CourtListener opinion 4153742

retirement benefits: the court shall consider all of the following factors: (a) The income of the parties, from all sources * * *; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; 6. (e) The duration of the marriage; (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of education of the p


CourtListener opinion 4153742

401(k): disparity in their retirement benefits. Even after splitting by QDRO, Plaintiff is young and skilled enough to replenish and grow his retirement benefits before he will need them. Defendant does not make enough to have disposable income to invest in her 401(k) at work after expenses. This is a 10-year marriage, and all of the growth in income-earning ability of Plaintiff occurred while the Defendant and he were married. Additionally, the minor child is only 7 years old, and the custodial parent 8. will be called upon to be available for all of the activities that go along with being the house-parent o


CourtListener opinion 4153750

CourtListener opinion 4153750 Extracted case name: DDP-AJW v. DIRECTORS. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4153750 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 4153750

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 4153750

QDRO: I alleges a claim against all defendants for violation of ERISA § 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140. On this count, Williams' prayer for relief "[a]gainst all defendants for the loss to [her] pension benefits because of the Willis [Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")]" amounts to a request for equitable relief 4 from the effect of the Willis QDRO. In other words, Williams effectively seeks relief from the allegedly erroneous state court judgment in the interpleader action, which reaffirmed the validity of the Willis QDRO. Therefore, her § 510 action is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel, 341 F.3d at


CourtListener opinion 4153750

pension: D STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TERRY WILLIAMS-ILUNGA, No. 15-55599 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-05415-DDP-AJW v. DIRECTORS/TRUSTEES OF MEMORANDUM* PRODUCER-WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA PENSION PLAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 7, 2017 Pasadena, California Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. We affirm the dismissal of all three counts in Terry Williams-Ilunga's


CourtListener opinion 4153750

ERISA: to be cured: a subsequent federal claim is completely barred if it amounts to "a de facto appeal from a state court judgment." Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). 2. Assuming that Count II is premised on a benefits dispute under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), the claim was properly dismissed pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rooker-Feldman bars federal jurisdiction where a plaintiff "complain[s] of a legal injury caused by a state court judgment, based on an allegedly erroneous legal ruling, in a case in which the federal plaintiff was one of the litigants."


CourtListener opinion 4153750

domestic relations order: nal services. 3. Count III alleges a claim against all defendants for violation of ERISA § 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140. On this count, Williams' prayer for relief "[a]gainst all defendants for the loss to [her] pension benefits because of the Willis [Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO")]" amounts to a request for equitable relief 4 from the effect of the Willis QDRO. In other words, Williams effectively seeks relief from the allegedly erroneous state court judgment in the interpleader action, which reaffirmed the validity of the Willis QDRO. Therefore, her § 510 action is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel, 341


CourtListener opinion 4154006

CourtListener opinion 4154006 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 32. Both parties now move for summary judgment. The. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4154006 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 4154006


CourtListener opinion 4154006

QDRO: (2008 Domestic Relations Order). The order provided that Potrament—as an "alternate payee" under the plan—was entitled to receive a separate, half share of Dullea's monthly plan benefits for the rest of her life. See id. The PBGC deemed the order to be a "qualified domestic relations order" (or "QDRO") under ERISA, and subsequently began paying benefits to Potrament in accordance with its terms. A.R. 244–45. Four years later, in 2012, Dullea presented the PBGC with a second domestic relations order that had been recently issued by a different judge from the same Minnesota court. A.R. 222 (2012 Domestic Relations Order). The new order sp


CourtListener opinion 4154006

pension: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN P. DULLEA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-cv-00147 (CRC) PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION John Dullea, a participant in an ERISA pension plan administered by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation ("PBGC"), petitioned the agency to change the form of benefits that his former spouse had been receiving under the plan. The PBGC denied his request, citing agency policy prohibi


CourtListener opinion 4154006

ERISA: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN P. DULLEA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-cv-00147 (CRC) PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION John Dullea, a participant in an ERISA pension plan administered by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation ("PBGC"), petitioned the agency to change the form of benefits that his former spouse had been receiving under the plan. The PBGC denied his request, citing agency policy prohibiting such changes after benefits payments have begun. Dullea sued, and both sides now move for summary jud


CourtListener opinion 4154006

alternate payee: sumed control of the plan, Dullea's former wife, Ann Marie Potrament, provided the agency a domestic relations order issued by a court in the couple's home state of Minnesota. A.R. 8 (2008 Domestic Relations Order). The order provided that Potrament—as an "alternate payee" under the plan—was entitled to receive a separate, half share of Dullea's monthly plan benefits for the rest of her life. See id. The PBGC deemed the order to be a "qualified domestic relations order" (or "QDRO") under ERISA, and subsequently began paying benefits to Potrament in accordance with its terms. A.R. 244–45. Four years later, in 2012, Dull


CourtListener opinion 4156241

CourtListener opinion 4156241 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Bowen. Extracted reporter citation: 217 P.3d 756. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4156241 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 4156241


CourtListener opinion 4156241

QDRO: ilitary service, which was expected to occur in six months. The trial court's decree of dissolution also awarded Rockwood 47 percent of Ocasio- Santiago's military retirement plan, based on the net disposable retirement pay. The trial court also entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) detailing the distribution of Ocasio- Santiago's retirement. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service sent Rockwood a letter requesting a clarifying order because it could not determine what the trial court awarded her. It wanted the order to state a fixed amount or a percentage of Ocasio-Santiago's retirement pay that should be paid to Rockw


CourtListener opinion 4156241

retirement benefits: $2,457.04 monthly, beginning on June 1, 2014 and ending when Ocasio- Santiago retired from military service, which was expected to occur in six months. The trial court's decree of dissolution also awarded Rockwood 47 percent of Ocasio- Santiago's military retirement plan, based on the net disposable retirement pay. The trial court also entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) detailing the distribution of Ocasio- Santiago's retirement. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service sent Rockwood a letter requesting a clarifying order because it could not determine what the trial court awarded her. It wanted the


CourtListener opinion 4156241

pension: rded attorney fees to Rockwood. The commissioner's order stated that no substantial change in 2 48066-2-II circumstances occurred regarding spousal maintenance. The commissioner also entered an order clarifying the division of Ocasio-Santiago's military pension. Ocasio-Santiago filed a motion for revision. He argued that there was a substantial change in circumstances, and that Rockwood should not have been awarded fees. In addition, he argued that the portion of the clarifying order regarding the amount of his retirement pay to be received by Rockwood should not be 47 percent. A superior court judge grante


CourtListener opinion 4156241

domestic relations order: rvice, which was expected to occur in six months. The trial court's decree of dissolution also awarded Rockwood 47 percent of Ocasio- Santiago's military retirement plan, based on the net disposable retirement pay. The trial court also entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) detailing the distribution of Ocasio- Santiago's retirement. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service sent Rockwood a letter requesting a clarifying order because it could not determine what the trial court awarded her. It wanted the order to state a fixed amount or a percentage of Ocasio-Santiago's retirement pay that should be paid to Rockw


CourtListener opinion 4156856

CourtListener opinion 4156856 Extracted case name: VINCENT v. SHANOVICH. Docket: 1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4156856 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 4156856


CourtListener opinion 4156856

QDRO: e Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. B R O W N, Chief Judge: ¶1 Patrick Shanovich ("Husband") appeals the superior court's order denying his motion to set aside a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") for an alleged clerical error. He also appeals the judgment awarding attorneys' fees to his former spouse, Francene Vincent ("Wife"). For the following reasons, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Husband's appeal of the order denying his motion to set aside the QDRO, and vacate the award of attorneys' fees. BACKGROUND ¶2 After Wife filed a peti


CourtListener opinion 4156856

pension: th Husband and Wife, which the court signed the following month. ¶3 In December 2015, more than eleven years later, Husband filed a motion to set aside the QDRO, asserting it contained a "clerical error" that would result in Wife receiving half of his entire pension upon his retirement, rather than the amount accrued as of the date Wife filed the petition for dissolution. Husband also argued the QDRO was void because it did not include the decree's limitation that Wife would receive half of his retirement accrued as of the date she filed the petition for dissolution. ¶4 In response, among other things, Wife argued the


