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to remove the provision ending the award of military retirement because it modified an unambiguous substantive property division from the divorce decree and the 2008 domestic relations order………………………………………………………12 RESPONSE TO APPELLANT ARGUMENT I: The Trial Court retains subject matter of the Domestic Relationship Order under Chapters 9.104 and 9.1045 of the Texas Family Code. Under these chapters, the court can amend the Domestic Relationship Order……..12 APPELLANT ARGUMENT II: The District Court erred in emoving the end of award provision fo


CourtListener opinion 4048182

CourtListener opinion 4048182 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 10-10-0579-CVW. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4048182 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 4048182

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 4048182

domestic relations order: ect the trial court's final decree of divorce and order for military retirement. 1. The trial court, cause number, and style of this case are as shown in the caption above. 2. On May 24, 2011, the trial court signed a Corrected Final Decree of Divorce and a Domestic Relations Order for Military Retirement in this suit. 3. On January 8, 2015, TRACIE MARIE SCHEFFLER, Petitioner, filed her Petition to Correct or Amend Domestic Relations Order for Military Retirement in this case. 4. On February 13, 2015, the trial court signed an Order sustaining the plea to the jurisdiction filed by Respondent, PAUL MICHAEL PARSON, and dismissed Petit


CourtListener opinion 4049333

CourtListener opinion 4049333 Extracted reporter citation: 301 S.W.3d 74. Docket: 01-14-00761-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4049333 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 4049333


CourtListener opinion 4049333

QDRO: ............................................................................................................ 29 Appellee's Reply Brief Page 9 of 61 STATEMENT OF THE CASE (pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d)) 1. NATURE OF THE CASE This is an appeal of a QDRO dividing pension benefits earned by Mr. Howard through his employment with the Houston Police Department. The pension benefits are administrated through the Houston Police Offices Pension System (or often referred to as "HPOPS"). This is not a direct appeal of the underlying "Decree of Divorce" (or Decree) signed by the trial court on November 28, 1988


CourtListener opinion 4049333

retirement benefits: rt rendered a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between Stephen Henry Howard and Winnie Jewel Howard. The November 28, 1988 "Decree of Divorce" awarded Winnie Jewel Howard [o]ne half of any and all sums related to any vested profit sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan or accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit programs Appellee's Reply Brief Page 11 of 61 [existing] by reason of Petitioner's employment during the marriage. 4. Since the November 28, 1988 "Decree of Divorce" is final, the decretal language (as quoted above) is operative as to Stephen


CourtListener opinion 4049333

pension: .............................................. 16 1. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ...................................................... 16 2. STEPHEN HENRY HOWARD'S EMPLOYMENT WITH HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT......................................... 17 3. HPOPS PENSION BENEFITS ................................................... 18 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................................. 23 1. ISSUE 1 AND 2: THE NOVEMBER 28, 1988 "DECREE OF DIVORCE" .................................................................................... 23 A. AMBIGUITY ..................................


CourtListener opinion 4049333

ERISA: 4, no pet.). HPOPS is a single employer defined benefit pension plan covering police officers employed full time by the City of Houston. HPOPS is a local government plan and, therefore, is not subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). HPOPS contains different benefits that vest upon a certain number of years of credited service with the City of Houston. A brief overview of each of these benefits and the time that each of these benefits vest are listed in the following table: Vesting Period Benefit Less than 10 Return of Contributions: Credit is years of service2 automatically


CourtListener opinion 4052374

CourtListener opinion 4052374 Extracted reporter citation: 87 S.W.3d 538. Docket: 2012-65951 MEMORANDUM OPINION Barbara White. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4052374 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 4052374

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 4052374

QDRO: a White and James N. White, Jr. were married on January 11, 1995. Barbara filed for divorce in November 2012. James filed a counter-petition for divorce. The case was tried to the court in March 2014, and the trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on April 22, 2014. Much of the appellate battle centers on the trial court's marital property characterization of James's retirement benefits. James began working for the fire department in 1967 and began contributing to the Houston Firefighter's Relief and Retirement Fund in March 1968. James ceased regular employment in March 1998 — three years i


