CourtListener opinion 4311891

retirement benefits: he phone the other week, [Husband]'s pension did not increase in value between 2000 and 2004, and he could never "cash out" his pension during that timeframe. 3. [Husband] has two pension benefits under the terms of the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan. One is called his "Benefit Credit" Pension. The other is called his "Legacy Credit" pension. I address them in turn below. 4. Benefit Credit pension. The value of [Husband]'s Benefit Credit pension is/was determined based on several factors, including (i) his years of service in the NFL, (ii) the number of his years of service in the NFL, and (iii)


CourtListener opinion 4311891

pension: in Long Branch, New Jersey, Wife calculated the four year increase in value at Twenty- Three Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars ($23,935.00). We value the Long Branch property at Five Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Four Dollars ($5,984.00). D. NFL PENSION Husband's career in the NFL ended prior to the date of marriage. As best we understand the evidence, Husband did not begin receiving benefits until after the date of separation. No definitive evidence was presented with regard to any increase in value between 2000 and 2001 in Husband's NFL Pension. Because of the brief length of the marriage, we find


CourtListener opinion 4311891

valuation/division: urt's equitable distribution order entered December 1, 2016, and as amended by the court on February 1, 2017. A divorce decree was previously entered on July 11, 2013, between Wife and Harry E. Hamilton ("Husband").1 Wife challenges various aspects of the equitable distribution decision. Based on the following, we affirm. The facts and procedural history are well known to the parties. Accordingly, we summarize as follows: On June 8, 2004, Wife filed a ____________________________________________  Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 Husband represented himself at the trial court level and in this appeal.


CourtListener opinion 4312211

CourtListener opinion 4312211 Extracted case name: DOWNUM v. DOWNUM. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1 CA-CV 17-0693 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4312211 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 4312211

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 4312211

QDRO: 3 per month until the second child's emancipation, and half of Husband's retirement account accrued during the marriage in the Arizona State Retirement System ("ASRS"). The court ordered the ASRS account to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") and ordered Husband to hire an attorney to prepare and file the QDRO within 30 days of the decree. The parties were ordered to "equally pay for the cost of preparing and filing such QDRO." ¶3 Before the final decree was entered, Wife and Husband heavily litigated the issue of spousal maintenance. The court entered a final order in February 2014 on the bi


CourtListener opinion 4312211

retirement benefits: ppeals the superior court's denial of her petition to modify spousal maintenance and the judgment entered against her for the overpayment of child support. She also contests the superior court's rulings regarding the division of Christian Downum's ("Husband") retirement account. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and remand in part with instructions. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Wife and Husband were married for over 27 years and they have two children in common, both of whom are now emancipated. In January 2013, Husband petitioned to dissolve the marriage, and in May 2015, the superior court entered a final dec


CourtListener opinion 4312211

domestic relations order: month, child support of $783 per month until the second child's emancipation, and half of Husband's retirement account accrued during the marriage in the Arizona State Retirement System ("ASRS"). The court ordered the ASRS account to be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") and ordered Husband to hire an attorney to prepare and file the QDRO within 30 days of the decree. The parties were ordered to "equally pay for the cost of preparing and filing such QDRO." ¶3 Before the final decree was entered, Wife and Husband heavily litigated the issue of spousal maintenance. The court entered a final order in February 2014 on


CourtListener opinion 4313328

CourtListener opinion 4313328 Extracted case name: COA EDWARD WILLIAM SPEIGHTS III APPELLANT v. KIMBERLY DANIELS SPEIGHTS APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Docket: that any financial forms were exchanged. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4313328 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 4313328


CourtListener opinion 4313328

QDRO: . At the end of the witness's testimony, the chancellor granted Kimberly a divorce on the ground of habitual drunkenness without further comment. ¶6. On October 4, 2016, the judgment of divorce was entered, as well as a qualified- domestic-relations order (QDRO), dividing Trey's retirement benefits from his roofing business. The chancellor explained that he distributed the marital property based upon lists presented to the court as exhibits that were signed by Trey's parents,4 but the record is void of analysis of the Ferguson factors. Kimberly was awarded $52,500 of Trey's employee pension plan. Trey was also


CourtListener opinion 4313328

retirement benefits: ness's testimony, the chancellor granted Kimberly a divorce on the ground of habitual drunkenness without further comment. ¶6. On October 4, 2016, the judgment of divorce was entered, as well as a qualified- domestic-relations order (QDRO), dividing Trey's retirement benefits from his roofing business. The chancellor explained that he distributed the marital property based upon lists presented to the court as exhibits that were signed by Trey's parents,4 but the record is void of analysis of the Ferguson factors. Kimberly was awarded $52,500 of Trey's employee pension plan. Trey was also ordered to pay $17,259.87 in credit-


CourtListener opinion 4313328

pension: ancellor explained that he distributed the marital property based upon lists presented to the court as exhibits that were signed by Trey's parents,4 but the record is void of analysis of the Ferguson factors. Kimberly was awarded $52,500 of Trey's employee pension plan. Trey was also ordered to pay $17,259.87 in credit-card debt and permanently restrained from having any contact with Kimberly. ¶7. On October 24, 2016, an appearance form was entered for Trey's new attorney, along 2 Both the trial transcript and the judgment of divorce inaccurately state that the trial was held on August 21, 2016, which was a Sund


CourtListener opinion 4313328

valuation/division: his de facto attorneys" for the division of marital assets at trial, when Trey failed to appear. Trey also argues the chancery court erred in failing to order the parties to submit a Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 financial disclosure form. Regarding the property division, Trey contends the chancery court failed to make a distinction between marital and non-marital property, and failed to support its decision with findings of fact under the Ferguson1 factors. ¶2. We affirm the grant of divorce on the ground of habitual drunkenness. We also find no error in the role of Trey's parents at the trial. However, we reverse and


CourtListener opinion 4314685

CourtListener opinion 4314685 Extracted reporter citation: 520 U.S. 833. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4314685 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 4314685


CourtListener opinion 4314685

QDRO: U.S. at 851, 117 S. Ct. at 1765; see also 29 U.S.C.A. § 1056(d)(2) (anti- alienation provision does not apply to an assignment or alienation of benefits executed before September 2, 1974); (d)(3)(A) (West 2009) (anti-alienation provision does not apply to qualified domestic relations orders); Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 376, 110 S. Ct. 680, 687 (1990) (declining to approve of an equitable exception to ERISA's prohibition on the assignment or alienation of pension benefits); Matter of Baker, 114 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding violations of the plan's terms and violations of ERISA by plan trustee


CourtListener opinion 4314685

retirement benefits: rop. Code Ann. § 42.0021 (West 2014). The Gilbert parties then filed a second amended answer and counterclaim, adding a claim for declaratory judgment on behalf of all the Gilbert parties. They alleged that Edgefield had attempted to garnish an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) and a defined benefit pension plan (which, in later pleadings, they identified as an account held in the name of the Gilbert Real Estate Brokers Defined Benefit Pension Plan (the Pension Plan)), both held at UBS and both of which they alleged were exempt from execution. 4 II. The Gilbert Parties File Motions for Summary Judgment and Edgefield


CourtListener opinion 4314685

pension: Court Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CV16-0784 Before Meier, Gabriel, and Pittman, JJ. Opinion by Justice Pittman MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION Twenty-one years ago, the United States Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that "ERISA's[1] pension plan anti-alienation provision is mandatory and contains only two explicit exceptions, . . . which are not subject to judicial expansion." Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 851, 117 S. Ct. 1754, 1765 (1997) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(2), (d)(3)(A)) (emphasis added). Here, the trial court granted summary judgment on that issue in favor of Appellees Kenneth


CourtListener opinion 4314685

ERISA: rd District Court Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CV16-0784 Before Meier, Gabriel, and Pittman, JJ. Opinion by Justice Pittman MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION Twenty-one years ago, the United States Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that "ERISA's[1] pension plan anti-alienation provision is mandatory and contains only two explicit exceptions, . . . which are not subject to judicial expansion." Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 851, 117 S. Ct. 1754, 1765 (1997) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(2), (d)(3)(A)) (emphasis added). Here, the trial court granted summary judgment on that issue in favor of Appel


CourtListener opinion 4315052

CourtListener opinion 4315052 Extracted case name: VINCENT v. SHANOVICH. Docket: 1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4315052 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 4315052


