Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit

QDRO: affidavits filed with the court during the dissolution proceedings. (10) The furnishings in the marital home shall be the exclusive property of the wife except as to any personal items or clothing which the husband can claim. (11) The husband shall, by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, assign to the wife 20 percent of the value of his pension from American Airlines at the time of his retirement. (12) Each of the parties shall pay to Attorney Lenes the sum of $1,300 within ninety days. (13) The husband shall pay to the wife as an allowance to prosecute, within ninety days, the sum of $4,500. (14) Counsel for the plaintiff shall prep


Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit

pension: hings in the marital home shall be the exclusive property of the wife except as to any personal items or clothing which the husband can claim. (11) The husband shall, by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, assign to the wife 20 percent of the value of his pension from American Airlines at the time of his retirement. (12) Each of the parties shall pay to Attorney Lenes the sum of $1,300 within ninety days. (13) The husband shall pay to the wife as an allowance to prosecute, within ninety days, the sum of $4,500. (14) Counsel for the plaintiff shall prepare the judgment in accordance with the Court's orders. (


Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit

domestic relations order: s filed with the court during the dissolution proceedings. (10) The furnishings in the marital home shall be the exclusive property of the wife except as to any personal items or clothing which the husband can claim. (11) The husband shall, by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, assign to the wife 20 percent of the value of his pension from American Airlines at the time of his retirement. (12) Each of the parties shall pay to Attorney Lenes the sum of $1,300 within ninety days. (13) The husband shall pay to the wife as an allowance to prosecute, within ninety days, the sum of $4,500. (14) Counsel for the plaintiff shall prep


Richard Ritchie, Jr. v. Barbara J. Ritchie. Date: 2001-05-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Richard Ritchie, Jr. v. Barbara J. Ritchie. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


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


QDRO: ar at a case management conference on July 26, 1999, the matter was dismissed. On September 14, 1999, the case was reopened. By agreement of the parties, pendente lite orders were entered for the husband to CT Page 6996 transfer $100, 000.00 to the wife via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, said transfer without prejudice to either party at the time of final disposition. Further, the transfer was to be considered a part of an equitable distribution transfer of the parties' assets in connection with their divorce. The parties intermarried on July 21, 1972 when the husband was eighteen and the wife was nineteen years of age. The husband has r


pension: arents. 2. Financial orders In fashioning these orders, the court has also considered the statutory CT Page 6998 requirements, and in particular, the differentials in earing capacity between the husband and the wife, their individual abilities to accrue a pension, and the contributions of the wife to the care of the children and the home in the early years of the marriage, particularly during the period of time when the husband earned his educational degrees. a. Child Support Pursuant to Child Support guidelines, the wife shall pay to the husband $70.00 per week for the support and maintenance of the child. b.


domestic relations order: se management conference on July 26, 1999, the matter was dismissed. On September 14, 1999, the case was reopened. By agreement of the parties, pendente lite orders were entered for the husband to CT Page 6996 transfer $100, 000.00 to the wife via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, said transfer without prejudice to either party at the time of final disposition. Further, the transfer was to be considered a part of an equitable distribution transfer of the parties' assets in connection with their divorce. The parties intermarried on July 21, 1972 when the husband was eighteen and the wife was nineteen years of age. The husband has r


valuation/division: were entered for the husband to CT Page 6996 transfer $100, 000.00 to the wife via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, said transfer without prejudice to either party at the time of final disposition. Further, the transfer was to be considered a part of an equitable distribution transfer of the parties' assets in connection with their divorce. The parties intermarried on July 21, 1972 when the husband was eighteen and the wife was nineteen years of age. The husband has resided continuously in the state of Connecticut for at least twelve months prior to the filing of this action. All statutory stays have expired. Three children ha


Ritter v. Ritter

Ritter v. Ritter Citation: 2024 ND 147. Extracted reporter citation: 2024 ND 147. Docket: 20240041. Date: 2024-07-18. Machine-draft public headnote: Ritter v. Ritter is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


Ritter v. Ritter

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


Ritter v. Ritter

valuation/division: is within the range of evidence presented. In an appeal after a bench trial, this Court will not second-guess a district court's credibility determinations. Orwig v. Orwig, 2021 ND 33, ¶ 22, 955 N.W.2d 34 (cleaned up). [¶9] The district court must make an equitable distribution of the parties' property and debts. N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1). In doing so, the court must consider all of the parties' assets and debts and apply the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. Anderson v. Anderson, 2023 ND 86, ¶ 3, 990 N.W.2d 581. Although specific findings are not required under each Ruff-Fischer guideline, the court must state the rationale for its distribut


Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley.

Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley. Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Date: 2002-10-10. Machine-draft public headnote: Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley. 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.


Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley.


Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley.

retirement benefits: to his 401 (k) asset (defined contribution plan) through his place of employment. The defendant's claim to that plan, whether as survivor or beneficiary or otherwise, is entirely extinguished. 22. The defendant shall retain sole ownership of her Individual Retirement Account as shown on her financial affidavit of September 25, 2002. 23. As to bank accounts, investments, and tangible personal property not specifically allocated by this court herein and listed on the parties' financial affidavits dated September 25, 2002, each party shall retain the items and assets listed on his or her own affidavit. 24. The plaintiff shall


Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley.

pension: k five days a week from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Because the company is doing well, the plaintiff considers his job to be secure for the foreseeable future. The plaintiff earns about $59,000 per year from his base salary plus small bonuses. The company offers no pension plan. The plaintiff started contributing to a 401 (k) plan about one year ago with a current value of $1,100. Medical insurance is available to the plaintiff through his employment. The plaintiff has arthritis in both his hips. He takes medication a few times a week to reduce the effects of the inflammation. Hip replacement CT Page 12754 surgery may be ne


Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley.

401(k): e company is doing well, the plaintiff considers his job to be secure for the foreseeable future. The plaintiff earns about $59,000 per year from his base salary plus small bonuses. The company offers no pension plan. The plaintiff started contributing to a 401 (k) plan about one year ago with a current value of $1,100. Medical insurance is available to the plaintiff through his employment. The plaintiff has arthritis in both his hips. He takes medication a few times a week to reduce the effects of the inflammation. Hip replacement CT Page 12754 surgery may be necessary in the future. The plaintiff has engaged in co


Robert J. Jolly v. Joyce M. Barcley.

domestic relations order: arded $45,000 of the defendant's 403b plan through her place of employment as of this date plus any earnings or losses on that amount from this date until the actual transfer of funds. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the preparation and delivery of any Domestic Relations Order necessary to effectuate the transfer of this asset. The balance of the defendant's 403b asset is awarded solely to the defendant. 20. The defendant shall retain sole rights to her CT Page 12762 pension plan (defined benefit plan) through her place of employment. The plaintiff's claim to that plan, whether as survivor or beneficiary or otherwise, is entire


Robert J. Larson v. Lynn Ann Mc Caffrey

Robert J. Larson v. Lynn Ann Mc Caffrey Date: 1994-12-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Robert J. Larson v. Lynn Ann Mc Caffrey 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.


Robert J. Larson v. Lynn Ann Mc Caffrey

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.


Robert J. Larson v. Lynn Ann Mc Caffrey

QDRO: ut, to the wife, subject to all encumbrances thereon which she shall pay and save him harmless therefrom. (2) The husband shall make the mortgage payment of principal, interest and taxes for December, 1994. (3) There is assigned and vested in the wife, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), sixty (60%) percent of the husband's Keough plan valued as of November 29, 1994. The other forty (40%) percent shall belong to the husband. The court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter until the transfer has been accepted by the plan administrator. (4) Each party shall take, have and own the tangible personal property in his or her possess


Robert J. Larson v. Lynn Ann Mc Caffrey

domestic relations order: wife, subject to all encumbrances thereon which she shall pay and save him harmless therefrom. (2) The husband shall make the mortgage payment of principal, interest and taxes for December, 1994. (3) There is assigned and vested in the wife, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), sixty (60%) percent of the husband's Keough plan valued as of November 29, 1994. The other forty (40%) percent shall belong to the husband. The court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter until the transfer has been accepted by the plan administrator. (4) Each party shall take, have and own the tangible personal property in his or her possess


Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin.

Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin. Date: 2001-09-14. Machine-draft public headnote: Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin. 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.


Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin.

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.


Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin.

QDRO: ance package including full salary for six months. He continued to pay the defendant the alimony order even when his severance package ended. He collected unemployment benefits and continued to receive his Aetna pension as did his former wife as a result of a qualified domestic relations order. In November of 2000 he purchased a franchise cleaning business in the southern part of the State. He does not expect the business to be profitable until the end of this year. By motion dated August 2, 2000 the plaintiff sought to reopen the CT Page 13468-cp dissolution judgment and modify the alimony order based upon a substantial change in circumstances


Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin.

pension: Empire in September of 1999 and received a severance package including full salary for six months. He continued to pay the defendant the alimony order even when his severance package ended. He collected unemployment benefits and continued to receive his Aetna pension as did his former wife as a result of a qualified domestic relations order. In November of 2000 he purchased a franchise cleaning business in the southern part of the State. He does not expect the business to be profitable until the end of this year. By motion dated August 2, 2000 the plaintiff sought to reopen the CT Page 13468-cp dissolution judgment an


Robert M. Heslin v. Roberta M. Heslin.

domestic relations order: ge including full salary for six months. He continued to pay the defendant the alimony order even when his severance package ended. He collected unemployment benefits and continued to receive his Aetna pension as did his former wife as a result of a qualified domestic relations order. In November of 2000 he purchased a franchise cleaning business in the southern part of the State. He does not expect the business to be profitable until the end of this year. By motion dated August 2, 2000 the plaintiff sought to reopen the CT Page 13468-cp dissolution judgment and modify the alimony order based upon a substantial change in circumstances