CourtListener opinion 4052374

retirement benefits: tried to the court in March 2014, and the trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on April 22, 2014. Much of the appellate battle centers on the trial court's marital property characterization of James's retirement benefits. James began working for the fire department in 1967 and began contributing to the Houston Firefighter's Relief and Retirement Fund in March 1968. James ceased regular employment in March 1998 — three years into his marriage with Barbara, and after thirty years of employment — and began participating in the Houston Firefighter's Relief and Retirement Fund


CourtListener opinion 4052374

pension: nds that the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) failing to apportion James's retirement benefits properly; (2) failing to divide 1 The DROP program is an optional method to receive benefits available to firefighters with 20 or more years of credited pension service. This program allows an individual to continue working and receiving a salary for up to ten years; the monthly retirement annuity the individual could have received during that period is credited to an account in the individual's name where it earns interest at a guaranteed annual rate. 2 the community property interest in the cost-of-living adju


CourtListener opinion 4052374

domestic relations order: d James N. White, Jr. were married on January 11, 1995. Barbara filed for divorce in November 2012. James filed a counter-petition for divorce. The case was tried to the court in March 2014, and the trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on April 22, 2014. Much of the appellate battle centers on the trial court's marital property characterization of James's retirement benefits. James began working for the fire department in 1967 and began contributing to the Houston Firefighter's Relief and Retirement Fund in March 1968. James ceased regular employment in March 1998 — three years i


CourtListener opinion 4056802

CourtListener opinion 4056802 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4056802 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 4056802


CourtListener opinion 4056802

QDRO: ppellant's request for a name change REVERSED and ordered severed and REMAND to the trial court to either grant the requested name change or state a reason in the decree for not doing so. We AFFIRM the remainder of the trial court's final divorce decree and qualified domestic relations order. We order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.


CourtListener opinion 4056802

domestic relations order: DGMENT The Fourteenth Court of Appeals BARBARA WHITE, Appellant NO. 14-14-00593-CV V. JAMES N. WHITE, JR. AND AUDREY R. GORHAM, Appellees ________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the trial court's final divorce decree and qualified domestic relations order signed April 22, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find the trial court erred in denying appellant's requested name change without explanation. We therefore order the portion of the final divorce decree denying without explanation appellant's request for a name change REVERSED and ordered severed and REMAND to


CourtListener opinion 4062993

CourtListener opinion 4062993 Extracted reporter citation: 687 S.W.2d 42. Docket: sheet on the samedate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4062993 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 4062993


CourtListener opinion 4062993

QDRO: RIK's employment with Matco Tools as of the date that the Final Decree of Divorce is signed by the Court, that portion being 48%, together with any interesti dividends, gains, or losses on that amount arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on the day thid Final Decree of Divorce is signed. H-7. All policies of life insurance (including cash values) insuring the husband's life. H-8. Tile 2014 Ford F 150 motor vehicle, vehicle identification number ______________ tdgether with all prepaid insurance, keys, and title documents. H-9. Tile 2006 Harley Davidson Motorcycle, v


CourtListener opinion 4062993

retirement benefits: rust account. (R.R. Vol 3 Exhibit 9),Exhibit 10, was introduced 5 into evidence showing the fair market value of the parties community and debt. In particular the exhibit shows that Matco 401K of Appellant which had a value of $297,630.00 and Appellee' s retirement plan with MetLife TSA showing a value of $42,609.00. (R.R. Vol 3, Petitioner Ex 10). Petitioner Exhibit 11 was introduced into evidence showing the alleged personal property in each parties possession with Appellee, claiming she had only retained $8,025.00 of personal property, and Appellee alleging Appellant had retained $59,860 worth of personal property w


CourtListener opinion 4062993

pension: he wife's sole control. W-4. The sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, togetWer with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any prbfit-sharing plan, retirement plan, Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401~k) plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits existing by reason of the wife's past, present, or future employment, including but not limited to Me~life TSA 073728187 AB. — W-5. A~portion of BRENTLEY WAYNE HRNCIRIK's retirement benefits in Matöd 40 1(k) arising out of BRENT


