CourtListener opinion 4343604

QDRO: s still an issue. Do we have an agreement on preparation of that? I think it's a co-app. -24- [Moore's counsel]: For FERS? We will go back in and work that. [RUCKS'S COUNSEL]: So the husband will be responsible for the cost of preparing the co-app or QDRO and if there is any administrative fees with court costs, we'll split those. (Emphasis added.) (Tr. Vol. II, pp. 28-29). {¶ 43} Although Moore correctly observes that it was Rucks's attorney who stated that Moore would pay the cost of preparing a COAP for the FERS account, her statement was a reasonable interpretation of Moore's attorney's statement


CourtListener opinion 4343604

QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

retirement benefits: {¶ 10} The classification of property is governed by R.C. 3105.171. Per R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a), "marital property" includes: (i) All real and personal property that currently is owned by either or both of the spouses, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the -5- marriage; (ii) All interest that either or both of the spouses currently has in any real or personal property, including, but not limited to, the retirement benefits of the spouses, and that was acquired by either or both of the spouses during the marriage;


CourtListener opinion 4343604

valuation/division: x months. 5) The trial Court erred in setting the amount of child support. 6) The trial Court erred in ordering that [Moore] was responsible for the cost of preparing a COAP with regard to his FERS account. First, Second and Third Assignments of Error—Property Division {¶ 6} In his first, second and third assignments of error, Moore challenges the trial court's treatment of certain property or payments as marital property rather than as separate property to be awarded to Moore alone. Because these three assignments implicate the same standard of review and the same legal principles governing the division of property


CourtListener opinion 4344096

CourtListener opinion 4344096 Extracted reporter citation: 411 S.W.3d 445. Docket: 13-17-00014-CV. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4344096 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 4344096

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 4344096

QDRO: l from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Hidalgo County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides Appellant Rita Alejandro appeals the trial court's entry of the Third Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on the sole ground that it does not accurately reflect the terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA).1 See TEX. FAM. CODE 1 Appellee Efrain Alejandro did not file a brief to assist us in this appeal. ANN. § 6.602(c) (West, Westlaw through 20171st C.S.). We affirm. I. Background2 Rita and Efrain Alejandro were divorced in June 2012 afte


CourtListener opinion 4344096

retirement benefits: did not file a brief to assist us in this appeal. ANN. § 6.602(c) (West, Westlaw through 20171st C.S.). We affirm. I. Background2 Rita and Efrain Alejandro were divorced in June 2012 after reaching an MSA. The MSA described the distribution of Efrain's retirement plan with the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) as follows: EFRAIN ALEJANDRO will keep the retirement through his employment. EFRAIN ALEJANDRO represents that the amount in his retirement is $100,000.00 as of today's date. Upon verification, if EFRAIN ALEJANDRO's retirement exceeds $100,000.00 as of today's date, the excess amount will be divided e


CourtListener opinion 4344096

domestic relations order: County Court at Law No. 1 of Hidalgo County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides Appellant Rita Alejandro appeals the trial court's entry of the Third Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on the sole ground that it does not accurately reflect the terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA).1 See TEX. FAM. CODE 1 Appellee Efrain Alejandro did not file a brief to assist us in this appeal. ANN. § 6.602(c) (West, Westlaw through 20171st C.S.). We affirm. I. Background2 Rita and Efrain Alejandro were divorced in June 2012 afte


CourtListener opinion 4346131

CourtListener opinion 4346131 Extracted reporter citation: 368 P.2d 546. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4346131 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 4346131


CourtListener opinion 4346131

QDRO: vision. The parties appeared before the superior court in June to argue whether David should retain Linda's half of his monthly pension payments until the equalization payment she owed him was extinguished or whether David's pension should be split 50/50 via Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The court issued an order immediately entitling David to half of Linda's marital IRA and directed the parties to determine whether Linda's equalization payment to David would be made in a lump sum, with his pension payments then split equally, or whether he would retain his pension payments in full until Linda's equalization payment was offset. The


CourtListener opinion 4346131

retirement benefits: t the time of trial Linda was 52 and David was 62; Linda was in "better health," and "David's health [was] quite poor." Linda was employed as a billing manager in a local law firm, and her future income was secure; she had about $6,000 in savings; she had two retirement accounts, one a marital IRA valued at about $87,000 and the other a non-marital 401(K) valued around $178,000; and she had health insurance through her employer and ANTHC. David was medically retired and receiving Social Security disability; he had two pension accounts, both marital; he had about $1,200 in savings; and he would have to pay for healthcare until 2017


CourtListener opinion 4346131

pension: rement accounts, one a marital IRA valued at about $87,000 and the other a non-marital 401(K) valued around $178,000; and she had health insurance through her employer and ANTHC. David was medically retired and receiving Social Security disability; he had two pension accounts, both marital; he had about $1,200 in savings; and he would have to pay for healthcare until 2017, when he would become eligible for Medicare. The court also found that Linda cared for the couple's minor daughter in the family home and received child support from David's Social Security disability benefits; and that David lived in his truck, but wo


CourtListener opinion 4346131

401(k): 's health [was] quite poor." Linda was employed as a billing manager in a local law firm, and her future income was secure; she had about $6,000 in savings; she had two retirement accounts, one a marital IRA valued at about $87,000 and the other a non-marital 401(K) valued around $178,000; and she had health insurance through her employer and ANTHC. David was medically retired and receiving Social Security disability; he had two pension accounts, both marital; he had about $1,200 in savings; and he would have to pay for healthcare until 2017, when he would become eligible for Medicare. The court also found that Linda c


CourtListener opinion 4347428

CourtListener opinion 4347428 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DEBORAH WHITFORD AND RICHARD WHITFORD Upon the Petition of DEBORAH WHITFORD. Extracted reporter citation: 807 N.W.2d 828. Docket: 17-2081. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4347428 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 4347428


CourtListener opinion 4347428

QDRO: Office, Davenport, for appellee. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. 2 VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge. We must decide whether the district court erred in dismissing a petition to modify the language of a dissolution decree and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) filed in 2006. The decree dissolving the marriage of Deborah and Richard Whitford ordered the division of Richard's pension by the following equation: [D]ivide the pension payment in half and multiply the result by the percentage arrived at by dividing the number of years of this marriage by the number of years Richard was employed by John D


CourtListener opinion 4347428

retirement benefits: n years later. He alleged, "The Court in both the decree and the QDRO made a mistake in the calculation of the formula to be used in dividing [his] pension." He also alleged "the Court made a mistake in awarding the Petitioner survivor benefits under [his] retirement plan." Deborah moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that "there is absolutely no mistake in this matter and the trial court judge has denied [him] each and every time he has asserted this argument regarding a modification of the 3 formula used to divide his pension benefits." She premised her motion on the principle of res judicata. In dismissing


CourtListener opinion 4347428

pension: district court erred in dismissing a petition to modify the language of a dissolution decree and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) filed in 2006. The decree dissolving the marriage of Deborah and Richard Whitford ordered the division of Richard's pension by the following equation: [D]ivide the pension payment in half and multiply the result by the percentage arrived at by dividing the number of years of this marriage by the number of years Richard was employed by John Deere. In the event he should die before or while he is receiving pension payments Deborah shall be entitled to receive any survivor b


CourtListener opinion 4347428

alternate payee: ore or while he is receiving pension payments Deborah shall be entitled to receive any survivor benefits on his pension authorized under the pension plan. The "uncontested" QDRO filed shortly thereafter used the following language to divide the pension: Alternate Payee, Deborah L. Whitford, as Alternate Payee of the benefit of Richard H. Whitford, Participant under the John Deere Pension Plan is awarded one half of the pension benefit multiplied by a fraction wherein the numerator is the number of months married and the denominator shall be the total number of months worked by the Participant, Richard H. Whitford. R


CourtListener opinion 4347430

CourtListener opinion 4347430 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CHRISTINE Y. FREUDENBERG AND MARK WILLIAM FREUDENBERG Upon the Petition of. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 17-1569. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4347430 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 4347430


CourtListener opinion 4347430

QDRO: Millionaire's Club Fund, and the entirety of his John Deere pension. The court awarded Mark's pension solely to him "in light of the overall property settlement." The property settlement included the division of Mark's John Deere SIP account pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) using the Benson6 formula. The court awarded no attorney fees to either party. Christine appeals and Mark cross-appeals.7 6 See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 257 (Iowa 1996). 7 After the filing of the dissolution decree, Christine filed motion to enlarge, amend, or modify the decree pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) o


