CourtListener opinion 1673135

QDRO: of Texas, First District, Houston. Opinion issued August 28, 2006 Before Justices RICHTER, LANG, and MAZZANT. OPINION Opinion By Justice MAZZANT. Gloria Jean Mullins appeals the trial court's corrected final decree of divorce and second corrected qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which awarded William Gerard Mullins a/k/a Kayo Mullins half of her retirement benefits. She also appeals the trial court's orders denying her motion to rescind the mediated settlement agreement, motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration, and motion to modify the corrected divorce decree and the first corrected QDRO. Ms. Mullins raises four


CourtListener opinion 1673135

QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

retirement benefits: NT. OPINION Opinion By Justice MAZZANT. Gloria Jean Mullins appeals the trial court's corrected final decree of divorce and second corrected qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which awarded William Gerard Mullins a/k/a Kayo Mullins half of her retirement benefits. She also appeals the trial court's orders denying her motion to rescind the mediated settlement agreement, motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration, and motion to modify the corrected divorce decree and the first corrected QDRO. Ms. Mullins raises four issues on appeal: (1) the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the second corrected QDRO;


CourtListener opinion 1673135

domestic relations order: First District, Houston. Opinion issued August 28, 2006 Before Justices RICHTER, LANG, and MAZZANT. OPINION Opinion By Justice MAZZANT. Gloria Jean Mullins appeals the trial court's corrected final decree of divorce and second corrected qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which awarded William Gerard Mullins a/k/a Kayo Mullins half of her retirement benefits. She also appeals the trial court's orders denying her motion to rescind the mediated settlement agreement, motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration, and motion to modify the corrected divorce decree and the first corrected QDRO. Ms. Mullins raises four


CourtListener opinion 1673135

valuation/division: s counter petitioned for divorce on December 16, 2002. Each party submitted a sworn inventory and appraisement reflecting his or her assessment of their community and separate property. In Ms. Mullins's appraisement, she only listed her retirement benefits as community property. On August 11, 2003, Mr. Mullins and Ms. Mullins, with their counsel, participated in mediation. At mediation, they reached an agreement and signed a mediated settlement agreement which resolved all contested issues regarding their children, separate and community property, and debts. In the mediated settlement agreement, both parties transferred separate


CourtListener opinion 168871

CourtListener opinion 168871 Extracted reporter citation: 392 F.3d 401. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 168871 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 168871

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 168871

QDRO: a non-party. In any event, the district court had no authority to enter an order which would have amounted to a rewriting of history. See Patton v. Denver Post Corp., 326 F.3d 1148, 1153 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding that nunc pro tunc state court order was qualified domestic relations order under ERISA because, among other reasons, it did not "attempt to rew rite historical facts"); W.N.J. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding that nunc pro tunc order "cannot -9- be used to rewrite history") (quotation omitted); see also In re Di Franco, 339 F. Supp. 414, 414-15 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (denying petitioner's motion to antedate


CourtListener opinion 168871

ERISA: he incurred medical expenses that were not covered by his health insurance. M r. Negley filed this lawsuit against BOW and the BOW Plan, seeking damages for his lost medical benefits under § 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA ), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). He alleged that BOW , as an ERISA fiduciary, violated its duties to properly transmit health plan enrollment materials to him, to advise him of applicable deadlines for submitting his enrollment materials, and to promptly enroll him in the BOW Plan by submitting those materials to M M O within the deadlines. As a result of BOW 's


CourtListener opinion 168871

domestic relations order: ty. In any event, the district court had no authority to enter an order which would have amounted to a rewriting of history. See Patton v. Denver Post Corp., 326 F.3d 1148, 1153 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding that nunc pro tunc state court order was qualified domestic relations order under ERISA because, among other reasons, it did not "attempt to rew rite historical facts"); W.N.J. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding that nunc pro tunc order "cannot -9- be used to rewrite history") (quotation omitted); see also In re Di Franco, 339 F. Supp. 414, 414-15 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (denying petitioner's motion to antedate


CourtListener opinion 17518

CourtListener opinion 17518 Extracted reporter citation: 463 U.S. 85. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 17518 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 17518


CourtListener opinion 17518

QDRO: nt to the Bell Plan. Marye learned in 1991 that Dial was receiving such benefits. When Dial refused to surrender half of the benefits to Marye, she filed a motion in state court to clarify the divorce decree. At that time, Marye asked the court to sign a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") ordering the Bell Plan to send payments directly to her. In June 1992, Dial turned 55, and his disability benefits converted to retirement benefits. -2- In February 1993, Marye and Dial compromised and settled the state action. Marye agreed to give up the previous years' benefits due her under the 1977 agreement and accepted a QDRO ordering


CourtListener opinion 17518

retirement benefits: s. I Gilbert "Buddy" Dial and Janice Marye married in 1959 and divorced in 1977. From 1959 until 1968, Dial played professional football in the National Football League. As an NFL player, Dial became eligible to receive benefits from the NFL Bert Bell Retirement Benefit Plan (the "Bell Plan"), which provided both retirement and disability benefits for players. Upon their divorce, Dial and Marye entered into a property settlement agreement, which was incorporated into their divorce decree. The property set aside for Marye in the agreement included "[o]ne- half of any interest Buddy Dial has in the Bert Bell NFL Player


CourtListener opinion 17518

pension: d Marye appealed to this Court. II The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., governs the Disability Plan. ERISA includes anti-alienation and anti-assignment clauses that apply to former spouses' rights to pension benefits. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), (d)(3)(a). The 1984 Retirement Equity Act ("REA") amended these provisions to allow ERISA-qualified benefits to be assigned pursuant to a QDRO, which "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 payabl


CourtListener opinion 17518

ERISA: d-Party Defendant/Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - - - - - - - - - - May 7, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge: An ERISA-qualified employee benefits plan and a potential beneficiary challenge a district court's determination on distribution of benefits. We vacate and remand to the district court to render judgment in favor of the defendant/counter- claimant/third-party plaintiff/appellant and to consider the third-party defendant/appellant's request for attorneys' fees.


CourtListener opinion 17522

CourtListener opinion 17522 Extracted case name: SEC v. W.J. Extracted reporter citation: 67 F.3d 571. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 17522 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 17522


CourtListener opinion 17522

QDRO: ctly. Appellant Matassarin was married to appellee Danny Jenkins, Great Empire's chief financial officer and a participant in the Great Empire ESOP, until the couple divorced on October 15, 1991. Upon their divorce, Jenkins and Matassarin entered into a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"), which was approved by a Kansas state court. Menke & Associates suggested the terms of the QDRO. Under the QDRO, Jenkins agreed to assign Matassarin one-half of his interest in the Great Empire ESOP. Great Empire would hold Matassarin's interest in a segregated account, where it would accrue interest at the rate of a one-year certificate of d


CourtListener opinion 17522

retirement benefits: endering it clearly prudent under §404(a)(1)(C) for Great Empire not to diversify in this case. We recognize the aberrancy and difficulty of Matassarin's situation. In enacting ERISA, Congress sought to ensure that workers who have been promised certain retirement benefits actually receive those benefits. See Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 720, 104 S. Ct. 2709, 2713 (1984). Although the primary purpose of an ESOP differs from that of a pension plan, ESOPs remain subject to ERISA's general protective restrictions and requirements. See Cunningham, 716 F.2d at 1463-68. From Matassarin's p


CourtListener opinion 17522

pension: security, should control in this case. We agree that Uselton's reasoning is persuasive, but we find that the Great Empire ESOP, considered under Daniel and Uselton together, is not subject to '33 or '34 Act protection. Daniel involved a union-established pension plan to which employers contributed. Every union member had to belong to the plan and could not have the employer contributions paid directly to him instead of to the plan. Every plan participant who served 20 continuous years with the union received identical "defined" pension benefits after retirement. The employers made uniform contributions for ea


CourtListener opinion 17522

ERISA: ______________________________________________ April 27, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Patricia Matassarin appeals the district court's grants of summary judgment dismissing her ERISA and securities claims. We affirm. I In this unusual employee benefits matter, Patricia Matassarin, who is the plaintiff/appellant and the current plaintiff's attorney of record, brought suit against the Great Empire Broadcasting, Inc. ("Great Empire") employee stock ownership plan ("ESOP" or "Plan") and its fiduciaries and author. The Great Empire