CourtListener opinion 4062993

401(k): time of the divorce there was $14,891.14 in Appellee' s Attorney's trust account. (R.R. Vol 3 Exhibit 9),Exhibit 10, was introduced 5 into evidence showing the fair market value of the parties community and debt. In particular the exhibit shows that Matco 401K of Appellant which had a value of $297,630.00 and Appellee' s retirement plan with MetLife TSA showing a value of $42,609.00. (R.R. Vol 3, Petitioner Ex 10). Petitioner Exhibit 11 was introduced into evidence showing the alleged personal property in each parties possession with Appellee, claiming she had only retained $8,025.00 of personal property, and


CourtListener opinion 4063996

CourtListener opinion 4063996 Extracted reporter citation: 582 S.W.2d 883. Docket: 06-15-0041-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4063996 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 4063996


CourtListener opinion 4063996

QDRO: me. 1 RR 84:1-8 -16- 39. Wilder further testified that the prior action was dismissed for want of prosecution in 1993 and had no explanation for the dismissal except what appeared in the docket. 1 RR 84:12–85:5. 40. Wilder agreed that "that if a proper qualified domestic relations order had been prepared subsequent to the hearing in October 1993, that that would have disposed of all of these issues and we wouldn't be here today." 1 RR 85:9-14. 41. The trial court orally found and ruled during the hearing as follows: A. There was $306,306.00 in the retirement account when Appellant retired. 1 RR 93:16-18. B. "that it was necessary


CourtListener opinion 4063996

retirement benefits: r about August 1, 1988. 1 Supp. CR 7-13. 4. On or about December 4, 1992, Appellee, Elizabeth Holoubek, filed a Motion for Division of Property Not Divided on Divorce, by and through her attorney Clay Wilder, seeking a post-decree division of Appellant's retirement benefits from Texas Eastman Company. 1 Supp. CR 14-23. 1 This cause number controlled the action until Appellee filed a Petition for Division of Property Not Divided on Divorce on or about September 13, 2012 under a new cause number. -6- 5. The trial court took testimony and argument in a hearing on or about October 12, 1993. The court designated this as a


CourtListener opinion 4063996

domestic relations order: 4:1-8 -16- 39. Wilder further testified that the prior action was dismissed for want of prosecution in 1993 and had no explanation for the dismissal except what appeared in the docket. 1 RR 84:12–85:5. 40. Wilder agreed that "that if a proper qualified domestic relations order had been prepared subsequent to the hearing in October 1993, that that would have disposed of all of these issues and we wouldn't be here today." 1 RR 85:9-14. 41. The trial court orally found and ruled during the hearing as follows: A. There was $306,306.00 in the retirement account when Appellant retired. 1 RR 93:16-18. B. "that it was necessary


CourtListener opinion 4063996

valuation/division: with the original divorce and post-decree petition filed under Rusk County Court at Law Cause No. 88- 05-260CCL. The Supplemental Clerk's Record will be cited as "[Vol #] Supp. CR [Page #s]:[Line #s]." -1- STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for property division issues in family law cases is generally abuse of discretion. A trial court has broad discretion in dividing the "estate of the parties," but must confine itself to community property. Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137, 139 (Tex.1977). The trial court's discretion to divide marital property upon divorce should be corrected on appeal only when an a


CourtListener opinion 4064154

CourtListener opinion 4064154 Citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Extracted reporter citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4064154 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 4064154

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 4064154

domestic relations order: D). It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED by the Court that said Motion for Continuance be: GRANTED [ ] DENIED [ ] and if Granted, the Hearing to Enter Order be set for SIGNED and ENTERED this the _ day of , 201. JUDGE PRESIDING CHERIE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER [Military Retirement! The Court, having entered a decree of divorce coincident with the signing of this domestic relations order, finding that the entry of a domestic relations order (DRO) is necessary to effectuate the terms of that decree of divorce, and further finding that the entry of a DRO is appropriate, makes the following findings and conclusion


CourtListener opinion 4065578

CourtListener opinion 4065578 Extracted reporter citation: 41 S.W.3d 470. Docket: entry. The court ordered that Husband be released f. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4065578 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 4065578