CourtListener opinion 4347430

retirement benefits: ible to earn an end-of-the-year bonus and spot bonuses throughout the year. On occasion, Christine works full time at RSM and sought a full-time position within the company. Prior to this marriage, Christine worked at Waterloo Industries, where she had a retirement account. After Waterloo Industries shut down, she rolled the account into a new account at PDCM. After leaving PDCM, she then rolled the account into a 401(k) (American Funds), which she still had at the time of trial. Christine added to the retirement account during the five to six months she worked at PDCM after the initiation of the marriage, but after she l


CourtListener opinion 4347430

pension: nd Fidelity, approximately $77,459. The record does not reveal the time-of-marriage values of the accounts. 3 Mark's gross monthly salary is $11,374. 4 on the company's productivity. His 2016 bonus was approximately $35,000. Through John Deere, Mark had a pension, health savings account (HSA), and savings and investment plan (SIP).4 Mark's pension account is a defined benefits plan consisting of funds contributed solely from John Deere. Mark's pension was fully vested at the time of marriage, but the expected benefit continues to increase with his years of service. Mark established the SIP and HSA accounts after


CourtListener opinion 4347430

401(k): e company. Prior to this marriage, Christine worked at Waterloo Industries, where she had a retirement account. After Waterloo Industries shut down, she rolled the account into a new account at PDCM. After leaving PDCM, she then rolled the account into a 401(k) (American Funds), which she still had at the time of trial. Christine added to the retirement account during the five to six months she worked at PDCM after the initiation of the marriage, but after she left PDCM and rolled the funds into the 401(k), she added no other funds to the account. At the time of the marriage, Christine also had a TIAA/CREF acc


CourtListener opinion 4348136

CourtListener opinion 4348136 Extracted reporter citation: 520 N.W.2d 855. Docket: 20180097. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4348136 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 4348136

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 4348136

QDRO: ted her MFS Roth IRA account. Kelli argued she should receive a portion of Chad's NDPERS account under the "Bullock" formula. The district court allocated the NDPERS account evenly between the parties and ordered the account to be split through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. [¶8] Prior to the marriage, Kelli owned a home, subject to a mortgage. The parties used the residence as their marital home during the majority of the marriage. Chad paid $21,500 during the marriage to satisfy the mortgage. Chad also testified that he paid for improvements to the home and contributed the labor to complete improvements to the home.


CourtListener opinion 4348136

retirement benefits: d jointly by Chad and his father. The district court included one- half of the value of a one-half interest in the property in the marital estate. [¶7] During the marriage, Chad was employed by the State of North Dakota and participated in the NDPERS retirement plan. All the contributions to the account were made during the marriage. Chad argued he should be allocated the entire NDPERS account, and Kelli should be allocated her MFS Roth IRA account. Kelli argued she should receive a portion of Chad's NDPERS account under the "Bullock" formula. The district court allocated the NDPERS account evenly between the parti


CourtListener opinion 4348136

domestic relations order: S Roth IRA account. Kelli argued she should receive a portion of Chad's NDPERS account under the "Bullock" formula. The district court allocated the NDPERS account evenly between the parties and ordered the account to be split through the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. [¶8] Prior to the marriage, Kelli owned a home, subject to a mortgage. The parties used the residence as their marital home during the majority of the marriage. Chad paid $21,500 during the marriage to satisfy the mortgage. Chad also testified that he paid for improvements to the home and contributed the labor to complete improvements to the home.


CourtListener opinion 4348136

valuation/division: erited the property prior to marriage, the property should be allocated to him without a reciprocal allocation of value to Kelli. Kelli requested an equal division of the farmland's value through post-judgment payments to her from Chad. The district court's property division allocated a reciprocal value to Kelli and ordered a series of post- judgment equalization payments from Chad to Kelli. The post-judgment payments included an interest rate of 4%. [¶4] The parties also disputed the valuation of the farmland. Chad and his father, Herbert Schultz, testified to their opinions on the value of each quarter. Kelli's values


CourtListener opinion 4351114

CourtListener opinion 4351114 Extracted case name: GAIL REINKE v. WALTER SING. Extracted reporter citation: 179 A.3d 769. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4351114 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 4351114


CourtListener opinion 4351114

QDRO: ely $49,000 and a Fidelity [401k] plan having a value of approximately $16,000; that it is equitable and appropriate that the [plaintiff] receive one half thereof, together with all interest and gains accrued to the date of actual distribu- tion by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . consistent with the intent of the parties to divide the marital assets equally.'' Additionally, the court found: ‘‘That the evidence supports a finding that the [defendant] has received state and federal income tax refunds for the years 2004 through 2007 in the amount of $104,163; that he failed to disclose this fact at the time of the entry of the di


CourtListener opinion 4351114

retirement benefits: ome as $2061. . . . ‘‘As to the marital estate, while the differences are not as dramatic, nevertheless, they exist. A comparison to investment accounts shows an underreporting of $16,574 . . . or an 8.5 percent difference. The same comparison with regard to retirement accounts yields a more dramatic difference of $63,655 . . . or 62 per- cent. In addition, no life insurance was shown on the corrected financial affidavit, where $250,000 term insur- ance insuring the [defendant's] life was disclosed on the original financial affidavit, and less debt is reported on the corrected affidavit than on the original. Finally, the [defenda


CourtListener opinion 4351114

401(k): o the parties' marital assets, but claims that the court abused its dis- cretion in its distribution of five specific marital assets. Specifically, the plaintiff draws our attention to the court's orders concerning an ‘‘E-Trade account,'' tax refunds, a ‘‘UBM 401k'' account, a ‘‘Fidelity 401k'' account, and a ‘‘Morgan Stanley'' account. With respect to these five specific assets, the court found in relevant part, as follows: ‘‘That the original financial affidavit of the [defendant] as filed with the court omitted two retirement accounts, to wit: a UBM [401k] plan having a value of approximately $49,000 and a Fideli


CourtListener opinion 4351114

domestic relations order: 0 and a Fidelity [401k] plan having a value of approximately $16,000; that it is equitable and appropriate that the [plaintiff] receive one half thereof, together with all interest and gains accrued to the date of actual distribu- tion by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order . . . consistent with the intent of the parties to divide the marital assets equally.'' Additionally, the court found: ‘‘That the evidence supports a finding that the [defendant] has received state and federal income tax refunds for the years 2004 through 2007 in the amount of $104,163; that he failed to disclose this fact at the time of the entry of the di


CourtListener opinion 4353020

CourtListener opinion 4353020 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4353020 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. 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 4353020

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, 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 4353020

valuation/division: pellant filed a complaint for legal separation on September 24, 2008. The parties had two children, both of whom were emancipated at the time of the divorce proceedings. Appellant's complaint sought temporary and permanent spousal No. 17AP-560 2 support, an equitable distribution of the marital assets, and an order that appellee share in the payment of all marital debts. On December 10, 2008, the trial court issued temporary orders. {¶ 3} On January 18, 2011, the parties entered into a decree of divorce. The decree required appellee to pay permanent spousal support to appellant in the amount of $6,500 per month, as well as 50 perce


CourtListener opinion 4354988

CourtListener opinion 4354988 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Gerleman. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4354988 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 4354988


CourtListener opinion 4354988

QDRO: decree and Robert cross-appealed. In re Marriage of Gerleman, No. 110,461, 2015 WL 1513967 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion) (Gerleman I). The parties settled the issues, however, and jointly dismissed their appeals. 3 Later, Jeannette filed a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Robert's military retirement pay. A different district court judge than the one who presided over the divorce heard arguments about what language to use in the QDRO. Based on the summary of division of property, the district court filed a QDRO dividing military retirement pay stating: \Amount of Payments to Former Spouse. The Former spouse


CourtListener opinion 4354988

pension: for divorce from Jeannette. In July 2013, the district court entered a divorce decree with an attached summary of division of property, which divided the parties' marital property in table format. In relevant part, it states: Item Husband Wife US Military Pension Divided at husband's retirement Divided at husband's retirement 5/9/13 (handwritten) based on military formula = # based on military formula = # years of marital service/total years of marital service/total months of military service months of military service TBD TBD Jeannette appealed the divorce decree and Robert cross-appealed. In re Marriage of G


CourtListener opinion 4354988

domestic relations order: Robert cross-appealed. In re Marriage of Gerleman, No. 110,461, 2015 WL 1513967 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion) (Gerleman I). The parties settled the issues, however, and jointly dismissed their appeals. 3 Later, Jeannette filed a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Robert's military retirement pay. A different district court judge than the one who presided over the divorce heard arguments about what language to use in the QDRO. Based on the summary of division of property, the district court filed a QDRO dividing military retirement pay stating: \Amount of Payments to Former Spouse. The Former spouse


