CourtListener opinion 3707131

CourtListener opinion 3707131 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3707131 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3707131

QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 3707131

QDRO: e parties entered into an agreement under which defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $55,000 in back child support. The parties also agreed to submit to a magistrate the remaining issues of interest, life insurance, contempt, attorney fees, and the issuance of a qualified domestic relations order (\QDRO\"). As pertinent to defendant's appeal


CourtListener opinion 3707131

domestic relations order: entered into an agreement under which defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $55,000 in back child support. The parties also agreed to submit to a magistrate the remaining issues of interest, life insurance, contempt, attorney fees, and the issuance of a qualified domestic relations order (\QDRO\"). As pertinent to defendant's appeal


CourtListener opinion 3707252

CourtListener opinion 3707252 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3707252 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3707252

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


CourtListener opinion 3707252

QDRO: vision. The parties were divorced by virtue of a Final Agreed Judgment Entry and Decree of Divorce, filed May 23, 1994, and amended June 9, 1994. The divorce decree provided for the division of appellant's retirement benefits between the parties pursuant to a QDRO plan and separate entry filed subsequent to the filing of the decree. On May 26, 1995, a QDRO was prepared and filed with the court. Paragraph 8 of the QDRO, addressing the retirement benefits, states: Payments shall continue to Former Spouse for the remainder of Employee's lifetime, however, should Former Spouse remarry or predecease the Employee, then s


CourtListener opinion 3707252

retirement benefits: um County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. The parties were divorced by virtue of a Final Agreed Judgment Entry and Decree of Divorce, filed May 23, 1994, and amended June 9, 1994. The divorce decree provided for the division of appellant's retirement benefits between the parties pursuant to a QDRO plan and separate entry filed subsequent to the filing of the decree. On May 26, 1995, a QDRO was prepared and filed with the court. Paragraph 8 of the QDRO, addressing the retirement benefits, states: Payments shall continue to Former Spouse for the remainder of Employee's lifetime, however, should Former Spouse re


CourtListener opinion 3707252

domestic relations order: 1996, appellant retired. Appellee remarried on October 18, 1996. Thereafter, appellant notified appellee her portion of the retirement benefits would not be disbursed because of her remarriage. On November 27, 1996, appellee filed a Motion to Amend Qualified Domestic Relations Order requesting the trial court modify the QDRO on the basis the sentence, \should Former Spouse remarry


CourtListener opinion 3709220

CourtListener opinion 3709220 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3709220 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3709220


CourtListener opinion 3709220

QDRO: urt.] OPINION Defendant-appellant Jack Emerson appeals from an order of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, overruling his objections to, and adopting, a magistrate's decision. In her decision, the magistrate refused to substitute Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's) prepared by Mr. Emerson's attorney for QDRO's prepared by Mrs. Emerson's counsel, on the basis that the documents were substantially the same. Mr. Emerson contends that the magistrate's decision was incorrect, and that the trial court erred by adopting it. Mr. Emerson also contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider evidence proffer


CourtListener opinion 3709220

retirement benefits: ties. The portion of the Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce relevant to this appeal provides as follows: 9. RETIREMENT. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue to the Plan Administrator at Wright Patt Credit Union * * * for the Plaintiff's retirement plan, Wright Patt Credit Union, Inc. Employee Defined Pension Plan. The formula that shall be utilized in said QDRO shall be as follows: The Defendant shall receive a one-half (~) share of the pension plan as of the date of November 12, 1993. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue to the Plan Administrator, * * * for the Defendant's Civil Serv


CourtListener opinion 3709220

pension: ate nor germane to the magistrate's decision. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed . I Jack and Linda Emerson were divorced on January 18, 1994. A final judgment and decree of divorce was entered which, among other things, divided the pension plans of both parties. The portion of the Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce relevant to this appeal provides as follows: 9. RETIREMENT. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue to the Plan Administrator at Wright Patt Credit Union * * * for the Plaintiff's retirement plan, Wright Patt Credit Union, Inc. Employee Defined Pension Plan. The


CourtListener opinion 3709220

domestic relations order: ION Defendant-appellant Jack Emerson appeals from an order of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, overruling his objections to, and adopting, a magistrate's decision. In her decision, the magistrate refused to substitute Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's) prepared by Mr. Emerson's attorney for QDRO's prepared by Mrs. Emerson's counsel, on the basis that the documents were substantially the same. Mr. Emerson contends that the magistrate's decision was incorrect, and that the trial court erred by adopting it. Mr. Emerson also contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider evidence proffer


CourtListener opinion 3712310

CourtListener opinion 3712310 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3712310 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3712310


CourtListener opinion 3712310

QDRO: bank account that was co-mingled beyond recognition with martial funds. {¶ 5} Finally, the court determined that appellee's 401K plan was marital property, except for the portion earned after March 2, 2002. Accordingly, the court awarded appellant, by QDRO, one-half of the marital portion of the 401K. {¶ 6} Appellant filed her timely notice of appeal on August 4, 2003. {¶ 7} Appellant raises two assignments of error, the first of which states: {¶ 8} \The trial court committed reversible error in making a division of property which was not equitable


CourtListener opinion 3712310

pension: 00. In total, the court found that approximately $9,400.00 worth of improvements occurred within the marital home during the term of the marriage. The court, however, did not order any reimbursement to appellee. {¶ 4} The court also examined appellee's pension. It determined that the pension would yield a monthly benefit substantially less than appellee's current wage. The court also noted that, because the pension is taxable, it would be reduced even further. The court then took into consideration the disparity of income between the two parties. Specifically, it noted that appellant's yearly income from disabili


CourtListener opinion 3712310

401(k): d to distribute any portion of appellee's pension. In support of its decision, the court also made mention of appellant's $9,000 bank account that was co-mingled beyond recognition with martial funds. {¶ 5} Finally, the court determined that appellee's 401K plan was marital property, except for the portion earned after March 2, 2002. Accordingly, the court awarded appellant, by QDRO, one-half of the marital portion of the 401K. {¶ 6} Appellant filed her timely notice of appeal on August 4, 2003. {¶ 7} Appellant raises two assignments of error, the first of which states: {¶ 8} \The trial co


CourtListener opinion 3712310

valuation/division: co-mingled beyond recognition with martial funds. {¶ 5} Finally, the court determined that appellee's 401K plan was marital property, except for the portion earned after March 2, 2002. Accordingly, the court awarded appellant, by QDRO, one-half of the marital portion of the 401K. {¶ 6} Appellant filed her timely notice of appeal on August 4, 2003. {¶ 7} Appellant raises two assignments of error, the first of which states: {¶ 8} \The trial court committed reversible error in making a division of property which was not equitable


CourtListener opinion 3713457

CourtListener opinion 3713457 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3713457 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3713457

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 3713457

opening text: {¶ 1} Although I agree with much of the majority's rationale and its ultimate resolution of the case, I cannot agree at this time with ¶ 27 and 28 of its opinion. The majority gives three reasons for overruling Appellant's first assignment of error. In the first of those reasons, the majority concludes that the separation agreement would be an illegal contract if it required the parties to go to mediation before taking any legal action. According to the majority, any such provision would conflict with R.C. 3105.65 (B), which grants courts continuing jurisdiction over issues regarding parental rights and responsibilities. In making this novel conclusion, the majority ignores the fac


CourtListener opinion 3715373

CourtListener opinion 3715373 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3715373 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3715373

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


CourtListener opinion 3715373

QDRO: , the trial court journalized a judgment entry of divorce which provided that: (1) the appellee be granted a divorce from the appellant; (2) the voluntary distribution of tangible personal assets be incorporated into the judgment entry of divorce; (3) a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be drafted to reflect a one-half division of the TESPHE and TRASOP accounts, and the Ford Motor Co.U.A.W. Retirement Pension Plan between the appellant and the appellee; (4) the proceeds of the sale of the marital home be equally divided between the appellant and the appellee; (5) the Ford Money Market Fund be equally divided between the appellant and t