CourtListener opinion 4315052

QDRO: ORANDUM DECISION Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Patrick Shanovich appeals the superior court's order denying his motion to set aside a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") because of an alleged clerical mistake and a judgment awarding attorneys' fees to his former spouse Francene Vincent. For lack of appellate jurisdiction, we previously dismissed his appeal of the order denying his motion to set aside the QDRO and vacated the judgment awarding fees. Vincent v. Shanovich, 1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC, 2017 WL 1174317, at *1, ¶


CourtListener opinion 4315052

retirement benefits: cceptable Domestic Relations Order'" relating to ASRS and (2) was "an integral part" of the Decree. The QDRO provided that Vincent was "awarded 50% of [Shanovich]'s annuity, payable at the time and in the manner payments are made to the member pursuant to the retirement benefit elected." Unlike the Decree, however, the QDRO did not specify the relevant valuation date for that award. ¶4 Years later, when nearing retirement, Shanovich allegedly learned that the ASRS pension plan administrator "interpreted the [QDRO] as awarding [Vincent] one-half of the entire retirement benefit—including the portion of the benefit [Shanovich] has


CourtListener opinion 4315052

pension: r payments are made to the member pursuant to the retirement benefit elected." Unlike the Decree, however, the QDRO did not specify the relevant valuation date for that award. ¶4 Years later, when nearing retirement, Shanovich allegedly learned that the ASRS pension plan administrator "interpreted the [QDRO] as awarding [Vincent] one-half of the entire retirement benefit—including the portion of the benefit [Shanovich] has accrued since the parties' divorce." In March 2016, Shanovich filed a motion to set aside the QDRO under Rule 85, alternatively asserting it contained a clerical mistake under Rule 85(A) (because it


CourtListener opinion 4315052

domestic relations order: CISION Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Patrick Shanovich appeals the superior court's order denying his motion to set aside a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") because of an alleged clerical mistake and a judgment awarding attorneys' fees to his former spouse Francene Vincent. For lack of appellate jurisdiction, we previously dismissed his appeal of the order denying his motion to set aside the QDRO and vacated the judgment awarding fees. Vincent v. Shanovich, 1 CA-CV 16-0431 FC, 2017 WL 1174317, at *1, ¶


CourtListener opinion 4315583

CourtListener opinion 4315583 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JEFFREY J. MONAHAN AND RONAE L. MONAHAN Upon the Petition of JEFFREY J. MONAHAN. Extracted reporter citation: 827 N.W.2d 671. Docket: 17-0904. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4315583 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 4315583

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 4315583

QDRO: ension shall be divided subject to the Benson formula and to provide for interest on the equalization payment at the statutory rate. We remand this matter to the district court to apply the formula to the facts and circumstances of this case and to enter a qualified domestic relations order implementing the division. III. We next address the issue of spousal support. The district court awarded Ronae spousal support in the amount of $2000 per month commencing on July 1, 2024, after Jeff pays the final installment of the equalization payment. The spousal support will end when either party dies, Ronae remarries, or Ronae reaches the age


CourtListener opinion 4315583

pension: levant here, the record reflects the following with respect to the parties' employment and financial circumstances. At the time of trial, Jeff was fifty-one years old. He retired from the National Guard after twenty years of service, and he is eligible for pension benefits due to his service. He is the longtime owner and operator of a profitable auto-body shop. Ronae was fifty-three at the time of trial. She is a college graduate and holds a degree in business in addition to a cosmetology license. In 2000, Ronae opened a salon and spa with Jeff. The parties owned and operated the salon and spa until they separate


CourtListener opinion 4315583

domestic relations order: ll be divided subject to the Benson formula and to provide for interest on the equalization payment at the statutory rate. We remand this matter to the district court to apply the formula to the facts and circumstances of this case and to enter a qualified domestic relations order implementing the division. III. We next address the issue of spousal support. The district court awarded Ronae spousal support in the amount of $2000 per month commencing on July 1, 2024, after Jeff pays the final installment of the equalization payment. The spousal support will end when either party dies, Ronae remarries, or Ronae reaches the age


CourtListener opinion 4315583

valuation/division: 11, 2004). We modify the decree to provide Jeff's pension should be classified as marital property with Ronae to receive one- half of the marital share of the pension as determined by the Benson formula. We find the remainder of Ronae's challenges to the property division to be without merit. Other than failing to divide Jeff's pension, the district court sorted through the evidence, identified the marital property, valued the martial property and debts, and divided the assets and liabilities in an equitable fashion. The valuations of the property are within the range of evidence, and we will not disturb those valuation


CourtListener opinion 4315797

CourtListener opinion 4315797 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Tebbens. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 1-17-0777 Rule 23 order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4315797 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 4315797


CourtListener opinion 4315797

retirement benefits: th parties were represented by counsel during dissolution proceedings. ¶5 In brief, the trial court entered a judgment for dissolution of marriage in October 2012, incorporating a MSA into the judgment for dissolution. In part, the MSA divided the parties' retirement accounts and pension plans. Thereafter, the pension administrator requested an order that reflected a specific dollar amount for Julie's distribution, rather than the percentage formula that was set out in the MSA. By this time, Robert was represented by new counsel. Eventually, the trial court modified the MSA over Robert's objection. Robert appealed this modi


CourtListener opinion 4315797

pension: his marriage against Julie Tebbens. In that malpractice action, Robert claimed that his former counsel failed to submit to the trial court a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that accurately reflected the parties' intent regarding the division of Robert's pension plan between himself and Julie. On appeal, Robert contends that the trial court erred in finding his claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶2 I. BACKGROUND ¶3 Robert filed his complaint against defendants in October 2014. By this complaint, Robert asserted claims for legal malpractice and breach of con


CourtListener opinion 4315797

domestic relations order: Robert was entitled to the entry of an order clarifying the dollar value of Julie's share of the pension as Robert had originally requested. ¶6 In more detail, specific to the divorce appeal, Robert challenged the trial court's entry of a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) by the circuit court, which apparently divided the pension percentage-wise in such a way that Julie took more than the parties had agreed upon. In April 2015, we reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions. In that cause, we recited the following facts, which are pertinent to the present appeal: -2- "In December 2009, Robe


CourtListener opinion 4315797

valuation/division: d a motion to clarify both the October 31, 2012 judgment, and the December 21, 2012 order, asking the court to clarify these ‘to conform same to the parties' agreement.' In support, Robert recounted that while Paragraph 7.5 of the MSA awarded Julie 50% of the marital portion of his vested, accrued benefit under the Fireman's Annuity Fund, and awarded Robert all remaining benefits and interest, that paragraph stated a percentage amount rather than a dollar amount for Julie. According to Robert, this percentage amount was insufficient for the Firemen's Annuity Fund and Benefit Fund of Chicago to divide the asset as agreed upon by


CourtListener opinion 4316093

CourtListener opinion 4316093 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of September. Extracted reporter citation: 696 N.E.2d 888. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4316093 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 4316093


CourtListener opinion 4316093

QDRO: ntered an order stating that Wife "shall be named Alternative Payee" of Husband's pension. It also ordered that Wife be awarded 33.5% of the monthly pension benefits that would otherwise go to Husband. Lastly, the court ordered Husband's counsel to file a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") regarding the pension within sixty days. [5] On August 31, 2012, before the QDRO was prepared or filed, Husband died. On October 29, 2012, counsel made an appearance on behalf of Wife. On April 11, 2013, Wife filed a motion to substitute the Estate of Michael J. Hickey ("the Estate") as a party to the action, which the trial court granted. O


CourtListener opinion 4316093

pension: -1710-DR-2535 Petitioner, Appeal from the Lake Circuit v. Court The Honorable Marissa J. Jackie L. Hickey, McDermott, Judge The Honorable Lisa A. Berdine, Appellee-Respondent, Magistrate v. Trial Court Cause No. 45C01-0912-DR-990 ArcelorMittal USA LLC Pension Plan, Appellant-Intervenor May, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1710-DR-2535 | September 27, 2018 Page 1 of 10 [1] ArcelorMittal USA LLC Pension Plan ("ArcelorMittal") appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for relief from judgment, which had sought to set aside a May 23, 2014, order granting Jackie L. Hickey's ("Wife") mot


CourtListener opinion 4316093

domestic relations order: order stating that Wife "shall be named Alternative Payee" of Husband's pension. It also ordered that Wife be awarded 33.5% of the monthly pension benefits that would otherwise go to Husband. Lastly, the court ordered Husband's counsel to file a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") regarding the pension within sixty days. [5] On August 31, 2012, before the QDRO was prepared or filed, Husband died. On October 29, 2012, counsel made an appearance on behalf of Wife. On April 11, 2013, Wife filed a motion to substitute the Estate of Michael J. Hickey ("the Estate") as a party to the action, which the trial court granted. O