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 4065578

QDRO: condition of the stay herein, the court orders [Husband] to cause a wage withholding to be in effect in accordance with paragraph 25A, B, and C [concerning payments on real estate until sold and on a loan from his pension plan] of his [motion to modify]. Qualified Domestic Relations Order concerning [Husband's 401(a)] is signed and filed this date. Husband was released from incarceration December 7, 2015. Subsequent docket entries list payments and compliance with the conditions as ordered in the above docket entry. Husband's continued prosecution of this appeal followed. Presenting three points for decision, Husband challenges certai


CourtListener opinion 4065578

pension: the sale of said real estate. As a further condition of the stay herein, the court orders [Husband] to cause a wage withholding to be in effect in accordance with paragraph 25A, B, and C [concerning payments on real estate until sold and on a loan from his pension plan] of his [motion to modify]. Qualified Domestic Relations Order concerning [Husband's 401(a)] is signed and filed this date. Husband was released from incarceration December 7, 2015. Subsequent docket entries list payments and compliance with the conditions as ordered in the above docket entry. Husband's continued prosecution of this appeal follow


CourtListener opinion 4065578

domestic relations order: of the stay herein, the court orders [Husband] to cause a wage withholding to be in effect in accordance with paragraph 25A, B, and C [concerning payments on real estate until sold and on a loan from his pension plan] of his [motion to modify]. Qualified Domestic Relations Order concerning [Husband's 401(a)] is signed and filed this date. Husband was released from incarceration December 7, 2015. Subsequent docket entries list payments and compliance with the conditions as ordered in the above docket entry. Husband's continued prosecution of this appeal followed. Presenting three points for decision, Husband challenges certai


CourtListener opinion 4066162

CourtListener opinion 4066162 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Docket: 13-15-00150-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4066162 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 4066162


CourtListener opinion 4066162

domestic relations order: appellee's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Third Point of Error The trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant the relief requested by Appellant to clarify the valuation of the military retirement in the decree of divorce and the domestic relations order. vii NO. 13-15-00150-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG TRACIE MARIE SCHEFFLER F/K/A TRACIE MARIE PARSON, APPELLANT, v. PAUL MICHAEL PARSON, APPELLEE. On Appeal From the 81st Judicial District Court of Wilson County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 10-10-0579-CVW APPELLANT'S BRIEF TO THE HONORA


CourtListener opinion 4070471

CourtListener opinion 4070471 Docket: 7295801 By: Raven Hubbard. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4070471 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 4070471


CourtListener opinion 4070471

QDRO: aron Wayne Adcock's retirement benefits in 401K arising out of Aaron Wayne Adcock's employment with UPS from September 6, 2008 to December 23, 2013 in the Final Decree of Divorce between the parties. (See pg. 1, Exhibit 7, Default Order Compelling Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Order). IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall have the QDRO drafted by Richard Johnston in Spring, Texas of QDRO Services, LLC, and that the parties submit necessary documents to QDRO Services by 5:00 PM on Monday, July 6, 2015. (See pg. 2, Exhibit 7, Default Order Compelling Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Order). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parti


CourtListener opinion 4070471

retirement benefits: dditionally, the Petitioner requested that 2 my attorney, Shirley A. Mitchell, prepare the QDRO documents then refused to pay the amount requested. I have already paid the requested fees to Shirley A. Mitchell for the preparation of the UPS and Air Force retirement benefits. Under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the court can only compel a party to perform (Rule 215) or comply with a specific act (Rule 198) if there is an underlying order or discovery request. The facts alleged in the Petitioner's pleadings do not create a liability to the Respondent despite the Respondent's failure to appear at the hearing. (See Exh


CourtListener opinion 4070471

401(k): his Court's judgment. Specifically, the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support this Court's judgment based on the following findings of fact: b. That, Petitioner was awarded 50% of Respondent, Aaron Wayne Adcock's retirement benefits in 401K arising out of Aaron Wayne Adcock's employment with UPS from September 6, 2008 to December 23, 2013 in the Final Decree of Divorce between the parties. (See pg. 1, Exhibit 7, Default Order Compelling Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Order). IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall have the QDRO drafted by Richard Johnston in Spring, Texas of QDRO Serv