CourtListener opinion 3715373

pension: untary distribution of tangible personal assets be incorporated into the judgment entry of divorce; (3) a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be drafted to reflect a one-half division of the TESPHE and TRASOP accounts, and the Ford Motor Co.U.A.W. Retirement Pension Plan between the appellant and the appellee; (4) the proceeds of the sale of the marital home be equally divided between the appellant and the appellee; (5) the Ford Money Market Fund be equally divided between the appellant and the appellee; (6) the 1973 Gulfstar Trawler be sold and all net profits be equally divided between the appellant and appelle


CourtListener opinion 3715373

domestic relations order: l court journalized a judgment entry of divorce which provided that: (1) the appellee be granted a divorce from the appellant; (2) the voluntary distribution of tangible personal assets be incorporated into the judgment entry of divorce; (3) a Qualified Domestic Relations Order be drafted to reflect a one-half division of the TESPHE and TRASOP accounts, and the Ford Motor Co.U.A.W. Retirement Pension Plan between the appellant and the appellee; (4) the proceeds of the sale of the marital home be equally divided between the appellant and the appellee; (5) the Ford Money Market Fund be equally divided between the appellant and t


CourtListener opinion 3717862

CourtListener opinion 3717862 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3717862 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3717862


CourtListener opinion 3717862

QDRO: ad been granted to Sharon, the trial court ordered Sharon to pay Harry $222.05 per month for ten years. In addition, the trial court found that Harry's pension plan was to be divided equally between Sharon and Harry. Such award was defined and documented by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or QDRO. Finally, the trial court ordered that Harry pay spousal support to Sharon in the amount of $460.00 per week for a term of eight years. More than one year after the divorce, Harry retired from Ford Motor Company after serving the company for at least thirty years. After retiring Harry moved to Bradenton, Florida, where he currently lives. While in


CourtListener opinion 3717862

pension: d the marital home coupled with the outstanding mortgages to Sharon. To offset the equity in the home that had been granted to Sharon, the trial court ordered Sharon to pay Harry $222.05 per month for ten years. In addition, the trial court found that Harry's pension plan was to be divided equally between Sharon and Harry. Such award was defined and documented by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or QDRO. Finally, the trial court ordered that Harry pay spousal support to Sharon in the amount of $460.00 per week for a term of eight years. More than one year after the divorce, Harry retired from Ford Motor Company af


CourtListener opinion 3717862

domestic relations order: anted to Sharon, the trial court ordered Sharon to pay Harry $222.05 per month for ten years. In addition, the trial court found that Harry's pension plan was to be divided equally between Sharon and Harry. Such award was defined and documented by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or QDRO. Finally, the trial court ordered that Harry pay spousal support to Sharon in the amount of $460.00 per week for a term of eight years. More than one year after the divorce, Harry retired from Ford Motor Company after serving the company for at least thirty years. After retiring Harry moved to Bradenton, Florida, where he currently lives. While in


CourtListener opinion 3717864

CourtListener opinion 3717864 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3717864 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3717864


CourtListener opinion 3717864

QDRO: OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jerome Kingery, appeals the December 28, 2004 judgment of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas and the accompanying Second Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In its judgment entry, the trial court granted plaintiff-appellee, Jacqueline Kingery's, Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order and ordered that plaintiff be entitled to share equally in defendant's pension benefits. {¶ 2} The parties were married on July 1, 1978. The marriage was terminated following a h


CourtListener opinion 3717864

retirement benefits: , July 1 st , 1978, to the date of the Divorce hearing, March 14, 2000. [Jacqueline] shall not share in any early retirement subsidies of supplements, which might be otherwise payable to [Jerome]. * * * For purposes of calculating [Jacqueline's portion of the retirement benefits], the Plan Administrator is instructed to use, if applicable, [Jerome's] average compensation and/or the benefit multiplier in effect under the plan as of [Jacqueline's] benefit commencement date. {¶ 3} Jerome retired from his job at International Truck and Engine Corporation on February 1, 2004. He opted for early retirement under a \window program


CourtListener opinion 3717864

pension: elations Order (QDRO). In its judgment entry, the trial court granted plaintiff-appellee, Jacqueline Kingery's, Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order and ordered that plaintiff be entitled to share equally in defendant's pension benefits. {¶ 2} The parties were married on July 1, 1978. The marriage was terminated following a hearing on March 14, 2000, and the trial court filed a judgment entry and Decree of Divorce on April 26, 2000. The divorce decree provides as follows: 13. The Defendant, Jerome Kingery is the owner of a pension plan at International Harvester. The Plai


CourtListener opinion 3717864

domestic relations order: OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jerome Kingery, appeals the December 28, 2004 judgment of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas and the accompanying Second Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In its judgment entry, the trial court granted plaintiff-appellee, Jacqueline Kingery's, Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order and ordered that plaintiff be entitled to share equally in defendant's pension benefits. {¶ 2} The parties were married on July 1, 1978. The marriage was terminated following a h


CourtListener opinion 3720555

CourtListener opinion 3720555 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3720555 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3720555


CourtListener opinion 3720555

QDRO: n would reside with Raymond, while Stacy would receive parenting time and pay child support, effective October 2003. Raymond continued to pay support to Stacy. {¶ 5} The trial court journalized the divorce decree on February 2, 2004, and the associated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on May 5, 2004. Raymond timely appealed, asserting six assignments of error for review. II. A. First Assignment of Error \The trial court erred when it failed to include appellant's spousal support payments as income to appellee and failed to deduct said payments from the income of appellant for the purpose of calculating appellee's child support


CourtListener opinion 3720555

retirement benefits: ymond's property was used as down payment on the marital residence, purchased on November 18, 1993. Prior to and throughout the marriage, Raymond was employed as a pharmacist, which paid him a salary of $89,700 at the time of the divorce and included a 401(k) retirement plan. Stacy had worked a variety of jobs and was most recently employed as a waitress, which paid her a 2002 income of $10,953. At the time of the divorce, Stacy was attending court reporting school, which provided no income. {¶ 3} In March 2002, Stacy took the children, left the home and filed a complaint for divorce, including a motion for spousal and c


CourtListener opinion 3720555

401(k): n of Raymond's property was used as down payment on the marital residence, purchased on November 18, 1993. Prior to and throughout the marriage, Raymond was employed as a pharmacist, which paid him a salary of $89,700 at the time of the divorce and included a 401(k) retirement plan. Stacy had worked a variety of jobs and was most recently employed as a waitress, which paid her a 2002 income of $10,953. At the time of the divorce, Stacy was attending court reporting school, which provided no income. {¶ 3} In March 2002, Stacy took the children, left the home and filed a complaint for divorce, including a motion f


CourtListener opinion 3720555

domestic relations order: side with Raymond, while Stacy would receive parenting time and pay child support, effective October 2003. Raymond continued to pay support to Stacy. {¶ 5} The trial court journalized the divorce decree on February 2, 2004, and the associated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on May 5, 2004. Raymond timely appealed, asserting six assignments of error for review. II. A. First Assignment of Error \The trial court erred when it failed to include appellant's spousal support payments as income to appellee and failed to deduct said payments from the income of appellant for the purpose of calculating appellee's child support


CourtListener opinion 3724526

CourtListener opinion 3724526 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3724526 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3724526

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


CourtListener opinion 3724526

QDRO: {¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority. {¶ 25} By her decision filed October 18, 2004, the magistrate determined that Mr. Dinunzio's pension should be divided equally between the parties, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The magistrate further determined that, in order to equalize the parties' income, Ms. Dinunzio should receive one-half of the difference between her Social Security payments, and Mr. Dinunzio's Social Security disability payments. The magistrate determined that Ms. Dinunzio received $ 620 per month from Social Security; Mr. Dinunzio $ 1,262 per month. The