CourtListener opinion 4316093

survivor benefits: . The parties 1 As stated in our earlier opinion, "The parties agree that if Wife is not deemed to be Husband's widow, then she will receive no pension benefits. [ArcelorMittal] claims that this is because Wife expressly waived her right to the qualified survivor annuity at the time of Husband's retirement." ArcelorMittal USA, LLC Pension Plan v. Hickey, 45A03-1509-DR-1537 (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2016). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1710-DR-2535 | September 27, 2018 Page 2 of 10 still did not agree on the distribution of the marital property, nor had the value of Husband's pension been determined. Inste


CourtListener opinion 4319670

CourtListener opinion 4319670 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JACKIE LEA SPITZMILLER AND SCOTT LOUIS SPITZMILLER Upon the Petition of JACKIE. Extracted reporter citation: 874 N.W.2d 103. Docket: 17-0803. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4319670 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 4319670


CourtListener opinion 4319670

QDRO: Jackie married, Scott drew pension benefits, or either party died, whichever occurred first. 3 On Scott's motion for enlarged findings and conclusions, the court reduced the award to $450 per month. The court ordered Scott's pension divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, valued the home at $72,000 and awarded it to Scott together with the mortgage, distributed the vehicles and personal property, allocated student loan and medical debt to Jackie, and ordered Scott to make an equalizing payment of $9595 to Jackie. This appeal and cross-appeal followed. II. Spousal Support A court may grant spousal support for a limited


CourtListener opinion 4319670

pension: fifty-two years old at the time of trial, and Scott was forty-seven. Scott worked as a cement mason foreman, a job that took a toll on his back and knees. He earned between $60,000 and $68,000 in the four years preceding trial and had an employment-based pension plan that would afford him retirement income at the age of fifty-eight. Jackie was a high-school graduate. She went to cosmetology school as well as community college for highway construction, and took "some technical engineering, mechanical drafting in the state of Colorado." She had employment experience as a forklift driver but most recently cleane


CourtListener opinion 4319670

domestic relations order: rried, Scott drew pension benefits, or either party died, whichever occurred first. 3 On Scott's motion for enlarged findings and conclusions, the court reduced the award to $450 per month. The court ordered Scott's pension divided pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, valued the home at $72,000 and awarded it to Scott together with the mortgage, distributed the vehicles and personal property, allocated student loan and medical debt to Jackie, and ordered Scott to make an equalizing payment of $9595 to Jackie. This appeal and cross-appeal followed. II. Spousal Support A court may grant spousal support for a limited


CourtListener opinion 4319670

valuation/division: ties' earning capacity requires the court to treat this as marital debt." The court's treatment of the debt was equitable. IV. Disposition We modify the spousal support provision to increase the amount of spousal support to $700 per month. We affirm the property division provision in the dissolution decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS- APPEAL.


CourtListener opinion 4319883

CourtListener opinion 4319883 Extracted reporter citation: 588 N.E.2d 285. Docket: 2018CA0002 5 appellant contends the trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4319883 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 4319883

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 4319883

QDRO: gust 25, 2007 to October 31, 2014. Defendant is entitled to any gains or losses, to the extent of her assigned interest, and survivor beneficiary rights for Defendant's marital portion only, to the extent of her assigned interest. Defendant shall have a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared and circulated for approval. The terms of the QDRO shall afford Defendant the same benefits, rights and options as the Plaintiff in the Ohio Operating Engineers plan/fund. Defendant is entitled to cost of living adjustments in the plan, to the extent of her assigned interest for Defendant's marital portion only. Morrow County, Case No. 2


CourtListener opinion 4319883

pension: y counsel for each party. The agreement was read into the record. In the memorandum of agreement, the parties agreed the duration of the marriage was from August 25, 2007 to October 31, 2014. Paragraph 6 of the memorandum of agreement addresses appellant's pension plan with Ohio Operating Engineers ("OOE") and provides as follows: Defendant is awarded 50% of the marital portion of Plaintiff's retirement with Ohio Operating Engineers. The marital portion is defined as August 25, 2007 to October 31, 2014. Defendant is entitled to any gains or losses, to the extent of her assigned interest, and survivor benefic


CourtListener opinion 4319883

domestic relations order: 007 to October 31, 2014. Defendant is entitled to any gains or losses, to the extent of her assigned interest, and survivor beneficiary rights for Defendant's marital portion only, to the extent of her assigned interest. Defendant shall have a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared and circulated for approval. The terms of the QDRO shall afford Defendant the same benefits, rights and options as the Plaintiff in the Ohio Operating Engineers plan/fund. Defendant is entitled to cost of living adjustments in the plan, to the extent of her assigned interest for Defendant's marital portion only. Morrow County, Case No. 2


CourtListener opinion 4319883

valuation/division: agreed the duration of the marriage was from August 25, 2007 to October 31, 2014. Paragraph 6 of the memorandum of agreement addresses appellant's pension plan with Ohio Operating Engineers ("OOE") and provides as follows: Defendant is awarded 50% of the marital portion of Plaintiff's retirement with Ohio Operating Engineers. The marital portion is defined as August 25, 2007 to October 31, 2014. Defendant is entitled to any gains or losses, to the extent of her assigned interest, and survivor beneficiary rights for Defendant's marital portion only, to the extent of her assigned interest. Defendant shall have a Qu


CourtListener opinion 4321269

CourtListener opinion 4321269 Extracted reporter citation: 134 S. Ct. 2242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4321269 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 4321269


CourtListener opinion 4321269

QDRO: a. The state court's order dissolving the marriage adopted the parties' stipulated property settlement which awarded Lerbakken one-half of the value in his ex-wife's Wells Fargo 401K and an entire IRA account (Accounts). The order directed counsel to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order related to these assets. Based upon the available record, the briefing and representations of counsel this was not accomplished and Lerbakken has undertaken no other action to obtain title or possession of the accounts. Lerbakken filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition on January 23, 2018. His Schedule C claimed the Accounts as exempt retirement funds for th


CourtListener opinion 4321269

retirement benefits: e to "retirement funds" is therefore properly understood to mean sums of money set aside for the day an individual stops working. Id. at 2246. The opinion clearly suggests that the exemption is limited to individuals who create and contribute funds into the retirement account. Retirement funds obtained or received by any other means do not meet this definition. In an attempt to meet the standard enunciated in Clark, Lerbakken asserts the 401K and IRA represent marital property that his ex-wife saved for their joint retirement. He further states that he intends to use the proceeds of the Accounts for support upon his retirement


CourtListener opinion 4321269

ERISA: that his interest in the Accounts satisfies this statutory definition because the proceeds are not taxable to his ex-wife and this status inures to his benefit. The parties supply extensive arguments related to the potential tax consequences, penalties and ERISA provisions applicable to the Accounts. Standing alone, these issues are not dispositive of their exempt status. 11 U.S.C. §522(d)(12) contains two requirements: (1) that the amount must be retirement funds; and (2) that the retirement funds must be in an account that is exempt from taxation under one of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code set forth


CourtListener opinion 4321269

401(k): 16, 2018 ____________ Before SCHERMER, NAIL and SHODEEN, Bankruptcy Judges. ____________ SHODEEN, Bankruptcy Judge, The Debtor, Brian Lerbakken, appeals the bankruptcy court's1 Order dated May 29, 2018 disallowing his claimed exemptions in a Wells Fargo 401K and an IRA account. BACKGROUND In September 2014 Lerbakken retained Sieloff & Associates, P. A. (Sieloff) to represent him in his divorce proceeding in Lake County, Minnesota. The state court's order dissolving the marriage adopted the parties' stipulated property settlement which awarded Lerbakken one-half of the value in his ex-wife's Wells Fargo 401K


CourtListener opinion 4323791

CourtListener opinion 4323791 Docket: 342922 Marquette Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4323791 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 4323791


CourtListener opinion 4323791

QDRO: duplex owned by the parties, which generated $1,200 in monthly gross income, no longer had a mortgage, and was appraised at $110,000 according to plaintiff. Additionally, defendant was awarded the sum of $44,167 from plaintiff's retirement account by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).3 Further, by agreement, defendant was awarded three motor vehicles, four motorcycles, three sailboats, and a Catamaran, all of unknown value, while plaintiff was awarded her 2001 Jeep Wrangler. With respect to spousal support, defendant argued below that his age4 and his limited employment history would make it difficult to find work and that plai


