QDRO: ff's financial affidavit are awarded to the plaintiff. 4. The Copland Company Deferred Compensation Plan shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit is awarded to the plaintiff. 5. The Clinton Board of Education Defined Benefit Plan is ordered divided by QDRO or its equivalent with the defendant being assigned one half of the present vested interest in the plan, which one half amounts to $107.55 monthly. Counsel for the plaintiff is responsible for preparing the QDRO or its equivalent. 6. The defendant is assigned all of the interest in the mobile home that he owns. 7. The defendant is assigned the ownership


Kathryn A. Colandrea v. Dennis Colandrea

pension: $13.00. Her gross weekly income from her Saturday part time employment with the Board of Education is $15.58. Her gross weekly income from the part time employment at the leather store is $38.75 with a deduction for federal tax of $12.00. The plaintiff has a pension plan through Copeland CT Page 1415 Companies with a present value of $3,400.00. She has a defined benefit plan through the Board of Education. She is 100% vested in that plan. Her present vested accrued monthly benefit is $215.10. The monthly amount that she would normally receive at retirement at age 65 is $469.30. She has liability consisting of Novus wit


valuation/division: ately $15,000.00 in 1993. The defendant inherited approximately $10,000.00 around 1986. This court has considered the provision of Section 46b-82 regarding the issue of alimony, and has considered the provisions of Section 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provision of Section 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters the following orders: A. Dissolution of Marriage v. Legal Separation. 1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and each party is declared be single and unmarried. B. By way of Alimony 1. No alimony is awarded in favor of either party.


Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor

Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor Date: 1998-02-17. Machine-draft public headnote: Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor 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.


Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor

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.


Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor

QDRO: s irrevocable beneficiary of $50,000.00 in life insurance for so long as he is obligated to pay alimony. 7. The plaintiff is awarded a one half interest in the defendant's pension, valued as of the date of judgment. The court retains jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order. The parties shall be equally responsible for the costs of the preparation of said order. 8. The defendant shall have the right to claim the minor child as an exemption for all state and federal tax purposes. The CT Page 1889 plaintiff shall execute all forms necessary to effectuate this order. 9. The property listed on schedule A affixed to the plainti


Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor

pension: re were difficulties between her son and the defendant. The defendant believes that the plaintiff is involved in another relationship. The court does not ascribe fault to either party. The defendant takes the position that there should be no division of his pension, substantially acquired within the marriage, nor should there be any award of alimony. Yet he substantially outearns the plaintiff and can offer no legal authority for the financial position he asserts. Indeed, while this is neither a very short nor a very long marriage, it is a marriage which has produced a child, and that event has forever altered the liv


Kathryn M. Trainor v. James W. Trainor

domestic relations order: ble beneficiary of $50,000.00 in life insurance for so long as he is obligated to pay alimony. 7. The plaintiff is awarded a one half interest in the defendant's pension, valued as of the date of judgment. The court retains jurisdiction to enter a qualified domestic relations order. The parties shall be equally responsible for the costs of the preparation of said order. 8. The defendant shall have the right to claim the minor child as an exemption for all state and federal tax purposes. The CT Page 1889 plaintiff shall execute all forms necessary to effectuate this order. 9. The property listed on schedule A affixed to the plainti


Kathy Gruner v. Jerry Gruner

Kathy Gruner v. Jerry Gruner Date: 1999-04-29. Machine-draft public headnote: Kathy Gruner v. Jerry Gruner 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.


Kathy Gruner v. Jerry Gruner

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.


Kathy Gruner v. Jerry Gruner

QDRO: l remain in effect, at a minimum, so long as the defendant is responsible for child support. The court reserves jurisdiction in the event the defendant is unable to obtain life insurance in the amount ordered. (7) The defendant shall transfer by appropriate QDRO to the plaintiff, 50% of each of his two pensions, determined as to value as of the date of April 30, 1999. The defendant's counsel shall prepare the necessary documents, at the defendant's expense. The court reserves jurisdiction to implement this order. (8 ) Each party shall retain her/his automobiles and bank accounts, if any. Each shall retain the per


Kenneth Jalbert v. Theresa Jalbert

Kenneth Jalbert v. Theresa Jalbert Date: 2000-12-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Kenneth Jalbert v. Theresa Jalbert 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.


Kenneth Jalbert v. Theresa Jalbert


Kenneth Jalbert v. Theresa Jalbert

QDRO: The Wife is awarded the IRS refund in the approximate amount of $2,292.00 and the Husband the State of Connecticut refund in the approximate amount of $590.00. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband is ordered to transfer to the Wife, by a nontaxable rollover or Qualified Domestic Relations Order, one half of his Smith Barney IRA represented to be approximately $31,000.00. LIABILITIES The parties shall be responsible for the debts delineated in paragraph V. Debts of their written agreement dated November 28, 2000, which is incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the Wife shall be solely responsible for the Spiegel MasterCard debt and any


Kenneth Jalbert v. Theresa Jalbert

domestic relations order: is awarded the IRS refund in the approximate amount of $2,292.00 and the Husband the State of Connecticut refund in the approximate amount of $590.00. RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband is ordered to transfer to the Wife, by a nontaxable rollover or Qualified Domestic Relations Order, one half of his Smith Barney IRA represented to be approximately $31,000.00. LIABILITIES The parties shall be responsible for the debts delineated in paragraph V. Debts of their written agreement dated November 28, 2000, which is incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the Wife shall be solely responsible for the Spiegel MasterCard debt and any


Kevin O'Malley v. Jeanne O'Malley Ct Page 4732 Date: 1998-04-03. Machine-draft public headnote: Kevin O'Malley v. Jeanne O'Malley Ct Page 4732 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.


QDRO: beneficiary of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars worth of life insurance. The plaintiff shall annually furnish the defendant with proof of such coverage by July first of each year. CT Page 4734 4. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant, by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, fifty (50%) percent of his existing retirement accounts at Bruckner Manufacturing Corporation and Spartus Corporation, including his 401K at Spartus Corporation. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benefits. 5. The plaintiff shall retain o


retirement benefits: nce. The plaintiff shall annually furnish the defendant with proof of such coverage by July first of each year. CT Page 4734 4. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant, by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, fifty (50%) percent of his existing retirement accounts at Bruckner Manufacturing Corporation and Spartus Corporation, including his 401K at Spartus Corporation. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benefits. 5. The plaintiff shall retain ownership of the following assets: his Coastal States Gas


pension: accounts at Bruckner Manufacturing Corporation and Spartus Corporation, including his 401K at Spartus Corporation. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benefits. 5. The plaintiff shall retain ownership of the following assets: his Coastal States Gas and Valero stocks; his claim for reimbursement of business expenses; his interest in his mother's estate; his First Union bank accounts; his stock options; his 1987 BMW and 1993 Nissan Altima automobiles; his loans receivable; and his frequent flyer miles.


401(k): of each year. CT Page 4734 4. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant, by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, fifty (50%) percent of his existing retirement accounts at Bruckner Manufacturing Corporation and Spartus Corporation, including his 401K at Spartus Corporation. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benefits. 5. The plaintiff shall retain ownership of the following assets: his Coastal States Gas and Valero stocks; his claim for reimbursement of business expenses; his interest i


Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn

Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn Date: 1998-04-03. Machine-draft public headnote: Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn 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.


Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn


Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn

QDRO: rnishings located CT Page 4664 in the marital home are awarded to the plaintiff. 7. The parties shall divide the pension and profit sharing plans sixty percent to the plaintiff and forty per cent to the defendant. The court retains jurisdiction to enter any Qualified Domestic Relations Order which might be necessary to effectuate this order. 8. The defendant shall pay, as alimony, directly to the plaintiff, $425.00 per week, until the death of either party, the plaintiff's remarriage, or her cohabitation (in accordance with statutory provisions), whichever shall earliest occur. 9. The defendant shall pay, as child support, $325.00 per week.


Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn

pension: 8 Jeep is awarded to the plaintiff. 5. The two motorcycles are awarded to the defendant. 6. Except as otherwise ordered herein, all of the furnishings located CT Page 4664 in the marital home are awarded to the plaintiff. 7. The parties shall divide the pension and profit sharing plans sixty percent to the plaintiff and forty per cent to the defendant. The court retains jurisdiction to enter any Qualified Domestic Relations Order which might be necessary to effectuate this order. 8. The defendant shall pay, as alimony, directly to the plaintiff, $425.00 per week, until the death of either party, the plaintiff's


Laurie M. Ahearn v. Michael Y. Ahearn

domestic relations order: located CT Page 4664 in the marital home are awarded to the plaintiff. 7. The parties shall divide the pension and profit sharing plans sixty percent to the plaintiff and forty per cent to the defendant. The court retains jurisdiction to enter any Qualified Domestic Relations Order which might be necessary to effectuate this order. 8. The defendant shall pay, as alimony, directly to the plaintiff, $425.00 per week, until the death of either party, the plaintiff's remarriage, or her cohabitation (in accordance with statutory provisions), whichever shall earliest occur. 9. The defendant shall pay, as child support, $325.00 per week.


Leah Ann Hawley v. James P. Murphy

Leah Ann Hawley v. James P. Murphy Date: 1996-08-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Leah Ann Hawley v. James P. Murphy 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.


Leah Ann Hawley v. James P. Murphy

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.


Leah Ann Hawley v. James P. Murphy

QDRO: intiff shall be entitled to notice from TIAA-CREF if the defendant goes into pay status. B) Until such time as the defendant elects a pay status, the minor child shall be named as a beneficiary of any pre-retirement death benefit. If required by the plan, a QDRO shall designate the child as the beneficiary. The court shall retain jurisdiction over this provision. C) In the event the defendant elects a pay status or receives monthly payments for his TIAA-CREF pension, an immediate withholding is ordered to secure the previously entered weekly order of child support and arrears. VIII. DEBTS Each party shall ass


Leah Ann Hawley v. James P. Murphy

pension: th of the minor child; B) the child's graduation from high school; C) the child's nineteenth birthday; or D) any and all arrearage on child support and attorney's fees is paid in full and the garnishment against the defendant's interest in his TIAA-CREF pension as provided hereafter is in effect and becomes effective. 3. In the event said lien is reduced to a liquid fund, said fund shall be held by the plaintiff as trustee for the minor child, Brendan, for the support of said minor child. The plaintiff as trustee shall be entitled to withdraw from said fund at the rate of $150 per week for the support of the min


Leners v. Leners

Leners v. Leners Citation: 302 Neb. 904. Extracted reporter citation: 302 Neb. 904. Date: 2019-04-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Leners v. Leners 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.


Leners v. Leners

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


Leners v. Leners

retirement benefits: n's proposed property division showed that the "Railroad Retirement Board Creditable Compensation" of unknown value should be divided by a qualified domestic relations order. The court received a "Statement of Railroad Employee's Actual or Estimated Railroad Retirement Benefits" dated January 19, 2017, which was furnished for use in connection with a divorce. The statement reflected an estimate of Stacy's current monthly benefit based upon employment with the rail- road through December 1, 2015, assuming that he were now retired and entitled to payment of benefits. It showed the fol- lowing monthly railroad benefit amounts: Tier


Leners v. Leners

pension: and Error. Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court. 3. Divorce: Property Division: Pensions. In dissolution proceedings, the trial court has broad discretion in valuing and dividing pension rights between the parties. 4. Child Custody. While the wishes of a child are not controlling in the determination of custody, if a child is of sufficient age and has expressed an intelligent preference, the child's preference is entitled to consideration. 5. Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a review de novo on the record, an appellate court reappraise


Leners v. Leners

401(k): d's activities and Stacy's work schedule. Stacy essentially asked for an extension of the temporary plan. Pensions Sharon is a registered nurse, and her proposed child support worksheets show her monthly income to be $3,693. Through her employer, she has a 401K account and a pension. She also has a Nebraska Public Employees Retirement Systems account. In Sharon's proposed property division, she included the lat- ter account and the 401K under her column at a total value of $38,301.28. Stacy's proposed property division additionally - 907 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports LENERS v.


Leners v. Leners

valuation/division: braska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports LENERS v. LENERS Cite as 302 Neb. 904 Sharon B. Leners, appellant, v. Stacy M. Leners, appellee. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed April 19, 2019. No. S-18-072. 1. Divorce: Child Custody: Child Support: Property Division: Alimony: Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. In a marital dissolution action, an appellate court reviews the case de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. This standard of review applies to the trial court's determinations regarding custody, child support, division of property, alimony, and att


Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo.

Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo. Date: 2002-09-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo. 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.


Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo.


Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo.

QDRO: avit and shall indemnify and hold the other harmless in regards to said debts. PENSION, IRA ACCOUNTS, 401K ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share of the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The court retains jurisdiction in regards to compliance with this order. ATTORNEY FEES The parties shall each be solely responsible for their own attorney fees TAX RETURNS The parties shall file separate tax returns for the year 2002 and thereafter. In th


Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo.

pension: cept as otherwise provided herein, the Husband shall be responsible for the debts on his financial affidavit and the Wife shall be responsible for the debts on her financial affidavit and shall indemnify and hold the other harmless in regards to said debts. PENSION, IRA ACCOUNTS, 401K ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share of the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The court retains jurisdiction in regards to compliance wit


Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo.

401(k): ded herein, the Husband shall be responsible for the debts on his financial affidavit and the Wife shall be responsible for the debts on her financial affidavit and shall indemnify and hold the other harmless in regards to said debts. PENSION, IRA ACCOUNTS, 401K ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share of the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The court retains jurisdiction in regards to compliance with this order. ATTO


Leuisa Zurlo v. Carmine Zurlo.

domestic relations order: hall indemnify and hold the other harmless in regards to said debts. PENSION, IRA ACCOUNTS, 401K ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide all pensions, IRA accounts, 401K accounts as listed on their respective financial affidavits by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share of the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The court retains jurisdiction in regards to compliance with this order. ATTORNEY FEES The parties shall each be solely responsible for their own attorney fees TAX RETURNS The parties shall file separate tax returns for the year 2002 and thereafter. In th


Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua

Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Date: 1999-01-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua 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.


Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua


Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua

pension: ther party produced any documentation, such as closing statements or canceled checks, in support of their claims. The Husband also worked 14 years for the Bridgeport Board of Education prior to the marriage during which time he accumulated credits towards his pension. Throughout the marriage the Wife was employed as an office manager in a dental office. Her current gross weekly income of $562 ($29,224 per year) would appear to be her capacity. The Husband worked as a teacher and most recently as the District Suspension Officer for the Bridgeport Board of Education. His gross weekly income of $1397 ($72,635 per year)


Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua

domestic relations order: for relief shall be hers with the exception of the camera which shall remain the Husband's property. The Husband shall retain his two boats and each party shall retain their respective automobiles. Pension The Husband shall assign to the Wife pursuant to a Domestic Relations Order (DRO), a 26.4% interest in his pension as of December 31, 1998 with a joint survivor annuity. Any appreciation in the pension thereafter shall belong solely to the Husband. The Wife's counsel shall have the responsibility of preparing the DRO, the cost of which, estimated to be $500, shall be equally shared by the parties. At the Wife's option, she may take


Linda Bevilacqua v. Albert Bevilacqua

survivor benefits: The Husband shall retain his two boats and each party shall retain their respective automobiles. Pension The Husband shall assign to the Wife pursuant to a Domestic Relations Order (DRO), a 26.4% interest in his pension as of December 31, 1998 with a joint survivor annuity. Any appreciation in the pension thereafter shall belong solely to the Husband. The Wife's counsel shall have the responsibility of preparing the DRO, the cost of which, estimated to be $500, shall be equally shared by the parties. At the Wife's option, she may take out insurance on the Husband's life to cover any losses she might incur in the event of the


Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick

Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick Date: 1998-10-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick 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.


Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick

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.


Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick

QDRO: 1993 Dodge truck valued at $900.00. The Plaintiff shall own the 1989 Subaru valued at $19,000.00. Accordingly, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff $9,000.00 within 60 days. 6. The Defendant shall transfer to the Plaintiff from his pension $32,200.00 by QDRO, which shall be prepared by Defendant's attorney. The Plaintiff shall keep her own pension. 7. The Plaintiff shall keep the balance of her injury settlement free of any claim from the Defendant. In return, the Defendant shall keep all the guns, boat, rifles, heavy and small equipment, tools and the grandfather clock. 8. Regarding the cash values of the


Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick

retirement benefits: e with a cash value of $10,040.00, a $10,000.00 life insurance from his employment and a 1993 Dodge truck valued at $19.000.00. The Plaintiff owns a 1989 Subaru valued at $900.00; furniture, household goods and clothing valued at $6,082.00 a Town of Ledyard retirement plan valued at $24,718.00; a $5,000.00 life insurance with a cash value of $2,108.00. Plaintiff settled an injury action and received $54,000.00± of which $30,000.00± went to the benefit of the parties, however, she did not account for $24,000.00± of her settlement. Defendant claims that the Plaintiff has possession of some Civil War memorabil


Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick

pension: Defendant's financial affidavit said boat, guns, tools and heavy and light equipment are valued at $26,500.00 The Defendant also has miscellaneous household goods; a Dime CT Page 11465 Savings Bank account; a 401k plan valued at $8,158.00; a Town of Ledyard pension valued at $99,000.00; comp time from his employment valued at $14,766.15; a $250,000.00 life insurance with a cash value of $10,040.00, a $10,000.00 life insurance from his employment and a 1993 Dodge truck valued at $19.000.00. The Plaintiff owns a 1989 Subaru valued at $900.00; furniture, household goods and clothing valued at $6,082.00 a Town of Ledyar


Linda Burdick v. Joseph Burdick

401(k): 21,380.00; a boat and many rifles and guns. On Defendant's financial affidavit said boat, guns, tools and heavy and light equipment are valued at $26,500.00 The Defendant also has miscellaneous household goods; a Dime CT Page 11465 Savings Bank account; a 401k plan valued at $8,158.00; a Town of Ledyard pension valued at $99,000.00; comp time from his employment valued at $14,766.15; a $250,000.00 life insurance with a cash value of $10,040.00, a $10,000.00 life insurance from his employment and a 1993 Dodge truck valued at $19.000.00. The Plaintiff owns a 1989 Subaru valued at $900.00; furniture, household goo


Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman.

Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman. Date: 2002-02-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman. 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.


Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman.


Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman.

QDRO: nal property: Her 1998 Nissan Pathfinder, her SBLI Life Insurance Policy having a cash value of $9,185, her 401K Vanguard account in the amount of $187,440, and her two Roth IRAs totaling $7,229. (4) The plaintiff is ordered to transfer to the defendant, by qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), the TIAA-CREF account which had a balance on the date of dissolution $40,830. It is the court's intention that any appreciation or decline in value be accepted by the defendant. The parties are to equally share the cost of said QDRO. (5) The defendant is to retain his 1995 Nissan pickup, his Charles Schwab account in the amount of $50,750, his ACQ


Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman.

pension: it, are titled in her name alone: a 1998 automobile valued at $12,000, cash value of $9,185 on a life insurance policy, a 401K plan in the amount of $187,440, two Roth IRAs in the total amount of $7,229, and a TIAA-CREF account in the amount of $40,830. Her pension at Bayer, by present valuation, will pay her approximately $700 a month when she reaches the age of 65. The defendant husband is 39 years of age and is a high school graduate. He is employed as a mail carrier for the United States Postal CT Page 1546 Service and has 15 years of service. He appears to be in good health, although, he has taken medication fo


Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman.

401(k): he average of her income for years 1999, 2000, and 2001 was approximately $77,600. The following assets, as shown on her financial affidavit, are titled in her name alone: a 1998 automobile valued at $12,000, cash value of $9,185 on a life insurance policy, a 401K plan in the amount of $187,440, two Roth IRAs in the total amount of $7,229, and a TIAA-CREF account in the amount of $40,830. Her pension at Bayer, by present valuation, will pay her approximately $700 a month when she reaches the age of 65. The defendant husband is 39 years of age and is a high school graduate. He is employed as a mail carrier for the


Lizbeth Friedman v. Jess Friedman.

domestic relations order: ty: Her 1998 Nissan Pathfinder, her SBLI Life Insurance Policy having a cash value of $9,185, her 401K Vanguard account in the amount of $187,440, and her two Roth IRAs totaling $7,229. (4) The plaintiff is ordered to transfer to the defendant, by qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), the TIAA-CREF account which had a balance on the date of dissolution $40,830. It is the court's intention that any appreciation or decline in value be accepted by the defendant. The parties are to equally share the cost of said QDRO. (5) The defendant is to retain his 1995 Nissan pickup, his Charles Schwab account in the amount of $50,750, his ACQ


Lon Clarke Ruckel v. Deborah Deniese Ruckel Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 20971 MEMORANDUM OPINION Lon Clarke Ruckel. Date: 2007-02-08. Machine-draft public headnote: Lon Clarke Ruckel v. Deborah Deniese Ruckel 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.


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.


domestic relations order: LARKE RUCKEL, Appellant V. DEBORAH DENIESE RUCKEL, Appellee On Appeal from the 1-A District Court Jasper County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20971 MEMORANDUM OPINION Lon Clarke Ruckel appealed an order denying his motion to clarify a qualified domestic relations order and ordering him to pay attorney's fees to the opposing party, Deborah Deniese Ruckel Yates. The appeal was submitted without briefs because the appellant failed to file his brief by September 20, 2006, the due date on the final extension granted for filing a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a), (d). On January 11, 2007, we notified the parties that the


Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz.

Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz. Date: 1991-12-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz. 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.


Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz.


Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz.

QDRO: . There are no minor children issue of their marriage, and no others have been born to the wife since the date of the marriage. 4. Neither party is receiving or has received financial assistance from the State of Connecticut or municipal agency. 5. That a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall enter awarding the plaintiff wife one-half the current monthly value of the defendant husband's IBEW Local 90 pension, payable upon husband's election to receive benefits, which shall in no event be later than husband's sixty-fifth (65th) birthday. The plaintiff wife shall be named Survivor Beneficiary of the pension for the maximum allowable t


Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz.

pension: g or has received financial assistance from the State of Connecticut or municipal agency. 5. That a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall enter awarding the plaintiff wife one-half the current monthly value of the defendant husband's IBEW Local 90 pension, payable upon husband's election to receive benefits, which shall in no event be later than husband's sixty-fifth (65th) birthday. The plaintiff wife shall be named Survivor Beneficiary of the pension for the maximum allowable term. 6. That the plaintiff wife shall receive the sum of $12,000 (twelve thousand dollars) gross, on or before March 15, 1992, wh


Lorraine R. Dobosz v. Paul E. Dobosz.

domestic relations order: e no minor children issue of their marriage, and no others have been born to the wife since the date of the marriage. 4. Neither party is receiving or has received financial assistance from the State of Connecticut or municipal agency. 5. That a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall enter awarding the plaintiff wife one-half the current monthly value of the defendant husband's IBEW Local 90 pension, payable upon husband's election to receive benefits, which shall in no event be later than husband's sixty-fifth (65th) birthday. The plaintiff wife shall be named Survivor Beneficiary of the pension for the maximum allowable t


Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide

Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide Date: 2000-01-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide 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.


Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide

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.


Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide

QDRO: urance, her Templeton Growth Fund IRA and her Provident Mutual asset and her McDesop. Upon the plaintiff's retirement from the United States Naval Service, the defendant wife shall be entitled to 50% of the military pension, the same to be accomplished by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as may be necessary. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the two debts shown on his financial affidavit. The defendant shows no debts on her affidavit. As earlier indicated, it was represented to the Court that the Court need not concern itself with the automobiles in the respective names of the parties nor personal property including the two


Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide

pension: reflects modest amounts in three checking accounts, and funds in three Fidelity Destiny accounts which total $139,198.00. Service insurance with a cash value of $8,300.00. CT Page 113 If the plaintiff were to retire at this time, his gross monthly military pension would be $2,639.00 monthly, with a net of $1,900.00 monthly. The affidavit also reflects certain canceled life insurance to the amount of $8,387.00. From the defendant's financial affidavit it appears that the lady has returned to employment at McDonald's, gross weekly wage, $330.14, appropriate deductions of $58.74, net, $271.40. In addition, the defen


Lyle Snide v. Stephanie Snide

domestic relations order: r Templeton Growth Fund IRA and her Provident Mutual asset and her McDesop. Upon the plaintiff's retirement from the United States Naval Service, the defendant wife shall be entitled to 50% of the military pension, the same to be accomplished by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as may be necessary. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the two debts shown on his financial affidavit. The defendant shows no debts on her affidavit. As earlier indicated, it was represented to the Court that the Court need not concern itself with the automobiles in the respective names of the parties nor personal property including the two


Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds

Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds Date: 1994-03-31. Machine-draft public headnote: Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds 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.


Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds


Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds

QDRO: e. This property has present net equity of $12,000. 2. Pension Plans. 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to her Connecticut State Teachers Retirement Fund which has a net value after taxes of CT Page 3198 $14,276. 2. The plaintiff shall be entitled to a QDRO for 50% of the present day value of the defendants TIAA pension plan. The defendant has listed the value as $50,000. This will provide the plaintiff with approximately $22. per week or approximately $95. a month income. C. Alimony. 1. The issue of alimony has been a difficult one. The Court recognizes that the defendant is the primary care taker for the


Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds

pension: f the children. The parties have filed a joint Bankruptcy which has disposed of most of their liabilities. The parties obtained a modification of the automatic stay in the Bankruptcy Court to proceed with this dissolution. The marital home and the parties pension plans have been abandoned by the Trustee. The only assets in this dissolution are the parties respective Pension Plans and the marital home. Both parties agreed that the marital home has a fair market value of $135,000. subject to a mortgage of $123,000 with an equity of $12,000. The wife has a pension of approximately $18,784 on which she could withdraw


Lynne Simonds v. Michael Simonds

valuation/division: ical and dental expenses for the minor child as long as the plaintiff is unemployed. When the plaintiff obtains full time employment all uninsured and/or unreimbursed medical and dental expenses for the minor child be equally divided between the parties. B. Property Division The following orders are entered with respect to a division of property of the parties. 1. Real Estate. The plaintiff shall Quit Claim all her right, title and interest in the marital home located at 2 Park Circle, Milford Connecticut, to the defendant within 2 weeks of date. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless from any and all liability w


MacOmber v. MacOmber

MacOmber v. MacOmber Citation: 814 A.2d 456. Extracted reporter citation: 814 A.2d 456. Date: 2003-01-07. Machine-draft public headnote: MacOmber v. MacOmber 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.


MacOmber v. MacOmber

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.


MacOmber v. MacOmber

opening text: 814 A.2d 456 (2003) 2003 ME 1 Steven MACOMBER v. Roxanne MACOMBER. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued: May 9, 2002. Decided: January 7, 2003. Donald J. Gasink (orally), Augusta, for plaintiff. David S. Abramson (orally), Givertz, Lunt, Hambley, Schefee & Abramson, P.A., Portland, for defendant. Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J. and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ. DANA, J. [¶ 1] Roxanne Macomber appeals from a divorce judgment entered in the District Court (Ellsworth, Staples, J. ), contending that the court erred in determining Steven Macomber's income and abused its discretion in its award of general and transitional support. She asserts that the cour


Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz.

Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz. Date: 2001-07-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz. 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.


Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz.


Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz.

QDRO: ount of $500 within sixty days of notice of this judgment for fees incurred prior to this date. The defendant is further order and the court hereby assigns to the plaintiff 1/3 of the defendant's State of Connecticut pension as of July 1, 2001 pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to prepare the necessary paperwork to effect said transfer. Kocay, J.


Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz.

pension: fees on behalf of the plaintiff in the amount of $500 within sixty days of notice of this judgment for fees incurred prior to this date. The defendant is further order and the court hereby assigns to the plaintiff 1/3 of the defendant's State of Connecticut pension as of July 1, 2001 pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to prepare the necessary paperwork to effect said transfer. Kocay, J.


Maria D. Roche v. Jose Ramon Diaz.

domestic relations order: 00 within sixty days of notice of this judgment for fees incurred prior to this date. The defendant is further order and the court hereby assigns to the plaintiff 1/3 of the defendant's State of Connecticut pension as of July 1, 2001 pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to prepare the necessary paperwork to effect said transfer. Kocay, J.


Maria M. Trombetta v. Franco N. Trombetta, Sr. Date: 2002-02-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Maria M. Trombetta v. Franco N. Trombetta, Sr. 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.


QDRO: a result of the parties joint ownership of the property. 10. Pension/401(k) — the amount of the pensions CT Page 2070 and 401(k) accounts of the parties shall be combined and divided into equal shares, one share for each party, with the execution of a QDRO, if required. The parties shall equally bear the cost for preparation of the QDRO. 11. The wife shall be responsible for the payment of the Fleet and MBNA charge card accounts. The husband shall be responsible for the payment of the Hudson Bank charge card account. The plaintiff shall be responsible for payment of $1,000 toward the outstanding balance on


pension: on. Both the plaintiff and defendant attended high school, the defendant in Italy and the plaintiff in the United States. Prior to the defendant's employment with Westfield, he had worked for Wiretek for approximately 10 years. This work qualified him for pension benefits, however the company's financial difficulties make doubtful whether any such are or will be available. In 1984, the parties purchased a home at 214 Burnsford Avenue, in Bridgeport. Prior to moving to the United States, the defendant had worked in Canada. The down payment for the house came principally from the defendant's earnings in Canada and f


401(k): r become due from or after the time of closing and, except as otherwise provided herein, she shall hold the plaintiff harmless and indemnify him thereon from any claims that might arise as a result of the parties joint ownership of the property. 10. Pension/401(k) — the amount of the pensions CT Page 2070 and 401(k) accounts of the parties shall be combined and divided into equal shares, one share for each party, with the execution of a QDRO, if required. The parties shall equally bear the cost for preparation of the QDRO. 11. The wife shall be responsible for the payment of the Fleet and MBNA charge card acc


Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante

Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante Date: 2000-01-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante 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.


Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante

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.


Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante

QDRO: indicated: — IRA Mutual Fund $ 77,192 — 403k $ 1,478 — Merrill Lynch IRA (EX2) $ 11,185 — Checking/Savings Accounts $ 1,000 CT Page 1070 — Clinton, Conn. Real Estate $146,500 _________ TOTAL: $ 237,355 Subject to the QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order) hereinafter to be decreed, the defendant owns and shall retain the following assets with the indicated values: — Fidelity Ultra $ 411,976 — Fidelity IRA $ 74,392 — Checking/Credit Union Savings $ 300 — 401k (SNET) $ 1,043,246 — Vermont Real Estate $ 3,000 ___________ TOTAL: $ 1,532


Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante

pension: s that the defendant/father acquired either by earning investment or inheritance have been similarly used. The parties have each agreed of record and the court hereby approves and orders that each shall retain as their own separate property their retirement pension accounts. It is to be noted that the defendant retired in 1994 and is presently claims to use his pension as his principal source of sustenance. Each party shall pay the debts as indicated on their separate financial affidavits and hold the other party harmless in connection therewith. The interest of the defendant in the Vermont property which has a valu


Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante

401(k): Domestic Relations Order) hereinafter to be decreed, the defendant owns and shall retain the following assets with the indicated values: — Fidelity Ultra $ 411,976 — Fidelity IRA $ 74,392 — Checking/Credit Union Savings $ 300 — 401k (SNET) $ 1,043,246 — Vermont Real Estate $ 3,000 ___________ TOTAL: $ 1,532,914 Thus, the court concludes that the total marital estate amounts to $1,770,269, one-half of which amounts to $885,134.50. The court finds that taking into account all of the statutory factors including the health of the parties and their earning capacity and their con


Maria Passante v. Jeffrey Passante

domestic relations order: 8212; IRA Mutual Fund $ 77,192 — 403k $ 1,478 — Merrill Lynch IRA (EX2) $ 11,185 — Checking/Savings Accounts $ 1,000 CT Page 1070 — Clinton, Conn. Real Estate $146,500 _________ TOTAL: $ 237,355 Subject to the QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order) hereinafter to be decreed, the defendant owns and shall retain the following assets with the indicated values: — Fidelity Ultra $ 411,976 — Fidelity IRA $ 74,392 — Checking/Credit Union Savings $ 300 — 401k (SNET) $ 1,043,246 — Vermont Real Estate $ 3,000 ___________ TOTAL: $ 1,532,914 Thus, the court concludes tha


Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro

Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro Date: 1993-11-09. Machine-draft public headnote: Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro 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.


Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro


Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro

QDRO: these assets. 2. The defendant shall transfer the sum of $2779 from his IRA's to the plaintiff's IRA's. 3. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension benefits from the Farrell Corporation. Said amount shall be secured by means of a QDRO. The plaintiff shall be entitled to have joint and survivor annuity rights in said pension. The court shall retain jurisdiction in order to effectuate the execution of the QDRO. 4. The court previously ordered the Mobil Corp. stock to be sold and the proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. Said order remains in full force and effect. D. Arre


Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro

pension: securities of the parties. The parties shall cooperate in connection with the division of these assets. 2. The defendant shall transfer the sum of $2779 from his IRA's to the plaintiff's IRA's. 3. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension benefits from the Farrell Corporation. Said amount shall be secured by means of a QDRO. The plaintiff shall be entitled to have joint and survivor annuity rights in said pension. The court shall retain jurisdiction in order to effectuate the execution of the QDRO. 4. The court previously ordered the Mobil Corp. stock to be sold and the proceeds to be divi


Maria Pollastro v. Sabatino Pollastro

survivor benefits: of $2779 from his IRA's to the plaintiff's IRA's. 3. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension benefits from the Farrell Corporation. Said amount shall be secured by means of a QDRO. The plaintiff shall be entitled to have joint and survivor annuity rights in said pension. The court shall retain jurisdiction in order to effectuate the execution of the QDRO. 4. The court previously ordered the Mobil Corp. stock to be sold and the proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. Said order remains in full force and effect. D. Arrearage The court finds an arrearage on the pendente lite order as


Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore

Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore Date: 1993-11-29. Machine-draft public headnote: Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore 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.


Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore


Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore

QDRO: Tax Deductions 1. The defendant shall be entitled to claim the minor children as tax dependents, provided he is current with the child support payments. H. Pension The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's Pitney Bowes Retirement Plan. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be prepared and executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said plan. I. Personal Property 1. The parties have agreed as to a division of certain items of personal property. With respect to the items in dispute, the defendant shall be entitled to the following: wedding album proofs; duplicates of the family tapes; one lawn mower;


Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore

retirement benefits: for alimony. G. Tax Deductions 1. The defendant shall be entitled to claim the minor children as tax dependents, provided he is current with the child support payments. H. Pension The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's Pitney Bowes Retirement Plan. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be prepared and executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said plan. I. Personal Property 1. The parties have agreed as to a division of certain items of personal property. With respect to the items in dispute, the defendant shall be entitled to the following: wedding album proofs; duplicates


Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore

pension: as irrevocable beneficiary thereon for so long as the defendant has an obligation for alimony. G. Tax Deductions 1. The defendant shall be entitled to claim the minor children as tax dependents, provided he is current with the child support payments. H. Pension The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's Pitney Bowes Retirement Plan. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be prepared and executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said plan. I. Personal Property 1. The parties have agreed as to a division of certain items of personal property. With respect to the items in disp


Marian Claire Moore v. Joseph Moore

domestic relations order: ions 1. The defendant shall be entitled to claim the minor children as tax dependents, provided he is current with the child support payments. H. Pension The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's Pitney Bowes Retirement Plan. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall be prepared and executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said plan. I. Personal Property 1. The parties have agreed as to a division of certain items of personal property. With respect to the items in dispute, the defendant shall be entitled to the following: wedding album proofs; duplicates of the family tapes; one lawn mower;


Marie Besson v. Ronald Besson

Marie Besson v. Ronald Besson Date: 1997-10-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Marie Besson v. Ronald Besson 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.


Marie Besson v. Ronald Besson

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.


Marie Besson v. Ronald Besson

QDRO: 69441 (Defendant's account); h. Fleet Bank — Florida account #000-178-5523830; i. His EZ Pull Patent, but the parties shall share equally any net proceeds received because of the patent's use. (9) The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order a one-half (1/2) interest in the present value of his AMF Annuity. The court reserves jurisdiction to effectuate the implementation of this order. (10) The defendant's Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company policy shall be cashed in and the proceeds disbursed as follows: A. The sum of $19,300 to the defendant for payment of taxes due on liquidation


Marie Besson v. Ronald Besson

domestic relations order: endant's account); h. Fleet Bank — Florida account #000-178-5523830; i. His EZ Pull Patent, but the parties shall share equally any net proceeds received because of the patent's use. (9) The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order a one-half (1/2) interest in the present value of his AMF Annuity. The court reserves jurisdiction to effectuate the implementation of this order. (10) The defendant's Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company policy shall be cashed in and the proceeds disbursed as follows: A. The sum of $19,300 to the defendant for payment of taxes due on liquidation


Marie Marini Carminucci v. Robert Carminucci Date: 1996-02-14. Machine-draft public headnote: Marie Marini Carminucci v. Robert Carminucci 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.


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.


QDRO: r federal aid. 6. The plaintiff's maiden name of Marie Marini is hereby CT Page 1323-V restored. 7. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff as lump sum alimony not dischargeable in bankruptcy the sum of $16,900 either in cash or by a conveyance through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) of so much of his 401K plan as equals that amount. The plaintiff's counsel shall draw an appropriate order for this purpose. 8. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff all his right, title and interest in the marital home at 25 Fairty Drive, New Canaan, Connecticut. 9. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant all her right, title and i


retirement benefits: than he did during the marriage. (See plaintiff's exhibits II and JJ and defendant's exhibit 34.) At the present time, the defendant is still earning $50,000 a year, he still has a vested pension valued at $242,264, which provides him with a monthly normal retirement benefit payable at age 65 of $624.08. He also has two pieces of property in New York state, in one his interest is valued at $95,000 and the other his interest is $60,000. He is perfectly capable of taking care of his expenses, his attorney's fees and liabilities. The plaintiff, on the other hand, has lost her job probably in part because of her arrest brought ab


pension: f had a 1990 Pontiac Grand Am, which the defendant later turned in on the purchase of a 1990 Voyager in his name. At the time of the marriage, the defendant also had a 401K account to which he contributed ten percent of his weekly income and he had a vested pension with the company. The plaintiff also had a 401K plan. The plaintiff's liabilities at the time of the marriage consisted primarily of the mortgages on the house which left her very little, if any, equity in it. She had bought it for $281,000 in October of 1990 with a down payment of $28,100 (see exhibit plaintiff's exhibit A). The plaintiff had been in ban


401(k): 980 Chevrolet and a Cadillac which he later sold for a $1,000. CT Page 1323-P The plaintiff had a 1990 Pontiac Grand Am, which the defendant later turned in on the purchase of a 1990 Voyager in his name. At the time of the marriage, the defendant also had a 401K account to which he contributed ten percent of his weekly income and he had a vested pension with the company. The plaintiff also had a 401K plan. The plaintiff's liabilities at the time of the marriage consisted primarily of the mortgages on the house which left her very little, if any, equity in it. She had bought it for $281,000 in October of 1990 with


Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne.

Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne. Date: 1991-10-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne. 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.


Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne.


Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne.