CourtListener opinion 3724526

pension: {¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority. {¶ 25} By her decision filed October 18, 2004, the magistrate determined that Mr. Dinunzio's pension should be divided equally between the parties, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The magistrate further determined that, in order to equalize the parties' income, Ms. Dinunzio should receive one-half of the difference between her Social Security payments, and Mr. Dinunzio's Social Security disability payments. The magistrate determined that Ms. Dinunz


CourtListener opinion 3724526

domestic relations order: {¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority. {¶ 25} By her decision filed October 18, 2004, the magistrate determined that Mr. Dinunzio's pension should be divided equally between the parties, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The magistrate further determined that, in order to equalize the parties' income, Ms. Dinunzio should receive one-half of the difference between her Social Security payments, and Mr. Dinunzio's Social Security disability payments. The magistrate determined that Ms. Dinunzio received $ 620 per month from Social Security; Mr. Dinunzio $ 1,262 per month. The


CourtListener opinion 3725659

CourtListener opinion 3725659 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3725659 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3725659


CourtListener opinion 3725659

QDRO: DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY {¶ 1} This is an appeal from an order of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, approving a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. {¶ 2} When appellant, Robert Huckle, and appellee, Shirley Huckle, were divorced in 1985, the court ordered appellant's employer to pay $224.50 per month, \* * * at such time as the [appellant] begins to collect any pension benefits or other similar benefits or benefits paid to him in lieu of pension benefits by his employer. This order shall be dee


CourtListener opinion 3725659

pension: Qualified Domestic Relations Order. {¶ 2} When appellant, Robert Huckle, and appellee, Shirley Huckle, were divorced in 1985, the court ordered appellant's employer to pay $224.50 per month, \* * * at such time as the [appellant] begins to collect any pension benefits or other similar benefits or benefits paid to him in lieu of pension benefits by his employer. This order shall be deemed to be a qualifying order in regard to the [appellant] Robert J. Huckle's pension. This Court specifically reserves the jurisdiction and right to enter any further orders that may be necessary from time to time in the future in o


CourtListener opinion 3725659

domestic relations order: DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY {¶ 1} This is an appeal from an order of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, approving a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. {¶ 2} When appellant, Robert Huckle, and appellee, Shirley Huckle, were divorced in 1985, the court ordered appellant's employer to pay $224.50 per month, \* * * at such time as the [appellant] begins to collect any pension benefits or other similar benefits or benefits paid to him in lieu of pension benefits by his employer. This order shall be dee


CourtListener opinion 3727525

CourtListener opinion 3727525 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3727525 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3727525


CourtListener opinion 3727525

QDRO: or divorce from appellant, Patrick Calloway. Appellant never responded and appellee was granted a divorce on June 6, 1997. The divorce decree awarded appellee one-half of appellant's pension and 401(k) accounts. On June 2, 2000, appellee sought and received a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding said accounts. {¶ 2} On February 28, 2001, appellant filed a complaint against appellee alleging breach of contract and fraud. Said action stemmed from a prenuptial agreement signed by the parties wherein in the event of a divorce, appellee would not be entitled to any portion of appellant's pension or 401(k) accounts. Following dismissal o


CourtListener opinion 3727525

pension: 182; 1} On February 28, 1997, appellee, Cynthia Calloway, filed a complaint for divorce from appellant, Patrick Calloway. Appellant never responded and appellee was granted a divorce on June 6, 1997. The divorce decree awarded appellee one-half of appellant's pension and 401(k) accounts. On June 2, 2000, appellee sought and received a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding said accounts. {¶ 2} On February 28, 2001, appellant filed a complaint against appellee alleging breach of contract and fraud. Said action stemmed from a prenuptial agreement signed by the parties wherein in the event of a divorce, appell


CourtListener opinion 3727525

401(k): ebruary 28, 1997, appellee, Cynthia Calloway, filed a complaint for divorce from appellant, Patrick Calloway. Appellant never responded and appellee was granted a divorce on June 6, 1997. The divorce decree awarded appellee one-half of appellant's pension and 401(k) accounts. On June 2, 2000, appellee sought and received a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding said accounts. {¶ 2} On February 28, 2001, appellant filed a complaint against appellee alleging breach of contract and fraud. Said action stemmed from a prenuptial agreement signed by the parties wherein in the event of a divorce, appellee would no


CourtListener opinion 3727525

domestic relations order: from appellant, Patrick Calloway. Appellant never responded and appellee was granted a divorce on June 6, 1997. The divorce decree awarded appellee one-half of appellant's pension and 401(k) accounts. On June 2, 2000, appellee sought and received a Qualified Domestic Relations Order regarding said accounts. {¶ 2} On February 28, 2001, appellant filed a complaint against appellee alleging breach of contract and fraud. Said action stemmed from a prenuptial agreement signed by the parties wherein in the event of a divorce, appellee would not be entitled to any portion of appellant's pension or 401(k) accounts. Following dismissal o


CourtListener opinion 3728942

CourtListener opinion 3728942 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3728942 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3728942


CourtListener opinion 3728942

QDRO: OPINION {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Mark Gibbs is the surviving spouse of, and executor of the estate of, Rhonda Gibbs (formerly known as Rhonda Stanley). He appeals from an Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order filed in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, in Rhonda's divorce action against her previous husband, defendant-appellee William Stanley. The QDRO at issue gives William, as required by the decree of divorce, an interest in Rhonda's pension and retirement benefits. Gibbs contends that the trial court erred by permitting the filin


CourtListener opinion 3728942

retirement benefits: Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, in Rhonda's divorce action against her previous husband, defendant-appellee William Stanley. The QDRO at issue gives William, as required by the decree of divorce, an interest in Rhonda's pension and retirement benefits. Gibbs contends that the trial court erred by permitting the filing of an amended QDRO, because he claims it violates the terms of the divorce decree. {¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court did not err by permitting theiling of an amended QDRO. First, the amendment was ordered by an agreed order signed by attorneys for both parties. Second, the amen


CourtListener opinion 3728942

pension: iled in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, in Rhonda's divorce action against her previous husband, defendant-appellee William Stanley. The QDRO at issue gives William, as required by the decree of divorce, an interest in Rhonda's pension and retirement benefits. Gibbs contends that the trial court erred by permitting the filing of an amended QDRO, because he claims it violates the terms of the divorce decree. {¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court did not err by permitting theiling of an amended QDRO. First, the amendment was ordered by an agreed order signed by attorneys for both pa


CourtListener opinion 3728942

domestic relations order: OPINION {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Mark Gibbs is the surviving spouse of, and executor of the estate of, Rhonda Gibbs (formerly known as Rhonda Stanley). He appeals from an Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order filed in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, in Rhonda's divorce action against her previous husband, defendant-appellee William Stanley. The QDRO at issue gives William, as required by the decree of divorce, an interest in Rhonda's pension and retirement benefits. Gibbs contends that the trial court erred by permitting the filin


CourtListener opinion 3729533

CourtListener opinion 3729533 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3729533 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3729533

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 3729533

QDRO: dra made from his deferred funds, thereby rendering that division unequal and leaving the parties' financial affairs entangled. In order to equalize the division of marital property, the trial court ordered Lawrence to transfer $201,417.79 to Sandra by way of qualified domestic relations order, or any other necessary method, from either his Prudential IRA account or his GROB profit sharing account. The court, in its judgment entry, then stated that \[Lawrence] shall be responsible for one-half of any taxes and/or early withdrawal penalties as a result of this equalization.\"


CourtListener opinion 3729533

domestic relations order: rom his deferred funds, thereby rendering that division unequal and leaving the parties' financial affairs entangled. In order to equalize the division of marital property, the trial court ordered Lawrence to transfer $201,417.79 to Sandra by way of qualified domestic relations order, or any other necessary method, from either his Prudential IRA account or his GROB profit sharing account. The court, in its judgment entry, then stated that \[Lawrence] shall be responsible for one-half of any taxes and/or early withdrawal penalties as a result of this equalization.\"