CourtListener opinion 175547

CourtListener opinion 175547 Extracted case name: DOWNING v. OPM. Extracted reporter citation: 100 F.3d 141. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 175547 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 175547


CourtListener opinion 175547

QDRO: the marriage ends, to continue the reduction to provide a former spouse survivor annuity for 3 DOWNING v. OPM that person . . . . On July 22, 2004, Mr. and Ms. Downing signed a separation agreement, referred to as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). J.A. 25-32. Thereafter, a divorce decree in October 2006 dissolved the marriage and specifically provided that Ms. Downing would receive "[o]ne-half of the Thrift Savings Plan and [o]ne-half of the Civil Service Retirement benefits for his retirement from the United States Civil Service plus [one-half] of all accrued interest and increase awarded or earn


CourtListener opinion 175547

retirement benefits: a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). J.A. 25-32. Thereafter, a divorce decree in October 2006 dissolved the marriage and specifically provided that Ms. Downing would receive "[o]ne-half of the Thrift Savings Plan and [o]ne-half of the Civil Service Retirement benefits for his retirement from the United States Civil Service plus [one-half] of all accrued interest and increase awarded or earned by TSP through the date funds are transferred to [her]." It did not mention any survivor benefits for Ms. Downing after Mr. Downing's death. In addition to the SF 2801 form that he signed at the time of his retirement, in Decembe


CourtListener opinion 175547

survivor benefits: t Judge. Petitioner Billye D. Downing petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board ("Board"), which affirmed the reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") denying her request for former spouse survivor annuity benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System ("CSRS"), 5 U.S.C. § 8331 et seq. Because her former husband, Randall Scott Downing, did not reelect former spouse survivor benefits for her within two years following their divorce and the divorce decree makes no mention of a survivor annuity, we affirm. BACKGROUND The Downings were married on Decembe


CourtListener opinion 1781904

CourtListener opinion 1781904 Extracted reporter citation: 639 So.2d 1210. Docket: 94-CA-0079. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1781904 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 1781904

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 1781904

QDRO: parties executed a voluntary community property partition on October 15, 1985 which was approved by the Court on joint motion of the parties on October 17, 1985. Defendant retired from LL & E on May 1, 1992. *1211 A joint motion to amend and supplement the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was filed by the parties on May 13


CourtListener opinion 1781904

domestic relations order: xecuted a voluntary community property partition on October 15, 1985 which was approved by the Court on joint motion of the parties on October 17, 1985. Defendant retired from LL & E on May 1, 1992. *1211 A joint motion to amend and supplement the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was filed by the parties on May 13


CourtListener opinion 1781904

valuation/division: er 7, 1966. The parties were domiciled in and resided in Louisiana at all times during defendant's employment with LL & E. Plaintiff filed for divorce on August 5, 1985 and a judgment of divorce was signed on October 17, 1985. The parties executed a voluntary community property partition on October 15, 1985 which was approved by the Court on joint motion of the parties on October 17, 1985. Defendant retired from LL & E on May 1, 1992. *1211 A joint motion to amend and supplement the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was filed by the parties on May 13


CourtListener opinion 1788072

CourtListener opinion 1788072 Extracted reporter citation: 661 N.W.2d 696. Docket: S-02-1405. Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1788072 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 1788072

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 1788072

QDRO: court approves the property settlement . . . . 3. Retirement Funds. Each of the parties has a retirement account . . . . The court finds that each party is entitled to one half of the retirement of the other . . . . The court requires that counsel provide a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] to be made a part of the decree to be drafted herein. 8. Alimony. . . . . . . . In this case, the parties have been married for 31 years. [Judy] is presently in her mid-fifties and worked at various times throughout the marriage, but mostly at minimum wage employment. . . . During the marriage, she raised the coupl


CourtListener opinion 1788072

retirement benefits: . 2. Property Division. The parties have reached a division of the marital estate and have divided their property in accordance with that division agreement. The court approves the property settlement . . . . 3. Retirement Funds. Each of the parties has a retirement account . . . . The court finds that each party is entitled to one half of the retirement of the other . . . . The court requires that counsel provide a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] to be made a part of the decree to be drafted herein. 8. Alimony. . . . . . . . In this case, the parties have been married for 31 years. [Judy] is presently in her m


CourtListener opinion 1788072

domestic relations order: he property settlement . . . . 3. Retirement Funds. Each of the parties has a retirement account . . . . The court finds that each party is entitled to one half of the retirement of the other . . . . The court requires that counsel provide a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] to be made a part of the decree to be drafted herein. 8. Alimony. . . . . . . . In this case, the parties have been married for 31 years. [Judy] is presently in her mid-fifties and worked at various times throughout the marriage, but mostly at minimum wage employment. . . . During the marriage, she raised the couple's three children. There is a signi


CourtListener opinion 1788072

valuation/division: l entry which stated: Having considered all matters properly before it, the court now finds, concludes and rules as follows: 1. Dissolution. The marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken and the dissolution sought herein should be granted. 2. Property Division. The parties have reached a division of the marital estate and have divided their property in accordance with that division agreement. The court approves the property settlement . . . . 3. Retirement Funds. Each of the parties has a retirement account . . . . The court finds that each party is entitled to one half of the retirement of the other . . . . Th


CourtListener opinion 1797755

CourtListener opinion 1797755 Extracted reporter citation: 626 N.W.2d 582. Docket: S-06-1271. Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1797755 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 1797755


CourtListener opinion 1797755

QDRO: 43, 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998). FACTS On January 8, 1999, the marriage of Donna and Rodney was dissolved pursuant to a decree that incorporated a property settlement agreement dividing the marital estate. In the agreement, the parties agreed that an attached qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Rodney's military retirement account should be entered. The agreement stated that the proposed QDRO should provide Donna 43 percent of Rodney's monthly military retirement benefits and make her the beneficiary of the survivor benefit plan (SBP). The document specified that the parties had chosen the survivor benefit for Donna in lieu of an e


CourtListener opinion 1797755

retirement benefits: ge of Donna and Rodney was dissolved pursuant to a decree that incorporated a property settlement agreement dividing the marital estate. In the agreement, the parties agreed that an attached qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Rodney's military retirement account should be entered. The agreement stated that the proposed QDRO should provide Donna 43 percent of Rodney's monthly military retirement benefits and make her the beneficiary of the survivor benefit plan (SBP). The document specified that the parties had chosen the survivor benefit for Donna in lieu of an equal 50-percent distribution of the monthly benefits.


CourtListener opinion 1797755

pension: , CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ. WRIGHT, J. NATURE OF CASE The district court entered a decree in January 1999, dissolving the marriage of Donna Schwartz and Rodney Schwartz. In 2005, Donna alleged that Rodney's military pension was not being properly divided, and after a trial, the court entered an order effecting a division of the pension that was different than the decree. The main issue is whether the court could modify the dissolution decree. SCOPE OF REVIEW [1] Modification of a dissolution decree is a matter entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, whose order i


CourtListener opinion 1797755

domestic relations order: W.2d 516 (1998). FACTS On January 8, 1999, the marriage of Donna and Rodney was dissolved pursuant to a decree that incorporated a property settlement agreement dividing the marital estate. In the agreement, the parties agreed that an attached qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing Rodney's military retirement account should be entered. The agreement stated that the proposed QDRO should provide Donna 43 percent of Rodney's monthly military retirement benefits and make her the beneficiary of the survivor benefit plan (SBP). The document specified that the parties had chosen the survivor benefit for Donna in lieu of an e


CourtListener opinion 1955859

CourtListener opinion 1955859 Extracted case name: ROTH v. ROTH. Extracted reporter citation: 506 N.W.2d 900. Docket: 138031. Michigan. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1955859 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 1955859


CourtListener opinion 1955859

QDRO: ses the question whether a person divorced before 1985 can be awarded direct survivorship benefits in a former spouse's vested pension plan absent provision in the original judgment. Plaintiff appeals from a Macomb Circuit Court order denying her motion for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) containing survivorship benefits and for modification of her judgment of divorce. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred in failing to amend the divorce judgment and in refusing to enter the QDRO. She asserts, also, that the court erred in denying her motion for rehearing, because it was misled by defendant's attorney. We affirm. THE FACT