CourtListener opinion 4070471

domestic relations order: Adcock's retirement benefits in 401K arising out of Aaron Wayne Adcock's employment with UPS from September 6, 2008 to December 23, 2013 in the Final Decree of Divorce between the parties. (See pg. 1, Exhibit 7, Default Order Compelling Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Order). IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall have the QDRO drafted by Richard Johnston in Spring, Texas of QDRO Services, LLC, and that the parties submit necessary documents to QDRO Services by 5:00 PM on Monday, July 6, 2015. (See pg. 2, Exhibit 7, Default Order Compelling Entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Order). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parti


CourtListener opinion 4070475

CourtListener opinion 4070475 Extracted case name: S.V. v. R.V. Extracted reporter citation: 806 S.W.2d 791. Docket: 03-15-00008-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4070475 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 4070475


CourtListener opinion 4070475

QDRO: of which shall be the number of years Husband or his employer, or both, contributed to the plan or benefit) times the amount of the benefit received by Husband. (CR 1:14; RR 3:PX#5; FF#1) (Appendices 2-3). There was no evidence introduced at trial that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, ("QDRO"), to this effect was ever entered by any trial court or that Conoco was ever placed on notice of this particular provision of the Settlement Agreement. M Conoco's Payment of Paul's Retirement Benefits. Paul testified he began working for Conoco on February 12, 1979. (RR 1:6; FF#2) (Appendix 2). Over the next twenty-six years, Paul continued h


CourtListener opinion 4070475

retirement benefits: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 M The Parties' Marital History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 M The Parties' Settlement Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 M The Division of Paul's Retirement Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 M Conoco's Payment of Paul's Retirement Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 M Teresa's Enforcement Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Summary of the Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Standards of Review . . . .


CourtListener opinion 4070475

pension: affirmative defenses, and requested a hearing. (CR 1:25-26). On or about April 3, 2014, Teresa filed a Motion for Enforcement of Order seeking to enforce a specific provision of the parties' divorce decree pertaining to the division of Paul's retirement pension. (CR 1:35-37). A bench trial was held on July 22, 2014. (RR 1: 1). At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court took the matter under consideration. (RR 2:30). On or about August 20, 2014, the trial court issued a letter ruling, and on September 15, 2014, the trial court entered a written judgment denying all of Paul's affirmative defenses,


CourtListener opinion 4070475

domestic relations order: shall be the number of years Husband or his employer, or both, contributed to the plan or benefit) times the amount of the benefit received by Husband. (CR 1:14; RR 3:PX#5; FF#1) (Appendices 2-3). There was no evidence introduced at trial that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, ("QDRO"), to this effect was ever entered by any trial court or that Conoco was ever placed on notice of this particular provision of the Settlement Agreement. M Conoco's Payment of Paul's Retirement Benefits. Paul testified he began working for Conoco on February 12, 1979. (RR 1:6; FF#2) (Appendix 2). Over the next twenty-six years, Paul continued h


CourtListener opinion 4076691

CourtListener opinion 4076691 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 13-15-00150-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4076691 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 4076691

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 4076691

domestic relations order: n in granting Appellee's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. 3.) The trial court ruled properly and within its discretion in dismissing the relief requested by Appellant to clarify the valuation of the military retirement in the decree of divorce and domestic relations order -v- ABBREVIATIONS & RECORD REFERENCES Abbreviations: Paul Michael Parson. (Appellee) .......................................................Mr. Parson Tracie Marie Sheffler (Appellant) .................................................. Mrs. Sheffler Han. Russell Wilson ............................................. Judge Wilson or the Trial Com1 Reco


CourtListener opinion 4084393

CourtListener opinion 4084393 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4084393 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 4084393