CourtListener opinion 3730689

CourtListener opinion 3730689 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3730689 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3730689


CourtListener opinion 3730689

QDRO: t earning potential, the trial court imputed income based on their substantial assets. See R.C. 3119.01 (C)(11)(b); former R.C. 3113.215 . {¶ 6} Both parties filed a notice of appeal from that order. Because the trial court's order had indicated that a qualified domestic relations order (\QDRO\") would be forthcoming and no QDRO had been filed


CourtListener opinion 3730689

domestic relations order: potential, the trial court imputed income based on their substantial assets. See R.C. 3119.01 (C)(11)(b); former R.C. 3113.215 . {¶ 6} Both parties filed a notice of appeal from that order. Because the trial court's order had indicated that a qualified domestic relations order (\QDRO\") would be forthcoming and no QDRO had been filed


CourtListener opinion 3733576

CourtListener opinion 3733576 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3733576 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3733576

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


CourtListener opinion 3733576

QDRO: OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Thomas Makar appeals the decision of the trial court which entered a QDRO after interpreting a 1987 divorce decree concerning the distribution of a portion of his pension to plaintiff-appellee Lillian Makar (nka Williams). The parties argue over whether the prior decree distributed to wife 40 percent of the marital portion of the pension or 40 percent of entire pension which would include husband's post-divorce contributions. The


CourtListener opinion 3733576

pension: OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Thomas Makar appeals the decision of the trial court which entered a QDRO after interpreting a 1987 divorce decree concerning the distribution of a portion of his pension to plaintiff-appellee Lillian Makar (nka Williams). The parties argue over whether the prior decree distributed to wife 40 percent of the marital portion of the pension or 40 percent of entire pension which would include husband's post-divorce contributions. The magistrate and the trial court held that the prior entry awarded wife 40 percent of the entire a


CourtListener opinion 3733576

valuation/division: urt which entered a QDRO after interpreting a 1987 divorce decree concerning the distribution of a portion of his pension to plaintiff-appellee Lillian Makar (nka Williams). The parties argue over whether the prior decree distributed to wife 40 percent of the marital portion of the pension or 40 percent of entire pension which would include husband's post-divorce contributions. The magistrate and the trial court held that the prior entry awarded wife 40 percent of the entire amount received by husband in the future even though nearly fourteen out of the thirty years of pension service occurred post-divorce. For the following re


CourtListener opinion 3735597

CourtListener opinion 3735597 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3735597 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3735597


CourtListener opinion 3735597

QDRO: ecree also stated that the parties would divide equally all rights to pension and Social Security benefits which were acquired during marriage. At the time, appellant was receiving monthly distributions from a fully vested pension. Almost two years later, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was filed, assigning half of the monthly pension distributions to appellee. The court stated that it retained jurisdiction to amend the QDRO to effectuate the court's intent under the QDRO and the judgment and to provide for the equalization of the total pension and social security benefits received by the parties. Both parties individually received


CourtListener opinion 3735597

retirement benefits: 2 a month from the pension plan. In February 1999, the monthly distribution decreased to $378.52 each. This decrease was the result of appellant reaching age 62 and thus becoming eligible to apply for early retirement Social Security benefits. 1 These early retirement benefits would total approximately $800 per month. Rather than apply for these benefits


CourtListener opinion 3735597

pension: mes eligible for governmental- or employer-sponsored health care. This spousal support provision contained no reservation of jurisdiction, and appellee did not appeal the lack thereof. The decree also stated that the parties would divide equally all rights to pension and Social Security benefits which were acquired during marriage. At the time, appellant was receiving monthly distributions from a fully vested pension. Almost two years later, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was filed, assigning half of the monthly pension distributions to appellee. The court stated that it retained jurisdiction to amend the


CourtListener opinion 3735597

domestic relations order: stated that the parties would divide equally all rights to pension and Social Security benefits which were acquired during marriage. At the time, appellant was receiving monthly distributions from a fully vested pension. Almost two years later, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was filed, assigning half of the monthly pension distributions to appellee. The court stated that it retained jurisdiction to amend the QDRO to effectuate the court's intent under the QDRO and the judgment and to provide for the equalization of the total pension and social security benefits received by the parties. Both parties individually received


CourtListener opinion 3740576

CourtListener opinion 3740576 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3740576 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3740576


CourtListener opinion 3740576

QDRO: rial court modified the magistrate's decision in a judgment entry dated May 24, 2000. These modifications are incorporated in the final judgment entry, filed September 15, 2000. It awarded appellee half of appellant's pension fund and SASP fund, to be held in QDRO, and awarded appellee $1000 per month spousal support, for an indefinite period. The court's judgment maintained an equal division of the marital property. Appellant raises the following assignments of error: \[1.] The trial court abused its discretion in its division of the property.


CourtListener opinion 3740576

pension: worked for a large portion of the marriage, made approximately $16,000 per year. The case was first tried before the magistrate. Appellant presented the magistrate with a plan for the division of the marital property whereby appellant would keep his entire pension and employer SASP account, and appellee would receive the marital home and other property to create an equal division. The magistrate adopted appellant's plan and included it in his decision. The magistrate also recommended that appellant pay appellee $500 per month for twenty-four months as spousal support. Appellee filed her objections to the magistrate


CourtListener opinion 3744325

CourtListener opinion 3744325 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3744325 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3744325


CourtListener opinion 3744325

QDRO: in the event of death. The trial court followed up with an Order on March 23, 1999, which addressed the payment of the pension benefits upon either party's retirement and allowed for future orders should the law change making the pension benefits subject to a QDRO or an equivalent order. After the parties divorced but before Appellee retired, legislation went into effect allowing a Division of Property Order (\DOPO\") for public pension plans.


CourtListener opinion 3744325

pension: , Appellee filed for a divorce from Appellant. The parties negotiated a divorce settlement, which the trial court incorporated into the Decree of Divorce. {¶ 3} At the time of the divorce, both Appellant and Appellee were participating in State of Ohio pension plans. The February 26, 1999 Decree of Divorce contained specific agreed upon provisions which divided their individual pensions in half by coverture fracture and designated the ex-spouse as the surviving spouse in the event of death. The trial court followed up with an Order on March 23, 1999, which addressed the payment of the pension benefits upon either


CourtListener opinion 3744325

survivor benefits: pellant and Appellee were participating in State of Ohio pension plans. The February 26, 1999 Decree of Divorce contained specific agreed upon provisions which divided their individual pensions in half by coverture fracture and designated the ex-spouse as the surviving spouse in the event of death. The trial court followed up with an Order on March 23, 1999, which addressed the payment of the pension benefits upon either party's retirement and allowed for future orders should the law change making the pension benefits subject to a QDRO or an equivalent order. After the parties divorced but before Appellee retired, legislation we


CourtListener opinion 3754161

CourtListener opinion 3754161 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3754161 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3754161

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 3754161

opening text: OPINION This is an accelerated calendar appeal submitted on the briefs of the parties from the judgment entry of divorce issued by the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, in which the trial court granted appellant, Diane Elizabeth Young, and appellee, James Stoner Young, a divorce. Appellant and appellee were married on January 15, 1966. The parties had two children born as issue of their marriage, both of whom are now emancipated. After thirty-four years of marriage, appellant filed a complaint for divorce on January 28, 2000. Subsequently, appellee filed an answer to the complaint and a countercomplaint for divorce. During the proceedings, appellee was or


CourtListener opinion 3755662

CourtListener opinion 3755662 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3755662 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3755662

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


CourtListener opinion 3755662

QDRO: DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION {¶ 1} Luis and Juanita Orama married in 1969 and divorced in 1988. Luis worked for Ford Motor Company and participated in a Ford sponsored pension plan. At the time of the divorce, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under which, at the time Luis retired in 2007, Juanita began receiving 50% of the pension benefits that were based on the period of his employment during their marriage. The dispute in this case relates to another provision of that Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Under that other provision, Juanita is entitled to full post-retirement surviving spouse be