CourtListener opinion 4354988

valuation/division: ision of Robert's military retirement pay. We remanded for the district court to determine how it understood the parties agreed to divide his military retirement pay. Now, Robert argues the district court erred when it found the parties intended to divide the marital portion of Robert's military retirement pay equally. Robert 2 on remand for the first time also argued the decree was void. Finally, Robert argues the district court erred when it determined the amount of maintenance he had to pay was not modifiable. We find the law of the case doctrine precludes Robert's arguments regarding whether the decree is void and find


CourtListener opinion 4355161

CourtListener opinion 4355161 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Farrell and Howe. Extracted reporter citation: 555 U.S. 285. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4355161 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 4355161

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 4355161

QDRO: federal court, subject to further order of that court. ¶ 11 The executor and Betty filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the federal action. The executor argued that, under ERISA, the divorce decree constituted a "qualified domestic relations order" (QDRO) 1, such that the estate, rather than Betty, was the proper beneficiary of the proceeds of the 401(k) account. Alternatively, the executor argued that, even if the divorce decree was not a QDRO under ERISA, Betty could only receive the funds in the 401(k) account as a constructive trustee for the benefit of the estate. Betty's cross-motion argued that th


CourtListener opinion 4355161

retirement benefits: xecutor), as executor of the estate of P. Kevin Cunningham (the decedent), filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County against defendant-appellant Betty Cunningham (Betty), seeking a declaratory judgment regarding funds from the decedent's 401(k) retirement account. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the executor and against Betty. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 The decedent and Betty were married in 1981. During and after the marriage, the decedent was employed by Loparex LLC (Loparex)


CourtListener opinion 4355161

pension: IRA at Invesco and her 401(k) account ****. The Husband [the decedent] shall retain sole ownership of his IRA at Invesco and his 401(k) account at Fidelity. Each party warrants and represents that neither he nor she has any other interest in any other pension, IRA, 401(k) ESOP, or other retirement plan, except as may be specified above." ¶6 The divorce decree subsequently stated that: "Except as otherwise provided herein, each of the parties hereto does hereby forever relinquish, release, waive, and quitclaim to the other party hereto all property rights and claims which he or she now has or may herea


CourtListener opinion 4355161

ERISA: al court with respect to the 401(k) account. The executor filed an answer and counterclaim in the interpleader action, alleging that the estate was the proper beneficiary of the 401(k) plan under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. In addition, the executor also asserted state law claims against Betty, alleging breach of the divorce decree and seeking the imposition of a constructive trust for the benefit of the estate. The funds from the 401(k) account were deposited with the clerk of the federal court, subject to further order of that court. ¶ 11 The e


CourtListener opinion 4359194

CourtListener opinion 4359194 Extracted reporter citation: 546 U.S. 459. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4359194 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 4359194


CourtListener opinion 4359194

QDRO: z would pay Bogen, "as equitable distribution, a yearly sum equal to Twenty (20%) percent of [Schwartz]'s Basic Bell System Management Pension Plan . . . ." Schwartz retired in 1985, and Bogen remarried in 1989. Neither Schwartz nor Bogen made a request for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) at either time. From 1989 through 2016, Schwartz made payments to Bogen using personal checks. Bogen never received distribution or payment from the pension plan itself. Both reported the payments as alimony on their federal tax returns. In 2016, Schwartz contacted Bogen and told her he realized that, under the terms of the Agreement, he should hav


CourtListener opinion 4359194

pension: ntered in 1983, and provided, in relevant part, that if Bogen remarried after January 1, 1986, but in or before 1990, Schwartz would pay Bogen, "as equitable distribution, a yearly sum equal to Twenty (20%) percent of [Schwartz]'s Basic Bell System Management Pension Plan . . . ." Schwartz retired in 1985, and Bogen remarried in 1989. Neither Schwartz nor Bogen made a request for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) at either time. From 1989 through 2016, Schwartz made payments to Bogen using personal checks. Bogen never received distribution or payment from the pension plan itself. Both reported the payments as


CourtListener opinion 4359194

ERISA: OTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. Bruce Schwartz filed an action against Ardis Bogen, his ex-wife, alleging violations of the anti-alienation provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., that arose from payments he made to her for almost three decades. Bogen moved for dismissal on the ground of res judicata, and the district court1 dismissed the matter with prejudice. On appeal, Schwartz argues the district court erred in granting Bogen's motion. Having jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I.


CourtListener opinion 4359194

domestic relations order: y Bogen, "as equitable distribution, a yearly sum equal to Twenty (20%) percent of [Schwartz]'s Basic Bell System Management Pension Plan . . . ." Schwartz retired in 1985, and Bogen remarried in 1989. Neither Schwartz nor Bogen made a request for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) at either time. From 1989 through 2016, Schwartz made payments to Bogen using personal checks. Bogen never received distribution or payment from the pension plan itself. Both reported the payments as alimony on their federal tax returns. In 2016, Schwartz contacted Bogen and told her he realized that, under the terms of the Agreement, he should hav


CourtListener opinion 4360568

CourtListener opinion 4360568 Docket: because a QDRO for Taylor. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4360568 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 4360568


CourtListener opinion 4360568

QDRO: WESLEY TAYLOR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY Lee A. Harris, Jr., Judge (Audrey M. Baytop, on briefs), pro se. (Theresa Rhinehart, on brief), for appellee. Audrey M. Baytop appeals an order denying and dismissing her motion for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Baytop argues that the circuit court's judgment was erroneous and that she was entitled to a portion of Wesley Taylor's UPS Teamsters pension. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the circuit court. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND On


CourtListener opinion 4360568

retirement benefits: A:27. BACKGROUND On October 20, 2006, Baytop and Taylor entered into a property settlement agreement (PSA), which was incorporated into their final decree of divorce on November 6, 2006. The PSA includes the following provisions regarding the parties' retirement accounts: 13) RETIREMENT BENEFITS a) Mutual Waiver. Except as provided for herein, neither party shall have any interest whatsoever in any pension, profit-sharing, individual retirement account (IRA), 401(k) plan * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. account, deferred compensation account or other retirement plan o


CourtListener opinion 4360568

pension: ey M. Baytop appeals an order denying and dismissing her motion for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Baytop argues that the circuit court's judgment was erroneous and that she was entitled to a portion of Wesley Taylor's UPS Teamsters pension. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the circuit court. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND On October 20, 2006, Baytop and Taylor entered into a property settlement agreement (PSA), which was incorporated into their final decree of divorce on N


CourtListener opinion 4360568

401(k): llowing provisions regarding the parties' retirement accounts: 13) RETIREMENT BENEFITS a) Mutual Waiver. Except as provided for herein, neither party shall have any interest whatsoever in any pension, profit-sharing, individual retirement account (IRA), 401(k) plan * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. account, deferred compensation account or other retirement plan or annuity of the other, including any right to a survivor annuity, and each expressly waives any and all such rights. .... c) Husband's Retirement Accounts. The parties acknowledge that Husband has a


CourtListener opinion 4364134

CourtListener opinion 4364134 Extracted reporter citation: 85 N.E.3d 1260. Docket: 28040 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4364134 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 4364134


CourtListener opinion 4364134

QDRO: for failing to comply with a provision of the divorce decree requiring him to pay his ex-wife, Stefanie Nemitz, her share of the equity in the marital home. He also appeals the judgment insofar as it modified his parenting time and ordered him to execute a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the division of his 401(k) retirement plan. {¶ 2} We conclude that Mr. Nemitz's assignment of error regarding the contempt finding resulting from his failure to pay Ms. Nemitz her share of the equity in the marital residence is moot. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying parenting time. However,


CourtListener opinion 4364134

retirement benefits: m to pay his ex-wife, Stefanie Nemitz, her share of the equity in the marital home. He also appeals the judgment insofar as it modified his parenting time and ordered him to execute a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the division of his 401(k) retirement plan. {¶ 2} We conclude that Mr. Nemitz's assignment of error regarding the contempt finding resulting from his failure to pay Ms. Nemitz her share of the equity in the marital residence is moot. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying parenting time. However, from our review of the record, we conclude that the tr