CourtListener opinion 1955859

pension: sopi ), for the plaintiff. Before: MICHAEL J. KELLY, P.J., and MARILYN KELLY and CONNOR, JJ. MARILYN KELLY, J. This case addresses the question whether a person divorced before 1985 can be awarded direct survivorship benefits in a former spouse's vested pension plan absent provision in the original judgment. Plaintiff appeals from a Macomb Circuit Court order denying her motion for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) containing survivorship benefits and for modification of her judgment of divorce. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred in failing to amend the divorce judgment and in refusing to e


CourtListener opinion 1955859

domestic relations order: estion whether a person divorced before 1985 can be awarded direct survivorship benefits in a former spouse's vested pension plan absent provision in the original judgment. Plaintiff appeals from a Macomb Circuit Court order denying her motion for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) containing survivorship benefits and for modification of her judgment of divorce. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred in failing to amend the divorce judgment and in refusing to enter the QDRO. She asserts, also, that the court erred in denying her motion for rehearing, because it was misled by defendant's attorney. We affirm. THE FACT


CourtListener opinion 2002495

CourtListener opinion 2002495 Extracted case name: JOAN ROHRBECK v. JOHN ROHRBECK. Extracted reporter citation: 566 A.2d 767. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2002495 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 2002495


CourtListener opinion 2002495

QDRO: he Circuit Court for Montgomery County entered a judgment  a final, appealable judgment  on July 13, 1988. It has a broader import than that, however, and requires an examination of the nature and function of a device unknown to our courts before 1985  the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The precise issue before us, and the answer to it, will become more clear if we begin with a discussion of this recent addition to our jurisprudence. I. The QDRO In 1974, Congress passed ERISA  the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829)  in order to provide better protection for beneficiaries of employe


CourtListener opinion 2002495

pension: discussion of this recent addition to our jurisprudence. I. The QDRO In 1974, Congress passed ERISA  the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829)  in order to provide better protection for beneficiaries of employee pension and welfare benefit plans abounding in the private workplace. ERISA imposed a number of requirements on these plans relating to reporting and disclosure, vesting, funding, discontinuance, and payment of benefits. These requirements were imposed through amendments to both the Federal labor code (Title 29 U.S.C.) and the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 U.S.C.


CourtListener opinion 2002495

ERISA: rts before 1985  the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The precise issue before us, and the answer to it, will become more clear if we begin with a discussion of this recent addition to our jurisprudence. I. The QDRO In 1974, Congress passed ERISA  the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829)  in order to provide better protection for beneficiaries of employee pension and welfare benefit plans abounding in the private workplace. ERISA imposed a number of requirements on these plans relating to reporting and disclosure, vesting, funding, discontinuance, and payment


CourtListener opinion 2002495

domestic relations order: Court for Montgomery County entered a judgment  a final, appealable judgment  on July 13, 1988. It has a broader import than that, however, and requires an examination of the nature and function of a device unknown to our courts before 1985  the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The precise issue before us, and the answer to it, will become more clear if we begin with a discussion of this recent addition to our jurisprudence. I. The QDRO In 1974, Congress passed ERISA  the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829)  in order to provide better protection for beneficiaries of employe


CourtListener opinion 201660

CourtListener opinion 201660 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 201660 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 201660

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 201660

domestic relations order: olding that FEGLIA preempted -4- the state law claim, the court relied on FEGLIA's (1) language and scheme, (2) the overwhelming weight of federal court authority holding FEGLIA's provisions preempt state law, and (3) a 1998 amendment to FEGLIA allowing domestic relations orders to alter FEGLIA's benefit distribution scheme under specified circumstances. Id. at 346-48. We have carefully reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the parties' briefs, and conclude the district court reached the correct result. We have repeatedly opined that "when a lower court accurately takes the measure of a case and articulates a cogent


CourtListener opinion 203209

CourtListener opinion 203209 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 203209 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 203209

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 203209

QDRO: e affirm, albeit for reasons different than those cited by the district court. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS At the heart of this legal battle are the orders addressing Geiger's retirement accounts. Geiger claims that those orders are not Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\QDROs\")and are


CourtListener opinion 203209

retirement benefits: United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-1208 DAVID R. GEIGER, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. FOLEY HOAG LLP RETIREMENT PLAN, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge] Before Lipez, Circuit Judge, Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, and Howard, Circuit Judge. David R. Geiger, pro se. Ann Wagner, with whom Frances M. Giordano and Rubin and Rudman, LLP were on brie


CourtListener opinion 203209

domestic relations order: albeit for reasons different than those cited by the district court. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS At the heart of this legal battle are the orders addressing Geiger's retirement accounts. Geiger claims that those orders are not Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (\QDROs\")and are


CourtListener opinion 208141

CourtListener opinion 208141 Extracted reporter citation: 919 A.2d 980. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 208141 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 208141


CourtListener opinion 208141

QDRO: . Hayward ("Ms. Hayward") petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board ("Board"), which affirmed the reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") finding the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") submitted by Ms. Hayward's attorney unacceptable for processing and denying Ms. Hayward a former spouse survivor annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System ("CSRS"). Hayward v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 109 M.S.P.R. 13 (2008) ("Final Decision"). Because we conclude that the QDRO, which Ms. Hayward's attorney submitted to OPM, meets the requirement


CourtListener opinion 208141

retirement benefits: ion (the "1990 Civil Service QDRO"). While largely identical, the two orders differ in certain respects. The 1990 Civil Service QDRO recites that Mr. Hayward "was employed by the Department U.S. Army [sic] and is a participant in the Civilian [sic] Service Retirement Plan," whereas the 1990 Military QDRO recites that Mr. Hayward "was employed by the U.S. Army Reserves and is a participant in the Military Retired 2008-3308 2 Pay Plan." Both orders indicate the retirement plans covered. The 1990 Civil Service QDRO states "[t]he Plan to which this Order applies is the Civil Service Retirement System Pension Plan in which J


CourtListener opinion 208141

pension: urt of Common Pleas—Family Division, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania ("Court of Common Pleas"), dividing their marital property. Pursuant to that order, on March 26, 1990, the Court of Common Pleas signed two QDROs, one addressing Mr. Hayward's military pension (the "1990 Military QDRO"), and one addressing his civil service pension (the "1990 Civil Service QDRO"). While largely identical, the two orders differ in certain respects. The 1990 Civil Service QDRO recites that Mr. Hayward "was employed by the Department U.S. Army [sic] and is a participant in the Civilian [sic] Service Retirement Plan," whereas the


CourtListener opinion 208141

ERISA: 5 C.F.R. § 838.803, the 1990 Civil Service QDRO must expressly state that it is governed by 5 C.F.R. part 838. Id. at 19. However, the 1990 Civil Service QDRO not only failed to reference 5 C.F.R. part 838, but, according to the Board, also misreferenced "ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, and statutes governing military retired pay benefits." Id. at 19–20 (citations omitted). In the Board's view, these references supported the conclusion that the QDRO was ambiguous, and indicated as well that it was not completed in compliance with 5 C.F.R. § 803.803(a). Thus, the Board concluded that the 1990 Civil Service QD


CourtListener opinion 208740

CourtListener opinion 208740 Extracted reporter citation: 966 F.2d 650. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 208740 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 208740


CourtListener opinion 208740

QDRO: 2004 Decree also stipulated that appellant would receive a reduced receipt of Mr. Miller's Department of Labor pension, which was then in pay status. On June 14, 2005, the Millers consented to the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (the "2005 QDRO") that provided appellant with "fifty percent of [Mr. Miller's] monthly annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System." On July 1, 2005, the Millers entered into a Consent Order of Court ("2005 Amendment") amending Paragraph 4(a) of the 2004 Decree. The following language was added to that paragraph: 2008-3326 -2- Barbara J. Miller shall retain s


CourtListener opinion 208740

retirement benefits: e, but did not mention the 2005 QDRO or the 2005 Amendment. Shortly after the divorce was finalized, on October 26, 2005, Mr. Miller submitted to OPM a "Request for Change to Unreduced Annuity." Mr. Miller requested that OPM begin sending him his monthly retirement benefits in an unreduced amount, effectively terminating the survivor annuity for his ex-wife. On March 3, 2007, Mr. Miller passed away. Shortly thereafter, appellant called OPM and was informed that all annuity benefits had been terminated. On May 24, 2007, appellant was granted a Petition to Clarify Order ("2007 Clarification") by the Court of Common Pleas