CourtListener opinion 3755662

pension: DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION {¶ 1} Luis and Juanita Orama married in 1969 and divorced in 1988. Luis worked for Ford Motor Company and participated in a Ford sponsored pension plan. At the time of the divorce, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under which, at the time Luis retired in 2007, Juanita began receiving 50% of the pension benefits that were based on the period of his employment during their marriage. The dispute in this case relates to another provision of that Qualified Domestic Relations Ord


CourtListener opinion 3755662

domestic relations order: SION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION {¶ 1} Luis and Juanita Orama married in 1969 and divorced in 1988. Luis worked for Ford Motor Company and participated in a Ford sponsored pension plan. At the time of the divorce, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order under which, at the time Luis retired in 2007, Juanita began receiving 50% of the pension benefits that were based on the period of his employment during their marriage. The dispute in this case relates to another provision of that Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Under that other provision, Juanita is entitled to full post-retirement surviving spouse be


CourtListener opinion 3755662

survivor benefits: e pension benefits that were based on the period of his employment during their marriage. The dispute in this case relates to another provision of that Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Under that other provision, Juanita is entitled to full post-retirement surviving spouse benefits. After he retired in 2007, Luis moved for relief from that provision of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order under Rule 60(B)(5) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking an order that Juanita is not entitled to any surviving spouse benefits. The trial court granted Luis's motion and entered an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order under


CourtListener opinion 3755962

CourtListener opinion 3755962 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3755962 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3755962

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 3755962

QDRO: ies' mortgage and other debts, was a gift and not a loan. The court found that appellant had pensions from his employment with Bell Telephone for twenty-nine years and the Army National Guard for approximately thirty years. Appellee was awarded, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\QDRO\")


CourtListener opinion 3755962

domestic relations order: age and other debts, was a gift and not a loan. The court found that appellant had pensions from his employment with Bell Telephone for twenty-nine years and the Army National Guard for approximately thirty years. Appellee was awarded, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (\QDRO\")


CourtListener opinion 3755962

valuation/division: dules filed with the court and the market value of the parties' two vehicles. The parties' house, determined to be marital property, was sold for $115,000 during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, netting $76,306.61. A hearing was conducted to determine property division issues, debt payment, spousal support, and the alleged dissipation of marital assets. The final hearings were conducted in May 1997 with both post-trial briefs filed by June 11, 1997. The record shows that the divorce was acrimonious with many disputes over the marital household property. Testimony and evidence were presented that appellant threatened app


CourtListener opinion 3758748

CourtListener opinion 3758748 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3758748 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3758748


CourtListener opinion 3758748

QDRO: ve April 23, 1997. A trial was held on January 28, 1998, May 26, 1998, and July 31, 1998. At the time of trial, the real estate was worth $83,000.00. On March 24, 1999, the trial court granted the divorce, and on March 17, 2003, the trial court issued a final QDRO. 1 It is from the divorce decree that Appellant now appeals.


CourtListener opinion 3764034

CourtListener opinion 3764034 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3764034 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3764034


CourtListener opinion 3764034

QDRO: nsion, of which defendant-appellee was awarded half through stipulation. For the following reasons, the trial court's decision is reversed, the cash award is vacated, and this case is remanded with instructions that the trial court see to the amendment of the QDRO in order that it utilizes a modified coverture formula. STATEMENT OF THE CASE {¶ 2} Janet Presby began working for the United States Postal Authority in October 1983. She married Mark Presby in October 1989. Ms. Presby filed for divorce in January 2003. The parties stipulated that Ms. Presby would be the residential parent and that child support for


CourtListener opinion 3764034

pension: on Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, ordering her to pay defendant-appellee Mark Presby $9,089.16 for half of her accumulated sick leave where such sick leave can never be cashed out but rather can later be used to increase the years of service on her pension, of which defendant-appellee was awarded half through stipulation. For the following reasons, the trial court's decision is reversed, the cash award is vacated, and this case is remanded with instructions that the trial court see to the amendment of the QDRO in order that it utilizes a modified coverture formula. STATEMENT OF THE CASE {¶ 2} Janet Pre


CourtListener opinion 3764034

valuation/division: pport for Ms. Presby would be offset by spousal support for Mr. Presby for eighteen months, after which Ms. Presby could file a motion for court-ordered child support. The parties stipulated to the division of property. For instance, Ms. Presby's pension, the marital portion of which was estimated to be worth over $97,000, was to be divided by a standard coverture fraction at the time of retirement in approximately ten years. After the stipulations, the only issues that remained for trial concerned Ms. Presby's accumulated sick and vacation leave. {¶ 3} Regarding vacation leave, testimony established that Ms. Presby carr


CourtListener opinion 3765305

CourtListener opinion 3765305 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3765305 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3765305

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


CourtListener opinion 3765305

QDRO: Mr. Billingham filed an amended motion, stating that he had retired, effective January 1, 2000, and that Mrs. Billingham would become entitled as of that date to begin receiving her share of the parties' retirement benefits, which had been divided by way of a QDRO in the 1992 divorce proceedings. Once again, Mr. Billingham requested the trial court to terminate spousal support; however, he did not reiterate his alternative request to have the amount of support \modified downward.\"


CourtListener opinion 3765305

retirement benefits: nt resulting reduction in income. On December 27, 1999, Mr. Billingham filed an amended motion, stating that he had retired, effective January 1, 2000, and that Mrs. Billingham would become entitled as of that date to begin receiving her share of the parties' retirement benefits, which had been divided by way of a QDRO in the 1992 divorce proceedings. Once again, Mr. Billingham requested the trial court to terminate spousal support; however, he did not reiterate his alternative request to have the amount of support \modified downward.\"


CourtListener opinion 3767769

CourtListener opinion 3767769 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3767769 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3767769


CourtListener opinion 3767769

QDRO: Mr. Paluch's McKesson Corporation pension and Ms. Baker's USPS Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pension. The dispute that underlies this appeal began as a simple labeling mistake. {¶ 3} Intending to divide Ms. Baker's TSP, the court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), assigning one-half the value of the plan to Mr. Paluch. However, in journalizing the QDRO, the court erroneously identified the TSP as her FERS pension. Due to this misidentification, the TSP administrator rejected Mr. Paluch's claim. The court responded immediately, intending to remedy the mislabeling and effectuate the divorce decree. An amended Q


CourtListener opinion 3767769

pension: idual retirement savings plans administered by the parties' respective employers: Mr. Paluch's 401k plan with McKesson Corporation and Ms. Baker's Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) with the United States Postal Service (USPS). While each party also had an independent pension plan, these pensions were not deemed to be marital property and were not to be divided: Mr. Paluch's McKesson Corporation pension and Ms. Baker's USPS Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pension. The dispute that underlies this appeal began as a simple labeling mistake. {¶ 3} Intending to divide Ms. Baker's TSP, the court issued a Qualified Do


CourtListener opinion 3767769

401(k): s. Baker (f.k.a. Mrs. Paluch) had been married, but were divorced on December 22, 1994. The court ordered an equal division of marital property, which included individual retirement savings plans administered by the parties' respective employers: Mr. Paluch's 401k plan with McKesson Corporation and Ms. Baker's Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) with the United States Postal Service (USPS). While each party also had an independent pension plan, these pensions were not deemed to be marital property and were not to be divided: Mr. Paluch's McKesson Corporation pension and Ms. Baker's USPS Federal Employees Retirement System (FER


CourtListener opinion 3767769

domestic relations order: h's McKesson Corporation pension and Ms. Baker's USPS Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pension. The dispute that underlies this appeal began as a simple labeling mistake. {¶ 3} Intending to divide Ms. Baker's TSP, the court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), assigning one-half the value of the plan to Mr. Paluch. However, in journalizing the QDRO, the court erroneously identified the TSP as her FERS pension. Due to this misidentification, the TSP administrator rejected Mr. Paluch's claim. The court responded immediately, intending to remedy the mislabeling and effectuate the divorce decree. An amended Q