CourtListener opinion 4364134

401(k): ring him to pay his ex-wife, Stefanie Nemitz, her share of the equity in the marital home. He also appeals the judgment insofar as it modified his parenting time and ordered him to execute a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the division of his 401(k) retirement plan. {¶ 2} We conclude that Mr. Nemitz's assignment of error regarding the contempt finding resulting from his failure to pay Ms. Nemitz her share of the equity in the marital residence is moot. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying parenting time. However, from our review of the record, we concl


CourtListener opinion 4364134

domestic relations order: g to comply with a provision of the divorce decree requiring him to pay his ex-wife, Stefanie Nemitz, her share of the equity in the marital home. He also appeals the judgment insofar as it modified his parenting time and ordered him to execute a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the division of his 401(k) retirement plan. {¶ 2} We conclude that Mr. Nemitz's assignment of error regarding the contempt finding resulting from his failure to pay Ms. Nemitz her share of the equity in the marital residence is moot. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying parenting time. However,


CourtListener opinion 4364621

CourtListener opinion 4364621 Docket: COA18-600. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4364621 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 4364621

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 4364621

QDRO: e opinion. -9- No. COA18-600 – Ramsey v. Ramsey DILLON, Judge, dissenting. In this appeal, Appellant Gary P. Ramsey ("Husband") appeals from an order finding him in civil contempt for failing to immediately file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") as required by a consent judgment ("Consent Judgment") entered between him and his ex-wife Kalley Elizabeth Ramsey ("Wife"). I agree with the majority that Husband has committed a number of non-jurisdictional errors in his brief on appeal that may warrant sanctions. However, for the reasons stated below, I disagree with the majority that these errors


CourtListener opinion 4364621

401(k): 2015, Husband filed this action seeking divorce from Wife and equitable distribution of their marital assets. In August 2016, the trial court entered a Consent Judgment, which required Husband to file a QDRO to cause the rollover of $14,500 from Husband's 401(k) to Wife: [Husband] shall pay $29,000.00 distributive award to [Wife]; [Half] to be paid at time of refinance of Narrows Court mortgage and [half] to be rolled over from [Husband's] NC 401(k) account. Counsel for [Husband] shall immediately draft ["QDRO"] to effectuate said roll-over to [Wife] as soon as possible. (Emphasis added). RAMSEY V. RAMSEY


CourtListener opinion 4364621

domestic relations order: d with the Consent Judgment before the Contempt Order was entered. I agree. 3 RAMSEY V. RAMSEY DILLON, J., dissenting. The trial court held Husband in civil contempt for "failure to abide by the Judgment provision that he immediately file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.]" The purge condition, though, did not require Husband to file a QDRO, as he had already done so. Rather, the trial court erroneously required Husband to pay Wife damages for lost interest as a purge condition. Civil contempt is proper where a party fails to comply with an order of the court and "(1) [t]he order remains in force; (2) [t]he purpose o


CourtListener opinion 4364621

valuation/division: refore, would reach the merits of Husband's arguments. Based on my review of Husband's arguments, I would affirm in part and reverse in part the order of civil contempt. I. Background In May 2015, Husband filed this action seeking divorce from Wife and equitable distribution of their marital assets. In August 2016, the trial court entered a Consent Judgment, which required Husband to file a QDRO to cause the rollover of $14,500 from Husband's 401(k) to Wife: [Husband] shall pay $29,000.00 distributive award to [Wife]; [Half] to be paid at time of refinance of Narrows Court mortgage and [half] to be rolled over from [Husb


CourtListener opinion 4365295

CourtListener opinion 4365295 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF AMBER BURINGTON AND CHRISTOPHER BURINGTON Upon the Petition of AMBER BURINGTON. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 18-0901. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4365295 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 4365295


CourtListener opinion 4365295

QDRO: ne $20,000 from Amber's 401(k) should be set aside to her in recognition of her premarital property. This leaves $80,222 as marital property in her 401(k). In order to equalize the accounts, the amount Chris should receive 10 from Amber's 401(k) through a qualified domestic relations order is reduced to $11,899. We modify the decree to make this change. V. Life Insurance Policy Amber claims Chris should be required to maintain a life insurance policy on his life, naming the children as beneficiaries. She states this would ensure the needs of the children would be met in case Chris died. A provision in a dissolution decree requiring a


CourtListener opinion 4365295

pension: stock car, valued at $3000, because it was obtained by trading in a motorcycle Chris owned before the marriage; (2) Chris's tools, except for tools worth $5000, which the court found he acquired during the marriage; and (3) an IRA valued at $1341. Amber's pension from the State of Minnesota, which accrued before she married Chris, was set aside to her. Not including the parties' retirement funds, the court awarded Chris assets worth $16,670 and Amber assets worth $16,164. The court found, however, Amber dissipated assets worth $23,000 by the gifts to her sister and parents, and it ordered Chris would receive one


CourtListener opinion 4365295

401(k): We find the court did not improperly value the assets awarded to Chris and no offset needs to be made for the cash values of the parties' life insurance policies. The property division should be modified to set aside to Amber $20,000 from the value of her 401(k) account in recognition of her premarital assets. In order to equalize the parties' 401(k) accounts, Chris should receive $11,899 from Amber's 401(k) through a qualified domestic relations order. We affirm the district court's decision denying Amber's request to require Chris to maintain a life insurance policy naming the children as beneficiaries. We d


CourtListener opinion 4365295

domestic relations order: division should be modified to set aside to Amber $20,000 from the value of her 401(k) account in recognition of her premarital assets. In order to equalize the parties' 401(k) accounts, Chris should receive $11,899 from Amber's 401(k) through a qualified domestic relations order. We affirm the district court's decision denying Amber's request to require Chris to maintain a life insurance policy naming the children as beneficiaries. We determine each party should pay his or her own appellate attorney fees. I. Background Facts & Proceedings Chris and Amber were married in 2008. They have two children, N.B., born in 2010, and


CourtListener opinion 4366580

CourtListener opinion 4366580 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Borkowski. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 25 WDA 2018. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4366580 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 4366580

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 4366580

QDRO: deposed Wife on March 24, 2017, regarding marital and non-marital property. On September 6, 2017, Wife filed a notice of appeal from an August 28, 2017 order that enforced a June 14, 2017 order requiring Wife to sign a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") "without . . . first having . . . a Master's Hearing . . . ." Notice of Appeal, 9/6/17.3 Wife filed a Praecipe to Discontinue the Appeal on September 29, 2017, and this Court discontinued the appeal ____________________________________________ 1 Both parties engaged expert personal-property appraisers at the marital residence. Husband's appraisal was


CourtListener opinion 4366580

domestic relations order: s by the parties.2 Husband deposed Wife on March 24, 2017, regarding marital and non-marital property. On September 6, 2017, Wife filed a notice of appeal from an August 28, 2017 order that enforced a June 14, 2017 order requiring Wife to sign a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") "without . . . first having . . . a Master's Hearing . . . ." Notice of Appeal, 9/6/17.3 Wife filed a Praecipe to Discontinue the Appeal on September 29, 2017, and this Court discontinued the appeal ____________________________________________ 1 Both parties engaged expert personal-property appraisers at the marital residence. Husband's apprais


CourtListener opinion 4368882

CourtListener opinion 4368882 Extracted reporter citation: 918 N.W.2d 1. Docket: A-18-360. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4368882 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 4368882


CourtListener opinion 4368882

QDRO: en Jonathon was home, Jonathon did not ask Clifford or his wife to care for Tegan. Clifford observed Jonathon to have a strong connection with Tegan and that he had been very conscious of Tegan's safety in the time that he has lived with Clifford. 3. DECREE, QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER, AND EDITED PARENTING PLAN The district court entered a decree of dissolution on January 17, 2018. The court awarded Sarah sole legal and physical custody of Tegan, subject to Jonathon's parenting time. Jonathon was awarded parenting time on alternating weekends beginning on Thursday at 4:30 p.m. (or the conclusion of school or school activities, whiche


CourtListener opinion 4368882

retirement benefits: had a health savings account (HSA) through her employer-provided health insurance. Sarah's 2016 tax return showed that she received $3,346 in distributions from an HSA, which distributions she used to pay $3,346 in qualified medical expenses. Sarah also had a retirement account through the company that employed her throughout the marriage. The account had a balance of $3,319.24 on the day the parties married and a balance of $34,257.34 on the day they separated. Sarah generally asked the court to award her and Jonathon the marital property that was in their respective possessions at the time of trial. After she and Jonathon separ