CourtListener opinion 208740

pension: onthly payments on his lifetime annuity in order to provide a survivor annuity for his wife. That survivor annuity would take effect after Mr. Miller's death. In addition to his CSRS annuity, Mr. Miller's service in the Air Force entitled him to a military pension as well. Shortly after Mr. Miller's retirement, the Millers separated. On October 15, 1999, Mr. Miller filed for divorce. Nearly five years later, on June 11, 2004, the Millers entered into a Decree and Order (the "2004 Decree") providing for an equitable distribution of their assets. Among other things, the 2004 Decree granted appellant a 28% share of


CourtListener opinion 208740

survivor benefits: Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and PROST, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION Barbara Miller appeals from the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board ("Board") affirming the decision of the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") denying her survivor annuity benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System. Miller v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., PH-0831-08-0085-I-1 (M.S.P.B. June 26, 2008). Because the Board's decision was in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. BACKGROUND Barbara Miller was married to Kenneth Miller when the latter retired from federal service on June 30, 1


CourtListener opinion 20911

CourtListener opinion 20911 Extracted reporter citation: 18 F.3d 1321. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 20911 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 20911


CourtListener opinion 20911

QDRO: on plans protect the interests of surviving spouses by providing benefits in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity, and ERISA § 1056, which provides that the benefits due under a covered pension plan are inalienable and unassignable, absent a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) meeting certain statutory requirements. Recognizing that Boggs was positioned "at the intersection of ERISA pension law and state community property law," 117 S. Ct. at 1760, the Supreme Court held that "[t]he surviving spouse annuity and QDRO provisions, which acknowledge and protect specific pension plan community property interests, give ri


CourtListener opinion 20911

retirement benefits: mer spouse of any interest in or claim to: Any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights relating to any profit-sharing plan, retirement plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, employee savings plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, or other benefit program existing by reason of Petitioner's past, present, or future employment. Brandon, 18 F.3d at 1323. In Clift, a more obvious case of waiver, the divorce decree expressly divested the former spouse of any 18 interest in or claim under "an


CourtListener opinion 20911

pension: 93); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hanslip, 939 F.2d 904, 906 (10th Cir. 1991); Brown v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 1193, 1195 (11th Cir. 1991); McMillan v. Parrott, 913 F.2d 310, 311 (6th Cir. 1990); Fox Valley & Vicinity Constr. Workers Pension Fund, 897 F.2d 275, 278 (7th Cir. 1989). But see Emard v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 153 F.3d 949, 961 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that ERISA does not preempt California constructive trust 6 or community property law in a dispute between a surviving and former spouse over life insurance benefits), cert. denied sub nom., 119 S. Ct. 903 (1999). The more diffi


CourtListener opinion 20911

ERISA: Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas May 19, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. DeMOSS, Circuit Judge: In this insurance dispute, the estate of a deceased ERISA plan participant and the decedent's ex-wife are battling over the proceeds to an ERISA plan providing life insurance benefits. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant- Appellee Audrey Allison Hayes, who is both the decedent's ex-wife and the named beneficiary under the policy. Plaintiff-Appellant Sylvia Manning, in her capaci


CourtListener opinion 210977

CourtListener opinion 210977 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 210977 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 210977

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 210977

QDRO: l property, including pension benefits, specifically stating that Ms. Hinojosa was awarded "50% of the marital portion" of Mr. Hinojosa's "retirement benefit." The July Order provided that the parties were to agree on a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") and outlined several assumptions to govern the QDRO, including one stating that "the benefits assigned to the alternate payee (Wife) shall include any and all temporary and supplemental benefits." The July Order also specified that the state court retained "jurisdiction with respect to the QDRO to the extent required to maintain its qualified status a


CourtListener opinion 210977

pension: 03, Mr. and Ms. Hinojosa divorced, and the Court of Common Pleas for Sandusky County, Ohio ("state court") issued a divorce decree, entitled Consent Final Judgment Entry ("July Order"). The July Order contained a division of the marital property, including pension benefits, specifically stating that Ms. Hinojosa was awarded "50% of the marital portion" of Mr. Hinojosa's "retirement benefit." The July Order provided that the parties were to agree on a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") and outlined several assumptions to govern the QDRO, including one stating that "the benefits assigned to the alternate p


CourtListener opinion 210977

alternate payee: n" of Mr. Hinojosa's "retirement benefit." The July Order provided that the parties were to agree on a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") and outlined several assumptions to govern the QDRO, including one stating that "the benefits assigned to the alternate payee (Wife) shall include any and all temporary and supplemental benefits." The July Order also specified that the state court retained "jurisdiction with respect to the QDRO to the extent required to maintain its qualified status and original intent of the parties" and "jurisdiction to enter further orders as are necessary to enforce the assignment of the


CourtListener opinion 210977

domestic relations order: d a division of the marital property, including pension benefits, specifically stating that Ms. Hinojosa was awarded "50% of the marital portion" of Mr. Hinojosa's "retirement benefit." The July Order provided that the parties were to agree on a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") and outlined several assumptions to govern the QDRO, including one stating that "the benefits assigned to the alternate payee (Wife) shall include any and all temporary and supplemental benefits." The July Order also specified that the state court retained "jurisdiction with respect to the QDRO to the extent required to maintain its qualified s


CourtListener opinion 211063

CourtListener opinion 211063 Extracted reporter citation: 100 F.3d 141. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 211063 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 211063


CourtListener opinion 211063

QDRO: 2040399-I-1 (M.S.P.B. July 27, 2005). We vacate and remand. BACKGROUND Gayle Snyder and Robert Ruff divorced in 1993 after over thirty years of marriage. The Wisconsin divorce court entered an order entitled "Addendum to Marital Settlement Agreement for Qualified Domestic Relations Order-Federal (CSRS) Plan" ("Court Order"). The Court Order was submitted to OPM which notified Snyder that the order was suitable for processing and would provide her with (1) an apportionment benefit payable on Ruff's retirement, and (2) a survivor annuity payable upon his death. Ruff was an employee of both federal and state governments during the entire


CourtListener opinion 211063

retirement benefits: rgues, as she did to the Board, that Section VI of the Court Order entered at her divorce provides her with a post-retirement survivor annuity. She asserts that the Board erred in its determination that the first sentence of the section provided only a pre-retirement benefit. Rather, she argues that the intent of the parties and the clear language of the agreement evince the meaning of the order—to provide her with a lifetime benefit. She argues that the administrative judge erred in permitting Ruff's testimony regarding the intent of the agreement while excluding hers. She also argues that because OPM waited until after he


CourtListener opinion 211063

pension: nnuity. Snyder appealed OPM's finding to the Board. While Ruff lives, the Court Order provides no payments to Snyder prior to Ruff's retirement. After his retirement, the Court Order provides Snyder with 43.11% of the actuarial equivalent value of Ruff's pension benefit which accrued during the period of their marriage. In providing for Snyder after Ruff's death, the Court Order contains the following provision: VI. DEATH OF PARTICIPANT AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS - PROVISIONS FOR TREATMENT OF FORMER SPOUSE OF 05-3347 2 PARTICIPANT AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF PARTICIPANT FOR PURPOSES OF PRE-RETIREMENT SURVIVING SPOU


CourtListener opinion 211063

alternate payee: URVIVOR BENEFITS - PROVISIONS FOR TREATMENT OF FORMER SPOUSE OF 05-3347 2 PARTICIPANT AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF PARTICIPANT FOR PURPOSES OF PRE-RETIREMENT SURVIVING SPOUSE PENSION BENEFIT, (AND/OR) OTHER SURVIVOR BENEFITS. The assignment of benefits to the Alternate Payee shall not be reduced, abated or terminated as a result of the death of the participant. Pursuant to Section 414(p) (5) of the Code, the former spouse of the Participant, namely Gayle S. Ruff, shall be treated as the surviving spouse of the Participant for purposes of Pre-retirement Survivor benefits accrued during the period described in Section II C a