CourtListener opinion 3771815

CourtListener opinion 3771815 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3771815 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3771815


CourtListener opinion 3771815

QDRO: share of twenty years of Plaintiff's pension with the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund, and the Court specifically reserves the right to make all future orders necessary to effectuate this provision. The Court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order relating to Defendant's interest in said pension plan, shall be made into a Judgment Entry and filed herein and incorporated into this Judgment Entry and made a part hereof. Prior to the entry being journalized, Plaintiff initialed an interlineation that appeared in the above paragraph. The interlineation was inserted after the word `Fund' and stated \as


CourtListener opinion 3771815

pension: of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court. The court entered a divorce decree, which stated: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Defendant shall receive as and for a division of marital assets, a one-half share of twenty years of Plaintiff's pension with the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund, and the Court specifically reserves the right to make all future orders necessary to effectuate this provision. The Court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order relating to Defendant's interest in said pension plan, shall be made into a Judgment Entry and filed herein a


CourtListener opinion 3771815

domestic relations order: wenty years of Plaintiff's pension with the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund, and the Court specifically reserves the right to make all future orders necessary to effectuate this provision. The Court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order relating to Defendant's interest in said pension plan, shall be made into a Judgment Entry and filed herein and incorporated into this Judgment Entry and made a part hereof. Prior to the entry being journalized, Plaintiff initialed an interlineation that appeared in the above paragraph. The interlineation was inserted after the word `Fund' and stated \as


CourtListener opinion 3773143

CourtListener opinion 3773143 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3773143 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3773143


CourtListener opinion 3773143

QDRO: . {¶ 3} Nathan and Kathleen were divorced on June 2, 1994. The terms of the divorce decree vested in Kathleen entitlement to one-half of Nathan's retirement benefits, and specified that division of the benefits would be effected by subsequent QDROs, or Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension benefits plans. {¶ 4} On November 16, 2001, the trial court journalized another QDRO containing instructions for the di


CourtListener opinion 3773143

retirement benefits: f. Therefore, this Court may accept Nathan's statement of the facts and issues as correct. See App.R. 18(C). {¶ 3} Nathan and Kathleen were divorced on June 2, 1994. The terms of the divorce decree vested in Kathleen entitlement to one-half of Nathan's retirement benefits, and specified that division of the benefits would be effected by subsequent QDROs, or Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension ben


CourtListener opinion 3773143

pension: Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension benefits plans. {¶ 4} On November 16, 2001, the trial court journalized another QDRO containing instructions for the division of Nathan's interest in a \U.S. Steel Corporation Plan for Non-Union Employee Pension Benefits (Rev. 1998).\" Approximately one month later


CourtListener opinion 3773143

domestic relations order: ; 3} Nathan and Kathleen were divorced on June 2, 1994. The terms of the divorce decree vested in Kathleen entitlement to one-half of Nathan's retirement benefits, and specified that division of the benefits would be effected by subsequent QDROs, or Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension benefits plans. {¶ 4} On November 16, 2001, the trial court journalized another QDRO containing instructions for the di


CourtListener opinion 3776863

CourtListener opinion 3776863 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3776863 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3776863

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


CourtListener opinion 3776863

QDRO: ef under Civ.R. 60(B), and did not allege sufficient operative facts to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the divorce decree. Thus, we reverse the trial court's decision to the extent that it modified that decree. However, the trial court may still order a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which does not conflict with the divorce decree. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the trial court so it may issue a QDRO in accordance with the divorce decree. {¶ 2} Herbert and Christy were divorced pursuant to an oral separation agreement on May 22, 1986. The terms of that agreement were dictated into the record and fully set forth in t


CourtListener opinion 3776863

pension: ¶ 2} Herbert and Christy were divorced pursuant to an oral separation agreement on May 22, 1986. The terms of that agreement were dictated into the record and fully set forth in the divorce decree. One of the provisions in the decree dealt with Herbert's pension and provided as follows: {¶ 3} \12. That Defendant's present pension plan with G.M.A.D. will pay the sum of $324.00 per month when Defendant reaches the age of retirement and that Defendant will pay to Plaintiff the sum of $162.00 per month upon receipt of said retirement.\"


CourtListener opinion 3776863

domestic relations order: iv.R. 60(B), and did not allege sufficient operative facts to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the divorce decree. Thus, we reverse the trial court's decision to the extent that it modified that decree. However, the trial court may still order a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) which does not conflict with the divorce decree. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the trial court so it may issue a QDRO in accordance with the divorce decree. {¶ 2} Herbert and Christy were divorced pursuant to an oral separation agreement on May 22, 1986. The terms of that agreement were dictated into the record and fully set forth in t


CourtListener opinion 3778343

CourtListener opinion 3778343 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3778343 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3778343

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


CourtListener opinion 3778343

domestic relations order: OPINION Petitioner-appellant Laura Lyles appeals from the dismissal of her petition to register a foreign domestic relations order, and the denial of her subsequent motion to enforce and modify that order. We conclude that the trial court did not err in declining to exercise jurisdiction in this matter. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed. I Laura Lyles and Kent Lyles are the parents of Kody Lee Lyles, whose date of birth is January 4, 1993. The parties were m


CourtListener opinion 3779213

CourtListener opinion 3779213 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3779213 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 3779213


CourtListener opinion 3779213

QDRO: eal, we affirm. The parties were divorced on July 24, 1996, following a lengthy marriage. The divorce decree provided in pertinent part that: 3. The term of the parties' marriage is from October 22, 1977 through January 27, 1995, with the exception of the QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] for the defendant's retirement plan which shall be from October 22, 1977 through May 17, 1995. The decree divided appellee's benefits from his employment with Philip Morris in three separate paragraphs. These benefits were his deferred profit sharing plan, at issue here; his salaried employee's retirement plan, not at


CourtListener opinion 3779213

retirement benefits: following a lengthy marriage. The divorce decree provided in pertinent part that: 3. The term of the parties' marriage is from October 22, 1977 through January 27, 1995, with the exception of the QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] for the defendant's retirement plan which shall be from October 22, 1977 through May 17, 1995. The decree divided appellee's benefits from his employment with Philip Morris in three separate paragraphs. These benefits were his deferred profit sharing plan, at issue here; his salaried employee's retirement plan, not at issue here; and his restricted stock award program, not at issue here.


CourtListener opinion 3779213

domestic relations order: The parties were divorced on July 24, 1996, following a lengthy marriage. The divorce decree provided in pertinent part that: 3. The term of the parties' marriage is from October 22, 1977 through January 27, 1995, with the exception of the QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] for the defendant's retirement plan which shall be from October 22, 1977 through May 17, 1995. The decree divided appellee's benefits from his employment with Philip Morris in three separate paragraphs. These benefits were his deferred profit sharing plan, at issue here; his salaried employee's retirement plan, not at issue here; and his restricted stock


CourtListener opinion 38070

CourtListener opinion 38070 Extracted reporter citation: 379 F.3d 177. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 38070 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 38070


CourtListener opinion 38070

QDRO: payable di- rectly to her, could not proceed with her lawsuit under § 502(a)(2). Russell, 473 U.S. at 134. Accordingly, the majority's holding goes far beyond the holding of Russell.4 In Matassarin, the plaintiff Patricia Matassarin was, by virtue of a qualified domestic relations order (the "QDRO") entered into as part of her divorce, a beneficiary in an employee stock owner- ship plan (the "ESOP") offered by Great Empire Broadcasting, Inc. Matassarin, 174 F.3d at 556. Matassarin's account, like that of approximately sixty-seven other plan participants (most were terminated employees), was a segregated account. Id. at 556-57. In May


CourtListener opinion 38070

pension: ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE SUPER SAVER-A 401(K) CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF PARTICIPATING AMR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-10, AS MEMBERS OF THE PENSION ASSET ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF THE SUPER SAVER-A 401(K) CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF PARTICIPATING AMR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES; JOHN DOES, 11-20, AS MEMBERS OF THE PENSION BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF THE SUPER SAVER-A 401(K) CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF PARTICIPATING AMR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES; TOWERS PERRIN


CourtListener opinion 38070

ERISA: they Michael Milofsky and Robert Walsh would not be permitted to have access to their brought a class action under the Employee accounts. Allegedly, the transfer of the ac- Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 counts did not go smoothly, with the account ("ERISA") against American Airlines, Inc. transfers occurring weeks, and in some cases, ("American Airlines") and Towers Perrin, months after the time written in the notices. alleging breach of fiduciary duty with regard to a transfer of their pension plans from their The plaintiffs sued under ERISA § 502- former employer when it was acquired by the (a)(2), 29 U.S.