CourtListener opinion 4156856

domestic relations order: J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. B R O W N, Chief Judge: ¶1 Patrick Shanovich ("Husband") appeals the superior court's order denying his motion to set aside a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") for an alleged clerical error. He also appeals the judgment awarding attorneys' fees to his former spouse, Francene Vincent ("Wife"). For the following reasons, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Husband's appeal of the order denying his motion to set aside the QDRO, and vacate the award of attorneys' fees. BACKGROUND ¶2 After Wife filed a peti


CourtListener opinion 4160901

CourtListener opinion 4160901 Extracted reporter citation: 518 U.S. 81. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4160901 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 4160901

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 4160901

QDRO: e, abused its discretion in making the award. See Shooltz, 27 Va. App. at 271, 498 S.E.2d at 441. In its equitable distribution determination, the court awarded wife "the marital share of [husband's] military pension, which shall be divided through a COAP/QDRO drafted by [wife's] counsel." However, Code § 20-107.3(G)(1) provides: The court may direct payment of a percentage of the marital share of any pension . . . which constitutes marital property and whether payable in a lump sum or over a period of time. . . . However, the court shall only direct that payment be made as such benefits are payable. No su


CourtListener opinion 4160901

pension: 00 a year. She asked the court to impute income to husband for calculation of spousal and child support guidelines. She also requested that the court award her eighteen months of husband's GI Bill educational benefits and a percentage of husband's military pension. At the conclusion of wife's evidence, husband's counsel made a motion to strike because she did not present testimony from a corroborating witness. Wife advised the court that the witness was present and that her failure to present the testimony was inadvertent. She asked for leave to reopen the evidence, and the court granted the motion over husband'


CourtListener opinion 4160901

valuation/division: , PC, on briefs), for appellant. Tara Steinnerd (Steinnerd Law PLLC, on brief), for appellee. Shawn Garrett ("husband") appeals a final decree of divorce, and assigns error to the court's rulings regarding his motion for a continuance, determination of equitable distribution, child and spousal support awards, and motion to reopen the evidence. Andria Garrett ("wife") assigns cross-error to the court's entry of a divorce a mensa et thoro and the court's determination of support arrearages. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the matter to the trial court. BACKGROUND The parties w


CourtListener opinion 4161343

CourtListener opinion 4161343 Extracted reporter citation: 940 S.W.2d 594. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4161343 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 4161343

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 4161343

QDRO: ed effective September 1, 2016, prior to the date of the divorce decree, the affidavit of indigence, the contest, and the hearing on indigence. 2 App.—Fort Worth Aug. 6, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting divorce court's limited continuing jurisdiction over QDRO and enforcement matters, but vacating sanctions order that did not relate to these matters and that was entered after plenary power expired); Warfield Elec. of Tex., Inc. v. Harry Hines Prop. Venture, 871 S.W.2d 273, 275 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1994, no writ); see Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 311 (Tex. 2000); cf. Arndt v. Farris


CourtListener opinion 4161888

CourtListener opinion 4161888 Extracted case name: K.H. v. A.S. Extracted reporter citation: 351 N.E.2d 113. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4161888 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 4161888


CourtListener opinion 4161888

QDRO: decree of Janice and plaintiff-appellee Michael Mayer was entered on April 16, 2015. Thereafter, the parties engaged in post-decree proceedings, which included litigation relative to the sale of the marital residence and division of financial assets (i.e., qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO's") relating to retirement and pension plans and savings accounts). {¶3} On April 14, 2016, Janice filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the April 16, 2015 divorce decree; Michael opposed her motion. The trial court denied Janice's motion without a hearing, finding that, although it was filed within one year from the date of the final di


CourtListener opinion 4161888

pension: 16, 2015. Thereafter, the parties engaged in post-decree proceedings, which included litigation relative to the sale of the marital residence and division of financial assets (i.e., qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO's") relating to retirement and pension plans and savings accounts). {¶3} On April 14, 2016, Janice filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the April 16, 2015 divorce decree; Michael opposed her motion. The trial court denied Janice's motion without a hearing, finding that, although it was filed within one year from the date of the final divorce decree, it was nonetheless untimely. Janic


CourtListener opinion 4161888

domestic relations order: Janice and plaintiff-appellee Michael Mayer was entered on April 16, 2015. Thereafter, the parties engaged in post-decree proceedings, which included litigation relative to the sale of the marital residence and division of financial assets (i.e., qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO's") relating to retirement and pension plans and savings accounts). {¶3} On April 14, 2016, Janice filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the April 16, 2015 divorce decree; Michael opposed her motion. The trial court denied Janice's motion without a hearing, finding that, although it was filed within one year from the date of the final di


CourtListener opinion 4162524

CourtListener opinion 4162524 Extracted case name: TERRI L. RICHMAN v. SCOTT A. WALLMAN. Extracted reporter citation: 992 A.2d 1137. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4162524 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 4162524


CourtListener opinion 4162524

QDRO: s agreed that QDROs would be executed to assign to the plaintiff a portion of the defen- dant's benefits under his 401 (k) defined contribution plan and defined benefit pension plan. The agreement stated that ‘‘the [c]ourt in the pending action shall enter a [QDRO] transferring to the [plaintiff] the appropriate amount of the [defendant's] accrued interest in his 401 (k) and pension as indicated herein.'' The agreement further provided that ‘‘the [c]ourt shall have the power to enter alternative orders to effectuate the intention herein.'' The agreement stipulated that ‘‘Attorney Eliza- beth McMahon shall prepare the


CourtListener opinion 4162524

pension: separation agreement into the dissolution judgment. Pursuant to that agreement, the parties agreed that QDROs would be executed to assign to the plaintiff a portion of the defen- dant's benefits under his 401 (k) defined contribution plan and defined benefit pension plan. The agreement stated that ‘‘the [c]ourt in the pending action shall enter a [QDRO] transferring to the [plaintiff] the appropriate amount of the [defendant's] accrued interest in his 401 (k) and pension as indicated herein.'' The agreement further provided that ‘‘the [c]ourt shall have the power to enter alternative orders to effectuate the intention


CourtListener opinion 4162524

401(k): between the parties and incorporated the terms of the separation agreement into the dissolution judgment. Pursuant to that agreement, the parties agreed that QDROs would be executed to assign to the plaintiff a portion of the defen- dant's benefits under his 401 (k) defined contribution plan and defined benefit pension plan. The agreement stated that ‘‘the [c]ourt in the pending action shall enter a [QDRO] transferring to the [plaintiff] the appropriate amount of the [defendant's] accrued interest in his 401 (k) and pension as indicated herein.'' The agreement further provided that ‘‘the [c]ourt shall have the power to


CourtListener opinion 4162524

valuation/division: ks omitted.) Schorsch v. Schorsch, 53 Conn. App. 378, 385, 731 A.2d 330 (1999). The court's authority to distribute the personal property of the parties must be exercised, if at all, at the time that it renders judgment dissolving the marriage. ‘‘Therefore, a property division order gen- erally cannot be modified by the trial court after the dissolution decree is entered, subject only to being opened within four months from the date the judgment is rendered under General Statutes § 52-212a.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ‘‘Although the court does not have the authority to modify a property assignment, a court, after


CourtListener opinion 4163249

CourtListener opinion 4163249 Extracted reporter citation: 660 N.W.2d 586. Docket: 20160072. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4163249 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 4163249

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 4163249

QDRO: March 14, 2016, Chad Lizakowski filed a brief opposing the motion to dismiss. II [¶6] Laura Lizakowski argues Chad Lizakowski's appeal should be dismissed because he accepted a substantial benefit of the judgment. Specifically, Chad Lizakowski filed a qualified domestic relations order for the court ordered transfer of a 401K account awarded as part of the district court's property allocation. In addition, Laura Lizakowski argues Chad Lizakowski's acceptance of the $7,000.00 award of attorney fees and spousal support constitutes an acceptance of a substantial benefit of the judgment and waives his right to an appeal. [¶7] "A party mo