CourtListener opinion 211879

CourtListener opinion 211879 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: SE-0831-03-0055-I-1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 211879 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 211879


CourtListener opinion 211879

QDRO: itions of the Respondent's Pension Plan from the U.S.D.A., which plan is more particularly described in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order in this [case] which applies to vested sums which are accumulated or vested as of the date of this de[c]ree. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the District Court of Angelina County, Texas (the "1997 QDRO"), which was entered pursuant to the settlement agreement, provided that Ms. Warren would receive "Fifty Percent (50%) of benefits available on the date of divorce." The 1997 QDRO also provided that "50% of the marital portion of the vested and accrued benefit rights was assigned and


CourtListener opinion 211879

retirement benefits: an agreement that is not found there." Id. B Ms. Warren contends, in the alternative, that the 1997 QDRO was acceptable for processing even though the order did not refer to part 838 of Title 5, as required by 5 C.F.R. § 838.302(a)(2), because the only retirement plan in issue at the time of divorce was a CSRS plan, and because Mr. Pike and Ms. Warren drafted the decree without assistance from an attorney. Ms. Warren further argues that even if the 1997 QDRO was not acceptable for processing with respect to that procedural language, the 1999 QDRO was submitted to the court only to make the order acceptable to OPM, an


CourtListener opinion 211879

pension: d December 1, 1997. The settlement agreement provided that Ms. Warren would receive the following portion of Mr. Pike's benefits: One-half (1/2) of any entitlement which results [from] monies to be paid under the terms and conditions of the Respondent's Pension Plan from the U.S.D.A., which plan is more particularly described in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order in this [case] which applies to vested sums which are accumulated or vested as of the date of this de[c]ree. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the District Court of Angelina County, Texas (the "1997 QDRO"), which was entered pursua


CourtListener opinion 211879

domestic relations order: lowing portion of Mr. Pike's benefits: One-half (1/2) of any entitlement which results [from] monies to be paid under the terms and conditions of the Respondent's Pension Plan from the U.S.D.A., which plan is more particularly described in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order in this [case] which applies to vested sums which are accumulated or vested as of the date of this de[c]ree. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued by the District Court of Angelina County, Texas (the "1997 QDRO"), which was entered pursuant to the settlement agreement, provided that Ms. Warren would receive "Fifty Percent (50%) of benefits avail


CourtListener opinion 211918

CourtListener opinion 211918 Extracted reporter citation: 145 F.3d 1480. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 211918 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 211918


CourtListener opinion 211918

QDRO: ffice of Pers. Mgmt., No. DA-0831- 03-0160-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 12, 2004), denying Couvillion's petition for review of the Board's initial decision, Couvillion v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DA-0831-03-0160-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 26, 2003). The Board held that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which provided for payment of a portion of Couvillion's retirement benefits to his former spouse's estate (should she predecease him), was "a proper QDRO to be processed by OPM." Id., slip op. at 7. We affirm. BACKGROUND Couvillion is a federal employee with a potential annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System. Couvillion and his


CourtListener opinion 211918

retirement benefits: n for review of the Board's initial decision, Couvillion v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DA-0831-03-0160-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 26, 2003). The Board held that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which provided for payment of a portion of Couvillion's retirement benefits to his former spouse's estate (should she predecease him), was "a proper QDRO to be processed by OPM." Id., slip op. at 7. We affirm. BACKGROUND Couvillion is a federal employee with a potential annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System. Couvillion and his former spouse, Beverly Couvillion, were divorced on December 16, 1996, in Louisiana s


CourtListener opinion 211918

pension: o.2d 919, 922 (La. 1978). Further, the federal regulations applicable provide a mechanism which allows Beverly to provide for continued distribution of her share, after her death and to her estate, through the agency responsible for administering Michael's pension. See 5 C.F.R. § 838.237(b)(3); 5 C.F.R. § 838.1012(b)(3). If such regulations provide Beverly with a convenient avenue to provide for distribution of her assets to her estate, the decision to take advantage of this feature is hers alone. Couvillion v. Couvillion, 00-143, p.8 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/26/00), 769 So. 2d 747, 752, writ denied, 2000-3185 (La. 1


CourtListener opinion 211918

domestic relations order: ers. Mgmt., No. DA-0831- 03-0160-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 12, 2004), denying Couvillion's petition for review of the Board's initial decision, Couvillion v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DA-0831-03-0160-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 26, 2003). The Board held that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which provided for payment of a portion of Couvillion's retirement benefits to his former spouse's estate (should she predecease him), was "a proper QDRO to be processed by OPM." Id., slip op. at 7. We affirm. BACKGROUND Couvillion is a federal employee with a potential annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System. Couvillion and his


CourtListener opinion 2153953

CourtListener opinion 2153953 Extracted case name: In re the MARRIAGE OF Howard E. JOHNSTON. Extracted reporter citation: 562 N.E.2d 1004. Docket: 1-89-2167. Appellate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2153953 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 2153953

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 2153953

QDRO: appeal from an order of the circuit court directing the Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund (Retirement Board), which was made a party to the action for the dissolution of the marriage of Howard and Frances Johnston, to comply with any qualified domestic relations order that might be entered in the future awarding a portion of Howard's pension to Frances for the remainder of her life. Although a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction was previously denied by this court, we determine today that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In 1987, Howard and Frances each filed petitions for the di


CourtListener opinion 2153953

pension: Benefit Fund (Retirement Board), which was made a party to the action for the dissolution of the marriage of Howard and Frances Johnston, to comply with any qualified domestic relations order that might be entered in the future awarding a portion of Howard's pension to Frances for the remainder of her life. Although a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction was previously denied by this court, we determine today that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In 1987, Howard and Frances each filed petitions for the dissolution of their marriage which were consolidated by agreed order. Howard


CourtListener opinion 2153953

domestic relations order: om an order of the circuit court directing the Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund (Retirement Board), which was made a party to the action for the dissolution of the marriage of Howard and Frances Johnston, to comply with any qualified domestic relations order that might be entered in the future awarding a portion of Howard's pension to Frances for the remainder of her life. Although a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction was previously denied by this court, we determine today that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In 1987, Howard and Frances each filed petitions for the di


CourtListener opinion 2158168

CourtListener opinion 2158168 Extracted case name: In re the MARRIAGE OF Jim E. NORFLEET. Extracted reporter citation: 612 N.E.2d 939. Docket: 4-92-0780. Appellate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2158168 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 2158168


CourtListener opinion 2158168

QDRO: as E. Griffith, Erickson, Davis, Murphy, Griffith & Walsh, Ltd., Decatur, Guardian ad Litem. Justice LUND delivered the opinion of the court: Respondent Diana L. Norfleet appeals from an order of the circuit court of Macon County denying her request for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), assigning her an interest in her deceased ex-husband's 401(k) deferred benefit plan (401(k)). FACTS Jim E. Norfleet and Diana L. Norfleet were married in 1978. One child, Carie L. Norfleet (born November 4, 1970), was adopted by Jim and Diana; and one child, Joshua J. Norfleet (born October 16, 1980), was born to Jim and Diana. Diana is disabl


CourtListener opinion 2158168

401(k): tice LUND delivered the opinion of the court: Respondent Diana L. Norfleet appeals from an order of the circuit court of Macon County denying her request for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), assigning her an interest in her deceased ex-husband's 401(k) deferred benefit plan (401(k)). FACTS Jim E. Norfleet and Diana L. Norfleet were married in 1978. One child, Carie L. Norfleet (born November 4, 1970), was adopted by Jim and Diana; and one child, Joshua J. Norfleet (born October 16, 1980), was born to Jim and Diana. Diana is disabled by multiple sclerosis. Jim filed a petition for dissolution of th


CourtListener opinion 2158168

domestic relations order: fith, Erickson, Davis, Murphy, Griffith & Walsh, Ltd., Decatur, Guardian ad Litem. Justice LUND delivered the opinion of the court: Respondent Diana L. Norfleet appeals from an order of the circuit court of Macon County denying her request for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), assigning her an interest in her deceased ex-husband's 401(k) deferred benefit plan (401(k)). FACTS Jim E. Norfleet and Diana L. Norfleet were married in 1978. One child, Carie L. Norfleet (born November 4, 1970), was adopted by Jim and Diana; and one child, Joshua J. Norfleet (born October 16, 1980), was born to Jim and Diana. Diana is disabl