Robert M. Sigafose v. Arlene Diaz Sigafose Date: 2000-01-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Robert M. Sigafose v. Arlene Diaz Sigafose is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


QDRO: the defendant harmless as to any taxes, liens, encumbrances and insurance on said automobile. 13. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant one-half of the value of his U.S. Postal Service Retirement Plan, as of the date of this judgement, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared by her attorney. 14. In lieu of awarding the defendant a lump sum portion of the plaintiff's Thrift Savings Plan and the value of his accumulated vacation leave, the plaintiff is ordered to pay to the defendant, as a property settlement, $300.00 per month for 30 consecutive months, beginning February 2000. Said payment is to be made to the defend


retirement benefits: , title and interest on the 1998 Chevrolet Malibu and shall hold the defendant harmless as to any taxes, liens, encumbrances and insurance on said automobile. 13. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant one-half of the value of his U.S. Postal Service Retirement Plan, as of the date of this judgement, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared by her attorney. 14. In lieu of awarding the defendant a lump sum portion of the plaintiff's Thrift Savings Plan and the value of his accumulated vacation leave, the plaintiff is ordered to pay to the defendant, as a property settlement, $300.00 per month for 30 c


pension: e of trial reflect few assets. The only asset reported by the defendant is a 1990 Chevrolet Lumina valued at $2840 with no loan balance. The plaintiff Lists a 1998 Chevrolet Malibu valued at $17,000 with a loan balance of $15,000. The plaintiff is vested in a pension fund with the U.S. Postal Service and he has approximately $15,000 in a Thrift Savings Plan. The plaintiff also has 333 hours of vacation time accumulated with a value of approximately $6,300. An additional 908 hours of accumulated sick time has no redeemable monetary value as it must be used for medical or dental purposes and is forfeited upon termination


domestic relations order: ant harmless as to any taxes, liens, encumbrances and insurance on said automobile. 13. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant one-half of the value of his U.S. Postal Service Retirement Plan, as of the date of this judgement, by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order prepared by her attorney. 14. In lieu of awarding the defendant a lump sum portion of the plaintiff's Thrift Savings Plan and the value of his accumulated vacation leave, the plaintiff is ordered to pay to the defendant, as a property settlement, $300.00 per month for 30 consecutive months, beginning February 2000. Said payment is to be made to the defend


Robert Summers v. Karen Summers

Robert Summers v. Karen Summers Date: 1992-12-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Robert Summers v. Karen Summers 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.


Robert Summers v. Karen Summers


Robert Summers v. Karen Summers

QDRO: insurance in oral argument although, the financial affidavit does not show insurance. It was represented that this insurance was available. 7. The personal property has been previously addressed in the body of the opinion. 8. The husband shall provide by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), for the equal division of his 401K Plan with his current employer — Circle Fine Arts and of his Pension Plan with his former employer — Interpublic. Each division to be based on the value of the respective plans as of the date of this decree of dissolution. The husband's attorney shall be responsible for preparation of the QDRO to the sa


Robert Summers v. Karen Summers

pension: The personal property has been previously addressed in the body of the opinion. 8. The husband shall provide by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), for the equal division of his 401K Plan with his current employer — Circle Fine Arts and of his Pension Plan with his former employer — Interpublic. Each division to be based on the value of the respective plans as of the date of this decree of dissolution. The husband's attorney shall be responsible for preparation of the QDRO to the satisfaction of the plan administrators in accordance with this court order. This court retains jurisdiction over this m


Robert Summers v. Karen Summers

401(k): ow insurance. It was represented that this insurance was available. 7. The personal property has been previously addressed in the body of the opinion. 8. The husband shall provide by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), for the equal division of his 401K Plan with his current employer — Circle Fine Arts and of his Pension Plan with his former employer — Interpublic. Each division to be based on the value of the respective plans as of the date of this decree of dissolution. The husband's attorney shall be responsible for preparation of the QDRO to the satisfaction of the plan administrators in ac


Robert Summers v. Karen Summers

domestic relations order: in oral argument although, the financial affidavit does not show insurance. It was represented that this insurance was available. 7. The personal property has been previously addressed in the body of the opinion. 8. The husband shall provide by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), for the equal division of his 401K Plan with his current employer — Circle Fine Arts and of his Pension Plan with his former employer — Interpublic. Each division to be based on the value of the respective plans as of the date of this decree of dissolution. The husband's attorney shall be responsible for preparation of the QDRO to the sa


Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti

Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti Date: 1997-09-15. Machine-draft public headnote: Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti 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.


Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti


Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti

QDRO: Visconti getting no repayment at all. From the time of her marriage to Visconti, Stamp's equity in the property improved from $26,250 to $58,200, an increase of $31,950. (She elected to make a gitt of one-half to her sister). The plaintiff shall execute a qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), or its equivalent, transferring to the defendant the sum of $20,000 from her 401(K) plan. (Consideration has been given to a pendente lite transfer to the husband of $5000 from this account). The defendant's request that the parties refile their tax returns jointly for as many years as the IRS allows is denied. Given the financial circumstances


Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti

retirement benefits: sses approximately $800 per week and nets approximately $483. He has no benefits however and provides his own car. His employer does not provide medical insurance and currently Stamp has him covered through her employer provided plan. Neither does he have any retirement plan. Neither has any significant savings other than Stamp's 401(K). Both parties have indicated a likelihood of future bankruptcy to get out of their financial dilemmas. With respect to the real estate now owned by Stamp and her sister, Marie Duphiney, there was no evidence that this was a fraudulent conveyance. Stamp was entitled to make a gift of the one


Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti

401(k): ce in evaluating real estate, the Court finds the fair market value to be $142,000. The current mortgage balance is $83,800 leaving a total equity of $58,200. Stamp's half interest equals $29,100. The only other significant asset either party has is Stamp's 401(K) plan valued at $129,000. The plaintiff ascribes the breakdown of the marriage to the defendant's gambling habits and stresses caused by seemingly ever increasing debt. It would appear that the couple lived extravagantly, running up credit card debts, taking expensive vacations (for example, a trip to Italy for the wedding of Stamp's son cost approximate


Roberta D. Stamp v. Anthony J. Visconti

domestic relations order: etting no repayment at all. From the time of her marriage to Visconti, Stamp's equity in the property improved from $26,250 to $58,200, an increase of $31,950. (She elected to make a gitt of one-half to her sister). The plaintiff shall execute a qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), or its equivalent, transferring to the defendant the sum of $20,000 from her 401(K) plan. (Consideration has been given to a pendente lite transfer to the husband of $5000 from this account). The defendant's request that the parties refile their tax returns jointly for as many years as the IRS allows is denied. Given the financial circumstances


Roger H. Gosselin v. Maureen E. Gosselin. Date: 2000-06-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Roger H. Gosselin v. Maureen E. Gosselin. 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.


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


QDRO: ute checking accounts, a New London Trust Savings account and a Charter Oak Federal Credit Union account (see defendant's financial affidavit), 55% to the plaintiff and 45% to the defendant. The transfer to the defendant where necessary shall be by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or by some other means whereby no tax is levied against the plaintiff or defendant by virtue of such transfer. 3. The plaintiff shall have no interest in the real estate located at 13 Woodward Street and 125 Reynolds Street, Danielson, Connecticut. 4. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant $2,500.00 which represents one-half of the Fleet Bank account


401(k): e supervisor earning approximately $42,000.00 per year. Because of stress and constant problems with Mrs. Clark, the administrator at Norwich Rehab, he voluntarily left his employment in July 1999. (See Defendant's Exhibit A.) When he left, plaintiff took his 401K of $12,181.48 with him. (See Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.) In August 1999 plaintiff became employed at Douglas Manor, Windham, Connecticut doing similar employment for a gross weekly wage of $650.00 per week or about $33,800.00 per year. The defendant, who was born on March 22, 1949, appears to be in good health. During the marriage she held various types of


domestic relations order: ng accounts, a New London Trust Savings account and a Charter Oak Federal Credit Union account (see defendant's financial affidavit), 55% to the plaintiff and 45% to the defendant. The transfer to the defendant where necessary shall be by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or by some other means whereby no tax is levied against the plaintiff or defendant by virtue of such transfer. 3. The plaintiff shall have no interest in the real estate located at 13 Woodward Street and 125 Reynolds Street, Danielson, Connecticut. 4. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant $2,500.00 which represents one-half of the Fleet Bank account


Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk

Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk Date: 1994-11-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk 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.


Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk


Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk

QDRO: mony stated above shall be nonmodifiable as to amount and term unless the defendant becomes totally disabled and receives an early disability annuity in lieu of a retirement annuity. At that time periodic alimony shall cease and the plaintiff shall receive by qualified domestic relations order 1/3 of such benefits as of their accrual as of October 31, 1994. The court, having found arrearages in the amount of $3,300.00, orders that it be paid, immediately by applying one half of a tax refund of $1,373.00 now being held in escrow to such arrearages and the balance at such time as the defendant settles his workers compensation claim. The balance o


Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk

pension: en. There is no equity in the marital home. Said property is to be sold with the proceeds, if any, to be divided equally, after expenses, between the parties. The plaintiff is to receive one half, by qualified domestic CT Page 11122 relations order of the pension due the defendant as of October 28, 1994. The defendant is to transfer to the plaintiff title to the 1987 Chevrolet Celebrity. The plaintiff is to transfer to the defendant title to the 1985 Chevrolet Astro. The defendant shall maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000.00 as available through his employer and name the children as irre


Rosemarie Rybczyk v. Joseph Rybczyk

domestic relations order: d above shall be nonmodifiable as to amount and term unless the defendant becomes totally disabled and receives an early disability annuity in lieu of a retirement annuity. At that time periodic alimony shall cease and the plaintiff shall receive by qualified domestic relations order 1/3 of such benefits as of their accrual as of October 31, 1994. The court, having found arrearages in the amount of $3,300.00, orders that it be paid, immediately by applying one half of a tax refund of $1,373.00 now being held in escrow to such arrearages and the balance at such time as the defendant settles his workers compensation claim. The balance o


Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog

Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog Date: 1999-09-08. Machine-draft public headnote: Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog 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.


Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog


Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog

QDRO: equally divided between the parties except that the plaintiff shall receive an additional amount of $20,000 (twenty thousand dollars) to recognize her interest in the Oxford property which was awarded to the defendant. Said division shall be accomplished by a QDRO or other means as the parties shall agree. 2. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension at United Technologies/Sikorsky which shall be secured by means of a QDRO. 3. The plaintiff shall retain her interest in her City of Ansonia retirement plan free from any claim by the defendant. Said pension plan has not yet vested. DEBTS


Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog

retirement benefits: ition, the defendant shall be responsible for 53% and the plaintiff shall be responsible for 47% of all unreimbursed medical and dental expenses that exceeds $100 per year per child, in accordance with the child support guidelines. CT Page 12301 PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLANS 1. The defendants 401(k) plan shall be equally divided between the parties except that the plaintiff shall receive an additional amount of $20,000 (twenty thousand dollars) to recognize her interest in the Oxford property which was awarded to the defendant. Said division shall be accomplished by a QDRO or other means as the parties shall agree. 2. The


Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog

pension: ximately 5 years, she has been gainfully employed full time by the Ansonia School Board. The plaintiff earns a gross of $477.40 per week and a net of $362.90 per week. However, as Counsel pointed out, she claims no dependents for tax purposes. The plaintiff's pension of unknown amount will vest in 2014. The plaintiff is 50 years of age. She has had some serious health problems in the more recent past and is taking medication for high blood pressure, cholesterol and panic attacks. She had coronary bypass surgery in CT Page 12297 the fall of 1997. The plaintiff was in charge of running the finances of the family home an


Rosemary MacIog v. Michael MacIog

401(k): erty came from the funds and profits he made selling the cars he repaired, and his carpentry. The defendant claims he was unaware of the credit card debt run up by the plaintiff. The defendant took out substantial sums from his pay which were applied to his 401(k) plan at Sikorsky's. The CT Page 12298 401(k) has a present value of approximately $327,000. according to plaintiff's Exhibit 2. Both parties have pensions. The defendant's pension is vested. The plaintiff also has a pension which will vest in April 2014. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to resolve their marital difficulties. The court declines to


Rosemary Yarhouse v. Herbert L. Yarhouse, Jr. Date: 1997-06-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Rosemary Yarhouse v. Herbert L. Yarhouse, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


QDRO: ck the status of the policies mentioned in orders 5 and 6 above. 8. There is assigned and vested in the Plaintiff 50 percent of the value of Defendant's pension with General Dynamics which accrued between July 20, 1984 to the date of this decree by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). If Plaintiff predeceases the Defendant, said 50 percent shall revert to the Defendant and he shall be the survivor beneficiary thereof. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the QDRO until implemented. 9. The parties shall be equally responsible for all unpaid debts which accrued during the marriage. 10. The Defendant shall pay $1,000.00


pension: om the other. Also, each party shall execute the necessary authorization to permit the other party to check the status of the policies mentioned in orders 5 and 6 above. 8. There is assigned and vested in the Plaintiff 50 percent of the value of Defendant's pension with General Dynamics which accrued between July 20, 1984 to the date of this decree by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). If Plaintiff predeceases the Defendant, said 50 percent shall revert to the Defendant and he shall be the survivor beneficiary thereof. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the QDRO until implemented. 9. The p


domestic relations order: tus of the policies mentioned in orders 5 and 6 above. 8. There is assigned and vested in the Plaintiff 50 percent of the value of Defendant's pension with General Dynamics which accrued between July 20, 1984 to the date of this decree by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). If Plaintiff predeceases the Defendant, said 50 percent shall revert to the Defendant and he shall be the survivor beneficiary thereof. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the QDRO until implemented. 9. The parties shall be equally responsible for all unpaid debts which accrued during the marriage. 10. The Defendant shall pay $1,000.00


Russ v. Russ

Russ v. Russ Citation: 2021 NMSC 014. Extracted reporter citation: 2021 NMSC 014. Date: 2021-04-01. Machine-draft public headnote: Russ v. Russ is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