CourtListener opinion 4368882

domestic relations order: n was home, Jonathon did not ask Clifford or his wife to care for Tegan. Clifford observed Jonathon to have a strong connection with Tegan and that he had been very conscious of Tegan's safety in the time that he has lived with Clifford. 3. DECREE, QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER, AND EDITED PARENTING PLAN The district court entered a decree of dissolution on January 17, 2018. The court awarded Sarah sole legal and physical custody of Tegan, subject to Jonathon's parenting time. Jonathon was awarded parenting time on alternating weekends beginning on Thursday at 4:30 p.m. (or the conclusion of school or school activities, whiche


CourtListener opinion 4368882

valuation/division: ssification and division of marital property. As discussed below, after a de novo review of the record, we find the court's classification and division of marital property was not an abuse of discretion. Under Nebraska's divorce statutes, "[t]he purpose of a property division is to distribute the marital assets equitably between the parties." Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2016). Equitable division of property is a three-step process: (1) classify the parties' property as marital or nonmarital, setting aside the nonmarital property to the party who brought that property to the marriage; (2) value the marital assets and marita


CourtListener opinion 4368907

CourtListener opinion 4368907 Extracted case name: QUIJADA v. QUIJADA. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 18-0118. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4368907 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 4368907

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 4368907

retirement benefits: ge Kenton D. Jones delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. J O N E S, Judge: ¶1 Julie Quijada (Wife) appeals from the family court's order denying her request for immediate payment of retirement benefits allocated to her in the decree of dissolution of her marriage to Michael Quijada (Husband), relying primarily upon Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176 (1986). Although Koelsch provides guidance on how to equitably divide retirement benefits at dissolution, it does not authorize a post-judgment alteration to the spouses' agreed-upon distribution. Additionally


CourtListener opinion 4368907

pension: ts discretion, we affirm the order denying fees. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 In September 2009, the parties' eleven-year marriage was dissolved via consent decree.2 In the decree, the parties agreed to divide the community-property portion of Husband's pension with the Arizona 1 Although this rule was numbered 85(C) at the time of these proceedings, the text of the rule remained unchanged with the 2019 amendments. For ease of reference, we cite the current version of the rules. 2 We view the evidence "in the light most favorable to supporting the decision below." Rinegar v. Rinegar, 231 Ariz. 85, 90, ¶ 20 (App.


CourtListener opinion 4368907

domestic relations order: dgment alteration to the spouses' agreed-upon distribution. Additionally, where the non- employee-spouse agrees that the community-property portion of retirement benefits will be paid upon distribution to the employee-spouse in a consent decree and stipulated domestic relations order (DRO), the employee-spouse's decision to work past initial retirement eligibility does not justify relief from the agreement under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 85(b)(6).1 We therefore affirm the order denying Wife's request. ¶2 Husband cross-appeals the order denying his request for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (


CourtListener opinion 4368907

valuation/division: ess findings.'") (quoting Coronado Co. v. Jacome's Dep't Store, Inc., 129 Ariz. 137, 139 (App. 1981)). ¶9 Wife relies upon Koelsch to argue relief from the decree is justified. In Koelsch, our supreme court considered "how and when a non- employee[-]spouse's community property interest in an employee[- ]spouse's matured retirement benefit plan is to be paid when the employee wants to continue working, thus delaying receipt of the retirement benefits." 148 Ariz. at 180. While it is true that Koelsch largely disapproved of an arrangement that would grant the employee-spouse sole discretion to determine when the non-employee-spouse


CourtListener opinion 4369010

CourtListener opinion 4369010 Extracted reporter citation: 4 A.3d 654. Docket: 1512 EDA 2018 : Appellant :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4369010 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 4369010


CourtListener opinion 4369010

QDRO: ed to 55 percent of the TD Bank mutual fund account. Contrary to Wife's assertion, the master clearly set forth his intent in the master's report as follows: There are a series of qualified assets which are marital in nature. These shall be subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(QDRO)]. It is -7- J. S66034/18 noted that Husband has post-separation retirement accounts. Utilizing the appropriate factors of the Divorce Code, the undersigned makes a specific finding that Wife is entitled to a disproportionate share of the marital qualified assets, namely, the Charles Schwab IRA Rollover as well as the St. Jude Medical Inc.


CourtListener opinion 4369010

retirement benefits: ion. Wife raises the following issues for our review: [1.] Did the Master err in allocating the TD Bank mutual fund accounts of [Husband] solely to him as "non–qualified assets" rather than taking them into account as "qualified assets" since they are retirement accounts of [Husband] which represented marital property? [2.] Did the Master err in his recommendation that the martial [sic] value of all of the Bank of America accounts with the exception of the Bank of America account ending in the numbers 6759 be allocated to [Husband]? [3.] Did the Master err in his calculation of the martial [sic] estate which did


CourtListener opinion 4369010

401(k): k Rendezvous—in Husband's name which Wife drives—$2,522.00. 12. 2008 Honda Accord—in Husband's name— $7,244.00 QUALIFIED ASSETS 13. Charles Schwab-IRA Rollover x3842—in Husband's name—$286,981.00 14. St[.] Jude Medical Inc. Retirement Savings Plan 401K—in Husband's name—$3,469,00. -4- J. S66034/18 LIABILITIES 1. Husband has credit card debt at Chase in the amount of $3,058.00. 2. Husband has credit card debt at Bank of America in the amount of $1,357.00. 3. Husband has a 2013 IRS debt in his name alone in the amount of $12,000.00. Master's report, 12/23/16 at 1-6. The trial court set fort


CourtListener opinion 4369010

domestic relations order: ercent of the TD Bank mutual fund account. Contrary to Wife's assertion, the master clearly set forth his intent in the master's report as follows: There are a series of qualified assets which are marital in nature. These shall be subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(QDRO)]. It is -7- J. S66034/18 noted that Husband has post-separation retirement accounts. Utilizing the appropriate factors of the Divorce Code, the undersigned makes a specific finding that Wife is entitled to a disproportionate share of the marital qualified assets, namely, the Charles Schwab IRA Rollover as well as the St. Jude Medical Inc.


CourtListener opinion 4369252

CourtListener opinion 4369252 Extracted reporter citation: 732 N.E.2d 1278. Docket: 18A-DR-1375 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4369252 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 4369252


CourtListener opinion 4369252

QDRO: s divided as follows: [John] is awarded $28,006.55 of this account as his sole and separate property. [Nancy] is awarded $175,000.00 of this account as her sole and separate property. Counsel for [John] shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).[ 1] Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 27. 2 John's attorney prepared the QDRO for the Plan (the Original QDRO), which was approved and signed by the trial court, but did not specify therein that the valuation date was April 24, 2012 (the date 1 A QDRO has been characterized as any order made pursuant to a state domestic relations law which "create


CourtListener opinion 4369252

retirement benefits: y (Lind) Mullen, The Honorable Brant J. Parry, Appellee-Respondent Judge Trial Court Cause No. 34D02-1205-DR-493 Altice, Judge. Case Summary [1] John Lind appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of Nancy (Lind) Mullen to enforce an award of retirement benefits in the amount of $56,626.58. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-1375 | February 20, 2019 Page 1 of 8 John presents two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as: Did the trial court err in entering judgment in favor of Nancy? [2] We affirm. Facts & Procedural History [3] The parties' thirty-year marriage was


CourtListener opinion 4369252

pension: but did not specify therein that the valuation date was April 24, 2012 (the date 1 A QDRO has been characterized as any order made pursuant to a state domestic relations law which "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternative payee's right" to pension benefits. Hogle v. Hogle, 732 N.E.2d 1278, 1280 n.3 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ablamis v. Roper, 937 F.2d 1450, 1454 (9th Cir. 1991)). 2 In total, there were three retirement/pension plans that were divided as part of the marital estate. The other two plans were divided on a percentage basis with each party receiving fifty percent. Court of Appeals o


CourtListener opinion 4369252

alternate payee: to receive her award of $175,000 plus an amount equal to the gains and losses attributable to that amount from April 24, 2012 to November 7, 2013. The Amended QDRO, like the Original QDRO, also provided: 15. Reimbursement. If benefits assigned to the Alternate Payee [i.e., Nancy] under this Order are wrongfully or mistakenly paid by the Plan to the Participant [i.e., John], the Participant shall promptly reimburse the Alternate Payee for such benefits by paying directly to the Alternate Payee an amount equal to the benefits wrongfully or mistakenly received, including gains and losses.[ 6] Appellant's Appendix


CourtListener opinion 4369364

CourtListener opinion 4369364 Extracted reporter citation: 459 N.E.2d 896. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4369364 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 4369364