CourtListener opinion 2169651

CourtListener opinion 2169651 Extracted reporter citation: 611 N.W.2d 344. Docket: CX-00-351. Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2169651 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 2169651

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 2169651

QDRO: l Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Karl Matthew Ranum has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, making a false statement to the court and to the Director, failing to draft a qualified domestic relations order in a timely manner, failing to file his state and federal personal income tax returns on time for the years 1993 through 1997, practicing law during a 7-month period in which he was on restricted status for failure to satisfy his Continuing Legal Education requirements, and misusing his trust account and failing to properly maintain the required trust accou


CourtListener opinion 2169651

domestic relations order: bility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Karl Matthew Ranum has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, making a false statement to the court and to the Director, failing to draft a qualified domestic relations order in a timely manner, failing to file his state and federal personal income tax returns on time for the years 1993 through 1997, practicing law during a 7-month period in which he was on restricted status for failure to satisfy his Continuing Legal Education requirements, and misusing his trust account and failing to properly maintain the required trust accou


CourtListener opinion 2177673

CourtListener opinion 2177673 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF Tara MENKEN. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 2-01-0610. Appellate. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2177673 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 2177673


CourtListener opinion 2177673

retirement benefits: f the court: After a trial, the trial court dissolved the marriage of petitioner, Tara Menken, and respondent, George Menken, awarded maintenance and child support, and divided the marital assets. The court awarded petitioner, among other things, 60% of the retirement benefits respondent earned as a member of the Rockford police department. On appeal, respondent contends that the trial court lacked the authority to order him to sign a consent form authorizing *282 petitioner to receive the retirement benefits directly pursuant to a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO). See 40 ILCS 5/1-119(b)(1) (West 2000). We va


CourtListener opinion 2177673

domestic relations order: s a member of the Rockford police department. On appeal, respondent contends that the trial court lacked the authority to order him to sign a consent form authorizing *282 petitioner to receive the retirement benefits directly pursuant to a qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO). See 40 ILCS 5/1-119(b)(1) (West 2000). We vacate the order requiring respondent to sign the consent form and affirm in all other respects.


CourtListener opinion 219329

CourtListener opinion 219329 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1:10-cv-01776-RLV KURT R. WARD. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 219329 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 219329


CourtListener opinion 219329

QDRO: r legal process for the debts of any Player or beneficiary, except pursuant to (a) a qualified domestic relations order under [§] 414(p) of the [Tax] Code, (b) a domestic relations order entered before January 1, 1985 that the Retirement Board treats as a qualified domestic relations order, or (c) an exception required under [§] 401(a)(13) of the [Tax] Code. The Plan also gave the Retirement Board, as the "named fiduciary" of the Plan as defined by ERISA, "full and absolute discretion, authority and power to interpret, control, implement, and manage the Plan," including the power to "[d]efine the terms of the Plan [and] construe the Plan


CourtListener opinion 219329

retirement benefits: aw, LLC, lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Consol. Counter Claimant - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Consol. Cross Claimant -lConsol. Cross Defendant - Appellant, versus THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Consol. Plaintiff - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Consol. Counter Defendant - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Appellee, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllConsol. Plaintiff, BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, lllllllllllllllllll


CourtListener opinion 219329

pension: reached by creditors through legal process. 2 I. Odessa Turner and Marvin Woodson, both retired NFL players, retained the Ward Firm to represent them during the administrative review of their claims for disability benefits under the Plan, which was a pension and welfare benefits plan governed by ERISA. Turner and Woodson both entered into contingency fee contracts with the Ward Firm, promising to pay a percentage of any proceeds procured from the Plan. With the Ward Firm's assistance, Woodson successfully obtained disability benefits from the Plan in 2008 and Turner did so in 2009. Sometime later both Turn


CourtListener opinion 219329

ERISA: 2 I. Odessa Turner and Marvin Woodson, both retired NFL players, retained the Ward Firm to represent them during the administrative review of their claims for disability benefits under the Plan, which was a pension and welfare benefits plan governed by ERISA. Turner and Woodson both entered into contingency fee contracts with the Ward Firm, promising to pay a percentage of any proceeds procured from the Plan. With the Ward Firm's assistance, Woodson successfully obtained disability benefits from the Plan in 2008 and Turner did so in 2009. Sometime later both Turner and Woodson stopped paying the Ward Firm t


CourtListener opinion 219782

CourtListener opinion 219782 Citation: 1056(d)(3). Extracted reporter citation: 1056(d)(3). Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 219782 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 219782

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


CourtListener opinion 219782

pension: 10-1825-cv Zangara v. Int'l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILE


CourtListener opinion 219782

ERISA: tny, C.J.), entered March 31, 2010, 3 granting summary judgment for Defendant-Appellee International Painters and Allied Trades 4 Industry Pension Fund (the "Fund") as to Zangara's claims for violations of the Employee 5 Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and the Full Faith and Credit 6 Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 7 history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 8 On appeal, Zangara asserts that the Fund breached a fiduciary duty owed to him by, inter 9 alia, (1) failing to alter his pension payment o


CourtListener opinion 2201807

CourtListener opinion 2201807 Extracted case name: JOHN ROCK v. PRISCILLA M. ROCK. Extracted reporter citation: 587 A.2d 1133. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2201807 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 2201807

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 2201807

QDRO: 000 payable the sixth year, and an award to Ms. Rock of a one-third interest in the marital portion of the Allied Signal Vested Retirement Benefits Plan of $16,142.23, when and if received. The distribution of these retirement benefits was to be effected by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The proposed order also recommended \a one-third interest in the funds received by the defendant from the sale of the automobile kits which [Mr. Rock] receives resulting from his sale of Marauder


CourtListener opinion 2201807

retirement benefits: Rock of $10,000 and suit money of $3,000, judgment for a monetary award of $53,000, payable at $10,000 a year for five years and $3,000 payable the sixth year, and an award to Ms. Rock of a one-third interest in the marital portion of the Allied Signal Vested Retirement Benefits Plan of $16,142.23, when and if received. The distribution of these retirement benefits was to be effected by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The proposed order also recommended \a one-third interest in the funds received by the defendant from the sale of the automobile kits which [Mr. Rock] receives resulting from his sale of Marauder


CourtListener opinion 2201807

domestic relations order: e the sixth year, and an award to Ms. Rock of a one-third interest in the marital portion of the Allied Signal Vested Retirement Benefits Plan of $16,142.23, when and if received. The distribution of these retirement benefits was to be effected by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The proposed order also recommended \a one-third interest in the funds received by the defendant from the sale of the automobile kits which [Mr. Rock] receives resulting from his sale of Marauder


CourtListener opinion 2201807

valuation/division: er also recommended attorney's fees for Ms. Rock of $10,000 and suit money of $3,000, judgment for a monetary award of $53,000, payable at $10,000 a year for five years and $3,000 payable the sixth year, and an award to Ms. Rock of a one-third interest in the marital portion of the Allied Signal Vested Retirement Benefits Plan of $16,142.23, when and if received. The distribution of these retirement benefits was to be effected by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The proposed order also recommended \a one-third interest in the funds received by the defendant from the sale of the automobile kits which [Mr. Rock] recei


CourtListener opinion 221208

CourtListener opinion 221208 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 10-20015 This. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 221208 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 221208


CourtListener opinion 221208

QDRO: a community property law). 2 Case: 10-20015 Document: 00511542987 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/18/2011 No. 10-20015 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii). A DRO allows for the alienation of pension benefits only if the plan administrator determines that the DRO is a "qualified domestic relations order" ("QDRO"), which ERISA defines as follows: the term "qualified domestic relations order" means a domestic relations order-- (I) which 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, and (II)


CourtListener opinion 221208

retirement benefits: FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 18, 2011 No. 10-20015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Glenn Brown; Betsy Brown, Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Continental Airlines, Inc., Defendant - Appellant The Continental Pilots Retirement Plan Administrative Committee, Continental Airlines, Inc., Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Glenn Brown; Betsy Brown; Jay Ellis; Carol Ellis; Eddie Lindsey; Delores N. Lindsey; Christine Lockert; James Lockert; Douglas Schull; Marjorie Schull; James Vial; Brenda M. Vial; Cindy Ernst; James Ernst, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Cou