Russ v. Russ

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


Russ v. Russ

retirement benefits: of Appeals correctly determined that Howell does not apply to this case. {4} If the Howell Court's application of the Mansell rule applies, Veteran may unilaterally change his federal benefit as he did. This change precludes Spouse from receiving any of his retirement benefit from the federal government, regardless of what he agreed to when they divorced. If the Howell Court's application of the Mansell rule does not apply, then Veteran must indemnify Spouse for her share of his waived retirement benefit. Although equitable principles may suggest that we should determine that Howell does not apply in this case, the Supremacy Cla


Russ v. Russ

valuation/division: Aragon Albuquerque, NM for Petitioner-Respondent OPINION THOMSON, Justice {1} The Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (2018), establishes that states "may treat veterans' disposable retired pay as divisible property, i.e., community property divisible upon divorce." Howell v. Howell, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1400, 1403 (2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, 10 U.S.C. § 1408(a)(4)(A)(ii) "expressly exclude[s] from its definition of ‘disposable retired pay' amounts deducted from that pay ‘as a result of a waiver . . . required by law in order to receive' disability benef


Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco

Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco Date: 1997-05-15. Machine-draft public headnote: Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco 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.


Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco

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.


Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco

QDRO: and the minor children for as long as he is obligated to pay alimony or child support. 11. The $5,150.00 in savings bonds shall be held by the plaintiff as custodian for the minor children. 12. The defendant shall transfer 50% of his IRA and 401K plan by Qualified Domestic Relations Order or tax exempt roll-over to the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction for the enforcement or modification of said QDRO or roll-over transfer. 13. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff's counsel fees of $6,120 as reasonable fees to prosecute this action. Payment shall be made within sixty days of the entry of judgment. VERTEFEUILLE, J.


Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco

401(k): the plaintiff and the minor children for as long as he is obligated to pay alimony or child support. 11. The $5,150.00 in savings bonds shall be held by the plaintiff as custodian for the minor children. 12. The defendant shall transfer 50% of his IRA and 401K plan by Qualified Domestic Relations Order or tax exempt roll-over to the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction for the enforcement or modification of said QDRO or roll-over transfer. 13. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff's counsel fees of $6,120 as reasonable fees to prosecute this action. Payment shall be made within sixty days of the en


Ruth Polaco v. Jorge Polaco

domestic relations order: inor children for as long as he is obligated to pay alimony or child support. 11. The $5,150.00 in savings bonds shall be held by the plaintiff as custodian for the minor children. 12. The defendant shall transfer 50% of his IRA and 401K plan by Qualified Domestic Relations Order or tax exempt roll-over to the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction for the enforcement or modification of said QDRO or roll-over transfer. 13. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff's counsel fees of $6,120 as reasonable fees to prosecute this action. Payment shall be made within sixty days of the entry of judgment. VERTEFEUILLE, J.


Sally Pagano v. Frederick A. Pagano, Jr. Date: 1996-03-21. Machine-draft public headnote: Sally Pagano v. Frederick A. Pagano, Jr. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


QDRO: ension, IRA KEOGH plan or deferred savings account the defendant has through his employment with Emhart Fastening Technologies and/or Black and Decker provided that the defendant shall elect the joint and survivor annuity optional payment form pursuant to the qualified domestic relations order of this court. The survivor payment shall be equal to 50% of the defendant's benefit and the plaintiff shall be designated as irrevocable beneficiary. The plaintiff shall waive any interest she might have to any interest the defendant has or should have in the proceeds of the estate of the defendant's mother, Sophie K. Pagano. The plaintiff shall transf


retirement benefits: the plaintiff, except the personal clothing and effects of the defendant, his CT Page 2227 guns, his tools and the living room set and the bedroom set that were given to the parties from the estate of the defendant!s mother. All bank accounts and individual retirement accounts shall be given to the plaintiff as her sole property, except any account the defendant might have in his credit union, which account shall remain the sole property of the defendant. The plaintiff shall waive any interest she might have in any pension, IRA KEOGH plan or deferred savings account the defendant has through his employment with Emhart Fastenin


pension: ement accounts shall be given to the plaintiff as her sole property, except any account the defendant might have in his credit union, which account shall remain the sole property of the defendant. The plaintiff shall waive any interest she might have in any pension, IRA KEOGH plan or deferred savings account the defendant has through his employment with Emhart Fastening Technologies and/or Black and Decker provided that the defendant shall elect the joint and survivor annuity optional payment form pursuant to the qualified domestic relations order of this court. The survivor payment shall be equal to 50% of the defend


domestic relations order: A KEOGH plan or deferred savings account the defendant has through his employment with Emhart Fastening Technologies and/or Black and Decker provided that the defendant shall elect the joint and survivor annuity optional payment form pursuant to the qualified domestic relations order of this court. The survivor payment shall be equal to 50% of the defendant's benefit and the plaintiff shall be designated as irrevocable beneficiary. The plaintiff shall waive any interest she might have to any interest the defendant has or should have in the proceeds of the estate of the defendant's mother, Sophie K. Pagano. The plaintiff shall transf