CourtListener opinion 4369364

QDRO: ere she worked as a bus driver and custodian. She draws $1,075.91 per month on her SERS pension. The trial court, referencing the date of the parties' marriage, ruled as follows on the subject of their public pensions: The parties shall divide equally by QDRO/DOPO, the marital portion of [Appellant] Husband's and [Appellee] Wife's pensions using the 1982 date. If possible, Wife's pension shall be offset against Husband's pension and then an equal division. {¶27} Judgment Entry of Divorce at 6-7. {¶28} Based on the first sentence of the above provision, it appears the trial court in this case initially


CourtListener opinion 4369364

retirement benefits: 975. In performing this Stark County, Case Nos. 2018 CA 00052 and 2018 CA 00054 7 function, the trial court has broad discretion to develop some measure of value. See Berish v. Berish (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 318, 432 N.E.2d 183. {¶25} Generally, pension or retirement benefits earned during the marriage are marital assets and a factor to be considered in the just division of property. Hoyt v. Hoyt (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 178, 559 N.E.2d 1292. Specifically, "[w]hen considering a fair and equitable distribution of pension or retirement benefits in a divorce, the trial court must apply its discretion based upon the circumsta


CourtListener opinion 4369364

pension: o appellee for attorney fees and costs. Id. at 8. {¶7} On May 9, 2018, Appellant Gary filed a notice of appeal (2018CA00052). He herein raises the following two Assignments of Error: {¶8} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN EQUALLY DIVIDING [APPELLANT] GARY'S PENSION. {¶9} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING GARY TO PAY [APPELLEE] PATRICIA'S ATTORNEY'S FEES." {¶10} Appellee Patricia also filed a notice of appeal on May 9, 2018 (2018CA00054). On July 11, 2018, this Court issued an order consolidating the two appeals, and designating appellee as the cross-appellant. She herein raises the following four Assignme


CourtListener opinion 4369364

valuation/division: nd shall pay to Wife one half of the value of the items. Cost of the lock smith and appraiser shall be divided equally. {¶18} Judgment Entry of Divorce at 7-8. {¶19} While the aforesaid provision presumably hampered an exact accounting on the court's property division chart attached to the decree, we note R.C. 3105.171(J) states that a court addressing marital and/or separate property "may issue any orders under this section that it determines equitable ***." Furthermore, on appellate review, the trial court's property division should be viewed as a whole in determining whether it has achieved an equitable and fair d


CourtListener opinion 4369502

CourtListener opinion 4369502 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Ramsey. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: equal to the number of months Frank served. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4369502 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 4369502

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 4369502

pension: . At issue during the dissolution proceedings was whether Frank's 48 months of permissive military service credit, which he earned prior to the marriage but purchased during the marriage with marital funds in order to enhance his State Retirement System Pension (pension), was marital property that should be considered when determining the marital portion of his pension. Ultimately, the trial court determined the enhancement itself was not marital property, but it found that Frank must reimburse Louise for her marital share of the funds used to purchase the enhancement. Frank does not dispute that portion of


CourtListener opinion 4369502

domestic relations order: hat were available to teachers with at least 20 years of service by making two one-time payments to the TRS of $7397.46 and $6390.60. Id. at 754-55. Following the husband's retirement later that year, the wife filed a motion seeking a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QULDRO) to divide the husband's pension. Id. at 755. The Massac County circuit court found that the husband's nonmarital monetary contributions could not be severed from the rest of his pension, and thus, it included the portion of the pension attributable to the early retirement incentives purchased by the husband as part of the marital pension. I


CourtListener opinion 4369502

valuation/division: ve military service credit, which he earned prior to the marriage but purchased during the marriage with marital funds in order to enhance his State Retirement System Pension (pension), was marital property that should be considered when determining the marital portion of his pension. Ultimately, the trial court determined the enhancement itself was not marital property, but it found that Frank must reimburse Louise for her marital share of the funds used to purchase the enhancement. Frank does not dispute that portion of the trial court's ruling. ¶2 Louise appeals, asserting the trial court's judgment is reversible


CourtListener opinion 4371359

CourtListener opinion 4371359 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4371359 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 4371359

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 4371359

domestic relations order: this timely application for interlocutory appeal. It appears that the juvenile court's order is directly appealable. This case is a dependency proceeding – what used to be called "deprivation" under the old juvenile code. See OCGA § 15-11-2 (22). Although a domestic relations order or an order terminating parental rights is subject to the discretionary appeal procedures, a dependency or deprivation finding may be appealed directly. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) & (12); In the Interest of J. P., 267 Ga. 492, 493 (480 SE2d 8) (1997) (deprivation/dependency cases do not fall within the purview of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) and therefore are direc


CourtListener opinion 4371589

CourtListener opinion 4371589 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 340589 Midland Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4371589 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 4371589


CourtListener opinion 4371589

QDRO: 401k and IRA's in any manner they can agree to so long as the aggregate is 50-50, plus or minus any appreciation or depreciation. [Emphasis added.] When the judgment of divorce was entered, the parties understood that a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") was necessary to divide the retirement plans. However, during the following year, a QDRO was not prepared, and in the meantime, both parties' IRAs declined significantly in value, while plaintiff's 401(k) appreciated significantly in value. On August 2, 2016, defendant filed a motion to enforce the judgment, alleging, in relevant part, that plaintiff ha


CourtListener opinion 4371589

retirement benefits: L M. BELGIORNO, LC No. 14-001271-DM Defendant-Appellee. Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and MARKEY and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted from an opinion and order requiring him to pay $106,900 to defendant in satisfaction of the retirement benefits provision in the parties' July 23, 2015 judgment of divorce. We vacate and remand for further proceedings. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff and defendant were married on August 24, 2000 and have two minor children. Plaintiff is a stockbroker and financial advisor employed by Wells Fargo. He earned the required financial advisor certifications during the


CourtListener opinion 4371589

pension: he parties agreed to a 50-50 division of the three retirement plans. Eventually, a judgment of divorce was entered on July 23, 2015. Pertinent to this appeal, the judgment included the following provision regarding division of the parties' retirement plans: PENSION AND/OR RETIREMENT BENEFITS IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that except as otherwise provided for in this Judgment of Divorce, each party shall hold as their sole and separate property, free and clear of any claim of the other, any and all right, title and interest in any pension, annuity, or retirement benefits; or any accumulated contributions in


CourtListener opinion 4371589

401(k): rtifications during the marriage while defendant worked to support the family. Defendant is employed by Mercury Network, a telecommunications sales firm. At the time of the filing of the complaint for divorce on February 11, 2014, plaintiff had an IRA and a 401(k), and defendant had an IRA. Plaintiff managed all three retirement accounts. The parties agreed to a 50-50 division of the three retirement plans. Eventually, a judgment of divorce was entered on July 23, 2015. Pertinent to this appeal, the judgment included the following provision regarding division of the parties' retirement plans: PENSION AND/OR RETIREM


CourtListener opinion 4374013

CourtListener opinion 4374013 Extracted case name: IN RE ESTATE OF MILFORD CLEO TODD Appeal from the Chancery Court for Benton County No. Extracted reporter citation: 445 S.W.3d 685. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4374013 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 4374013


CourtListener opinion 4374013

QDRO: e implies that Claimant would -5- have no interest in any future benefits accruing as a consequence of Decedent's death or after his death. We also find significant the Divorce Decree's instruction that "[t]his portion of the judgment is intended to be a ‘Qualified Domestic Relations Order.'" A qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan." Jordan v. Jordan, 147 S.W.3d 255, 259 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (footnote omitted) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I) (1999)). To become "


CourtListener opinion 4374013

retirement benefits: On appeal, the husband argued that the trial court impermissibly modified the Divorce Decree because the original order did not expressly include cost-of-living allowances. Id. at 160–61. We disagreed, finding that the usual, natural, and ordinary meaning of "retirement benefits," as used in the original order, included all "amounts to which the retiree would ordinarily be entitled as a result of retirement." Id. at 162 (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 37 S.W.3d 892, 896 (Tenn. 2001)). 2 Neither party presented evidence to prove the amount of Decedent's net monthly benefit at the time of the divorce. -7- We find no material dist