CourtListener opinion 221208

pension: or good faith underlying a divorce. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of the appellants' claims. I. LEGAL BACKGROUND The Employee Retirement Income and Security Act ("ERISA") contains an anti-alienation provision which requires that "[e]ach pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). This provision is the result of "a considered congressional policy choice, a decision to safeguard a stream of income for pensioners []and their dependents." Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 376 (1990). However,


CourtListener opinion 221208

ERISA: tes District Court for the Southern District of Texas Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. DENNIS, Circuit Judge: Case: 10-20015 Document: 00511542987 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2011 No. 10-20015 This appeal involves the question of whether ERISA allows a retirement plan administrator to seek restitution of benefits that were paid to a plan participant's ex-spouse pursuant to a domestic relations order such as a divorce decree, if the administrator subsequently determines that the domestic relations order is based on a "sham" divorce. We agree with the district court's holding that the subsection of


CourtListener opinion 221712

CourtListener opinion 221712 Extracted case name: ADLER v. OPM. Extracted reporter citation: 243 F.3d 1337. Docket: of months to place. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 221712 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 221712


CourtListener opinion 221712

QDRO: ay of 1972. The Oconto County Circuit Court of Wisconsin entered a Judgment of Divorce on March 21, 1997, effective January 27, 1997. The Judgment awarded Ms. Baker one-half of Mr. Adler's civil service retirement plan "to be divided between the parties by [a Qualified Domestic Relations Order]." Shortly thereafter, Mr. Adler retired from the United States Department of Agriculture, National Forests division. The Oconto Court then issued an "Order with Respect to CSRS Annuity Payment/Lump Sum Credit/Survivor Annuity" ("Wisconsin Court Order" or "Order") on December 23, 1997, stating that Ms. Baker was "entitled to a pro[]rata share of [Mr. Adler'


CourtListener opinion 221712

retirement benefits: d his former spouse, Ms. Valerie Baker, were married in May of 1972. The Oconto County Circuit Court of Wisconsin entered a Judgment of Divorce on March 21, 1997, effective January 27, 1997. The Judgment awarded Ms. Baker one-half of Mr. Adler's civil service retirement plan "to be divided between the parties by [a Qualified Domestic Relations Order]." Shortly thereafter, Mr. Adler retired from the United States Department of Agriculture, National Forests division. The Oconto Court then issued an "Order with Respect to CSRS Annuity Payment/Lump Sum Credit/Survivor Annuity" ("Wisconsin Court Order" or "Order") on December 23, 19


CourtListener opinion 221712

pension: __________________ ADLER v. OPM 2 Before RADER, Chief Judge, FRIEDMAN * , and LINN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Petitioner Stephen Adler, a retired federal employee, challenges the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM")'s calculation of the portion of his pension to which his former spouse is entitled. The Merit Systems Protection Board ("Board") affirmed. This court, too, affirms. I The petitioner, Mr. Adler, and his former spouse, Ms. Valerie Baker, were married in May of 1972. The Oconto County Circuit Court of Wisconsin entered a Judgment of Divorce on March 21, 1997, effective January 27, 1997. The Judgment a


CourtListener opinion 221712

domestic relations order: . The Oconto County Circuit Court of Wisconsin entered a Judgment of Divorce on March 21, 1997, effective January 27, 1997. The Judgment awarded Ms. Baker one-half of Mr. Adler's civil service retirement plan "to be divided between the parties by [a Qualified Domestic Relations Order]." Shortly thereafter, Mr. Adler retired from the United States Department of Agriculture, National Forests division. The Oconto Court then issued an "Order with Respect to CSRS Annuity Payment/Lump Sum Credit/Survivor Annuity" ("Wisconsin Court Order" or "Order") on December 23, 1997, stating that Ms. Baker was "entitled to a pro[]rata share of [Mr. Adler'


CourtListener opinion 22324

CourtListener opinion 22324 Extracted reporter citation: 933 S.W.2d 522. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 22324 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 22324


CourtListener opinion 22324

QDRO: tween Andrea D. Hatteberg (hereinafter "Ms. Hatteberg") and James Richard Hatteberg (hereinafter "Mr. Hatteberg") (collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Hattebergs"). On October 1, 1992, a state family law court issued a divorce decree and entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (hereinafter the "First Qualified Order"). At the time of the divorce, Mr. Hatteberg worked for Red Adair Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Red Adair"). In the First Qualified Order, the state family law court valued and divided the Hattebergs' benefits which had accrued in Red Adair's employee profit sharing plan (hereinafter the "Plan Assets"). The state fa


CourtListener opinion 22324

ERISA: its and $400,000 from the settlement. In this lawsuit, Ms. Hatteberg sued Mr. Hatteberg and the other defendants (collectively 3 referred to hereinafter as "Defendants") for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereinafter "ERISA"), violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter "RICO"), and negligent misrepresentation, legal malpractice and abuse of process claims under state law. Ms. Hatteberg alleged that if the distribution would have been made at the time of or shortly after the divorce the value of her portion of the Plan Assets, on March


CourtListener opinion 22324

domestic relations order: ea D. Hatteberg (hereinafter "Ms. Hatteberg") and James Richard Hatteberg (hereinafter "Mr. Hatteberg") (collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Hattebergs"). On October 1, 1992, a state family law court issued a divorce decree and entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (hereinafter the "First Qualified Order"). At the time of the divorce, Mr. Hatteberg worked for Red Adair Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Red Adair"). In the First Qualified Order, the state family law court valued and divided the Hattebergs' benefits which had accrued in Red Adair's employee profit sharing plan (hereinafter the "Plan Assets"). The state fa


CourtListener opinion 22374

CourtListener opinion 22374 Extracted reporter citation: 155 F.3d 507. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 22374 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 22374

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 22374

QDRO: to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. at the age of 51. The parties entered into an Agreed Decree of Divorce and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in state court. The QDRO provided that Brown would receive sixty percent of Bobby Brown's UPS retirement benefits. Prior to the entry of this order, Brown's attorney forwarded to the corporate benefits department at UPS a copy of the proposed domestic relations order for approval by the Plan as a qualified order. In the transmittal letter to Ca


CourtListener opinion 22374

retirement benefits: xas USDC No. 4-97-CV-837-Y -------------------- October 31, 2000 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:* Bobby Brown, a retired United Parcel Service (UPS) employee, is a participant in the UPS Retirement Plan (Plan), which is regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, § 514(a), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, (ERISA). In 1994, prior to Bobby Brown's retirement, his wife, appellant Daisy Brown (Brown) filed a divorce suit in Tarrant County. He retired the next year * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion sh


CourtListener opinion 22374

ERISA: es. BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:* Bobby Brown, a retired United Parcel Service (UPS) employee, is a participant in the UPS Retirement Plan (Plan), which is regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, § 514(a), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, (ERISA). In 1994, prior to Bobby Brown's retirement, his wife, appellant Daisy Brown (Brown) filed a divorce suit in Tarrant County. He retired the next year * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. at the age


CourtListener opinion 22374

domestic relations order: . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. at the age of 51. The parties entered into an Agreed Decree of Divorce and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in state court. The QDRO provided that Brown would receive sixty percent of Bobby Brown's UPS retirement benefits. Prior to the entry of this order, Brown's attorney forwarded to the corporate benefits department at UPS a copy of the proposed domestic relations order for approval by the Plan as a qualified order. In the transmittal letter to Ca


CourtListener opinion 2382176

CourtListener opinion 2382176 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 97-615-Appeal. Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2382176 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


CourtListener opinion 2382176

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


CourtListener opinion 2382176

retirement benefits: RBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ. John B. Harwood, Pawtucket, for plaintiff. Lauren E. Jones, Providence, for defendant. OPINION PER CURIAM. The defendant, James M. Donelan (James), appeals from a Family Court order that divided a Keogh retirement account (the Keogh account or the retirement account) equally between himself and his former wife, the plaintiff, Kathleen Kelly (Kathleen). [1] James contends that the Family Court's order improperly modified a non-merged property settlement agreement between himself and Kathleen. He further argues that the Family Court justice erred by granting Kathleen a half sh