CourtListener opinion 4163249

retirement benefits: ogether." Krueger , 2008 ND 90, ¶ 9, 748 N.W.2d 671. The district court awarded Chad Lizakowski a $100,000.00 cash equalization payment as part of the property distribution. Chad Lizakowski was awarded minimal debt in comparison to Laura Lizakowski, a retirement account valued at over $40,000.00, and monthly rehabilitative support of $1,000.00 a month for twenty-four months. Chad Lizakowski will also be receiving $1,572.00 a month in child support. [¶22] Chad Lizakowski points to several cases in which large awards of spousal support have been upheld when the obligor spouse was found to have a significantly higher ear


CourtListener opinion 4163249

401(k): smiss. II [¶6] Laura Lizakowski argues Chad Lizakowski's appeal should be dismissed because he accepted a substantial benefit of the judgment. Specifically, Chad Lizakowski filed a qualified domestic relations order for the court ordered transfer of a 401K account awarded as part of the district court's property allocation. In addition, Laura Lizakowski argues Chad Lizakowski's acceptance of the $7,000.00 award of attorney fees and spousal support constitutes an acceptance of a substantial benefit of the judgment and waives his right to an appeal. [¶7] "A party moving to dismiss an appeal must clearly es


CourtListener opinion 4163249

domestic relations order: 2016, Chad Lizakowski filed a brief opposing the motion to dismiss. II [¶6] Laura Lizakowski argues Chad Lizakowski's appeal should be dismissed because he accepted a substantial benefit of the judgment. Specifically, Chad Lizakowski filed a qualified domestic relations order for the court ordered transfer of a 401K account awarded as part of the district court's property allocation. In addition, Laura Lizakowski argues Chad Lizakowski's acceptance of the $7,000.00 award of attorney fees and spousal support constitutes an acceptance of a substantial benefit of the judgment and waives his right to an appeal. [¶7] "A party mo


CourtListener opinion 4163843

CourtListener opinion 4163843 Extracted reporter citation: 405 S.W.3d 470. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4163843 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 4163843

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 4163843

QDRO: failure to keep the client reasonably informed) in his representation of Linda Curry in a divorce case. During'Stansbury's representation of Ms. Curry, an agreement was filed on July 6, 2012 requiring Stansbury to prepare a Qualifled Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Stansbury failed to do so, although he informed Ms. Curry that he had. Additionally, Stansbury failed to communicate to Ms. Curry that he had been suspended from the practice of law on August 29, 2013. Stansbury failed to provide Ms. Curry with a copy of her file after his representation ended due to his suspension. SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) states: "Upon termi


CourtListener opinion 4164314

CourtListener opinion 4164314 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Benson. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 16–1441. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4164314 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 4164314


CourtListener opinion 4164314

QDRO: xpenditures had not occurred. The district court ordered Gary to pay Linda approximately $23,835 for Linda's share in the marital home. The court also ordered that Linda receive substantial retirement assets through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) with a value in excess of $100,000. In addition, the court ordered that Gary's interest in a defined benefits plan be distributed between the parties according to the formula established in In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255–57 (Iowa 1996). The district court awarded Linda rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $200 per month for three yea


CourtListener opinion 4164314

retirement benefits: Duffy was concerned that the language of the document could be construed to release Linda's award of retirement assets in the divorce decree. As a result, Duffy modified the document by inserting the handwritten phrase "except pending QDRO concerning pet. retirement accounts per decree" in three places on the "Settlement and Release of Claims." Linda initialed each handwritten change, and she signed the document before a notary. Also on October 10, Linda cashed Gary's check for $27,000. 8 On October 11, 2012, Duffy dismissed the contempt complaint with prejudice. On October 22, Sporer dismissed his appeal in the divorc


CourtListener opinion 4164314

pension: n note was "a fraud." The court cited the tone, substance, and circumstances of the note. The court emphasized that it would be absurd for Linda to give up her retirement benefit of more than $100,000, plus an unknown value of a share of a defined benefit pension, in exchange for $3000. Further, the court noted that it would be extremely unlikely that Linda would surrender the retirement award in settlement of the contempt action against Gary. Further, the district court reasoned that there was no plausible motivation for Linda to accept "such a ridiculous agreement." According to the court, there was no prosp


CourtListener opinion 4164314

401(k): istrict court noted that dissipation of assets is a proper consideration. The district court found that Gary had unreasonably dissipated marital assets in contemplation of the dissolution. The court concluded Gary had unreasonably spent 4 $139,000 from a 401(k) account and $30,000 from the parties' home equity line of credit. The district court stated it would adjust the distribution of the remaining marital property as if these expenditures had not occurred. The district court ordered Gary to pay Linda approximately $23,835 for Linda's share in the marital home. The court also ordered that Linda receive su


CourtListener opinion 4164539

CourtListener opinion 4164539 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4164539 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 4164539


CourtListener opinion 4164539

pension: 25, 2016. The order, among other things, granted defendant's motion and adjudged that defendant is entitled to the entry of a Domestic Relations Order awarding her the right to receive $833 per month from plaintiff's New York State Teachers Retirement System pension benefit commencing as of the date of his retirement. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In this postdi


CourtListener opinion 4164539

domestic relations order: N OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Drury, J.), entered May 25, 2016. The order, among other things, granted defendant's motion and adjudged that defendant is entitled to the entry of a Domestic Relations Order awarding her the right to receive $833 per month from plaintiff's New York State Teachers Retirement System pension benefit commencing as of the date of his retirement. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitte


CourtListener opinion 4169895

CourtListener opinion 4169895 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson. Docket: 2-16-0184 Opinion. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4169895 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 4169895


CourtListener opinion 4169895

QDRO: they satisfied the specificity requirement of section 11-101. See In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 261, 266 (2002) (where the respondent claimed on appeal that the trial court employed faulty reasoning during its oral ruling approving a qualified domestic relations order, Foutch applied because the respondent failed to provide a report of proceedings of the hearing). Consequently, we resolve this issue against defendants and reject their claim of error. ¶ 33 Defendants' other challenge to the contempt order assumes, in tension with their first challenge, that the injunctive order is specific enough for us to determine w


CourtListener opinion 4169895

domestic relations order: fied the specificity requirement of section 11-101. See In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 261, 266 (2002) (where the respondent claimed on appeal that the trial court employed faulty reasoning during its oral ruling approving a qualified domestic relations order, Foutch applied because the respondent failed to provide a report of proceedings of the hearing). Consequently, we resolve this issue against defendants and reject their claim of error. ¶ 33 Defendants' other challenge to the contempt order assumes, in tension with their first challenge, that the injunctive order is specific enough for us to determine w


CourtListener opinion 4170474

CourtListener opinion 4170474 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4170474 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 4170474

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 4170474

QDRO: nfree, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. CARNEY, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION In 2006 a divorcing couple agreed to divide the husband's retirement benefit based on its present value and implemented the division with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). In 2014, after the husband received an updated benefit projection that calculated the wife's share of the benefit using his salary at retirement instead of at divorce, he sought to modify the QDRO. He asked the court to require that her benefit be based upon the same salary data used in the 2006 calculation. The superior court denied the motion. Because


CourtListener opinion 4170474

retirement benefits: 3% of the net estate to Marjorie to help her establish adequate housing for the couple's minor children. They agreed that this division "fairly allocate[d] the economic effect of their divorce" as required by AS 25.24.160(a)(4). Among the assets divided were retirement accounts belonging to both, including their State of Alaska Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) retirement accounts. David was still working for the State and had accrued a little more than 20 years of PERS service credit when the parties separated. The parties agreed on a value for David's PERS account based on its present value as calculated by a third par