CourtListener opinion 38070

401(k): . Fulbruge III In the Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _______________ m 03-11087 _______________ MICHAEL MILOFSKY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE SUPER SAVER-A 401(K) CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF PARTICIPATING AMR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES; ROBERT WALSH, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE SUPER SAVER-A 401(K) CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF PARTICIPATING AMR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS AMERICAN AIRLINES


CourtListener opinion 4013741

CourtListener opinion 4013741 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Preston. Extracted reporter citation: 24 N.E.3d 1007. Docket: 42A01-1508-DR-1255 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4013741 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 4013741

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


CourtListener opinion 4013741

QDRO: ith the last known valuations as follows: TIAA and CREF as of 12-31-02 at $240,703.32; Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund as of 03- 31-03 at $45,085.86. These accounts shall be equally divided between the parties with [Richard's] attorney preparing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [("QDRO")]. Appellant's Appendix at 26. It is undisputed that the $45,085.86 value stated for the TERF account reflected only the value of Richard's annuity savings account and not the value of his pension benefit. [4] After the parties signed and submitted the Settlement Agreement (but before the trial court signed it on July 1, 2003), Richard's c


CourtListener opinion 4013741

retirement benefits: 55| July 7, 2016 Page 1 of 20 Case Summary and Issues [1] Richard and Ellyn Ray's twenty-nine-year marriage was dissolved in July 2003. Provisions were made in the parties' Settlement Agreement and in two subsequent court orders for division of Richard's retirement accounts due to his employment at Vincennes University. After Richard retired from Vincennes University in 2014, Ellyn filed with the trial court a Motion to Correct Erroneous Court Order and Enforcement of Marital Settlement Agreement. The trial court granted the motion and crafted a remedy requiring Richard to pay certain sums to Ellyn. Richard now appe


CourtListener opinion 4013741

pension: tlement Agreement. The trial court granted the motion and crafted a remedy requiring Richard to pay certain sums to Ellyn. Richard now appeals, raising several issues which we consolidate and restate as: 1) whether the trial court erred in valuing his pension benefit; and 2) whether the trial court erred in its distribution of those accounts. Concluding the trial court did not err in valuing the accounts, but used an incorrect coverture fraction to determine the appropriate amount of distribution to Ellyn, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. Facts and Procedural History [2] Richard and Elly


CourtListener opinion 4013741

401(k): ces receiving his monthly payments from [TERF] Defined Benefit Pension Annuity, he shall, on receipt of his monthly payment, immediately pay over to [Ellyn] a sum equal to one-half (1/2) of the monthly payments received; B. That with reference to [TERF] Defined Contribution Benefit Pension Fund, at such time as [Richard] is ordered to receive his Fund balance, he shall, immediately upon receipt of same, pay over to [Ellyn] a sum equal to one- half (1/2) of the then lump sum received. 2. That each party shall be responsible for paying the taxes on the sums which they, themselves, receive for their own use. 3. This Cour


CourtListener opinion 4017078

CourtListener opinion 4017078 Docket: of years that the spouse was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4017078 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 4017078


CourtListener opinion 4017078

QDRO: 20-107.3(K)(4), an equitable distribution order "intended to affect or divide any pension or retirement benefits pursuant to . . . federal laws . . . [may be modified by subsequent order] only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order." See Wilson v. Wilson, 25 Va. App. 752, 757-58, 492 S.E.2d 495, 498 (1997). Turner v. Turner, 47 Va. App. 76, 80, 622 S.E.2d 263, 265-66 (2005) (alteration in original). "Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) does not, however, allow a court to modify a final divorce decree simply


CourtListener opinion 4017078

retirement benefits: Julia L. McAfee (Carl E. McAfee, PC, on brief), for appellant. No brief or argument for appellee. In this domestic relations appeal, Francene K. Meade challenges a decision from the Circuit Court of Wise County clarifying her interest in the disability retirement benefits received by her ex-husband, Lenville Jessie Sowards. Meade contends that the circuit court erred by calculating her marital share of Sowards's retirement benefits based on the assumption that Sowards retired at the minimum retirement age allowed by his employer rather than the actual date of his retirement. By basing its calculation on Sowards's mi


CourtListener opinion 4017078

pension: Rule 1:1; see also Fahey v. Fahey, 24 Va. App. 254, 256, 481 S.E.2d 496, 497 (1997). Thereafter, the court's power to modify such orders is governed by statute. Under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), an equitable distribution order "intended to affect or divide any pension or retirement benefits pursuant to . . . federal laws . . . [may be modified by subsequent order] only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order." See Wilson v. Wilson, 25 Va. App. 752, 757-58, 492 S.E.2d 495,


CourtListener opinion 4017078

domestic relations order: K)(4), an equitable distribution order "intended to affect or divide any pension or retirement benefits pursuant to . . . federal laws . . . [may be modified by subsequent order] only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order." See Wilson v. Wilson, 25 Va. App. 752, 757-58, 492 S.E.2d 495, 498 (1997). Turner v. Turner, 47 Va. App. 76, 80, 622 S.E.2d 263, 265-66 (2005) (alteration in original). "Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) does not, however, allow a court to modify a final divorce decree simply


CourtListener opinion 4020692

CourtListener opinion 4020692 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4020692 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 4020692


CourtListener opinion 4020692

QDRO: stated below, we affirm the rulings of the circuit court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Appellant filed a third appeal after the trial court declined to consider her motions for reconsideration of the QDRO issues. That appeal, Record No. 0062-16-4, was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. BACKGROUND On appeal, we review the evidence in the favor of husband, the prevailing party below. Niblett v. Niblett, 65 Va. App. 616, 622, 779 S.E.2d 839, 842 (2015).2 So viewed, the evidence demonstrates that the parties were married on October 27, 1997. Two


CourtListener opinion 4020692

retirement benefits: liabilities of the parties. The court noted that the marital home constituted their largest debt and least liquid asset. Despite finding "no significant evidence on th[e] factor," the court considered the tax implications of selling the house, dividing the retirement plans, and ordering child support. Although some evidence was presented regarding dissipation of marital assets, the court found that neither party was able to show any waste by the other. With respect to any other factors, the court commented, "[T]here's nothing that the court finds significant to put into that slot at this time." After relaying his findin


CourtListener opinion 4020692

pension: ce pertaining to the circuit court's equitable distribution award and orders regarding certain military retirement/insurance issues. She also challenges the subsequently entered qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) relating to each party's military pension. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the rulings of the circuit court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Appellant filed a third appeal after the trial court declined to consider her motions for reconsideration of the QDRO issues. That appeal, Record No. 0062-16-4, was dismissed for failure to pay


CourtListener opinion 4020692

domestic relations order: t wife challenges provisions of the parties' final decree of divorce pertaining to the circuit court's equitable distribution award and orders regarding certain military retirement/insurance issues. She also challenges the subsequently entered qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) relating to each party's military pension. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the rulings of the circuit court. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Appellant filed a third appeal after the trial court declined to consider her motions for reconsideration of the QDRO issues. That appeal, Recor