CourtListener opinion 2620339

CourtListener opinion 2620339 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of RICHARD M. BOGAN and LYNDA D. LEWIS. RICHARD M. BOGAN. Extracted reporter citation: 203 Cal.App.4th 492. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2620339 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 2620339


CourtListener opinion 2620339

QDRO: he parties separated. After a trial in 2006, the court issued its judgment, which included the ruling that Bogan's retirement or deferred compensation at Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) while married was to be divided between the parties pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Lewis filed a notice of appeal from this judgment and, after mediating their dispute, the parties entered into an agreement stating, among other things, that Bogan would pay Lewis $35,000, Lewis agreed "to waive any claim against the 401(k) funds held" in Bogan's name, and Lewis would dismiss her appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Years later, Bogan


CourtListener opinion 2620339

retirement benefits: ion of their children. Bogan filed a schedule of assets and debts on November 29, 2005. Under the category of retirement and pensions, Bogan listed "PG&E retirement (Apportioned)" and "PSEA Credit Union ([Lewis] took funds)." Under the heading for Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA) and deferred compensation, Bogan listed "PG&E 401(k) ([Bogan's] name) (Apportioned)" and an IRA with American Capital in Bogan's name. He also listed a 401(k) with Vodafone in Lewis's name and a Roth IRA and SEP IRA in Lewis's name. He attached a statement from the PG&E Savings Fund Plan, which showed a total fund balance of $61,374.41 for the statem


CourtListener opinion 2620339

pension: Lewis. In the 2006 judgment, the trial court reserved jurisdiction over child and spousal support and over personal property. It ruled that it did not have sufficient evidence to make a finding on support arrearages owed by either party. With regard to the pension and retirement benefits of Bogan, the 2006 judgment stated that the court had not received sufficient evidence regarding these benefits. The judgment stated: "However, to the extent that [Bogan] acquired deferred compensation or retirement benefits through his employment with [PG&E] Company during the period of the marriage, those assets shall be equally di


CourtListener opinion 2620339

401(k): c Relations Order (QDRO). Lewis filed a notice of appeal from this judgment and, after mediating their dispute, the parties entered into an agreement stating, among other things, that Bogan would pay Lewis $35,000, Lewis agreed "to waive any claim against the 401(k) funds held" in Bogan's name, and Lewis would dismiss her appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Years later, Bogan filed the QDRO, which included the PG&E Corporation Retirement Savings Plan (RSP). Subsequently, he moved to modify the QDRO to 1 remove all references to the RSP, arguing that Lewis had waived any interest in the RSP pursuant to their settlemen


CourtListener opinion 26237

CourtListener opinion 26237 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 26237 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 26237


CourtListener opinion 26237

pension: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20322 Summary Calendar BILLY CLAUDE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BEVERLY CROWE PHILLIPS PARRISH; MARITIME ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMAN ASSOCIATION PENSION RETIREMENT WELFARE AND VACATION FUNDS, Defendants-Appellees. ***************************************************************** ________________ No. 01-20446 Summary Calendar ________________ BILLY CLAUDE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, versus BEVERLY CROWE PHILLIPS PARRISH; ET AL., Defendants, BEVERLY CROWE PHILLIPS PARRISH, Defendant-Appellee, vers


CourtListener opinion 26237

domestic relations order: December 27, 2001 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:* Billy Claude Phillips appeals the district court's dismissal of his action for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction. Phillips is essentially challenging a state court's domestic relations order which awarded a portion of Phillips' pension benefits to his former wife, Beverly Parrish. The district court did not err in holding that it was without subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain a collateral challenge to a state court order. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994). Phillips' attorney, Edward Truncelitto, appe


CourtListener opinion 26249

CourtListener opinion 26249 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 26249 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 26249

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 26249


CourtListener opinion 2627362

CourtListener opinion 2627362 Extracted case name: In re the MARRIAGE OF RITCHIE. Randall James Ritchie. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 3. Court of Civil. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2627362 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 2627362


CourtListener opinion 2627362

QDRO: Petitioner/Appellant. R.L. Buckelew, Buckelew & Buckelew, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent/Appellee. KENNETH L. BUETTNER, Presiding Judge. ¶ 1 Petitioner/Appellant Randall James Ritchie (Husband) appeals the provisions of the Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered pursuant to the Agreed Journal Entry *525 Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (\"Consent Decree\") ending Husband's marriage to Respondent/Appellee Lisa Ann Ritchie (Wife). Husband asserts the QDRO's formula for dividing his military retirement benefits differs from the parties' agreed division reached in the Consent Decree. The QDRO prescribes the c


CourtListener opinion 2627362

retirement benefits: ations Order (QDRO) entered pursuant to the Agreed Journal Entry *525 Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (\"Consent Decree\") ending Husband's marriage to Respondent/Appellee Lisa Ann Ritchie (Wife). Husband asserts the QDRO's formula for dividing his military retirement benefits differs from the parties' agreed division reached in the Consent Decree. The QDRO prescribes the correct formula for dividing Husband's military pension benefits and it is in accord with the parties' Consent Decree. We therefore affirm.


CourtListener opinion 2627362

pension: Appellee Lisa Ann Ritchie (Wife). Husband asserts the QDRO's formula for dividing his military retirement benefits differs from the parties' agreed division reached in the Consent Decree. The QDRO prescribes the correct formula for dividing Husband's military pension benefits and it is in accord with the parties' Consent Decree. We therefore affirm.


CourtListener opinion 2627362

domestic relations order: ce, Oklahoma City, OK, for Petitioner/Appellant. R.L. Buckelew, Buckelew & Buckelew, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent/Appellee. KENNETH L. BUETTNER, Presiding Judge. ¶ 1 Petitioner/Appellant Randall James Ritchie (Husband) appeals the provisions of the Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered pursuant to the Agreed Journal Entry *525 Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (\"Consent Decree\") ending Husband's marriage to Respondent/Appellee Lisa Ann Ritchie (Wife). Husband asserts the QDRO's formula for dividing his military retirement benefits differs from the parties' agreed division reached in the Consent Decree. The QDRO prescribes


CourtListener opinion 2631696

CourtListener opinion 2631696 Docket: 05-184. Supreme. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2631696 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 2631696


CourtListener opinion 2631696

QDRO: Wyland (Husband) and Cheryl Wyland (Wife) were divorced in 1999. In the divorce decree, the district court awarded Wife a portion of Husband's military retirement benefits in dividing the parties' marital property. The district court later entered an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relative to these retirement benefits. Husband appeals from that order, claiming that the order improperly modified the divorce decree. We affirm. ISSUE [¶2] The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred by entering the Second Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order. FACTS [¶3] The parties were married in 198


CourtListener opinion 2631696

retirement benefits: Wyoming. VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL [*] , KITE, and BURKE, JJ. VOIGT, Chief Justice. [¶1] Richard Wyland (Husband) and Cheryl Wyland (Wife) were divorced in 1999. In the divorce decree, the district court awarded Wife a portion of Husband's military retirement benefits in dividing the parties' marital property. The district court later entered an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relative to these retirement benefits. Husband appeals from that order, claiming that the order improperly modified the divorce decree. We affirm. ISSUE [¶2] The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the district cour


CourtListener opinion 2631696

domestic relations order: usband) and Cheryl Wyland (Wife) were divorced in 1999. In the divorce decree, the district court awarded Wife a portion of Husband's military retirement benefits in dividing the parties' marital property. The district court later entered an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relative to these retirement benefits. Husband appeals from that order, claiming that the order improperly modified the divorce decree. We affirm. ISSUE [¶2] The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred by entering the Second Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order. FACTS [¶3] The parties were married in 198


CourtListener opinion 2637613

CourtListener opinion 2637613 Extracted case name: In re the MARRIAGE OF Cleone LEWIS. Extracted reporter citation: 66 P.3d 204. Docket: 01CA0013. Colorado. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2637613 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 2637613


CourtListener opinion 2637613

QDRO: y had two principal assets, the family home and husband's retirement plan. The court found that the fair market value of the family home was $167,000, with an equity of $20,000, and awarded it to wife. The court divided husband's pension equally by means of a qualified domestic relations order. *205 During the marriage