CourtListener opinion 4170474

pension: ng Hansen v. Hansen, 119 P.3d 1005, 1015 (Alaska 2005)) ("Determining the [retirement health] benefits' marital portion requires calculation of the ‘coverture fraction.' "). Accord Faulkner v. Goldfuss, 46 P.3d 993, 1003 (Alaska 2002) ("The marital share of a pension (continued...) -8- 7173 David's proposed definition of "marital portion" would limit a former spouse's retirement benefits to the salary level earned during the marriage, but he has cited no cases supporting this additional meaning.22 The QDRO's listing of the marriage and separation dates provides no reason to reevaluate the meaning of "marital porti


CourtListener opinion 4170474

alternate payee: retain other property acquired after their 31 December 2004 permanent separation. That property is agreed to be non-marital and neither party is making a claim to it." The QDRO submitted by the parties said, in relevant part, that "Marjorie W. Thomson, as the Alternate Payee, shall receive from the Plan, from the final monthly retirement benefit which otherwise would be payable to the Member, 46.96% of the total monthly benefit which is based on credited service accrued from August 7, 1982 to December 31, 2004." (Emphasis in original.) The court signed this QDRO along with the divorce decree and settlement on August 9, 2006. B


CourtListener opinion 4170937

CourtListener opinion 4170937 Extracted case name: LYNNE E. HARRISON v. EDWIN B. HARRISON. Extracted reporter citation: 944 S.W.2d 379. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4170937 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 4170937


CourtListener opinion 4170937

QDRO: and 60% to Wife. The court specifically noted that "[t]he parties stipulated that $82,335.00 represents both the funds she invested and growth that occurred during the marriage as a marital asset subject to equitable division." The court also directed that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") be prepared by the parties, dividing the marital portion of Wife's employer- provided pension 60% to her and 40% to Husband. With respect to the liability owed to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), the trial court found that Husband failed to file tax returns on behalf of the parties for the years 2011 through 2013 in a timely fashion. Having


CourtListener opinion 4170937

retirement benefits: his corporation owed him some $300,000.00 which he used to pay down promissory notes owed to him instead of receiving a salary" but "provided no documentation to support his claim." Additionally, Husband received a lump sum of $40,514.00 from his pension and retirement plan in 2012, which he claimed to have used for investments to benefit the parties. The court found that Husband was unable to provide documentation demonstrating where this money was deposited or for what purpose it was used. Husband provided documentation of two trust accounts that existed at the time of the marriage, one with a balance of $45,598.00 at the


CourtListener opinion 4170937

pension: R3-CV This divorce case involves a marriage of eight years' duration. Because the parties had reached an agreement with regard to the division of certain marital assets, the trial court was requested during a bench trial to divide the parties' retirement and pension accounts, or the marital portion thereof, and other limited marital assets and liabilities. The trial court considered the relevant statutory factors and apportioned the remaining assets and liabilities 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband. The trial court also awarded the husband $1,000.00 in attorney's fees and $180.42 in court reporter fees. The husban


CourtListener opinion 4170937

401(k): sband." Moreover, the trial court determined that each party maintained the ability to continue to accumulate future assets and income if he or she chose to do so. The court also found that the parties jointly decided to increase Wife's contributions to her 401(k) during the marriage; however, the growth of the marital estate was marginal due to Husband's reported stock losses of nearly $160,000.00. Considering all of the factors enumerated in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-4- 121, the trial court concluded that the marital assets and liabilities should be divided 60% to Wife and 40% to Husband. In furtherance of th


CourtListener opinion 4171169

CourtListener opinion 4171169 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of MISTI and TIM JANES. MISTI JANES. Extracted reporter citation: 176 Cal.App.4th 1438. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4171169 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 4171169


CourtListener opinion 4171169

QDRO: of appellant Tim Janes (Husband). In 2014, Wife's $113,392 remained in the 1 retirement account. Wife sought the $113,392 and the gains or losses resulting from that money. The family court granted Wife's request for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) reflecting Wife was entitled to $113,392 and the resulting gains or losses dating back to the date of separation. Husband contends (1) the family court lacked jurisdiction to modify the 2010 judgment of dissolution by awarding the gains and losses to Wife; and (2) the family court erred by dating the gains and losses back to the date of separation, rat


CourtListener opinion 4171169

retirement benefits: ondent. In a 2010 marital settlement agreement, which was attached to a judgment of dissolution, respondent Misti Janes (Wife) was awarded $113,392 from the retirement account of appellant Tim Janes (Husband). In 2014, Wife's $113,392 remained in the 1 retirement account. Wife sought the $113,392 and the gains or losses resulting from that money. The family court granted Wife's request for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) reflecting Wife was entitled to $113,392 and the resulting gains or losses dating back to the date of separation. Husband contends (1) the family court lacked jurisdiction to modify the 2010


CourtListener opinion 4171169

pension: e instant case is "on all fours" with In re Marriage of Thorne and Raccina (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 492 (Thorne). In Thorne, the wife and the husband entered into a marital settlement agreement, in which the wife accepted 16 percent of the husband's military pension. The wife sought to have the dissolution judgment set aside when she learned courts apply a time rule to divide a pension. (Id. at pp. 495-497.) The wife asserted she was "‘entitled to her one-half community share of [the husband's] disposable retirement pay.'" (Id. at p. 497.) The trial court modified the judgment to comply with the time rule. (Thorne


CourtListener opinion 4171169

401(k): settlement agreement (the agreement) attached to the judgment, reflected "Petitioner, [Wife], is awarded and Respondent agrees to transfer, assign, and set over to Petitioner, the following community property assets . . . . [¶] h. $113,392 from [Husband's] 401k retirement account through Sentinell Benefits." The agreement also provided, "Respondent, [Husband], is awarded and Petitioner agrees to transfer, assign, and set over to Respondent, the following community property assets . . . . [¶] l. Balance of the community interest and Respondent's separate property interest in the 401k retirement account throug


CourtListener opinion 4172199

CourtListener opinion 4172199 Extracted reporter citation: 554 N.E.2d 83. Docket: OT-16-029 Appellant Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4172199 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 4172199


CourtListener opinion 4172199

QDRO: f modifying the entry to indicate the characterizations of spousal support and divisions of property as stated in this decision. Further, we order the trial court to modify its judgment entry to reflect that the Prudential pension plan is subject to a 12. qualified domestic relations order, and that such an order shall be entered with respect to the plan. We further order the trial court to retain jurisdiction as to the spousal support award. Appellant is ordered to pay costs of this appeal. See App.R. 24. Judgment affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 2


CourtListener opinion 4172199

retirement benefits: the spousal support award. 2. {¶ 7} The record, in pertinent part, reflects as follows: Appellee's counsel: Last, but not least, Your Honor, is the issue of spousal support. I will say we got a little creative with this because of several issues and retirement plans and everything else, but until the house is sold, the defendant [appellee] will pay to plaintiff [appellant] the amount of $2,000 per month. We also talked about the sum that plaintiff will pay direct—will be paid directly from defendant, the pension plan amount, and, again, that changes in December 2016. We will not be utilizing a Q.D.R.O and


CourtListener opinion 4172199

pension: ity and unable to work as a result of a heart condition. Appellee financially supported her during the marriage. {¶ 5} Appellee is a financial advisor and insurance agent, and the record reflects his income comes from three sources, including a Prudential pension plan ("the plan"). Appellant testified the plan was started in 2010. The monthly distribution from the plan was $2,490, until December 2016, at which point the amount would change to $1,694. Appellee testified that he made the plan "a hundred percent spousal benefit," so that appellant would receive payment in the event of his death. {¶ 6} Prior to tr


CourtListener opinion 4172199

domestic relations order: g the entry to indicate the characterizations of spousal support and divisions of property as stated in this decision. Further, we order the trial court to modify its judgment entry to reflect that the Prudential pension plan is subject to a 12. qualified domestic relations order, and that such an order shall be entered with respect to the plan. We further order the trial court to retain jurisdiction as to the spousal support award. Appellant is ordered to pay costs of this appeal. See App.R. 24. Judgment affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 2


CourtListener opinion 4172617

CourtListener opinion 4172617 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4172617 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 4172617