QDRO: t, and the wife shall be responsible for all costs associated with the home. 2. The parties shall value and divide the U.S. savings bonds, sixty percent to the plaintiff, forty percent to the defendant. 3. The husband shall transfer to the wife, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, a one half interest in his IBM pension. The plaintiff shall prepare the QUADRO and the defendant shall cooperate in obtaining and making available to the plaintiff all information necessary to prepare the QUADRO. The court retains jurisdiction to enter the QUADRO. 4. The husband shall pay to the wife $700.00 per week as alimony until the death of either pa


Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne.

pension: the home. 2. The parties shall value and divide the U.S. savings bonds, sixty percent to the plaintiff, forty percent to the defendant. 3. The husband shall transfer to the wife, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, a one half interest in his IBM pension. The plaintiff shall prepare the QUADRO and the defendant shall cooperate in obtaining and making available to the plaintiff all information necessary to prepare the QUADRO. The court retains jurisdiction to enter the QUADRO. 4. The husband shall pay to the wife $700.00 per week as alimony until the death of either party or the wife's remarriage. The alimon


Marilyn Payne v. Donald J. Payne.

domestic relations order: wife shall be responsible for all costs associated with the home. 2. The parties shall value and divide the U.S. savings bonds, sixty percent to the plaintiff, forty percent to the defendant. 3. The husband shall transfer to the wife, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, a one half interest in his IBM pension. The plaintiff shall prepare the QUADRO and the defendant shall cooperate in obtaining and making available to the plaintiff all information necessary to prepare the QUADRO. The court retains jurisdiction to enter the QUADRO. 4. The husband shall pay to the wife $700.00 per week as alimony until the death of either pa


Mark Miles Waldrip v. Angela Eason Waldrip Citation: 2025 Ark. App. 29. Extracted reporter citation: 2025 Ark. App. 29. Date: 2025-01-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Mark Miles Waldrip v. Angela Eason Waldrip 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.


Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


retirement benefits: eral factors, including whether the benefit "cannot be diminished by the [employer] and is not dependent upon . . . continued employment." Id. at 3, 514 S.W.3d at 457 (quoting Day v. Day, 281 Ark. 261, 264, 663 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1984)). Mark likens unvested retirement benefits, which are not marital property, to the priority points because he claims the points can be "unilaterally terminated by the Foundation," they "create no more than a mere expectancy in the donor," and they "are not property subject to division." This argument also lacks merit. Again, Veteto testified that donors maintain the right to purchase their ti


Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman

Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman Date: 1999-07-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman 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.


Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman


Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman

QDRO: said amount shall carry interest in the unpaid balance of 7% per year until paid. Said sum shall be secured by a mortgage on the marital residence with the usual covenants, etc. 3. Plaintiff shall be entitled to 16% of defendant's defined pension by way of QDRO order which the defendant or his attorney CT Page 9781 shall prepare. 4. The plaintiff shall keep her 1992 Ford, her insurance and her Better Val-U 401K plan, her auto insurance claim free of any claim by the defendant. 5. The defendant shall keep the 1985 Ford Mustang, the 1991 Mazda, his Charter Oak Federal Credit Union and his savings bonds free of a


Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman

pension: in 1990 and a present market value of $113,000. (Defendant's Exhibit 1.) According to her financial affidavit, plaintiff has a 401K from Better Val-U with a present value of $2,830.12. The defendant has savings of $131, savings bonds of $4,000 and a defined pension plan. Seventeen years of defendant's defined pension plan were earned prior to his marriage to the plaintiff. Therefore, the marital portion of his pension is 32%. During the marriage defendant's income went into a joint checking account used to pay bills of the marriage. Plaintiffs income was used to purchase food, etc. She also tried, unsuccessfully,


Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman

401(k): property is $116,000.00. (Plaintiff's Exhibit A). According to defendant's expert the property had a market of value of $119,000 in 1990 and a present market value of $113,000. (Defendant's Exhibit 1.) According to her financial affidavit, plaintiff has a 401K from Better Val-U with a present value of $2,830.12. The defendant has savings of $131, savings bonds of $4,000 and a defined pension plan. Seventeen years of defendant's defined pension plan were earned prior to his marriage to the plaintiff. Therefore, the marital portion of his pension is 32%. During the marriage defendant's income went into a joint


Mary Ann Chapman v. Peter J. Chapman

valuation/division: rom Better Val-U with a present value of $2,830.12. The defendant has savings of $131, savings bonds of $4,000 and a defined pension plan. Seventeen years of defendant's defined pension plan were earned prior to his marriage to the plaintiff. Therefore, the marital portion of his pension is 32%. During the marriage defendant's income went into a joint checking account used to pay bills of the marriage. Plaintiffs income was used to purchase food, etc. She also tried, unsuccessfully, to operate a business known as Primerica Financial Services. As indicated above, the Court finds that the parties were equally at fault for t


Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien

Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien Date: 1996-12-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien 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.


Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien

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.


Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien

QDRO: e UTC pension. 5. The sum of sixty thousand dollars shall be assigned to the defendant from the plaintiff s Aetna ISP account together with all interest accrued form the date of judgment to the date of distribution. The court retains jurisdiction to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this transfer. 6. The defendant is awarded his savings plan and credit union accounts. 7. The plaintiff shall retain her Shawmut accounts, Aetna stocks, credit union account, certificates of deposit and her interest in real estate located in Pittsburgh 8. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant by way of property settlement $20,000.00 n


Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien

pension: e property and deliver it to the plaintiff within two weeks. The plaintiff shall be responsible for and shall hold the defendant harmless on the first and second mortgages and on all other costs associated with the home 2. The plaintiff is awarded the AETNA pension. 3. The plaintiff is awarded the Veteran's Administration pension. 4. The defendant is awarded the UTC pension. 5. The sum of sixty thousand dollars shall be assigned to the defendant from the plaintiff s Aetna ISP account together with all interest accrued form the date of judgment to the date of distribution. The court retains jurisdiction to enter


Mary Ann O'Brien v. Terrence J. O'Brien

domestic relations order: ion. 5. The sum of sixty thousand dollars shall be assigned to the defendant from the plaintiff s Aetna ISP account together with all interest accrued form the date of judgment to the date of distribution. The court retains jurisdiction to enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this transfer. 6. The defendant is awarded his savings plan and credit union accounts. 7. The plaintiff shall retain her Shawmut accounts, Aetna stocks, credit union account, certificates of deposit and her interest in real estate located in Pittsburgh 8. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant by way of property settlement $20,000.00 n


Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti

Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti Date: 1994-01-31. Machine-draft public headnote: Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti 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.


Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti


Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti

QDRO: ant shall be entitled to claim as deductions on his income tax return, the interest, taxes, insurance paid in connection with this condominium. F. Pension 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's 401(k) benefits/Pension from MK Labs. A QDRO shall be executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said Plan. The plaintiff shall be entitled to survivors benefits and shall continue to be the survivor beneficiary on said plan. The court shall retain jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of the preparation of the QDRO. G. Alimony 1. Commencing February 1, 1994 the defendant shall pay to


Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti

pension: efendant shall reimburse the plaintiff from his net proceeds from the sale of the marital home. 4. The defendant shall be entitled to claim as deductions on his income tax return, the interest, taxes, insurance paid in connection with this condominium. F. Pension 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's 401(k) benefits/Pension from MK Labs. A QDRO shall be executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said Plan. The plaintiff shall be entitled to survivors benefits and shall continue to be the survivor beneficiary on said plan. The court shall retain jurisdiction over any disputes arising


Mary Bocialetti v. Frank Bocialetti

401(k): ale of the marital home. 4. The defendant shall be entitled to claim as deductions on his income tax return, the interest, taxes, insurance paid in connection with this condominium. F. Pension 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's 401(k) benefits/Pension from MK Labs. A QDRO shall be executed to secure the plaintiff's 50% interest in said Plan. The plaintiff shall be entitled to survivors benefits and shall continue to be the survivor beneficiary on said plan. The court shall retain jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of the preparation of the QDRO. G. Alimony 1. Commencing Febru


Mary Hickenbottom v. Joseph Hickenbottom. Date: 2001-08-01. Machine-draft public headnote: Mary Hickenbottom v. Joseph Hickenbottom. 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.