CourtListener opinion 4323791

retirement benefits: -1- was also awarded a rental duplex owned by the parties, which generated $1,200 in monthly gross income, no longer had a mortgage, and was appraised at $110,000 according to plaintiff. Additionally, defendant was awarded the sum of $44,167 from plaintiff's retirement account by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).3 Further, by agreement, defendant was awarded three motor vehicles, four motorcycles, three sailboats, and a Catamaran, all of unknown value, while plaintiff was awarded her 2001 Jeep Wrangler. With respect to spousal support, defendant argued below that his age4 and his limited employment history wou


CourtListener opinion 4323791

domestic relations order: ed by the parties, which generated $1,200 in monthly gross income, no longer had a mortgage, and was appraised at $110,000 according to plaintiff. Additionally, defendant was awarded the sum of $44,167 from plaintiff's retirement account by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).3 Further, by agreement, defendant was awarded three motor vehicles, four motorcycles, three sailboats, and a Catamaran, all of unknown value, while plaintiff was awarded her 2001 Jeep Wrangler. With respect to spousal support, defendant argued below that his age4 and his limited employment history would make it difficult to find work and that plai


CourtListener opinion 4324382

CourtListener opinion 4324382 Extracted case name: UTHE v. UTHE. Docket: 1 CA-CV 18-0021 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4324382 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 4324382


CourtListener opinion 4324382

QDRO: nd a motorcycle in their possession. The proceeds of the 2 UTHE v. UTHE Decision of the Court sale were to be split equally. In addition to awarding Father and Mother their sole and separate property, the court ordered that Mother's 401(k) be split via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). ¶5 As to community debts, the court ordered that each party pay for half of the debt. Included in the community debt was an outstanding balance of approximately $100,000 owed to the Arizona Department of Revenue ("ADOR").1 The parties also had credit card debt and an outstanding home equity loan. ¶6 Father appealed the divorce decree. This court


CourtListener opinion 4324382

retirement benefits: the estimated value of Father's separate property as a credit to his share of outstanding community debts. We exercise special action jurisdiction and vacate the contempt citation. On remand, the superior court should calculate Father's portion of the 401(k) retirement account ("401(k)") and apply it to his past due child support and tax debt in accordance with this decision. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The parties married on March 9, 2004. During their marriage, the couple had two children. On November 3, 2014, Father filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage, and the superior court signed a decree of dissolution o


CourtListener opinion 4324382

401(k): pplying the estimated value of Father's separate property as a credit to his share of outstanding community debts. We exercise special action jurisdiction and vacate the contempt citation. On remand, the superior court should calculate Father's portion of the 401(k) retirement account ("401(k)") and apply it to his past due child support and tax debt in accordance with this decision. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The parties married on March 9, 2004. During their marriage, the couple had two children. On November 3, 2014, Father filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage, and the superior court signed a decr


CourtListener opinion 4324382

domestic relations order: cycle in their possession. The proceeds of the 2 UTHE v. UTHE Decision of the Court sale were to be split equally. In addition to awarding Father and Mother their sole and separate property, the court ordered that Mother's 401(k) be split via a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO"). ¶5 As to community debts, the court ordered that each party pay for half of the debt. Included in the community debt was an outstanding balance of approximately $100,000 owed to the Arizona Department of Revenue ("ADOR").1 The parties also had credit card debt and an outstanding home equity loan. ¶6 Father appealed the divorce decree. This court


CourtListener opinion 4328374

CourtListener opinion 4328374 Extracted case name: PAMELA ANNETTE DOTSON v. WILLIE JEFFERSON DOTSON. Extracted reporter citation: 293 S.W.3d 537. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4328374 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 4328374

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 4328374

QDRO: s' marriage to the date of the divorce. The parties agree that a separate Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be entered to effect the division of this asset. As agreed, the circuit court entered a contemporaneous Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), approved by counsel for both parties.3 The QDRO assigned Wife fifty percent of Husband's "vested pension benefits" from his employment at Nashville Electric Service ("NES") that had accumulated during the parties' marriage, including "all income and benefits, under all of the various accounts and/or subaccounts established on behalf of [Husband]." But th


CourtListener opinion 4328374

retirement benefits: FFERSON DOTSON Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumner County No. 24632-C Joe H. Thompson, Judge ___________________________________ No. M2017-00807-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________ This post-divorce dispute concerns the enforcement of a retirement benefits provision in a marital dissolution agreement. After the defendant retired, he refused to pay any portion of his retirement benefits to his ex-wife based on his interpretation of their marital dissolution agreement. His ex-wife disagreed with his interpretation and petitioned the trial court to enforce their agreement. Both parties moved for summary judgmen


CourtListener opinion 4328374

pension: Order shall be entered to effect the division of this asset. As agreed, the circuit court entered a contemporaneous Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), approved by counsel for both parties.3 The QDRO assigned Wife fifty percent of Husband's "vested pension benefits" from his employment at Nashville Electric Service ("NES") that had accumulated during the parties' marriage, including "all income and benefits, under all of the various accounts and/or subaccounts established on behalf of [Husband]." But the Plan Administrator rejected the QDRO because NES, as a municipal entity, did not accept QDROs on its retir


CourtListener opinion 4328374

401(k): /Local Government Pensions, TENN. B.J., May 2016, at 30. No further action was taken before Husband's retirement. On June 1, 2015, Husband retired. Shortly thereafter he began receiving retirement benefits from NES. It is undisputed that Husband never had a 401(k) retirement plan. All of Husband's retirement benefits that accumulated during the marriage came from a defined benefit pension plan and a 457 deferred compensation plan established for NES employees. When Husband refused to pay any portion of his benefits to Wife, she filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Sumner County, Tennessee, to enforce the retirem


CourtListener opinion 4328576

CourtListener opinion 4328576 Extracted case name: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DARREN M. BECHTHOLD AND ANGELA J. BECHTHOLD Upon the Petition of DARREN M. Extracted reporter citation: 737 N.W.2d 97. Docket: 17-1191. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4328576 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 4328576


CourtListener opinion 4328576

QDRO: tic 15 relations order but Angela's is not. We modify the decree by holding each party is entitled to substantially similar marital-share survivor benefits in one another's pensions and the survivor benefits provided to Darren as to Angela's pension in a qualified domestic relations order should be substantially similar to those provided to Angela as to Darren's pension. D. Spousal Support Darren argues the district court erred in granting Angela an award of traditional spousal support in the amount of $500.00. He implies he cannot afford to pay Angela any spousal support. Angela challenges the spousal-support award as inadequate and


CourtListener opinion 4328576

pension: rd of attorney fees in favor of Angela. Darren also alleged the court erred in including cash medical support in its child- 7 support calculation and challenged the provision in the decree requiring him to maintain Angela as the primary beneficiary of his pension. Darren requested that both parties receive marital-share survivor benefits in one another's pensions. Finally, Darren requested "further clarification" on the sharing of expenses for JB1. Thereafter, Darren filed a petition to modify pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1012. Therein, Darren alleged his tax liability flowing from the 2016 sale


CourtListener opinion 4328576

401(k): years of age. He has a bachelor's degree and works as a maintenance engineer for an implement manufacturer, a position in which he earns $95,046.33 per year. In recent years, Darren has averaged just over $16,000.00 in annual voluntary contributions to his 401k plan. In addition to his regular employment, Darren has assisted his father with farming for most of his life and the two have operated a farming partnership, Bechthold Farms. In the early 2000s, Darren started his own angus-breeding business. The business has "progressed" over the years, and Darren has developed a reputation in the industry based on t


CourtListener opinion 4328576

domestic relations order: elations order but Angela's is not. We modify the decree by holding each party is entitled to substantially similar marital-share survivor benefits in one another's pensions and the survivor benefits provided to Darren as to Angela's pension in a qualified domestic relations order should be substantially similar to those provided to Angela as to Darren's pension. D. Spousal Support Darren argues the district court erred in granting Angela an award of traditional spousal support in the amount of $500.00. He implies he cannot afford to pay Angela any spousal support. Angela challenges the spousal-support award as inadequate and


CourtListener opinion 4329317

CourtListener opinion 4329317 Docket: 339028 Lenawee Circuit. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4329317 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 4329317


CourtListener opinion 4329317

QDRO: ater in life in 1996, and filed cross-complaints for divorce in 2012. The judgment required plaintiff to pay defendant $1,000 in monthly spousal support for a set period, to be set off by payments defendant received directly from plaintiff's pension through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The parties' personal property settlement included a provision stating that "[a]ll marital debt shall be evenly divided between the parties. In the event of a bankruptcy, those debts may be discharged." The judgment also contained a separate provision entitled "nondischargeability of obligations and debts," stating: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUD


CourtListener opinion 4329317

pension: ies were married later in life in 1996, and filed cross-complaints for divorce in 2012. The judgment required plaintiff to pay defendant $1,000 in monthly spousal support for a set period, to be set off by payments defendant received directly from plaintiff's pension through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The parties' personal property settlement included a provision stating that "[a]ll marital debt shall be evenly divided between the parties. In the event of a bankruptcy, those debts may be discharged." The judgment also contained a separate provision entitled "nondischargeability of obligations and debts


CourtListener opinion 4329317

domestic relations order: fe in 1996, and filed cross-complaints for divorce in 2012. The judgment required plaintiff to pay defendant $1,000 in monthly spousal support for a set period, to be set off by payments defendant received directly from plaintiff's pension through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The parties' personal property settlement included a provision stating that "[a]ll marital debt shall be evenly divided between the parties. In the event of a bankruptcy, those debts may be discharged." The judgment also contained a separate provision entitled "nondischargeability of obligations and debts," stating: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUD


CourtListener opinion 4329317

valuation/division: j v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 284 Mich App 513, 519; 773 NW2d 758 (2009). Still, we "may review an unpreserved issue if it is an issue of law for which all the relevant facts are available." Id. The division of marital debt is included in the personal property division of the judgment of divorce. However, the division of marital property (which includes the negative asset: debt)1 1 See ICLE, Michigan Family Law (2017), § 15.37, p 921 ("In general, debts are treated as negative assets in valuing an overall property award and courts typically allocate them according to the same equitable principles that govern property di


CourtListener opinion 4330628

CourtListener opinion 4330628 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 8945-95. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4330628 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 4330628


CourtListener opinion 4330628

QDRO: poraneous with this divorce decree, the State trial court issued a domestic relations order concerning the division of Ms. Schroeder's pension and retirement benefits. This domestic relations order purports to meet the requirements of section 414(p) as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The State court issued an additional such order with respect to Ms. Schroeder's 401(k) plan on May 12, 1989. Petitioner has challenged in both State and Federal court the validity of the divorce decree, arguing that the divorce decree is void for want of due process. During 1992, the year in issue, Aetna Life & Casualty (Aetna), issued petiti


CourtListener opinion 4330628

retirement benefits: ction of determining a deficiency and issuing a notice of same to his former spouse, has made an admission against interest as to who is to bear the tax liability for various distributions made to petitioner from his former spouse's qualified pension and retirement plans. Petitioner maintains that respondent may not take inconsistent positions against two taxpayers in separate notices of deficiency with respect a single tax liability because to do so necessarily undermines the factual basis upon which her determinations are premised. Thus, petitioner claims that he is entitled to summary adjudication in his favor beca


CourtListener opinion 4330628

pension: ent, by her action of determining a deficiency and issuing a notice of same to his former spouse, has made an admission against interest as to who is to bear the tax liability for various distributions made to petitioner from his former spouse's qualified pension and retirement plans. Petitioner maintains that respondent may not take inconsistent positions against two taxpayers in separate notices of deficiency with respect a single tax liability because to do so necessarily undermines the factual basis upon which her determinations are premised. Thus, petitioner claims that he is entitled to summary adjudicat


CourtListener opinion 4330628

401(k): Schroeder's pension and retirement benefits. This domestic relations order purports to meet the requirements of section 414(p) as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The State court issued an additional such order with respect to Ms. Schroeder's 401(k) plan on May 12, 1989. Petitioner has challenged in both State and Federal court the validity of the divorce decree, arguing that the divorce decree is void for want of due process. During 1992, the year in issue, Aetna Life & Casualty (Aetna), issued petitioner a check for $9,395 from Ms. Schroeder's section 403(b) tax shelter annuity (TSA). Aetna al


CourtListener opinion 4330687

CourtListener opinion 4330687 Extracted reporter citation: 290 U.S. 111. Docket: 899-95. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4330687 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 4330687

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 4330687

QDRO: made for life; (5) to an employee after separation from service after attainment of age 55; (6) as dividends paid with respect to corporate stock described in section 404(k); (7) to an employee for medical care; or (8) to an alternate payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Petitioner concedes that none of the described section 72(t)(2) exemptions apply in his case. Petitioner contends, however, that, due to his financial hardship, the distributions should be exempt from section 72(t), and that, in not allowing a financial hardship exemption, section 72(t) is contrary to public policy and violates his constitutional ri


CourtListener opinion 4330687

retirement benefits: Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax imposed under section 72(t) on early distributions from qualified retirement plans. Some of the facts were stipulated, and those facts, with the annexed exhibits, are so found and are incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner's legal residence was Walnut Creek, California. Prior to and during the year at issue, petitioner was a self-employed insurance agent, specializing in the sale of long-


CourtListener opinion 4330687

pension: ng- term care insurance. Petitioner represented the Aetna and CNA insurance companies. During 1992, petitioner was participating in two retirement plans offered by Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Northwestern). One plan was a simplified employee pension (SEP) plan for self-employed individuals qualified under section 408(b) and (k); the other was a Keogh plan qualified under section 401(a). Each of these plans was funded 100 percent by petitioner. Petitioner did not represent or sell any insurance contracts offered by Northwestern. Beginning in 1988 and continuing in 1992, petitioner sustained a do


CourtListener opinion 4330687

alternate payee: ially equal periodic payments made for life; (5) to an employee after separation from service after attainment of age 55; (6) as dividends paid with respect to corporate stock described in section 404(k); (7) to an employee for medical care; or (8) to an alternate payee pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Petitioner concedes that none of the described section 72(t)(2) exemptions apply in his case. Petitioner contends, however, that, due to his financial hardship, the distributions should be exempt from section 72(t), and that, in not allowing a financial hardship exemption, section 72(t) is contrary to


CourtListener opinion 4330783

CourtListener opinion 4330783 Docket: 15334-95. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4330783 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 4330783


CourtListener opinion 4330783

QDRO: y, after the settlement of other issues, it only remains for us to decide the income tax effect of a distribution which petitioner, as alternate payee, received from her former husband's thrift and pension funds under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) related to her divorce. At the time the petition herein was filed, petitioner was a resident of Ohio. Petitioner was divorced from her husband, Mr. Willadsen, in 1989. Petitioner remarried in late 1990 and for that year timely filed a joint return together with her new spouse, Mr. Clawson. Mr. Clawson's liability is not an issue in this case. In D


CourtListener opinion 4330783

pension: without trial under the provisions of Rule 122. Accordingly, after the settlement of other issues, it only remains for us to decide the income tax effect of a distribution which petitioner, as alternate payee, received from her former husband's thrift and pension funds under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) related to her divorce. At the time the petition herein was filed, petitioner was a resident of Ohio. Petitioner was divorced from her husband, Mr. Willadsen, in 1989. Petitioner remarried in late 1990 and for that year timely filed a joint return together with her new spouse, Mr. Clawson. Mr. C


CourtListener opinion 4330783

alternate payee: ted to the Court upon a full stipulation of facts and exhibits without trial under the provisions of Rule 122. Accordingly, after the settlement of other issues, it only remains for us to decide the income tax effect of a distribution which petitioner, as alternate payee, received from her former husband's thrift and pension funds under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) related to her divorce. At the time the petition herein was filed, petitioner was a resident of Ohio. Petitioner was divorced from her husband, Mr. Willadsen, in 1989. Petitioner remarried in late 1990 and for that year timely filed a joint


CourtListener opinion 4330939

CourtListener opinion 4330939 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 6115-95. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4330939 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 4330939


CourtListener opinion 4330939

QDRO: xable on the entire distribution. P contends that he is not liable for tax on the portion of the distribution paid to his former wife and the portion used to satisfy the mortgage because the payments were made pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), as defined by sec. 414(p), I.R.C. Held: The divorce decree rendered after the lump-sum distribution to P does not meet the requirements of sec. 414(p), I.R.C., and is thus not a - 2 - QDRO. Therefore, P is liable for tax on the entire lump-sum distribution. Held, further, P is liable for additional tax on the entire lump-sum as a result of the early