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 4172617

QDRO: th Avenue, Suite 150, Chardon, OH 44024-1079 (For Defendant-Appellee). TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J. {¶1} Appellant, William Dilley, appeals from the May 27, 2016 judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, approving appellee, Tatiana Dilley's, proposed qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO") filed May 13, 2016. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. {¶2} Appellant filed for divorce in May 2008. On March 10, 2010, the trial court entered a final judgment of divorce. The matter has been subject to numerous appeals and post-decree motions. See Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2014-G-3227, 2015-Ohi


CourtListener opinion 4172617

pension: be credited toward appellant's obligations as set forth herein. {¶5} On October 23, 2015, appellee submitted three proposed QDROs awarding her (1) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup 401(k) plan; (2) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup Pension Plan Shearson Benefit; and (3) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup Pension Plan Account-Based Benefit. Appellant objected on November 3, 2015. 2 {¶6} On November 24, 2015, the trial court approved the QDRO awarding appellee 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup 401(k) plan and ordered that it should be executed. The court was unable


CourtListener opinion 4172617

401(k): h September 26, 2014, according to Geauga County Child Support Enforcement Division; (3) $9,167.92 in prior unpaid attorney's fees; (4) $1,302 in attorney's fees for the Motion to Show Cause filed June 10, 2013; and (5) 100% of the balance of the Citigroup 401(k) account, half of which was previously awarded to appellee. The remaining half was to be credited toward appellant's obligations as set forth herein. {¶5} On October 23, 2015, appellee submitted three proposed QDROs awarding her (1) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup 401(k) plan; (2) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup Pension Plan


CourtListener opinion 4172617

domestic relations order: Suite 150, Chardon, OH 44024-1079 (For Defendant-Appellee). TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J. {¶1} Appellant, William Dilley, appeals from the May 27, 2016 judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, approving appellee, Tatiana Dilley's, proposed qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO") filed May 13, 2016. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. {¶2} Appellant filed for divorce in May 2008. On March 10, 2010, the trial court entered a final judgment of divorce. The matter has been subject to numerous appeals and post-decree motions. See Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2014-G-3227, 2015-Ohi


CourtListener opinion 4174529

CourtListener opinion 4174529 Extracted case name: ERIC P. SOUSA v. DONNA M. SOUSA. Extracted reporter citation: 116 A.3d 865. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4174529 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 4174529


CourtListener opinion 4174529

QDRO: n was valued as of April 21, 2001, at $32,698.82. The parties were divorced on December 19, 2001. They executed a separation agreement that provided, inter alia, that the plaintiff's pension benefits would be divided equally between the parties pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The separa- tion agreement further required the plaintiff to pay peri- odic alimony of $130 per week for five years or until the defendant began cohabitating with another individual. On January 3, 2002, in the course of preparing the QDRO, the defendant's counsel, Kenneth Potash, obtained the document listing the plaintiff's contribu- tions to the


CourtListener opinion 4174529

pension: of proving fraud in all of its elements by clear and convincing evidence. At the heart of this appeal is whether the defendant, Donna M. Sousa, proved by clear and convincing evidence that the plain- tiff, Eric P. Sousa, knew that the $32,698.82 he valued his pension at when the parties were divorced in 2001 was incorrect. The trial court found that the defendant failed to carry this burden. We affirm that judgment. We first turn to the procedural history of this case, which explains how it is again before us. This appeal, which stems from a judgment modifying a prior judg- ment dissolving the marriage of the plaintiff


CourtListener opinion 4174529

401(k): ents of her fraud claim, we need not address whether this finding was clearly erroneous. 5 ‘‘Vested'' pension benefits are ‘‘pension interests in which an employee has an irrevocable . . . right, in the future, to receive his or her account balance (under a defined contribution plan), or his or her accrued benefit (under a defined benefit plan), regardless of whether the [employment] relationship continues.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Krafick v. Kraf- ick, 234 Conn. 783, 788 n.12, 663 A.2d 365 (1995). 6 We also note Attorney Potash's testimony that he received the appendix on January 3, 2002. This was nine years before


CourtListener opinion 4174529

domestic relations order: ed as of April 21, 2001, at $32,698.82. The parties were divorced on December 19, 2001. They executed a separation agreement that provided, inter alia, that the plaintiff's pension benefits would be divided equally between the parties pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The separa- tion agreement further required the plaintiff to pay peri- odic alimony of $130 per week for five years or until the defendant began cohabitating with another individual. On January 3, 2002, in the course of preparing the QDRO, the defendant's counsel, Kenneth Potash, obtained the document listing the plaintiff's contribu- tions to the


CourtListener opinion 4175148

CourtListener opinion 4175148 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF NICOLE MARIE FLUENT AND GRANT JEROME FLUENT Upon the Petition of NICOLE MARIE. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 16-1321. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4175148 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 4175148


CourtListener opinion 4175148

retirement benefits: Nicole and Grant were married in August 2009. In November 2015, Nicole filed a petition for dissolution. Prior to trial, the parties executed a pretrial stipulation that resolved most issues between them, except for the division of the portion of Grant's retirement account earned during the marriage—sums totaling approximately $125,000. Nicole requested an equalization payment from the account in the amount of approximately $46,500.1 Grant requested the entirety of the account, in part as a set aside to him for a $74,000 inheritance he had received during the marriage from his mother's estate and certain premarital money


CourtListener opinion 4175148

domestic relations order: short duration.12 Unless the parties otherwise agree, within ninety days of issuance of the procedendo in this case, Grant shall either (1) pay to Nicole the additional sum of $33,500 or (2) at his expense, take all steps necessary to obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that shall award to Nicole said sum plus future allocable income accumulations minus allocable losses or expenses until distribution to Nicole pursuant to the retirement plan's provisions. We do not disturb any other aspect of the district court's decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. 12 In reaching this outcome, we also considered Grant's claim Nicole used


CourtListener opinion 4175148

valuation/division: l assets. Further, in its decree, the district court does not specify what premarital property it set aside or the value it attributed to premarital property. Upon our review of the record, the only property clearly disputed by the parties at trial was the marital portion of Grant's retirement account and the proper treatment of the inheritance Grant received. This is the dispute we address on appeal. Iowa Code section 598.21(6) (2015) provides: Property inherited by either party or gifts received by either party prior to or during the course of the marriage is the property of that party and is not subject to a prope


CourtListener opinion 4175670

CourtListener opinion 4175670 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4175670 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 4175670


CourtListener opinion 4175670

QDRO: am), at ¶18, citing Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I), Title 29, U.S.Code, and Section 414(p)(1)(A)(i), Title 26, U.S.Code. As we explained in Blaine v. Blaine, Jackson App. No. 10CA15, 2011-Ohio-1654, at ¶20: [A] QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, at ¶ 7. A QDRO does not in any way constitute a further adjudication on the merits of the pension division, as its sole purpose is to implement the terms of the divorce decree. Id


CourtListener opinion 4175670

retirement benefits: the Revised Code. R.C. 3105.89. {¶10} Richard is not disputing what the trial court ordered, but rather that the trial court modify the order to carry into effect the manifest intentions of the parties. In other words, reflect what is allowable under his retirement plan. "He is not asking the trial court to modify the property division; he is requesting the trial court to modify the division of property order, the DPO, specifying the terms of the property division." Hines at ¶ 12. {¶11} We recognize that the trial court traditionally does not have jurisdiction to modify the DPO, but pursuant to R.C. 3105.89, the tria


CourtListener opinion 4175670

pension: rity Act of 1974, Section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I), Title 29, U.S.Code, and Section 414(p)(1)(A)(i), Title 26, U.S.Code. As we explained in Blaine v. Blaine, Jackson App. No. 10CA15, 2011-Ohio-1654, at ¶20: [A] QDRO implements a trial court's decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution. Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268, 2007-Ohio-6056, 878 N.E.2d 16, at ¶ 7. A QDRO does not in any way constitute a further adjudication on the merits of the pension division, as its sole purpose is to implement the terms of the divorce decree. Id. at ¶ 16. "* * * Indeed a QDRO may not vary from, en