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 4084393

QDRO: 5, 2012. The order, among other things, distributed defendant's pension benefits. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this postjudgment matrimonial proceeding, defendant appeals from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that directed the New York State and Local Retirement System (retirement system) to pay his ex-wife her marital share of defendant's pension pursuant to the Majauskas formula (see Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481, 489-491). Although no appeal lies as of right from a QDRO (see Andress v Andress, 97 AD3d 1151, 1152; Cuda v Cuda [appeal No. 2], 19 AD3


CourtListener opinion 4084393

pension: ZIMMERMAN & TYO, ATTORNEYS, SHORTSVILLE (JOHN E. TYO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (William F. Kocher, A.J.), entered January 25, 2012. The order, among other things, distributed defendant's pension benefits. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this postjudgment matrimonial proceeding, defendant appeals from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that directed the New York State and Local Retirement System (retirement system) to pay his ex-wife her marital share of defendan


CourtListener opinion 4084393

401(k): me Court held in Jerry L.C. v Lucille H.C. [448 A2d 223, 226], ‘[s]ince each employment year is counted for pension purposes each contributes to the high salary years' " (id. at 492). The cases relied upon by defendant are distinguishable because they involve defined contribution retirement plans (see Wegman v Wegman, 123 AD2d 220; Kammerer v Kammerer, 2001 NY Slip Op 40218[U]), whereas here defendant has a defined benefit plan. Defendant further contends, seemingly in the alternative, that the QDRO is inconsistent with the parties' stipulation, which he interprets as giving plaintiff a share of his pension as if he retired on the


CourtListener opinion 4084393

alternate payee: ncement of the divorce action. We reject that contention. As the Court of Appeals stated in Majauskas, where the pension participant made a similar argument, the fact that a participant's three highest years of earnings may occur after divorce does affect the alternate payee's marital share of the -2- 679 CA 12-00806 pension benefits, "for as the Delaware Supreme Court held in Jerry L.C. v Lucille H.C. [448 A2d 223, 226], ‘[s]ince each employment year is counted for pension purposes each contributes to the high salary years' " (id. at 492). The cases relied upon by defendant are distinguishable because they involve defined c


CourtListener opinion 4084534

CourtListener opinion 4084534 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4084534 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 4084534


CourtListener opinion 4084534

QDRO: so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, regardless of the potential merit to plaintiff's contention in opposition to defendant's motion to amend the Qualified Domestic Relations Order dated July 11, 2003 (see e.g. Lemesis v Lemesis, 38 AD3d 1331, 1332; Hoke v Hoke, 27 AD3d 1055, 1056; see generally Kazel v Kazel, 3 NY3d 331, 332-335), the court properly refused to consider the relief requested by plaintiff inasmuch as he did not file or serve a notice of cross motion (see CPLR 2215; see e.g. Free in Christ Pentecostal Church v Julian, 64


CourtListener opinion 4084534

domestic relations order: d from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, regardless of the potential merit to plaintiff's contention in opposition to defendant's motion to amend the Qualified Domestic Relations Order dated July 11, 2003 (see e.g. Lemesis v Lemesis, 38 AD3d 1331, 1332; Hoke v Hoke, 27 AD3d 1055, 1056; see generally Kazel v Kazel, 3 NY3d 331, 332-335), the court properly refused to consider the relief requested by plaintiff inasmuch as he did not file or serve a notice of cross motion (see CPLR 2215; see e.g. Free in Christ Pentecostal Church v Julian, 64


CourtListener opinion 4084788

CourtListener opinion 4084788 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4084788 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 4084788


CourtListener opinion 4084788

QDRO: id defendant starts to obtain his pension." Defendant began receiving pension benefits in March 1991. Plaintiff, however, was unaware that defendant was receiving such benefits and she did not begin to receive her share until October 2005, when she obtained a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). By notice of motion filed October 21, 2010, plaintiff sought her share of pension benefits received by defendant from the date of his retirement in March 1991 until October 2005, when plaintiff began prospectively receiving her share of such benefits pursuant to the QDRO. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion in its entirety. Plaintif


CourtListener opinion 4084788

pension: granted the motion of plaintiff for a money judgment against defendant. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying plaintiff's motion in part and directing that defendant pay plaintiff her share of any pension payment defendant received on or after October 21, 2004, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this post-matrimonial proceeding, defendant appeals from an order that granted plaintiff's motion seeking a money judgment for sums allegedly due to plaintiff as her share of defendant's pension benefits. The judgment of divorce, en