CourtListener opinion 4330939

retirement benefits: rements of sec. 414(p), I.R.C., and is thus not a - 2 - QDRO. Therefore, P is liable for tax on the entire lump-sum distribution. Held, further, P is liable for additional tax on the entire lump-sum as a result of the early distribution from a qualified retirement plan pursuant to sec. 72(t), I.R.C. John L. Onesto, for petitioner. Donald K. Rogers and Matthew J. Fritz, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION NIMS, Judge:* Respondent determined a deficiency in the 1991 Federal income tax of petitioner Jerry L. Burton in the amount of $53,916, stemming from funds received by petitioner in connection with the closing


CourtListener opinion 4330939

pension: T.C. Memo. 1997-20 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JERRY L. BURTON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 6115-95. Filed January 13, 1997. P received a lump-sum distribution from two accounts under a qualified pension plan in 1991. Pursuant to a divorce decree entered shortly thereafter, part of the distribution was used to pay off the mortgage on P's former residence and to pay his ex-wife $30,000. P reported the distribution as income on his 1991 Federal income tax return, but included the amount used to satisfy his mortgage obligation and the amount paid to his ex-wif


CourtListener opinion 4330939

domestic relations order: nd determined that P is taxable on the entire distribution. P contends that he is not liable for tax on the portion of the distribution paid to his former wife and the portion used to satisfy the mortgage because the payments were made pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), as defined by sec. 414(p), I.R.C. Held: The divorce decree rendered after the lump-sum distribution to P does not meet the requirements of sec. 414(p), I.R.C., and is thus not a - 2 - QDRO. Therefore, P is liable for tax on the entire lump-sum distribution. Held, further, P is liable for additional tax on the entire lump-sum as a result of the


CourtListener opinion 4331479

CourtListener opinion 4331479 Docket: 27001-95. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4331479 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 4331479

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 4331479

QDRO: Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Superior Court), issued an interlocutory judgment that dissolved the marriage and awarded Mrs. Glassman a portion of Mr. Oddino's retirement benefits. On March 24, 1989, the Superior Court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that modified and clarified the interlocutory judgment. The QDRO directed the Hughes Plan to: (1) Pay Mrs. Glassman 36.6231 percent of Mr. Oddino's \accrued benefit[s] as of April 1


CourtListener opinion 4331479

domestic relations order: the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Superior Court), issued an interlocutory judgment that dissolved the marriage and awarded Mrs. Glassman a portion of Mr. Oddino's retirement benefits. On March 24, 1989, the Superior Court issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that modified and clarified the interlocutory judgment. The QDRO directed the Hughes Plan to: (1) Pay Mrs. Glassman 36.6231 percent of Mr. Oddino's \accrued benefit[s] as of April 1


CourtListener opinion 4332713

CourtListener opinion 4332713 Extracted reporter citation: 857 P.2d 631. Docket: 17 UNITED STATES TAX. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4332713 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 4332713

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 4332713

QDRO: affd. 907 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Petitioner has not produced any 7 Sec. 408(d)(6) governs the transfer of an "individual's interest" in an IRA. It does not address distributions. In contrast, distributions from a qualified pension plan pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order may be reallocated to a spouse (designated as the "alternate payee" and considered a plan "beneficiary"). See sec. 402(e)(1)(A); 29 U.S.C. sec. 1056(d)(3)(J) (1993). 8 Sec. 72(t)(1) provides: Imposition of additional tax.--If any taxpayer receives any amount from a qualified retirement plan (as defined in section 4974(c)), the taxpayer's tax under thi


CourtListener opinion 4332713

retirement benefits: racy-related penalty for negligence under section 6662(a). After concessions,1 we must decide the following issues with respect to 1993: 1. Whether petitioner's gross income includes the entire $125,000 in distributions he received from his individual retirement accounts (IRA's). We hold it does. 1 Petitioner concedes the following: (1) His gross income includes a $64,054 gain on the sale of his home; (2) he may deduct only $1,476 of the $11,735 claimed for legal and professional fees paid; (3) he may not deduct the $11,000 claimed with respect to the purchase of a horse, but may take a Schedule F, Profit or Loss From F


CourtListener opinion 4332713

pension: the case may be, in the manner provided under section 72." Neither the Code nor applicable regulations define the terms "distributee" or "payee" as used in section 408(d)(1). In construing a parallel provision governing the taxation of distributions from pension plans under section 402,4 we have held that a distributee is generally "the participant or beneficiary who, under the plan, is entitled to receive the distribution". Darby v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 51, 58 (1991); see also Estate of Machat v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-154. Under this definition, petitioner would be the distributee and the payee beca


CourtListener opinion 4332713

alternate payee: d)(6) governs the transfer of an "individual's interest" in an IRA. It does not address distributions. In contrast, distributions from a qualified pension plan pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order may be reallocated to a spouse (designated as the "alternate payee" and considered a plan "beneficiary"). See sec. 402(e)(1)(A); 29 U.S.C. sec. 1056(d)(3)(J) (1993). 8 Sec. 72(t)(1) provides: Imposition of additional tax.--If any taxpayer receives any amount from a qualified retirement plan (as defined in section 4974(c)), the taxpayer's tax under this chapter for the taxable year in which such amount is received s


CourtListener opinion 4333097

CourtListener opinion 4333097 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Docket: 8423-98. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4333097 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 4333097


CourtListener opinion 4333097

QDRO: ntly on public assistance through the receipt of AFDC. * * * The Former Husband's child support obligation, commencing June 1, 1995, shall be * * * $1234.25 per month * * * * * * * 10. The Court has previously entered a qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as to the Former Husband's Capital Accumulation Plan (T-CAP). The Court's Order was dated November 10, 1994. That Order is hereby set aside and shall have no force and effect. - 6 - The Court has also previously Ordered, in its Final Judgment dated May 17, 1995, that a QDRO be issued to E-Systems in the amount of $22,500 for unallocated support. That se


CourtListener opinion 4333097

pension: He has dissipated or hidden every asset which he could control since the pendency of this action. 8. Until the hearing of June 29, 1995, the Former Wife had been unable and prohibited by the Former Husband from discovering the value of the Former Husband's pension and profit-sharing benefits at his former employer. 9. At this time the Former Wife is unable to be employed outside of the home because of the attention required by the parties' disabled child. She, however, is seeking to become employed in the future and is currently seeking employment. In the interim, because the Former Husband has refused to pay child


CourtListener opinion 4333097

domestic relations order: , the Former Wife is presently on public assistance through the receipt of AFDC. * * * The Former Husband's child support obligation, commencing June 1, 1995, shall be * * * $1234.25 per month * * * * * * * 10. The Court has previously entered a qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as to the Former Husband's Capital Accumulation Plan (T-CAP). The Court's Order was dated November 10, 1994. That Order is hereby set aside and shall have no force and effect. - 6 - The Court has also previously Ordered, in its Final Judgment dated May 17, 1995, that a QDRO be issued to E-Systems in the amount of $22,500 for unallocated support. T


CourtListener opinion 4333097

valuation/division: ) or from the Former Husband's ESOP, whichever is appropriate, for which a QDRO shall issue in full settlement of the back child support ($22,500 as previously Ordered by the Court in its Final Judgment dated May 17, 1995) and the remainder ($32,900) as other equitable distribution. Therefore, a single QDRO shall be ordered, in the amount of $55,400, of which $22,500 is for a child support obligation and $32,900 is for equitable distribution pursuant to the parties agreement of June 29, 1995. The Wife's claim for unallocated alimony is merged into this Supplemental Final Judgment thus rendering any claim for alimony pendente lite


CourtListener opinion 4334344

CourtListener opinion 4334344 Docket: 7036-02S. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4334344 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 4334344


CourtListener opinion 4334344

QDRO: haring plan at Moore Corporation into an IRA, a qualified retirement plan, at Payne County Bank (PCB) in Perkins, Oklahoma. On November 14, 1997, the District Court In And For Lincoln County, State of Oklahoma, issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in the case of Alvetta J. Mills v. Larry J. Mills. The QDRO ordered PCB to segregate for the benefit of Alvetta Mills, the alternate payee, the sum of $17,745 along with the interest accruing between November 14, 1997, until the date of distribution. Petitioner signed on January 10, 1998, an \IRA Distribution


CourtListener opinion 4334344

retirement benefits: be cited as authority. - 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax of $2,901 for 1998. The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner may deduct the Federal income tax withheld from a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account (IRA), and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax on an early distribution from a qualified retirement plan. The stipulated facts and exhibits received into evidence are incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition in this case was filed, petitioner resided in Jennings, Oklahoma. Background In 1994, petit