CourtListener opinion 4175670

alternate payee: do so, does not cure the impossibility of performance to achieve the intent of the parties. However, the trial court did not clarify its order, so it cannot rule that the DPO is not void. A DPO "[I]s an order that creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate 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." State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355, 2010 Ohio 252, 922 N.E.2d 214 (per curiam), at ¶18, citing Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I), Title 29,


CourtListener opinion 4177101

CourtListener opinion 4177101 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Glover graduation. Docket: 34145-3-111 In re Marriage of Glover. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4177101 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 4177101

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 4177101

QDRO: ities of the community is appropriate. I am rejecting Mr. Glover's request for a lopsided division. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 10-12. The court's letter decision ruled that each party's community property interest in the other's pension would be handled by a QDRO; 1 observed that the parties had already divided their checking accounts, and divided the remaining community assets and liabilities as follows: Awarded to Mr. Awarded to Ms. Glover Glover Residence $270,000.00 Retirement accts $92,930.00 $92,930.00 I( $21,701.00 I( $28,037.00 I( $34,442.00 I( $16,388.00 I( $20,977.00 I( $20,791.00 Vehic


CourtListener opinion 4177101

pension: re Marriage of Glover liabilities of the community is appropriate. I am rejecting Mr. Glover's request for a lopsided division. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 10-12. The court's letter decision ruled that each party's community property interest in the other's pension would be handled by a QDRO; 1 observed that the parties had already divided their checking accounts, and divided the remaining community assets and liabilities as follows: Awarded to Mr. Awarded to Ms. Glover Glover Residence $270,000.00 Retirement accts $92,930.00 $92,930.00 I( $21,701.00 I( $28,037.00 I( $34,442.00 I( $16,388.00 I( $20,97


CourtListener opinion 4177101

domestic relations order: I( $2,000.00 I( $2,000.00 Total Assets $430,650.00 $191,220.00 Home mortgage ($115,543.00) Car loans ($4,848.00) I( ($5,222.00) Total Liabilities ($120,391.00) ($5,222.00) Asset allocation net of liabilities $310,259.00 $185,998.00 1 Qualified domestic relations order. 4 No. 34145-3-III In re Marriage of Glover The court's letter decision recognized that Ms. Glover had received a $120,000 inheritance after the dissolution action was filed, ruled that it retained its separate character, and awarded it to her. It observed that the community had received the benefit of a $95,000 inheritance Ms. Glover received in Se


CourtListener opinion 4177101

valuation/division: RT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE In re the Marriage of ) ) No. 34145-3-111 RYAN GLOVER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) CONNIE GLOVER, ) ) Respondent. ) SIDDOWAY, J. - Ryan Glover appeals the maintenance award, property division, and payment terms ordered in the decree dissolving his almost 24-year marriage to Connie Glover. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ryan Glover filed for divorce from Connie Glover in November 2014, after nearly 24 years of marriage. Mr. Glover has a Bachelor's of Pharmacy degree and after No. 34145-3-111 In


CourtListener opinion 4178160

CourtListener opinion 4178160 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 15–2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4178160 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 4178160


CourtListener opinion 4178160

QDRO: nd the majority of the other assets of the marriage including the family home, a number of vehicles and motorcycles, and farm equipment. Blessum filed the decree on March 30. However, Blessum failed to prepare or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to document Stender's interest in Phillip's retirement account. Stender was unaware that Blessum had not prepared or filed the QDRO. 5 Approximately two years later, in mid-March 2011, Blessum called Stender. Blessum informed Stender that Phillip had called to ask if he would receive the entire balance of his retirement account if "something happen


CourtListener opinion 4178160

retirement benefits: ually assaulted Stender. On March 25, Stender signed the second proposed decree upon the advice of Blessum. Stender testified at trial that she was a homemaker for most of her marriage to Phillip. She testified she was unaware of the amount in Phillip's retirement accounts, the state of the household finances, or the amount of alimony to which she might be entitled. She signed the decree based on Blessum's advice that the contents of the decree represented everything she was entitled to receive in the divorce. The final divorce decree awarded Stender $110,000 from Phillip's retirement account, half of the home furnishin


CourtListener opinion 4178160

domestic relations order: ll of the other accounts and the majority of the other assets of the marriage including the family home, a number of vehicles and motorcycles, and farm equipment. Blessum filed the decree on March 30. However, Blessum failed to prepare or file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to document Stender's interest in Phillip's retirement account. Stender was unaware that Blessum had not prepared or filed the QDRO. 5 Approximately two years later, in mid-March 2011, Blessum called Stender. Blessum informed Stender that Phillip had called to ask if he would receive the entire balance of his retirement account if "something


CourtListener opinion 4178280

CourtListener opinion 4178280 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4178280 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 4178280


CourtListener opinion 4178280

QDRO: h adopted the parties' PSA. In paragraph 13A, the PSA provides as follows: Husband and Wife shall each retain as their sole and separate property all retirement accounts held prior to the marriage in their sole and separate name, and will divide 50/50 via Qualified Domestic Relations Order any interest in any retirement account held which was acquired between the date of the marriage and the date of separation. While this paragraph (entered into in 2010) references a QDRO, no QDRO was entered in this case until 2015. The parties' financial statements filed during the divorce proceedings listed the 1 The parties had one child together, w


CourtListener opinion 4178280

retirement benefits: Mark W. Kelley, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. On appeal, petitioner husband argues that (1) the lower courts erred in finding that the parties' Property Settlement Agreement ("PSA") is unambiguous as to the division of petitioner's retirement accounts, and (2) alternatively, if this Court finds no ambiguity, the lower courts erred in allocating respondent wife portions of each of petitioner's retirement accounts under the PSA's unambiguous language. This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process


CourtListener opinion 4178280

pension: sary for the preparation of [q]ualified [d]omestic [r]elations [o]rders." Thereafter, petitioner husband filed a response to the motion to modify child support in which he asked that respondent wife be ordered to "disclose all of her retirement, stocks [sic], pension and 401k accounts with supporting documentation[.]" In April of 2015, the family court held a hearing on the motion to modify child support. At that hearing, the parties expressed their intent to enter a settlement of the child support claims. By subsequent order, in addition to resolving the child support issue, the family court ordered the parties to "e


CourtListener opinion 4178280

401(k): tatements filed during the divorce proceedings listed the 1 The parties had one child together, who is now of the age of majority. 1 following retirement accounts: (1) respondent wife's IRA/SEP accounts in the amount of $2504.55; (2) petitioner husband's 401K/403B accounts in the amount of approximately $262,000; and (3) petitioner husband's IRA/SEP accounts in the amount of approximately $50,000. The parties agree that petitioner husband currently has three retirement accounts, one of which is apparently from his current employer, but that only two of those three accounts are at issue in this appeal.2 In Febr


CourtListener opinion 4178486

CourtListener opinion 4178486 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 15–2016. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4178486 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 4178486


CourtListener opinion 4179502

CourtListener opinion 4179502 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CAROL LYNN GUPTON AND WENDEE KAY BROWN Upon the Petition of CAROL LYNN GUPTON. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 16-1784. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4179502 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 4179502


CourtListener opinion 4179502

QDRO: e parties' assets and debts, valued Carol's business at $10,000, and entered a qualified domestic relations order. We find the district court properly awarded shared physical care, properly divided the parties' assets and debts, and entered an appropriate qualified domestic relations order. We affirm the district court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Wendee and Carol began their relationship in 1994. They started cohabiting the same year. After a brief separation they began building a new house together in Carter Lake, Iowa, in 2000. Carter Lake is located west of the Missouri River on eastern edge of Omaha. Wendee gave birth to a


CourtListener opinion 4179502

retirement benefits: e Marriage of Wiedemann, 402 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1987). VI. Qualified Domestic Relations Order Wendee also claims the district court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that erroneously allowed Carol to participate in post-dissolution retirement benefit increases. Pension benefits are divisible marital property in Iowa. In re Marriage of Branstetter, 508 N.W.2d 638, 641-42 (Iowa 1993). Our courts have established two methods for dividing pensions: dividing the present value of the pension plan, or assigning a percentage paid when the pension benefits mature. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 2