CourtListener opinion 4374013

pension: ORD CLEO TODD Appeal from the Chancery Court for Benton County No. 3190 Carma Dennis McGee, Chancellor ___________________________________ No. W2018-01088-COA-R3-CV In this case, the decedent's ex-wife filed a claim against his estate to collect unpaid pension benefits awarded to her in their divorce. She asserted that the decedent failed to pay her a pro rata share of his cost-of-living allowances and "supplemental" benefit. The executrix for the decedent's estate filed an exception to the claim, asserting that the divorce decree expressly provided that the ex-wife would "have no claim against the estate of [the


CourtListener opinion 4374013

ERISA: Divorce Decree, which states, "[T]o ensure [Claimant]'s 30% of [Decedent]'s T.V.A. Financed Pension[,] a judicial lien is hereby placed upon [Decedent]'s T.V.A. Financed Pension not to exceed 30%." Although this provision is arguably unenforceable in light of ERISA's anti-alienation provision, see 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1) ("Each pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated."), it implies an intention to provide Claimant with a remedy to collect her interest without regard to Decedent's death. We also find unpersuasive Executrix's argument that the trial court's inte


CourtListener opinion 4377317

CourtListener opinion 4377317 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 343123 Ingham Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4377317 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 4377317

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 4377317

QDRO: awarded one-half of plaintiff's pension, both pursuant to an eligible domestic relations order (EDRO). The property distribution also provided that defendant would receive one-half of plaintiff's 401k account, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), plus an additional $10,000 from plaintiff's 401k in lieu of spousal support. Defendant retained the full amount of his own 401k. In November 2014, the trial court entered a QDRO for plaintiff's 401k account that awarded defendant, as alternate payee, 50% of plaintiff's account balance, and an additional $10,000 payment. Two years later, in November 2016


CourtListener opinion 4377317

retirement benefits: issue and was controlling. Because the JOD did not expressly exclude any components of plaintiff's pension, "based upon MCL 552.101(4),[2] . . . both parties in this matter [were] entitled to a proportionate share of all components of the pension, annuity, or retirement benefits awarded to them in the" JOD. The trial court further stated, "It is unclear if the fact that the Defendant is in active retirement status impacts the Plaintiff's ability to share in those components of Defendant's pension." Plaintiff moved for reconsideration and for entry of a domestic relations order (DRO) following the trial court's ruling. Plaintiff


CourtListener opinion 4377317

pension: for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND FACTS The parties divorced in 2014 pursuant to a consent judgment of divorce (JOD). The JOD included a property settlement, which provided that plaintiff was awarded one-half of defendant's pension, and defendant was awarded one-half of plaintiff's pension, both pursuant to an eligible domestic relations order (EDRO). The property distribution also provided that defendant would receive one-half of plaintiff's 401k account, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), plus an additional $10,000 from plaintiff's 401k in lieu of spousal suppo


CourtListener opinion 4377317

401(k): was awarded one-half of defendant's pension, and defendant was awarded one-half of plaintiff's pension, both pursuant to an eligible domestic relations order (EDRO). The property distribution also provided that defendant would receive one-half of plaintiff's 401k account, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), plus an additional $10,000 from plaintiff's 401k in lieu of spousal support. Defendant retained the full amount of his own 401k. In November 2014, the trial court entered a QDRO for plaintiff's 401k account that awarded defendant, as alternate payee, 50% of plaintiff's account balance, and an


CourtListener opinion 4378280

CourtListener opinion 4378280 Docket: COA18-600. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4378280 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 4378280


CourtListener opinion 4378280

QDRO: pinion. - 12 - No. COA18-600 – Ramsey v. Ramsey DILLON, Judge, dissenting. In this appeal, Appellant Gary P. Ramsey ("Husband") appeals from an order finding him in civil contempt for failing to immediately file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") as required by a consent judgment ("Consent Judgment") entered between him and his ex-wife Kalley Elizabeth Ramsey ("Wife"). I agree with the majority that Husband has committed a number of non-jurisdictional errors in his brief on appeal that may warrant sanctions. However, for the reasons stated below, I disagree with the majority that these errors


CourtListener opinion 4378280

401(k): 2015, Husband filed this action seeking divorce from Wife and equitable distribution of their marital assets. In August 2016, the trial court entered a Consent Judgment, which required Husband to file a QDRO to cause the rollover of $14,500 from Husband's 401(k) to Wife: [Husband] shall pay $29,000.00 distributive award to [Wife]; [Half] to be paid at time of refinance of Narrows Court mortgage and [half] to be rolled over from [Husband's] NC 401(k) account. Counsel for [Husband] shall immediately draft ["QDRO"] to effectuate said roll-over to [Wife] as soon as possible. (Emphasis added). RAMSEY V. RAMSEY


CourtListener opinion 4378280

domestic relations order: d with the Consent Judgment before the Contempt Order was entered. I agree. 3 RAMSEY V. RAMSEY DILLON, J., dissenting. The trial court held Husband in civil contempt for "failure to abide by the Judgment provision that he immediately file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order[.]" The purge condition, though, did not require Husband to file a QDRO, as he had already done so. Rather, the trial court erroneously required Husband to pay Wife damages for lost interest as a purge condition. Civil contempt is proper where a party fails to comply with an order of the court and "(1) [t]he order remains in force; (2) [t]he purpose o


CourtListener opinion 4378280

valuation/division: refore, would reach the merits of Husband's arguments. Based on my review of Husband's arguments, I would affirm in part and reverse in part the order of civil contempt. I. Background In May 2015, Husband filed this action seeking divorce from Wife and equitable distribution of their marital assets. In August 2016, the trial court entered a Consent Judgment, which required Husband to file a QDRO to cause the rollover of $14,500 from Husband's 401(k) to Wife: [Husband] shall pay $29,000.00 distributive award to [Wife]; [Half] to be paid at time of refinance of Narrows Court mortgage and [half] to be rolled over from [Husb


CourtListener opinion 4378492

CourtListener opinion 4378492 Extracted case name: COA GARY L. HALL APPELLANT v. CAROLYN J. HALL APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4378492 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 4378492


CourtListener opinion 4378492

QDRO: ease in Gary's projected retirement income over the parties' ten-year marriage. ¶6. In accordance with the memorandum opinion referenced above, the judgment was entered on June 23, 2006. Neither party appealed. On August 20, 2007, the parties agreed to a "Qualified Domestic Relations Order," which included the above-mentioned award of payment to Carolyn from Gary's retirement plan. ¶7. As of December 31, 2007, Standex International Corporation, the parent company of 2 Masterbilt, Gary's employer, froze his pension benefits.1 Although Gary had notice of this change, he did not attempt to modify the $600 award to Carolyn. Several years la


CourtListener opinion 4378492

retirement benefits: randum opinion referenced above, the judgment was entered on June 23, 2006. Neither party appealed. On August 20, 2007, the parties agreed to a "Qualified Domestic Relations Order," which included the above-mentioned award of payment to Carolyn from Gary's retirement plan. ¶7. As of December 31, 2007, Standex International Corporation, the parent company of 2 Masterbilt, Gary's employer, froze his pension benefits.1 Although Gary had notice of this change, he did not attempt to modify the $600 award to Carolyn. Several years later, in November 2016, Gary accepted an early retirement offer from Masterbilt causing him to


CourtListener opinion 4378492

pension: m opinion, which granted Carolyn a divorce on the ground of adultery, awarded her $1,500 per month for periodic alimony, and divided the parties' marital property. The marital property included Gary's 401(k) plan, Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and Standex pension-plan. The court ruled that Carolyn was entitled to a lump-sum payment of $23,976.23 from Gary's 401(k) plan, a lump-sum payment of $2,976.13 from Gary's Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and $600 per month of Gary's Standex pension-plan if he retired at the normal age. At the time of the marriage in 1995, Gary's pension-plan benefit was projected to be $4,


CourtListener opinion 4378492

401(k): . On May 16, 2006, the chancery court issued a memorandum opinion, which granted Carolyn a divorce on the ground of adultery, awarded her $1,500 per month for periodic alimony, and divided the parties' marital property. The marital property included Gary's 401(k) plan, Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and Standex pension-plan. The court ruled that Carolyn was entitled to a lump-sum payment of $23,976.23 from Gary's 401(k) plan, a lump-sum payment of $2,976.13 from Gary's Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and $600 per month of Gary's Standex pension-plan if he retired at the normal age. At the time of the marriage in


CourtListener opinion 4380650

CourtListener opinion 4380650 Extracted case name: CHRISTY KELLER ELROD CHURCH v. DARRELL GENE ELROD. Extracted reporter citation: 90 S.W.3d 566. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4380650 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 4380650