CourtListener opinion 4334344

401(k): an. The stipulated facts and exhibits received into evidence are incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition in this case was filed, petitioner resided in Jennings, Oklahoma. Background In 1994, petitioner rolled over an amount from his 401(k) profit sharing plan at Moore Corporation into an IRA, a qualified retirement plan, at Payne County Bank (PCB) in Perkins, Oklahoma. On November 14, 1997, the District Court In And For Lincoln County, State of Oklahoma, issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in the case of Alvetta J. Mills v. Larry J. Mills. The QDRO ordered PCB to segregat


CourtListener opinion 4334344

alternate payee: vember 14, 1997, the District Court In And For Lincoln County, State of Oklahoma, issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in the case of Alvetta J. Mills v. Larry J. Mills. The QDRO ordered PCB to segregate for the benefit of Alvetta Mills, the alternate payee, the sum of $17,745 along with the interest accruing between November 14, 1997, until the date of distribution. Petitioner signed on January 10, 1998, an \IRA Distribution


CourtListener opinion 4334792

CourtListener opinion 4334792 Extracted reporter citation: 140 F.3d 240. Docket: 10499-02. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4334792 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 4334792


CourtListener opinion 4334792

QDRO: 04 T.C. 417 (1995), affd. 140 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1998). The doctrine is applied against the Government with the utmost 14 (...continued) Special rules apply to partial rollovers of property. For more details on rollovers, including distributions under qualified domestic relations orders, see Pub. 575. Lump-Sum Distributions If you received a lump-sum distribution from a profit- sharing or retirement plan, your Form 1099-R should have the \Total distribution\" box in box 2b checked. You may owe an


CourtListener opinion 4334792

retirement benefits: pointed State official, petitioner was required to and did file personal financial statements with the Texas Ethics Commission. When petitioner commenced law practice, most firms did not have retirements plans. Petitioner undertook his own financial and retirement planning, which he continued throughout his career. Initially, he invested primarily in certificates of - 4 - deposit (regular CDs). Later, some of his CDs were converted into or purchased as individual retirement accounts (IRA CDs). To the extent pertinent to the issues before the Court, petitioner's retirement planning transactions are described below i


CourtListener opinion 4334792

pension: e a section 401(k) retirement plan, and that motivated petitioner to engage in an additional retirement planning transaction based on the advice of the accountant for his former law firm, Mr. Wendel. Because of his understanding that a simplified employee pension (SEP) plan allowed for greater funding than an IRA, petitioner purchased an SEP plan late in 1996.7 However, he became concerned about possible tax consequences of participating in a 401(k) plan and an SEP plan in the same year. He therefore terminated the SEP plan and deposited the funds from the SEP into the SFB nonqualified annuity, again with the


CourtListener opinion 4334792

401(k): ore the Court, petitioner's retirement planning transactions are described below in greater detail. In 1993, petitioner became a name partner in the law firm of Oldenettel & Sadberry. His partner was Rick Oldenettel. The law firm had a qualified section 401(k) retirement plan in which petitioner participated. The firm accountant was Dan Wendel, from whom petitioner sought informal personal tax and retirement advice from time to time during his tenure with the law firm and thereafter. During 1996, petitioner purchased a number of annuities. In May, he purchased a nonqualified annuity from Glenbrook Life and


CourtListener opinion 4335340

CourtListener opinion 4335340 Docket: 8964-03. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4335340 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 4335340

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 4335340

QDRO: concessions by the parties, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner received a taxable distribution of $77,000 from Lee Seidel's (petitioner's former husband) section 401(k) plan (401(k) plan) pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) which designated her as the alternate payee; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to business deductions and cost of goods sold claimed on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, for an activity named Port of Mystery, involving the sale and repair of antique jewelry; (3) whether petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax pursuant to sectio


CourtListener opinion 4335340

401(k): ule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. After concessions by the parties, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner received a taxable distribution of $77,000 from Lee Seidel's (petitioner's former husband) section 401(k) plan (401(k) plan) pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) which designated her as the alternate payee; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to business deductions and cost of goods sold claimed on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, for an activity named Port of Mystery, involving the sale and repair of antique jewelry; (3) whether


CourtListener opinion 4335340

valuation/division: k) plan began sometime between 1983 and 1985, prior to his marriage to petitioner, and continued during the marriage. Mr. Seidel's CWSC 401(k) plan consisted of a separate property interest for contributions made prior to his marriage to petitioner, and a community property interest for contributions made during his marriage to petitioner. The parties agree that the community property interest in Mr. Seidel's CWSC 401(k) plan totals $77,000. Petitioner and Mr. Seidel each entered the marriage with separate property interests. Petitioner had her own house which was encumbered by a first mortgage. Mr. Seidel had his own h


CourtListener opinion 4335342

CourtListener opinion 4335342 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Gillmore. Extracted reporter citation: 629 P.2d 1. Docket: 10 UNITED STATES TAX. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4335342 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 4335342


CourtListener opinion 4335342

QDRO: of the other spouse. - 5 - The superior court also ordered that, if petitioner's former spouse dies before petitioner, her benefit will be payable to her beneficiaries. The superior court ordered petitioner and his former spouse to prepare a California qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be signed by the judge and entered in the court's record providing that the pension plan would pay petitioner's former spouse $2,072 per month when petitioner retired. Petitioner paid his former spouse $25,511 in 2000 as ordered in the divorce judgment.2 Petitioner deducted $26,604 as alimony on his 2000 Federal income tax return.3 Petiti


CourtListener opinion 4335342

retirement benefits: ly vested, matured, and drawable but was not paid because the employee spouse continued to work. In re Marriage of Gillmore, 629 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1981). As used in this Opinion, the term "nonemployee spouse" is the spouse with a community property interest in the retirement benefits of the other spouse (the employee spouse). If both spouses have earned rights in retirement plans, each spouse is the "nonemployee spouse" in relation to the retirement rights of the other spouse. - 5 - The superior court also ordered that, if petitioner's former spouse dies before petitioner, her benefit will be payable to her beneficiaries. The sup


CourtListener opinion 4335342

pension: 124 T.C. No. 10 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOHN MICHAEL DUNKIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4448-03. Filed March 31, 2005. Petitioner (P), who was divorced, was entitled to retire and receive pension payments. If P had retired, his former spouse would have been entitled under California community property law to receive an amount from P equal to one-half of his pension. However, P continued working, delaying his receipt of pension benefits. During the years P continued working, P's former spouse was entitled under California community property law to re


CourtListener opinion 4335342

domestic relations order: er spouse. - 5 - The superior court also ordered that, if petitioner's former spouse dies before petitioner, her benefit will be payable to her beneficiaries. The superior court ordered petitioner and his former spouse to prepare a California qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be signed by the judge and entered in the court's record providing that the pension plan would pay petitioner's former spouse $2,072 per month when petitioner retired. Petitioner paid his former spouse $25,511 in 2000 as ordered in the divorce judgment.2 Petitioner deducted $26,604 as alimony on his 2000 Federal income tax return.3 Petiti


CourtListener opinion 4337353

CourtListener opinion 4337353 Extracted reporter citation: 453 U.S. 210. Docket: 15 UNITED STATES TAX. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4337353 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 4337353


CourtListener opinion 4337353

QDRO: 131 T.C. No. 15 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LARRY G. AND MARIA A. WALTON MITCHELL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 2518-04. Filed December 15, 2008. P-W received distributions during 2001 made pursuant to a QDRO after her ex-husband retired from the U.S. Air Force. Ps did not include the 2001 distribution in income when they filed their joint 2001 Federal tax return. R issued a notice of deficiency in which he determined that Ps were liable for income tax on the distribution. Held: Distributions received by P-W are income to P-W and are includable in petitioners'


CourtListener opinion 4337353

pension: benefits and that if petitioner's share were taxed, it would be subject to double taxation. A trial was held on June 24, 2005, in Los Angeles, California. Discussion Petitioners argue that taxes should have been withheld on the entire amount of the pension payments disbursed to Mr. Walton before petitioner was paid her share. Petitioners maintain that if petitioner is required to pay Federal income tax on her share, then Mr. Walton's pension is being subject to double taxation, both on disbursement to Mr. Walton and again when petitioner receives her share. Respondent argues that tax was withheld only o


CourtListener opinion 4337353

alternate payee: spect to distributions allocated to that spouse pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), and such distributions therefore become taxable income to that spouse. The spouse receiving the distribution pursuant to the QDRO is also known as an "alternate payee". Secs. 402(e)(1)(A), 414(p)(8). A domestic relations order (DRO) qualifies as a QDRO only if it: (1) 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; (2) clearly specifies facts required by