CourtListener opinion 4084788

domestic relations order: nt starts to obtain his pension." Defendant began receiving pension benefits in March 1991. Plaintiff, however, was unaware that defendant was receiving such benefits and she did not begin to receive her share until October 2005, when she obtained a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). By notice of motion filed October 21, 2010, plaintiff sought her share of pension benefits received by defendant from the date of his retirement in March 1991 until October 2005, when plaintiff began prospectively receiving her share of such benefits pursuant to the QDRO. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion in its entirety. Plaintif


CourtListener opinion 4085828

CourtListener opinion 4085828 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2 as an application for leave to. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4085828 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 4085828


CourtListener opinion 4085828

domestic relations order: award is not appropriate, and we therefore modify the order in appeal No. 1 by denying that part of plaintiff's motion seeking counsel fees and vacating the award of counsel fees. With respect to appeal No. 2, we note that defendant appeals from an amended domestic relations order (DRO) and that no appeal as of right lies from a DRO (see Cuda v Cuda [appeal No. 2], 19 AD3d 1114, 1114). While we may treat the notice of appeal in appeal No. 2 as an application for leave to appeal (see id.), we see no need to do so in light of our determination in appeal No. 1. Entered: July 6, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court


CourtListener opinion 4087651

CourtListener opinion 4087651 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4087651 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 4087651


CourtListener opinion 4087651

QDRO: entitled to have it at the point of [defendant's] retirement," plaintiff was entitled to share in the pension "[p]ursuant to the Majauskas formula" (Majauskas -2- 342 CA 10-02257 v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481). Thereafter, a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was entered, which provided that, "at such time as [defendant] has retired from and is actually receiving a retirement allowance from the New York State and Local Retirement Systems, [plaintiff] shall be awarded that proportion of 50 percent of each retirement check of the participant for which number of months the parties were married and where the partic


CourtListener opinion 4087651

retirement benefits: ordering paragraphs into the "corrected order," which is the sole document before us on this appeal. The court, inter alia, granted the motion of plaintiff, the ex-wife of defendant, seeking a money judgment for her unpaid share of defendant's New York State retirement benefits, directed the entry of a wage deduction order against defendant to enforce the parties' stipulation regarding his retirement benefits, and awarded attorney's fees to plaintiff. We conclude that the court erred in granting plaintiff's motion. The parties' judgment of divorce, entered in 1996, incorporated a stipulation placed on the record concerning the


CourtListener opinion 4087651

pension: ghts of plaintiff to defendant's retirement benefits. During the course of the parties' marriage, defendant was employed as a police officer by the City of Little Falls, and he became vested in the New York State retirement system. With respect to defendant's pension, the parties' stipulation provided that, "as of the date that they would be entitled to have it at the point of [defendant's] retirement," plaintiff was entitled to share in the pension "[p]ursuant to the Majauskas formula" (Majauskas -2- 342 CA 10-02257 v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481). Thereafter, a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was entered, which


CourtListener opinion 4087651

alternate payee: sdiction over court officers in Herkimer County, whereupon defendant's salary was increased to $43,802, thus exceeding the $30,000 then permitted by section 212 (2). As a result, defendant's retirement benefits for 2008, including the payments to plaintiff as alternate payee, were suspended as of September 2008, when his total earnings exceeded $30,000, subject to reinstatement in January 2009. Plaintiff thereafter moved, inter alia, for a money judgment for 2008 arrears in the amount of $3,084.44 and a wage deduction order to enforce her future rights to the pension. We conclude that the court erred in granting plaintiff's m


CourtListener opinion 4087981

CourtListener opinion 4087981 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4087981 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 4087981

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 4087981

QDRO: CONE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. SHARON ANSCOMBE OSGOOD, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Janice M. Rosa, J.), entered March 9, 2010, which granted defendant's motion to enter a stipulated qualified domestic relations order. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On this appeal by plaintiff from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), we note that no appeal lies as of right from such an order (see Irato v Irato, 288 AD2d 952). Nevertheless, inasmuch as plaintiff "raised timely objections prior to the ent