CourtListener opinion 4380650

QDRO: ver, that Wife shall be entitled to one-half (1/2) of the then balance of the profit sharing plan in the event that a Final Decree of Divorce is entered between the parties, and in the event that a Final Decree of Divorce is entered between the parties, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be entered segregating Wife's fifty (50%) percent of the retirement account into a separate account in her name, with Husband being required thereafter to make equal contributions to Wife's separate retirement account as he makes his own retirement account or accounts through his employer or any subsequent employer until he reaches the age of six


CourtListener opinion 4380650

retirement benefits: y of civil contempt for failure to make payments into Appellee's retirement account under the terms of the parties' Agreed Order of Legal Separation (AOLS). However, the trial court refused to relieve Appellant of his obligation to continue funding Appellee's retirement account at the same level as he funds his own retirement account. We conclude from our review that the life insurance policy obligation constitutes spousal support, which is subject to modification. We vacate the trial court's judgment concerning college tuition and hold that Appellant is obligated to pay the cost of tuition and books, less scholarships and sponsor


CourtListener opinion 4380650

domestic relations order: Wife shall be entitled to one-half (1/2) of the then balance of the profit sharing plan in the event that a Final Decree of Divorce is entered between the parties, and in the event that a Final Decree of Divorce is entered between the parties, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be entered segregating Wife's fifty (50%) percent of the retirement account into a separate account in her name, with Husband being required thereafter to make equal contributions to Wife's separate retirement account as he makes his own retirement account or accounts through his employer or any subsequent employer until he reaches the age of six


CourtListener opinion 4380650

valuation/division: ned that the plain language of the AOLS does not mention "support." This is true. Likewise, the terms "property division" and "property settlement" are not mentioned in the AOLS. The AOLS does not refer to the life insurance obligation as part of the parties' property division or division of marital assets. In fact, other than the agreed order, there is no separate written property settlement agreement between the parties in this case. As such, from the language in the AOLS, we cannot conclude that the life insurance obligation was intended to be part of a property settlement as opposed to support to secure Mr. Elrod's various fi


CourtListener opinion 4380715

CourtListener opinion 4380715 Extracted case name: RSWL-DFM v. BHASKAR VYAS. Extracted reporter citation: 530 U.S. 211. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4380715 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 4380715

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 4380715

QDRO: Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Vyas is not "a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary" of the relevant plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). Vyas is not named in the plan documents, and the plan is not mentioned in the judgment of dissolution or in a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), (J). 2. Vyas has no claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Schwab because Schwab did not "perform[] a fiduciary function" when it took "the action[s] subject to complaint." Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 226 (2000). Vyas alleged only that Schwab carried out the directions of the plan administrator, which is not a


CourtListener opinion 4380715

retirement benefits: ted March 8, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,*** Chief District Judge. Plaintiff Sujata Vyas appeals from the district court's orders granting summary judgment to Defendants Bhaskar Vyas and Schwab Retirement Plan * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitt


CourtListener opinion 4380715

ERISA: ignation. Services, Inc. ("Schwab"). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm. 1. Vyas does not have standing to sue her ex-husband for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Vyas is not "a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary" of the relevant plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). Vyas is not named in the plan documents, and the plan is not mentioned in the judgment of dissolution or in a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), (J). 2. Vyas has no claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Schwab


CourtListener opinion 4380715

domestic relations order: t Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Vyas is not "a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary" of the relevant plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). Vyas is not named in the plan documents, and the plan is not mentioned in the judgment of dissolution or in a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), (J). 2. Vyas has no claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Schwab because Schwab did not "perform[] a fiduciary function" when it took "the action[s] subject to complaint." Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 226 (2000). Vyas alleged only that Schwab carried out the directions of the plan administrator, which is not a


CourtListener opinion 4381979

CourtListener opinion 4381979 Extracted case name: L.P. v. EQT. Extracted reporter citation: 39 F. Supp. 3d 877. Docket: 18-5575 UNITED STATES. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4381979 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 4381979

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 4381979

QDRO: e exercise of complex legal decision-making or the application of complex legal principles, expert testimony is required. See id. ("Kentucky courts have required expert testimony in cases concerning trial preparation, trial strategy, and motions to vacate, qualified domestic relations orders, and an attorney's professional assessment of the law.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As the district court noted, many attorneys, let alone the average layperson, would not know the answer to the question: "Would a reasonably competent attorney, who is asked to provide an oil and gas title opinion, breach the standard of care by


CourtListener opinion 4381979

domestic relations order: of complex legal decision-making or the application of complex legal principles, expert testimony is required. See id. ("Kentucky courts have required expert testimony in cases concerning trial preparation, trial strategy, and motions to vacate, qualified domestic relations orders, and an attorney's professional assessment of the law.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As the district court noted, many attorneys, let alone the average layperson, would not know the answer to the question: "Would a reasonably competent attorney, who is asked to provide an oil and gas title opinion, breach the standard of care by


CourtListener opinion 4382481

CourtListener opinion 4382481 Extracted reporter citation: 306 P.3d 1282. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4382481 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 4382481


CourtListener opinion 4382481

QDRO: his share of the HELOC assigned to -3- 7347 Gambini. The court also noted its decision not to address Gambini's discovery motion prior to trial, declaring the motion now moot. In December 2017 Hamilton filed a proposed Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to govern the transfer of the portion of his 401(k) owed to Gambini. Gambini filed her appeal in January 2018, and Hamilton filed a notice of non- participation later that month. During the pendency of Gambini's appeal, she and Hamilton engaged in litigation over the QDRO. III. DISCUSSION On appeal Gambini argues that the superior court improperly classif


CourtListener opinion 4382481

retirement benefits: ni argues that she is entitled to more than half of the marital estate and that the superior court erroneously treated a loan she made to Hamilton prior to their marriage as a marital obligation. She also contends that the court incorrectly valued Hamilton's retirement account and that several of its procedural decisions unfairly prejudiced her or violated her rights. None of Gambini's claims amounts to reversible error. We therefore affirm the superior court's property division order. II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Sometime in 2006 Gambini and Hamilton rekindled a relationship from decades prior. Hamilton was married to someone else


CourtListener opinion 4382481

pension: not prejudiced by the court's decision to leave her discovery motion pending at the time of trial and then dismiss it as moot. The arguments 28 Gambini also claims that the loans on Hamilton's 401(k) should be added to its value. But taking out a loan on a pension account does not increase that pension account's value by the amount of loan. 29 "We review the denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion." Valdez Fisheries Dev. Ass'n v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 45 P.3d 657, 671 (Alaska 2002). 30 Nelson v. Jones, 787 P.2d 1031, 1034 (Alaska 1990) (explaining that it is not necessary "to require tort actions b


CourtListener opinion 4382481

401(k): ve. Eventually the couple sold the Kim Drive property to Gambini's son. They used the proceeds from the sale to purchase two lots adjoining the Kim Drive property — -2- 7347 the Barbi Drive lots — and to develop them for a residence. A loan on Hamilton's 401(k) also partially financed the purchase of the Barbi Drive lots. Gambini and Hamilton contracted with Selway Corporation to finance the construction of a residence on the Barbi lots. The couple conveyed the lots to Selway, which used the property as security for a loan to finance construction of the residence; the couple would purchase the residence from Selw


CourtListener opinion 4382607

CourtListener opinion 4382607 Docket: of assignments of error including the family. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4382607 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 4382607


CourtListener opinion 4382607

QDRO: with a stipulated value of $88,965.00." Further, the final divorce order awarded the savings account solely to Mr. Lamm. Approximately nine years after the circuit court's final order was entered, Ms. Lamm filed an amended qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") with the family court, seeking a portion of Mr. Lamm's savings account. Protracted litigation followed in which Ms. Lamm submitted multiple QDROs to the family court regarding the savings account and the retirement plan. On July 12, 2017, the family court entered a QDRO that awarded Ms. Lamm 34.78% of Mr. Lamm's retirement plan. By order entered on Octobe


CourtListener opinion 4382607

retirement benefits: ondent Patricia Lamm ("Ms. Lamm") and Petitioner David Lamm ("Mr. Lamm") were divorced by final order entered by the family court in 2005 and affirmed by the circuit court in 2007. This appeal concerns a "Savings and Investment Plan" ("savings account") and a retirement plan that were addressed in the family court's 2005 final divorce order. The final divorce order provided that the "parties shall divide equally [Mr. Lamm's] retirement plan with a stipulated value of $88,965.00." Further, the final divorce order awarded the savings account solely to Mr. Lamm. Approximately nine years after the circuit court's final order was en