CourtListener opinion 4337353

domestic relations order: Under section 402(a) a pension distribution is normally taxed to the distributee. Pursuant to section 402(e)(1)(A), the spouse or former spouse is treated as the distributee with respect to distributions allocated to that spouse pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), and such distributions therefore become taxable income to that spouse. The spouse receiving the distribution pursuant to the QDRO is also known as an "alternate payee". Secs. 402(e)(1)(A), 414(p)(8). A domestic relations order (DRO) qualifies as a QDRO only if it: (1) Creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or as


CourtListener opinion 4342312

CourtListener opinion 4342312 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Adams. Extracted reporter citation: 962 N.E.2d 1224. Docket: 18A-DR-249 v. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4342312 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 4342312


CourtListener opinion 4342312

QDRO: enty years of service, are at least fifty-two years old, and have separated from service. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 23 (Finding 37); see also Ex. 1. Unlike other pensions, the 1977 Fund pension is not subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).1 1 According to INPRS, The fund is not required by federal law to honor [QDROs]. The 1977 Fund is not authorized by law to split payments between payees. . . . The Fund will not make any payments directly to a Fund Member's alternate payee under a QDRO. . . . The Fund will also not make any payments prior to the time that distributions would other


CourtListener opinion 4342312

retirement benefits: sion was earned during the marriage. The court then ordered Husband, once he retires, to forward half of 77.2%, or 38.6%, of his monthly pension payment to Wife each month and then issue her a Form 1099-R (an IRS form for distributions from pensions and retirement plans) so that Wife pays the taxes on her share of his pension. In addition, the court found that Wife, who receives social-security disability payments for injuries she sustained in a car accident, is entitled to rehabilitative maintenance and ordered Husband to pay her $1000/month for twenty-four months. Finally, the court ordered each party to pay t


CourtListener opinion 4342312

pension: 7, the trial court issued a decree dissolving the parties' marriage. In the decree, the court used a coverture fraction to determine that 77.2% of Husband's Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-249 | November 16, 2018 Page 1 of 23 firefighters' pension was earned during the marriage. The court then ordered Husband, once he retires, to forward half of 77.2%, or 38.6%, of his monthly pension payment to Wife each month and then issue her a Form 1099-R (an IRS form for distributions from pensions and retirement plans) so that Wife pays the taxes on her share of his pension. In addition, the court foun


CourtListener opinion 4342312

alternate payee: ic Relations Order (QDRO).1 1 According to INPRS, The fund is not required by federal law to honor [QDROs]. The 1977 Fund is not authorized by law to split payments between payees. . . . The Fund will not make any payments directly to a Fund Member's alternate payee under a QDRO. . . . The Fund will also not make any payments prior to the time that distributions would otherwise begin to the member by law. This means that the member must have actually retired or Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-249 | November 16, 2018 Page 3 of 23 [5] About three-and-a-half years after Husband began working as a firefig


CourtListener opinion 4343066

CourtListener opinion 4343066 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Trogdon. Docket: COA18-95. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4343066 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 4343066

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 4343066

QDRO: entered an order for postseparation support requiring Husband to pay Wife $2,000 a month. On 25 July 2016, the trial court entered a judgment and order on equitable distribution; this order was not appealed. On 16 September 2016, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") which was also not appealed. The trial court held a hearing on Wife's alimony claim on 9 September 2016 and on 31 July 2017, the trial court entered an order awarding Wife alimony and attorney fees. The trial court determined Husband had committed acts of martial misconduct, including illicit sexual behavior. Husband was ordered to pay wife


CourtListener opinion 4343066

retirement benefits: has little to no independent source of retirement -7- REA V. REA Opinion of the Court income, but did receive a portion of the Plaintiff's retirement in the Order for Equitable Distribution." Husband contends there was no evidence of the value of his retirement account before the trial court "at the time of the trial." But Husband testified quite extensively about his 401K account, including the large sums he had removed from the account. Husband does not dispute that Wife had no retirement savings other than the portion of Husband's retirement she received in their equitable distribution. The trial court did not find


CourtListener opinion 4343066

401(k): rtion of the Plaintiff's retirement in the Order for Equitable Distribution." Husband contends there was no evidence of the value of his retirement account before the trial court "at the time of the trial." But Husband testified quite extensively about his 401K account, including the large sums he had removed from the account. Husband does not dispute that Wife had no retirement savings other than the portion of Husband's retirement she received in their equitable distribution. The trial court did not find an exact amount of Husband's retirement but rather noted the funds were "significant" due to his income a


CourtListener opinion 4343066

domestic relations order: n order for postseparation support requiring Husband to pay Wife $2,000 a month. On 25 July 2016, the trial court entered a judgment and order on equitable distribution; this order was not appealed. On 16 September 2016, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") which was also not appealed. The trial court held a hearing on Wife's alimony claim on 9 September 2016 and on 31 July 2017, the trial court entered an order awarding Wife alimony and attorney fees. The trial court determined Husband had committed acts of martial misconduct, including illicit sexual behavior. Husband was ordered to pay wife


CourtListener opinion 4343282

CourtListener opinion 4343282 Extracted case name: COA MARSHA P. NELSON APPELLANT v. JAMES A. NELSON APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4343282 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 4343282

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 4343282

QDRO: ecord, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. James A. Nelson and Marsha married on August 4, 1991. During their marriage, they had two daughters—Jasha and Jada.2 Around November 2008, the parties separated, and on 1 This order is substantively a "Qualified Domestic Relations Order." 2 To protect the identity of the minor child, we have chosen to refer to her as "Jada." April 6, 2010, their divorce was granted on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The court also approved a property settlement agreement for both James and Marsha. Less than a year later, the parties began filing motions, petitions, and complaints against eac


CourtListener opinion 4343282

domestic relations order: affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. James A. Nelson and Marsha married on August 4, 1991. During their marriage, they had two daughters—Jasha and Jada.2 Around November 2008, the parties separated, and on 1 This order is substantively a "Qualified Domestic Relations Order." 2 To protect the identity of the minor child, we have chosen to refer to her as "Jada." April 6, 2010, their divorce was granted on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The court also approved a property settlement agreement for both James and Marsha. Less than a year later, the parties began filing motions, petitions, and complaints against eac


CourtListener opinion 43436

CourtListener opinion 43436 Extracted reporter citation: 131 F.3d 1120. Docket: 04-31184 -2- district. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 43436 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 43436


CourtListener opinion 43436

QDRO: rejected on the basis that Audry Gaudet's interest was contingent upon her husband's interest. The district court noted also that the Government's lien created by the filing of the restitution order primed the lien established by the filing of a purported qualified domestic relations order. The Gaudets contend only that, as a matter of state law, Audry Gaudet's community property interest vested at the moment of the acquisition of the property. The Gaudets have not shown that the district court plainly erred. See Crawford, 131 F.3d at 1123. No. 04-31184 -4- Moreover, even if we were to determine that the district court plainly erred,


CourtListener opinion 43436

pension: s court has discretion to correct the forfeited error, discretion that should not be exercised "‘unless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" Id. (quoting Olano). The Gaudets contend that the pension benefits held by the LUCPF are exempt from seizure under the anti-alienation provision of ERISA and that the garnishment order is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 376 (1990), and this court's decision in Herberger v. Shanbaum, 897 F.2d 801, 804 (5th Cir. 1990). The Gaudets cont


CourtListener opinion 43436

ERISA: nless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" Id. (quoting Olano). The Gaudets contend that the pension benefits held by the LUCPF are exempt from seizure under the anti-alienation provision of ERISA and that the garnishment order is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 376 (1990), and this court's decision in Herberger v. Shanbaum, 897 F.2d 801, 804 (5th Cir. 1990). The Gaudets contend that the district court's decision constitutes an improper retroactive application of the 199


CourtListener opinion 43436

domestic relations order: n the basis that Audry Gaudet's interest was contingent upon her husband's interest. The district court noted also that the Government's lien created by the filing of the restitution order primed the lien established by the filing of a purported qualified domestic relations order. The Gaudets contend only that, as a matter of state law, Audry Gaudet's community property interest vested at the moment of the acquisition of the property. The Gaudets have not shown that the district court plainly erred. See Crawford, 131 F.3d at 1123. No. 04-31184 -4- Moreover, even if we were to determine that the district court plainly erred,


CourtListener opinion 4343604

CourtListener opinion 4343604 Extracted reporter citation: 450 N.E.2d 1140. Docket: 27928 : v. : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4343604 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 4343604