CourtListener opinion 4179502

pension: .W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1987). VI. Qualified Domestic Relations Order Wendee also claims the district court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that erroneously allowed Carol to participate in post-dissolution retirement benefit increases. Pension benefits are divisible marital property in Iowa. In re Marriage of Branstetter, 508 N.W.2d 638, 641-42 (Iowa 1993). Our courts have established two methods for dividing pensions: dividing the present value of the pension plan, or assigning a percentage paid when the pension benefits mature. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1996). Add


CourtListener opinion 4179502

domestic relations order: riage to Carol Lynn Gupton. Wendee claims the district court should have granted her physical care of the children, considered Carol's premarital assets in dividing the parties' assets and debts, valued Carol's business at $10,000, and entered a qualified domestic relations order. We find the district court properly awarded shared physical care, properly divided the parties' assets and debts, and entered an appropriate qualified domestic relations order. We affirm the district court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Wendee and Carol began their relationship in 1994. They started cohabiting the same year. After a brief sepa


CourtListener opinion 4180140

CourtListener opinion 4180140 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Kane. Extracted reporter citation: 806 F.3d 414. Docket: Second Division Docket No. 2-15-0774. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4180140 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 4180140

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 4180140

QDRO: g the statement; otherwise, the objection would be considered waived. Canulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37,500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a qualified domestic relations order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35,000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72,000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy h


CourtListener opinion 4180140

retirement benefits: anulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37,500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a qualified domestic relations order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35,000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72,000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy his then-unpaid fees of $37,000 and provide an additiona


CourtListener opinion 4180140

domestic relations order: ement; otherwise, the objection would be considered waived. Canulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37,500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a qualified domestic relations order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35,000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72,000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy h


CourtListener opinion 4182228

CourtListener opinion 4182228 Extracted reporter citation: 421 N.E.2d 1293. Docket: 16-CA-88 12 that the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4182228 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 4182228


CourtListener opinion 4182228

QDRO: nts shall be made directly to [Husband]. Licking County, Case No. 16-CA-88 4 3. Said funds shall be held in trust except for the following immediate disbursements: *** [Husband] shall receive an amount of funds necessary to satisfy the payment to QDRO Consultants, LLC to complete the present value offset and DPO. No further distribution of funds shall be addressed until such time as QDRO Consultants, LLC has issued their report. At that time, [Wife] shall receive her share of the [Husband's] retirement benefits which have been paid to [Husband]. {¶9} The trial court held a hearing on February


CourtListener opinion 4182228

retirement benefits: al court was held on August 29, 2012. On February 1, 2013, the trial court issued the Judgment Entry Decree of Divorce. The trial court found the duration of the marriage was from November 13, 2004 to August 29, 2012. The trial court addressed the parties' retirement benefits. The judgment entry states in pertinent part: VII. RETIREMENT BENEFITS: The Plaintiff has an interest in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the Defendant has an interest in the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund. The marital portions of the parties' retirements shall be equalized. In order for this to be accomplished, Plaintiff shall


CourtListener opinion 4182228

pension: ddressed the parties' retirement benefits. The judgment entry states in pertinent part: VII. RETIREMENT BENEFITS: The Plaintiff has an interest in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the Defendant has an interest in the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund. The marital portions of the parties' retirements shall be equalized. In order for this to be accomplished, Plaintiff shall be awarded the entirety of her OPERS retirement, and a sufficient portion of the Defendant's OP&F Pension to equalize the marital portion of their retirements. Any deferred compensation accounts of the parties shall be e


CourtListener opinion 4182228

valuation/division: es' retirement benefits. The judgment entry states in pertinent part: VII. RETIREMENT BENEFITS: The Plaintiff has an interest in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the Defendant has an interest in the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund. The marital portions of the parties' retirements shall be equalized. In order for this to be accomplished, Plaintiff shall be awarded the entirety of her OPERS retirement, and a sufficient portion of the Defendant's OP&F Pension to equalize the marital portion of their retirements. Any deferred compensation accounts of the parties shall be equalized in the same manne


CourtListener opinion 4182536

CourtListener opinion 4182536 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 15–1456. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4182536 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 4182536

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 4182536

QDRO: n" within the meaning of section 614.1. See id. § 611.1; see also Johnson v. Masters, 830 N.W.2d 647, 654, 660–61 (Wis. 2013) (plurality opinion) (concluding postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) are subject to twenty-year statute of repose on actions to enforce a judgment or decree, but the repose period is tolled if the judgment on which relief is sought is not statutorily permitted); id. at 671–73 (Prosser, J., dissenting) (opining postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a QDRO are subject to twenty-year repose period th


CourtListener opinion 4182536

domestic relations order: e it constitutes an "action" within the meaning of section 614.1. See id. § 611.1; see also Johnson v. Masters, 830 N.W.2d 647, 654, 660–61 (Wis. 2013) (plurality opinion) (concluding postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) are subject to twenty-year statute of repose on actions to enforce a judgment or decree, but the repose period is tolled if the judgment on which relief is sought is not statutorily permitted); id. at 671–73 (Prosser, J., dissenting) (opining postjudgment motions to enforce a judgment through entry of a QDRO are subject to twenty-year repose per


CourtListener opinion 4182946

CourtListener opinion 4182946 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson. Docket: Second District Docket No. 2-16-0184. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4182946 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 4182946


CourtListener opinion 4182946

QDRO: they satisfied the specificity requirement of section 11-101. See In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 261, 266 (2002) (where the respondent claimed on appeal that the trial court employed faulty reasoning during its oral ruling approving a qualified domestic relations order, Foutch applied because the respondent failed to provide a report of proceedings of the hearing). Consequently, we resolve this issue against defendants and reject their claim of error. ¶ 33 Defendants' other challenge to the contempt order assumes, in tension with their first challenge, that the injunctive order is specific enough for us to determine wh


CourtListener opinion 4182946

domestic relations order: fied the specificity requirement of section 11-101. See In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 261, 266 (2002) (where the respondent claimed on appeal that the trial court employed faulty reasoning during its oral ruling approving a qualified domestic relations order, Foutch applied because the respondent failed to provide a report of proceedings of the hearing). Consequently, we resolve this issue against defendants and reject their claim of error. ¶ 33 Defendants' other challenge to the contempt order assumes, in tension with their first challenge, that the injunctive order is specific enough for us to determine wh


CourtListener opinion 4183930

CourtListener opinion 4183930 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JOHN M. BECK. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 16-1443. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4183930 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 4183930

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 4183930

QDRO: e, for appellant. Gerald J. Kucera, Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ. 2 VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge. John Beck appeals an order denying his application to amend a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). I. Background Facts and Proceedings John and Catherine Beck married in 1997 and divorced in 2011. Before the dissolution decree was filed, the parties submitted a joint pretrial stipulation in which John asked to "receive one-half of [his] [Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System account (IPERS)] earned during the marriage" pursuant to the followi


CourtListener opinion 4183930

pension: ach for the parties. The district court denied the application. This appeal followed. II. Analysis John does not argue the language in the dissolution decree concerning his IPERS accounts fails to comport with our law on the division of defined-benefit pension plans. See In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 248-50 (Iowa 2006); In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 255-57 (Iowa 1996). He focuses on the QDRO language and contends it is inconsistent with the decree.1 1 Catherine responds that the QDRO was a property settlement, which could not be amended. To the contrary, "the QDRO is not itself a prop


CourtListener opinion 4183930

domestic relations order: HERINE N. SMITH, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Kevin McKeever, Judge. John Beck appeals an order denying his application to amend a qualified domestic relations order. AFFIRMED. Jennifer L. Zahradnik of Kollmorgen, Schlue & Zahradnik, P.C., Belle Plaine, for appellant. Gerald J. Kucera, Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ. 2 VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge. John Beck appeals an order denying his application to amend a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). I.