CourtListener opinion 4020693

CourtListener opinion 4020693 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2093-15-4 SHAWN D. PEDERSON FROM THE CIRCUIT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4020693 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 4020693


CourtListener opinion 4020906

CourtListener opinion 4020906 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Crow and Gilmore. Extracted reporter citation: 536 S.W.2d 30. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4020906 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 4020906

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


CourtListener opinion 4020906

QDRO: t value of the plan at the time of the trial was $0, and it ordered, instead, that Wife shall receive a portion of the pension benefits once Husband began receiving them. The court noted that LAGERS is exempt from the terms of ERISA and cannot be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and thus it ordered that "THusband] shall pay to [Wife] the sum of $687.00 (half of the accrued marital benefit of $1,374.00 per month) less applicable income taxes per month beginning on the first day of the first month that [Husband] both becomes eligible to receive such benefits and does, in fact, receive such benefits from LAGERS." This appeal f


CourtListener opinion 4020906

retirement benefits: 0 per month) and Husband received a gross annual salary of $51,792 ($4,316 per month), Husband had worked for the City for twenty-seven years, during which he had participated in a defined benefit pension plan through the Missouri Local Government Employees Retirement Benefit Plan {LAGERS). The trial court divided the parties' marital assets and debts as follows: Wite Husband Knaup Floral, valued at $0 LAGERS pension, valued at $0 real estate associated with Knaup Floral, valued at $410,000, less $52,000 owed ($358,000 total value) Ford Transit van titled to Knaup Floral, valued at $6,500 The marital residence located at 13


CourtListener opinion 4020906

pension: ved a gross annual salary from Knaup Floral of $69,000 ($5,850 per month) and Husband received a gross annual salary of $51,792 ($4,316 per month), Husband had worked for the City for twenty-seven years, during which he had participated in a defined benefit pension plan through the Missouri Local Government Employees Retirement Benefit Plan {LAGERS). The trial court divided the parties' marital assets and debts as follows: Wite Husband Knaup Floral, valued at $0 LAGERS pension, valued at $0 real estate associated with Knaup Floral, valued at $410,000, less $52,000 owed ($358,000 total value) Ford Transit van title


CourtListener opinion 4020906

ERISA: t, however, determined the current value of the plan at the time of the trial was $0, and it ordered, instead, that Wife shall receive a portion of the pension benefits once Husband began receiving them. The court noted that LAGERS is exempt from the terms of ERISA and cannot be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and thus it ordered that "THusband] shall pay to [Wife] the sum of $687.00 (half of the accrued marital benefit of $1,374.00 per month) less applicable income taxes per month beginning on the first day of the first month that [Husband] both becomes eligible to receive such benefits and do


CourtListener opinion 4021003

CourtListener opinion 4021003 Extracted reporter citation: 509 F.3d 173. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4021003 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 4021003


CourtListener opinion 4021003

QDRO: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 15-1914 ____________ MARVA JANE RICHARDSON-ROY, Appellant, v. ABIGAIL JOHNSON, President; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS; QDRO ADMINISTRATION GROUP, a fiduciary agent for General Motors Corporation; MARY T. BARRA, CEO; MELISSA CHOUINARD; DOE INDIVIDUALS; GENERAL MOTORS LLC f/k/a GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION __________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civ. No. 1-14-cv-00371) District Judge: Honorable R


CourtListener opinion 4021003

pension: llow, we will affirm. On March 10, 1994, Richardson-Roy and her husband Howard divorced after 33 years of marriage. At the time of the divorce, Howard was employed by General Motors Corporation ("GM"). Howard retired four years later, and elected to begin pension benefits, effective August 1, 1998, under the GM Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan ("the Plan"), with survivor spouse coverage for his then-wife, Cheryl L. Richardson. Howard died on January 4, 2010. Cheryl's surviving spouse benefits began the following month. On March 16, 2010, two months after Howard died, Richardson-Roy obtained a "Qualified Dom


CourtListener opinion 4021003

ERISA: paid. On March 24, 2014, almost four years after Fidelity's original decision and more than one year after the last correspondence from Fidelity, Richardson-Roy filed a pro se civil action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., in the United States District Court of the District of Delaware. GM moved for summary judgment, submitting the Plan and the QDRO as 3 exhibits to the motion, and arguing that Richardson-Roy's benefits claim was time-barred and meritless, and that ERISA preempts claims for non-benefit remedies.2 Richardson- Roy submitted w


CourtListener opinion 4021003

alternate payee: strict Court held in the alternative that summary judgment was warranted because there was no merit to Richardson-Roy's ERISA claim. We agree. A QDRO is an order that "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternative payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan…. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i). The "alternate payee" can be a "spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant who is recognized by a domestic relations order as having a 3 The statute provides: No action for recovery upon a cl


CourtListener opinion 4023877

CourtListener opinion 4023877 Extracted reporter citation: 635 N.E.2d 308. Docket: 26921 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4023877 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 4023877


CourtListener opinion 4023877

QDRO: t, that Cynthia is entitled to one-half of James's Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio ("PERS") account and Ohio Deferred Compensation Benefit which accrued to James for the period of February 3, 1995 through October 21, 1998. It also provided for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or comparable court order, i.e., a Division of Property Order ("DOPO"), to be issued. The decree further indicated that the trial court would retain continuing jurisdiction to effectuate the division of the PERS account and Deferred Compensation Benefit. {¶ 3} After the divorce decree was entered, a DOPO was filed on May 22, 2002, which provided the f


CourtListener opinion 4023877

retirement benefits: payment is designated, [Cynthia] shall receive payment from the first benefit payment or lump sum payment for which [James] is eligible to apply and receive. Please check ALL APPLICABLE -3- BENEFIT(S) OR LUMP SUM PAYMENT(S): □ Age and service monthly retirement benefit □ Disability monthly retirement benefit □ Account refund □ Additional money purchase monthly annuity or lump sum refund □ Reemployed retiree money purchase monthly annuity (when monthly payment exceeds $25.00) or lump sum refund □ Defined contribution plan benefit (STRS only) Division of Property Order (May 22, 2002), Montgomery County Domestic


CourtListener opinion 4023877

pension: y unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary." Id. "A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision." Id. {¶ 11} A DOPO "merely implement[s] a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to a final divorce entry." Rice v. Rice, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95221, 2011-Ohio-1366, ¶ 7, citing Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, ¶ 7. In turn, "[t]he entry of divorce divides the property; the [DOPO] ‘is merely -6- a tool used to execute the divorce decree.' " Id., quoting Wilson at ¶ 19.


CourtListener opinion 4023877

401(k): tirement benefit □ Disability monthly retirement benefit □ Account refund □ Additional money purchase monthly annuity or lump sum refund □ Reemployed retiree money purchase monthly annuity (when monthly payment exceeds $25.00) or lump sum refund □ Defined contribution plan benefit (STRS only) Division of Property Order (May 22, 2002), Montgomery County Domestic Relations Court Case No. 2000-DR-01903, Docket No. 36, ¶ II(A). None of the boxes were marked on the DOPO that was filed, including the box titled "Disability monthly retirement benefit." {¶ 4} In 2013, although not yet eligible for age and service based reti


CourtListener opinion 4025078

CourtListener opinion 4025078 Extracted case name: W.A.M. v. S.P.C. Extracted reporter citation: 95 A.3d 349. Docket: 252 WDA 2016 : RAYMOND D. ANTHONY :. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4025078 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 4025078


CourtListener opinion 4025078

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


CourtListener opinion 4025078

pension: support obligation remained at $572.00. [Father] retired from ATI in 2008, after which the necessary Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") were entered by the Court to ensure that [Father's] monthly support obligation would be paid from his ATI pension. The QDROs were entered on December 4, 2008 and February 2, 2009. [Father's] basic monthly support obligation did not change. [Mother] filed a petition to modify the support obligation on February 4, 2010. In her petition, [Mother] states that the case had not been reviewed in more than three years and that she was then homeschooling the Child, who h