QDRO: ty Division 1 . The parties shall equally divide the following assets: a. The escrow balance held by Lawrence Paine, Esq. b. The defendant's Malt Products Profit Sharing Fund valued as of the date of distribution, including accrued interest, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. c. The defendant's Nabisco Pension Plan payable at the rate of $100 to $200 per month upon the defendant's retirement by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any issues relating to the implementations of the orders entered under this paragraph and paragraph b. immediately above. The parties shall sha


pension: assets: a. The escrow balance held by Lawrence Paine, Esq. b. The defendant's Malt Products Profit Sharing Fund valued as of the date of distribution, including accrued interest, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. c. The defendant's Nabisco Pension Plan payable at the rate of $100 to $200 per month upon the defendant's retirement by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any issues relating to the implementations of the orders entered under this paragraph and paragraph b. immediately above. The parties shall share equally the fees incurred to prepar


domestic relations order: n 1 . The parties shall equally divide the following assets: a. The escrow balance held by Lawrence Paine, Esq. b. The defendant's Malt Products Profit Sharing Fund valued as of the date of distribution, including accrued interest, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. c. The defendant's Nabisco Pension Plan payable at the rate of $100 to $200 per month upon the defendant's retirement by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any issues relating to the implementations of the orders entered under this paragraph and paragraph b. immediately above. The parties shall sha


valuation/division: hall continue until the death of the plaintiff, her remarriage or her cohabitation as provided in General Statutes Section 46b-86 (b), whichever event first occurs. The defendant shall pay the pendente lite alimony award for the month of August, 2001. II. Property Division 1 . The parties shall equally divide the following assets: a. The escrow balance held by Lawrence Paine, Esq. b. The defendant's Malt Products Profit Sharing Fund valued as of the date of distribution, including accrued interest, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. c. The defendant's Nabisco Pension Plan payable at the rate of $100 to $2


Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser

Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser Date: 1996-04-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser 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.


Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser


Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser

QDRO: laintiff became employed shortly after the dissolution and has been steadily employed since then. She earns $552.30 weekly gross and net of $380.63. In addition to this earned income, she receives a pension of $250 from Southern Connecticut Gas derived from a Qualified Domestic Relations order granted by the court when the marriage was dissolved. If the $50 weekly alimony is factored into the income, her weekly net is about $625.19. Her total weekly expenses are $270.79. Plaintiff's financial affidavit shows assets of about $70,000 including a one-half interest in a home. Plaintiff is social security eligible both by virtue of her employment and


Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser

pension: dy of seven children, three of whom were minors at the time of the dissolution. The defendant retired as of January 1, 1996 at age 64. His financial affidavit indicates that he receives a social security benefit of $265 weekly, plus a Southern Connecticut Gas pension of $269.25 weekly. Against a total weekly income of $491.62 per week, he has listed expenses of $448.82. Defendant has remarried. His present wife is unemployed. Factoring in the $50 per week alimony gives him a small shortfall. Defendant has significant assets, a mortgage-free home valued at $160,000 and other assets totalling $265,000. These assets at pre


Mary R. Kaiser v. John Kaiser

domestic relations order: ecame employed shortly after the dissolution and has been steadily employed since then. She earns $552.30 weekly gross and net of $380.63. In addition to this earned income, she receives a pension of $250 from Southern Connecticut Gas derived from a Qualified Domestic Relations order granted by the court when the marriage was dissolved. If the $50 weekly alimony is factored into the income, her weekly net is about $625.19. Her total weekly expenses are $270.79. Plaintiff's financial affidavit shows assets of about $70,000 including a one-half interest in a home. Plaintiff is social security eligible both by virtue of her employment and


Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox

Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox Date: 1998-11-03. Machine-draft public headnote: Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox 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.


Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox

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.


Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox

QDRO: y and hold the plaintiff harmless in connection therewith. Concurrent with said transfer, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 as her CT Page 12498 allocated share of equity of the said premises. The court orders the execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in which $30,000.00 of the 401 k plan of the defendant be set over and assigned to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. Of the approximate $24,000.00 in credit card debt standing in the plaintiff's name, the defendant is ordered to pay to her one-third of said sum or $8,000.00, payable at the time of transfer of the real estate. The defendant shall pay


Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox

pension: court concludes from this and other evidence that the defendants actions are the substantial cause of the breakdown of the marriage. The plaintiff has returned to gainful employment as indicated on her financial affidavit, but over the years has acquired no pension plan or other retirement asset as a consequence of her being at home to care for the children. The earning capacity of the defendant remains superior to that of the plaintiff and it is anticipated that this will remain the situation in the years to come. All the right, title and interest into the residential premises of the parties in Deep River, Connecti


Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox

401(k): current with said transfer, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 as her CT Page 12498 allocated share of equity of the said premises. The court orders the execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in which $30,000.00 of the 401 k plan of the defendant be set over and assigned to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. Of the approximate $24,000.00 in credit card debt standing in the plaintiff's name, the defendant is ordered to pay to her one-third of said sum or $8,000.00, payable at the time of transfer of the real estate. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $100.


Maryann Fox v. Larry Craig Fox

domestic relations order: the plaintiff harmless in connection therewith. Concurrent with said transfer, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 as her CT Page 12498 allocated share of equity of the said premises. The court orders the execution of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in which $30,000.00 of the 401 k plan of the defendant be set over and assigned to the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. Of the approximate $24,000.00 in credit card debt standing in the plaintiff's name, the defendant is ordered to pay to her one-third of said sum or $8,000.00, payable at the time of transfer of the real estate. The defendant shall pay


Maryann King v. William L. King, Jr.

Maryann King v. William L. King, Jr. Date: 1995-06-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Maryann King v. William L. King, Jr. 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.


Maryann King v. William L. King, Jr.

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.


Maryann King v. William L. King, Jr.

QDRO: with all necessary documents to enable her to apply for COBRA benefits at her own expense. 3. It is the intention of the court that the parties' IRA's CT Page 6818 be equalized, and the court therefore orders the husband to transfer to the wife, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the sum of $19,000. It is anticipated by the court that this is to be a tax free transfer. 4. Each of the parties, except as otherwise ordered by the court, shall pay his or her own liabilities. The husband is specifically ordered to pay in full whatever real estate taxes are due the States of Connecticut and New York relative to the Sherman/New York pro


Maryann King v. William L. King, Jr.

domestic relations order: ecessary documents to enable her to apply for COBRA benefits at her own expense. 3. It is the intention of the court that the parties' IRA's CT Page 6818 be equalized, and the court therefore orders the husband to transfer to the wife, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the sum of $19,000. It is anticipated by the court that this is to be a tax free transfer. 4. Each of the parties, except as otherwise ordered by the court, shall pay his or her own liabilities. The husband is specifically ordered to pay in full whatever real estate taxes are due the States of Connecticut and New York relative to the Sherman/New York pro


Maureen J. Khan-Lacoss v. David B. Lacoss Date: 1998-10-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Maureen J. Khan-Lacoss v. David B. Lacoss 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.


QDRO: gure obtained by dividing the number of years during the marriage that the Defendant accumulated pension benefits by the total number of years in which the Defendant accumulated such benefits during his employment at Electric Boat. The parties shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for such payment and submit it to the Court for review and entry. SSIP, 401k: The Plaintiff shall be entitled to receive 50 percent of the value of the Defendant's SSIP and the Defendant's 401k plan, both to be valued as of the date of the parties' dissolution. Debts The Plaintiff shall be responsible for the debts listed on her financial affidavit and


pension: laintiff shall retain all right, title and interest in and to the 1990 Caravan motor vehicle. The Defendant shall retain all right title and interest in and to the 1985 Dodge Ram and the 1985 Reliant motor vehicle. Defendant may retain all of his tools. Pension Benefits CT Page 11399 The Plaintiff shall be entitled to a portion of the Defendant's monthly retirement payment earned through his employment at Electric Boat as follows: the Plaintiff's portion shall be one-half of the figure obtained by dividing the number of years during the marriage that the Defendant accumulated pension benefits by the total number


401(k): fits by the total number of years in which the Defendant accumulated such benefits during his employment at Electric Boat. The parties shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for such payment and submit it to the Court for review and entry. SSIP, 401k: The Plaintiff shall be entitled to receive 50 percent of the value of the Defendant's SSIP and the Defendant's 401k plan, both to be valued as of the date of the parties' dissolution. Debts The Plaintiff shall be responsible for the debts listed on her financial affidavit and the Defendant shall be responsible for the debts shown on his affidavit. The


domestic relations order: ned by dividing the number of years during the marriage that the Defendant accumulated pension benefits by the total number of years in which the Defendant accumulated such benefits during his employment at Electric Boat. The parties shall prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for such payment and submit it to the Court for review and entry. SSIP, 401k: The Plaintiff shall be entitled to receive 50 percent of the value of the Defendant's SSIP and the Defendant's 401k plan, both to be valued as of the date of the parties' dissolution. Debts The Plaintiff shall be responsible for the debts listed on her financial affidavit and


Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile.

Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Date: 2000-08-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile. 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.


Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile.


Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile.

pension: tely $8000 gambling in 1999. His gambling has continued throughout the years he has been married to the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have had to make sacrifices due to his gambling. The defendant presently receives $669.56 weekly from his pension benefits. He has a deduction for withholding tax of $87.46 and health insurance for 40 cents. He has liabilities consisting of Capital One with a balance due of $2153, City Bank with a balance due of $10,811.20, and Peoples Bank with a balance due of $2306.38. He owns a 1979 Cadillac with a value of $600, and furniture and clothing with a value of $1000.


Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile.

domestic relations order: sold, the defendant is first to receive $1800 to reimburse him for the cost of tests that he had done on the property. All remaining sums from the sale of the property are to be divided equally between the parties. 10. The court awards to the plaintiff, by Domestic Relations Order, 50 percent of the gross amounts that the defendant is entitled to receive from his pension plan through the New York City Employees' Retirement System. Until such time as the Domestic Relations Order is paying to the plaintiff the one-half amount ordered, the defendant is to pay such one-half directly to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is responsible for prep


Maureen Mormile v. Vincent Mormile.

valuation/division: The $10,600 that he has in the Washington Mutual account is from that loan. This court has considered the provisions of § 46b-82 regarding the CT Page 9819 issue of alimony, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters the following orders: ORDERS A. BY WAY OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE 1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved, and each party is declared to be single and unmarried. B. BY WAY OF ALIMONY 1. No periodic or lump sum alimony is awarded in f


Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski

Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski Date: 1999-12-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski 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.


Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski

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.


Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski

QDRO: h the children. Each shall notify the other of the weeks they prefer by May 15 of each year. Parties will notify each other where they will be and provide a telephone number where the other parent may reach the children. The plaintiff is awarded by way of a qualified domestic relations order the sum of one-half of the defendant's pension plan as of the date of this decision. The court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate such order. Defendant is awarded the real property located at 33 Avalon Avenue, Oakville, Connecticut, free and clear of any and all claim of the plaintiff. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless for any mortgage


Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski

pension: y 15 of each year. Parties will notify each other where they will be and provide a telephone number where the other parent may reach the children. The plaintiff is awarded by way of a qualified domestic relations order the sum of one-half of the defendant's pension plan as of the date of this decision. The court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate such order. Defendant is awarded the real property located at 33 Avalon Avenue, Oakville, Connecticut, free and clear of any and all claim of the plaintiff. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless for any mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and any and all expe


Melissa Koskelowski v. John Koskelowski

domestic relations order: dren. Each shall notify the other of the weeks they prefer by May 15 of each year. Parties will notify each other where they will be and provide a telephone number where the other parent may reach the children. The plaintiff is awarded by way of a qualified domestic relations order the sum of one-half of the defendant's pension plan as of the date of this decision. The court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate such order. Defendant is awarded the real property located at 33 Avalon Avenue, Oakville, Connecticut, free and clear of any and all claim of the plaintiff. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless for any mortgage


Mertz v. Mertz

Mertz v. Mertz Citation: 2015 ND 13. Extracted reporter citation: 2015 ND 13. Docket: 20140072. Date: 2015-01-15. Machine-draft public headnote: Mertz v. Mertz 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.


Mertz v. Mertz

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


Mertz v. Mertz

retirement benefits: t's valuation of $165,000 is within the range of the evidence presented. The district court's valuation of the marital estate is not clearly erroneous. [¶21] Mervyn Mertz argues the district court erred in its distribution of his Iron Worker's Annuity. "Retirement benefits are marital property that must be included in the marital estate and are subject to equitable distribution." Lorenz , 2007 ND 49, ¶ 19, 729 N.W.2d 692. During closing arguments, the district court specifically asked Mervyn Mertz's attorney how to distribute the annuity. Mervyn Mertz's counsel responded: "The date of the marriage, Your Honor, versus


Mertz v. Mertz

valuation/division: oceedings. V [¶14] Mervyn Mertz argues the district court's division of marital property and debts is clearly erroneous. He argues the district court failed to assign reasonable values to the property and debts of the parties, resulting in a grossly inequitable distribution in Darlene Mertz's favor. Darlene Mertz argues the distribution was equitable. Section 14-05-24(1), N.D.C.C., requires the court to make "an equitable distribution of the property and debts of the parties." "The ultimate objective is to make an equitable division of the property. There are no set rules for the distribution of the martial estate and what


Michael D'Agostino v. Jan Wise.

Michael D'Agostino v. Jan Wise. Date: 2001-06-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Michael D'Agostino v. Jan Wise. 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.


Michael D'Agostino v. Jan Wise.


Michael D'Agostino v. Jan Wise.

QDRO: bank accounts shown on his financial affidavit. 12. The defendant has a pension plan from her prior employment at Centerbank. That pension plan is ordered divided equally between the parties with counsel for the plaintiff being responsible for preparing the QDRO. The court retains jurisdiction over any disputes that may arise involving the language of the QDRO. 13. Paragraph 4 of the stipulation dated April 24, 2001, provides that each shall retain sole title to their respective motor vehicles as shown on their financial affidavit and paragraph 5 of the stipulation provides that the defendant shall retain her Ame


Michael D'Agostino v. Jan Wise.

pension: s loan receivable from Mark Forino are all awarded to the plaintiff. 11. The plaintiff's interest in his American Express Trust Company IRA is awarded to the plaintiff, as well as all bank accounts shown on his financial affidavit. 12. The defendant has a pension plan from her prior employment at Centerbank. That pension plan is ordered divided equally between the parties with counsel for the plaintiff being responsible for preparing the QDRO. The court retains jurisdiction over any disputes that may arise involving the language of the QDRO. 13. Paragraph 4 of the stipulation dated April 24, 2001, provides that ea


Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt

Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt Date: 1995-12-08. Machine-draft public headnote: Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt 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.


Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt


Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt

QDRO: me is hereby dissolved. The court has considered all the statutory criteria contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. Secs. 46b-81 and 46b-82 and enters the following orders: 1. The plaintiff shall transfer one-half of his 401K account to the defendant, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. 2. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant as alimony $250 per week for a period of 30 months. This order is non-modifiable as to term and duration. This order is subject to immediate wage withholding. 3. As additional alimony, the defendant shall be maintained on the medical insurance available thro


Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt

401(k): ties has broken down irretrievably and the same is hereby dissolved. The court has considered all the statutory criteria contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. Secs. 46b-81 and 46b-82 and enters the following orders: 1. The plaintiff shall transfer one-half of his 401K account to the defendant, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. 2. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant as alimony $250 per week for a period of 30 months. This order is non-modifiable as to term and duration. This order is subject to immediate wage withholding. 3. As additional alimony


Michael L. Gehrt v. Tammy L. Gehrt

domestic relations order: by dissolved. The court has considered all the statutory criteria contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. Secs. 46b-81 and 46b-82 and enters the following orders: 1. The plaintiff shall transfer one-half of his 401K account to the defendant, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. 2. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant as alimony $250 per week for a period of 30 months. This order is non-modifiable as to term and duration. This order is subject to immediate wage withholding. 3. As additional alimony, the defendant shall be maintained on the medical insurance available thro