CourtListener opinion 4183930

valuation/division: O language and contends it is inconsistent with the decree.1 1 Catherine responds that the QDRO was a property settlement, which could not be amended. To the contrary, "the QDRO is not itself a property settlement, but is merely a method of effectuating the property division contained in a dissolution decree and may be modified later without affecting the finality of the underlying decree." In re Marriage of Veit, 797 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 2011). 4 In his view, the dissolution decree "clearly provides that the IPERS retirement account shall be split according to the formula based upon a service factor and a number of years


CourtListener opinion 4184099

CourtListener opinion 4184099 Extracted reporter citation: 450 N.E.2d 1140. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4184099 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 4184099


CourtListener opinion 4184099

QDRO: JE"). As part of the May 2014 AJE, Mark agreed to pay Joan one-half of a $33,500 bonus payment he had received from his employer, Delphi Automotive, and any additional amounts subject to division as set forth in their divorce decree. He also agreed under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to pay Joan a cash payment of $200,000 and an additional $240,000 from his Delphi Corporation Salaried Retirement Program. {¶4} Days after executing the May 2014 AJE, Joan filed a motion to show cause, alleging that on May 4, 2014, and unbeknownst to her, Mark had entered into a Separation and Release of Claims Agreement with Delphi terminatin


CourtListener opinion 4184099

retirement benefits: 4 hearing that he would be obligated to pay Joan one-half of any bonuses and he also knew on that date that he would be receiving an additional $160,000 lump sum payment as part of his separation with Delphi. He further admitted that he closed his Fidelity retirement account and rolled the monies over to another account on June 4, 2014, which was two weeks after agreeing to transfer $240,000 from the Fidelity account to Joan. It was not until November 2014 that Mark finally transferred $240,000 from his new retirement account to Joan by QDRO. {¶9} According to the Separation and Release of Claims Agreement with Delphi Aut


CourtListener opinion 4184099

domestic relations order: art of the May 2014 AJE, Mark agreed to pay Joan one-half of a $33,500 bonus payment he had received from his employer, Delphi Automotive, and any additional amounts subject to division as set forth in their divorce decree. He also agreed under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to pay Joan a cash payment of $200,000 and an additional $240,000 from his Delphi Corporation Salaried Retirement Program. {¶4} Days after executing the May 2014 AJE, Joan filed a motion to show cause, alleging that on May 4, 2014, and unbeknownst to her, Mark had entered into a Separation and Release of Claims Agreement with Delphi terminatin


CourtListener opinion 4185350

CourtListener opinion 4185350 Docket: 329993 Lenawee Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4185350 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 4185350


CourtListener opinion 4185350

QDRO: uly 11, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 329993 Lenawee Circuit Court Family Division WILLIAM JOUGHIN, LC No. 02-025414-DM Defendant-Appellant. Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and JANSEN and SAAD, JJ. JANSEN, J. (dissenting). Because I believe that entry of a QDRO is an action to enforce a judgment of divorce and subject to the applicable statute of limitations, I respectfully dissent. This Court has held that MCL 600.5809 provides the applicable statute of limitations for the enforcement of a divorce settlement agreement. See Peabody v DiMeglio, 306 Mich App 397, 406; 856 NW2d 245 (2014) (holding that MCL 600.5809


CourtListener opinion 4185350

retirement benefits: he reasoning advanced by plaintiff in this case, holding in Duhamel v Duhamel, 188 Misc 2d 754, 756; 729 NYS2d 601 (2001), that "the limitations period relating to the Defendant's action seeking to preclude the entry of a QDRO, and thus subjecting Defendant's retirement benefits to equitable distribution, accrued after he reached pay status in the retirement benefits." The Duhamel Court provided little in the way of reasoning, but reiterated that "since Plaintiff's right to receive a distribution under the Defendant's retirement plan did not accrue until after her former husband reached pay status, the -1- six-year limitation p


CourtListener opinion 4185350

pension: e absolutely extinguished and unenforceable due to [the plaintiff's] failure to file a QDRO or a renewal affidavit" within the applicable statute of limitations. Larimore, 52 Kan App 2d at 44. The Larimore Court explained: A former spouse's right to receive pension benefits deemed marital property, however, does not arise under ERISA. That right or interest is based on a state court judgment ordered under state domestic relations law. Indeed, a "QDRO only renders enforceable an already-existing interest." " ‘[T]he QDRO provisions of ERISA do not suggest that [the alternate payee] has no interest in the plan [ ] u


CourtListener opinion 4185350

ERISA: f Ohio recently distinguished an alternate payee's rights under a domestic relations order from the alternate payee's rights under a QDRO: A domestic relations order is a sufficient independent basis for a spouse to obtain a vested beneficial interest in an ERISA-qualified plan. A person awarded a lump-sum distribution from an ERISA plan pursuant to a divorce decree has a direct interest in plan funds while the plan reviews the DRO to determine whether it constitutes a QDRO. A domestic relations order, therefore, vests the spouse with rights protected by ERISA. The QDRO, by contrast, is necessary to take the ne


CourtListener opinion 4185351

CourtListener opinion 4185351 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Cray. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 329993 Lenawee Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4185351 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 4185351


CourtListener opinion 4185351

QDRO: it Court Family Division WILLIAM JOUGHIN, LC No. 02-025414-DM Defendant-Appellant. Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and JANSEN and SAAD, JJ. SAAD, J. In this post-divorce proceeding, defendant appeals1 the entry of a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in favor of plaintiff, which related to her interest in $23,823 of defendant's profit sharing annuity plan (the annuity plan). For the reasons provided below, we affirm. On April 28, 2003, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce that dissolved plaintiff and defendant's marriage. In the judgment of divorce, under the heading "PENSION, ANNUITY OR RET


CourtListener opinion 4185351

retirement benefits: nnuity plan (the annuity plan). For the reasons provided below, we affirm. On April 28, 2003, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce that dissolved plaintiff and defendant's marriage. In the judgment of divorce, under the heading "PENSION, ANNUITY OR RETIREMENT BENEFITS," the trial court ordered the following: Plaintiff shall receive 50% of the sum of Defendant's accrued balance as of April 30, 2002, in the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Local #55 Pension Plan. In addition, Plaintiff shall receive the sum of $23,823.00 from the Defendant's Iron Workers Local #55 Profit Sha


CourtListener opinion 4185351

pension: t's profit sharing annuity plan (the annuity plan). For the reasons provided below, we affirm. On April 28, 2003, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce that dissolved plaintiff and defendant's marriage. In the judgment of divorce, under the heading "PENSION, ANNUITY OR RETIREMENT BENEFITS," the trial court ordered the following: Plaintiff shall receive 50% of the sum of Defendant's accrued balance as of April 30, 2002, in the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Local #55 Pension Plan. In addition, Plaintiff shall receive the sum of $23,823.00 from the Defendant's Ir


CourtListener opinion 4185351

ERISA: d 637 (1997). We also review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. Rock v Crocker, 499 Mich 247, 260; 884 NW2d 227 (2016), citing Halloran v Bhan, 470 Mich 572, 576; 683 NW2d 129 (2004). "Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 in order to provide better protection for beneficiaries of private employee pension plans." Roth v 2 Technically, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 USC 1001 et seq., these orders are domestic relation orders. 29 USC 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii). As discussed later in this opinion, they do not become qualified domestic relation orders, i.


CourtListener opinion 4187493

CourtListener opinion 4187493 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PATRICIA SUE TRIPP AND CRAIG ALAN TRIPP Upon the Petition of PATRICIA SUE TRIPP. Extracted reporter citation: 545 N.W.2d 252. Docket: 16-1996. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4187493 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 4187493

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 4187493

QDRO: cia would receive a Benson share1 of Craig's pension. At the time of the decree, the court did not have before it how long Craig had been in the plan nor how many more years he intended to continue to work. The court simply set out the formula by which a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] shall be prepared and entered. . . . The denominator shall be the number of years Craig has been in this plan. The numerator shall be the number of years the parties were married. Patricia's share of any benefits to be paid will be one-half of the resulting percentage. Craig filed a motion to amend or enlarge. In it, he maintained "dividing th