CourtListener opinion 4087981

domestic relations order: UNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. SHARON ANSCOMBE OSGOOD, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Janice M. Rosa, J.), entered March 9, 2010, which granted defendant's motion to enter a stipulated qualified domestic relations order. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On this appeal by plaintiff from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), we note that no appeal lies as of right from such an order (see Irato v Irato, 288 AD2d 952). Nevertheless, inasmuch as plaintiff "raised timely objections prior to the ent


CourtListener opinion 4089617

CourtListener opinion 4089617 Docket: 324853 Dickinson Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4089617 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 4089617

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 4089617

QDRO: elected to receive CRSC, which resulted in a diminution of his retirement pay and plaintiff's 50 percent award of that pay. See Megee, 290 Mich App at 561 ("Plaintiff elected CRSC, which effectively discontinued his retirement pay that had been subject to the QDRO, halting payments to defendant."). The Megee panel observed the following concerning CRSC and the division of waived retirement pay related to CRSC, i.e., retirement pay that is not being received because of a CRSC election: The trial court here effectively divided plaintiff's CRSC and, although Mansell did not directly address division of disability pay


CourtListener opinion 4089617

retirement benefits: el for both parties acknowledged that the language was awkward, but explained that the intent was simply to address a scenario in which defendant became entitled to and accepted more disability benefits than currently being received, inversely diminishing the retirement benefits that were being divided and awarded to plaintiff. The purpose of the offset provision was to protect plaintiff in such a scenario. The trial court also discussed the offset provision with defendant in the following exchange: Court. All right, . . . Mr. Foster, you do acknowledge that if you were to defer any of your current military retirement pay or co


CourtListener opinion 4089617

valuation/division: of the judgment. *** We hold that a military spouse remains financially responsible to compensate his or her former spouse in an amount equal to the share of retirement pay ordered to be distributed to the former spouse as part of a divorce judgment's property division when the military spouse makes a unilateral and voluntary postjudgment election to waive the retirement pay in favor of disability benefits contrary to the terms of the divorce judgment. Conceptually, and consistently with extensive caselaw from other jurisdictions, we are dividing waived retirement pay in order to honor the terms and intent of the divo


CourtListener opinion 4089822

CourtListener opinion 4089822 Docket: 329152 Marquette Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4089822 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 4089822


CourtListener opinion 4089822

QDRO: t $17,000 in regard to the value of the vehicles. -3- $21,751 that is to be transferred to defendant from the IRA in order to equalize the distribution of retirement accounts; and two pensions, "less a 50% marital interest awarded" to defendant pursuant to qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs). Under the divorce judgment, defendant was awarded: the 2002 pickup truck, 2003 Chevy Impala, and the 2015 GMC pickup truck; the 2008 Lund boat, motor, and trailer, and the associated debt; the aluminum boat and snowmobile; all of the personal property currently in his possession; one-half of the balance in jointly-held bank accounts; his 401(k), "


CourtListener opinion 4089822

retirement benefits: l court also ordered that, for purposes of equalizing the personal property distribution where defendant was awarded personal property with a higher total value, the offset was to be paid to plaintiff out of proceeds from the sale of the marital home, not the retirement accounts.4 A judgment of divorce was subsequently entered. The divorce judgment incorporated by reference a uniform spousal support order, which provided that plaintiff is to pay defendant $2,000 per month in spousal support for a period of 72 months, subject to early termination on the basis of defendant's remarriage or plaintiff's death and subject to modificat


CourtListener opinion 4089822

pension: th the [MDOC], he has not made any effort to find employment, though it appears he has the ability to work in some 2 We shall discuss the pertinent trial testimony in the analysis section of this opinion. 3 The trial court acknowledged defendant's current pension income. The court also discounted plaintiff's suggestion that defendant could apply for social security disability benefits. We shall elaborate on these matters later. -2- capacity. Even with working at full capacity, however, he would not earn an income comparable to that of the Plaintiff. In consideration of all relevant spousal support factors, the