Samuel Robert Kowal v. Lynn Elaine Kowal Date: 1994-11-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Samuel Robert Kowal v. Lynn Elaine Kowal is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


QDRO: iod of time will give the defendant sufficient opportunity to learn other skills if she chooses or to further herself in the restaurant business. B. PENSION The defendant wife shall be entitled to 30% of the present day value of the plaintiff's pension. A QDRO may be required to secure the defendant's interest in the plaintiff's pension. C. MEDICAL COVERAGE The defendant shall be entitled to COBRA benefits as are available through the plaintiff husband's employment for a period of three years or until the defendant obtains her own medical benefits whichever event first occurs. Plaintiff husband shall be oblig


pension: rties. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to reconcile their differences. The court declines to assess the fault for the breakdown of the marital relationship to either party. The only issues raised by the parties had to do with alimony, the husband's pension and COBRA benefits. The following orders shall enter: A. ALIMONY The plaintiff husband shall pay to the defendant wife as alimony the sum of $200 per week until the death of the husband, the death of the wife, her remarriage or cohabitation as defined by statute, or 13 years from date, whichever event shall first occur. A 13 year CT Page 11286 period


Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern.

Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern. Date: 2001-08-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern. 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.


Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern.


Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern.

QDRO: shall be paid from the Husband's 40% share of said funds, the further sum of $40,000.00 in recognition of the transfer by the wife to the husband of her interest in the marital home and to pay her current debts and her attorney's fees. The Court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall accomplish this division. Said QDRO shall be drafted by the Wife's attorney or other qualified person. The Husband shall pay the cost for same. BANK ACCOUNTS — CHECKING AND SAVINGS CT Page 10923 Each party shall retain their checking and savings accounts listed on their respective financial affidavits. MISCELLANEOUS Each party shall sig


Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern.

retirement benefits: her financial affidavit. ATTORNEY FEES Except as otherwise provided herein, the parties shall each be solely responsible for their respective attorney's fees. TAX RETURNS The parties shall file separate tax returns for the year 2001 and thereafter. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS, IRA ACCOUNTS, DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNTS The Husband currently has an IRA with Dean Witter in the approximate amount of $5,030.00 and a TIAA Account in the approximate amount of $214,739.00. The approximate total of these two accounts is $219,679.99. The Husband acknowledges that he has expended $30,000.00 of other marital assets for his own expense


Sandra Stern v. Steven Stern.

domestic relations order: aid from the Husband's 40% share of said funds, the further sum of $40,000.00 in recognition of the transfer by the wife to the husband of her interest in the marital home and to pay her current debts and her attorney's fees. The Court orders that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall accomplish this division. Said QDRO shall be drafted by the Wife's attorney or other qualified person. The Husband shall pay the cost for same. BANK ACCOUNTS — CHECKING AND SAVINGS CT Page 10923 Each party shall retain their checking and savings accounts listed on their respective financial affidavits. MISCELLANEOUS Each party shall sig


Sandra Weitlauf v. James Weitlauf

Sandra Weitlauf v. James Weitlauf Date: 1999-06-09. Machine-draft public headnote: Sandra Weitlauf v. James Weitlauf 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.


Sandra Weitlauf v. James Weitlauf

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.


Sandra Weitlauf v. James Weitlauf

QDRO: of said property. The defendant shall pay $6,000.00 on the taxes owed on the property. The plaintiff shall make reasonable efforts to remove the defendant from the note and mortgage on said property within one year. 2. The plaintiff shall receive by way of QDRO 40% of the defendant's military and disability pensions. The defendant shall name the plaintiff as survivor beneficiary on said pensions. 3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff alimony of $1 per week for a period of ten years. Said alimony shall be modifiable as to amount but not as to term. 4. The plaintiff shall keep as her own the 1979 Mercedes


Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli

Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli Date: 1993-11-01. Machine-draft public headnote: Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli 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.


Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli

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.


Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli

QDRO: e date of dissolution the amount of $215,000. Said monies shall be transferred from the husband's stocks and or incentives savings plan at American Express. This court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate said transfer as necessary. 6. The court enters a Qualified Domestic Relations Order transferring 40% of the husband's interest in the American Express Retirement account to the wife being, a lifetime monthly benefit payable upon the husband's retirement. 7. The parties have agreed that the husband shall pay unallocated alimony. The court has reviewed the tax analysis provided and done its own analysis and finds that the husband shall pay


Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli

retirement benefits: ks and or incentives savings plan at American Express. This court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate said transfer as necessary. 6. The court enters a Qualified Domestic Relations Order transferring 40% of the husband's interest in the American Express Retirement account to the wife being, a lifetime monthly benefit payable upon the husband's retirement. 7. The parties have agreed that the husband shall pay unallocated alimony. The court has reviewed the tax analysis provided and done its own analysis and finds that the husband shall pay during his lifetime to the wife until her death, remarriage, or cohabitation under th


Sarah Cagninelli v. Giovan Caginelli

domestic relations order: dissolution the amount of $215,000. Said monies shall be transferred from the husband's stocks and or incentives savings plan at American Express. This court shall retain jurisdiction to effectuate said transfer as necessary. 6. The court enters a Qualified Domestic Relations Order transferring 40% of the husband's interest in the American Express Retirement account to the wife being, a lifetime monthly benefit payable upon the husband's retirement. 7. The parties have agreed that the husband shall pay unallocated alimony. The court has reviewed the tax analysis provided and done its own analysis and finds that the husband shall pay


Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea.

Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea. Date: 2002-10-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea. 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.


Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea.


Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea.

QDRO: 0.00 0.00 Webster Bk CD 0.00 13,510.00 Husband's IRA 24,113.00 0.00 Wife's IRA's (3) 0.00 16,138.00 Husband's 401k 1,093.00 0.00 TOTAL ASSETS $86,820.00 $231,341.00 RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband's pension at AFSCME shall be equally divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) effective on today's date. The Wife, within a reasonable period of time, shall cause said QDRO to be prepared at her expense and the Husband shall fully cooperate in the processing. Until approved by the plan administrator, the court shall retain jurisdiction. LIABILITIES Each party shall be solely responsible for the debts listed on their respec


Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea.

pension: ems (H) 2,800.00 Household Furnish./personal items (W) 2,800.00 Prudential Stocks (H) 1,500.00 Savings Bonds (H) 40,000.00 Webster Bk CD's (4)(J) 13,510.00 CT Page 13882 Prudential Ins. CSV (H) 1,714.00 IRA (H) 24,113.00 IRA (3)(W) 16,138.00 401k (H) 1,093.00 Pension (H) value unknown 0.00 Checking (H) 0.00 TOTAL ASSETS $318,161.00 It would serve no useful purpose to chronicle the many causes for the breakdown of this marriage which is clearly irretrievable. The Wife claimed that the Husband had, and continues to have, an affaire with a Virginia resident named Nancy Dowdy. The Husband truthfully acknowledged the rel


Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea.

401(k): rnish./personal items (H) 2,800.00 Household Furnish./personal items (W) 2,800.00 Prudential Stocks (H) 1,500.00 Savings Bonds (H) 40,000.00 Webster Bk CD's (4)(J) 13,510.00 CT Page 13882 Prudential Ins. CSV (H) 1,714.00 IRA (H) 24,113.00 IRA (3)(W) 16,138.00 401k (H) 1,093.00 Pension (H) value unknown 0.00 Checking (H) 0.00 TOTAL ASSETS $318,161.00 It would serve no useful purpose to chronicle the many causes for the breakdown of this marriage which is clearly irretrievable. The Wife claimed that the Husband had, and continues to have, an affaire with a Virginia resident named Nancy Dowdy. The Husband truthfully


Sharon a D'Andrea v. Nicholas D'andrea.

domestic relations order: Webster Bk CD 0.00 13,510.00 Husband's IRA 24,113.00 0.00 Wife's IRA's (3) 0.00 16,138.00 Husband's 401k 1,093.00 0.00 TOTAL ASSETS $86,820.00 $231,341.00 RETIREMENT ASSETS The Husband's pension at AFSCME shall be equally divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) effective on today's date. The Wife, within a reasonable period of time, shall cause said QDRO to be prepared at her expense and the Husband shall fully cooperate in the processing. Until approved by the plan administrator, the court shall retain jurisdiction. LIABILITIES Each party shall be solely responsible for the debts listed on their respec


Sharon Koepfli v. Kenneth Koepfli.

Sharon Koepfli v. Kenneth Koepfli. Date: 2000-07-17. Machine-draft public headnote: Sharon Koepfli v. Kenneth Koepfli. 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.


Sharon Koepfli v. Kenneth Koepfli.


Sharon Koepfli v. Kenneth Koepfli.

QDRO: ective savings/checking accounts, money market accounts and federal credit union accounts as set forth on their CT Page 8374 respective financial affidavits. PENSIONS 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension, to be secured by a QDRO to be prepared at the plaintiff's expense. 2. The defendant shall be entitled to 50% of the plaintiff's TSA Fidelity pension and 50% of the plaintiff's YNHHS pension, to be secured by QDRO's and to be prepared at the defendant's expense. MEDICAL COVERAGE The plaintiff shall be entitled to COBRA benefits as are available through the defendant's employm


Sharon Koepfli v. Kenneth Koepfli.

pension: ll be entitled to their respective savings/checking accounts, money market accounts and federal credit union accounts as set forth on their CT Page 8374 respective financial affidavits. PENSIONS 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 50% of the defendant's pension, to be secured by a QDRO to be prepared at the plaintiff's expense. 2. The defendant shall be entitled to 50% of the plaintiff's TSA Fidelity pension and 50% of the plaintiff's YNHHS pension, to be secured by QDRO's and to be prepared at the defendant's expense. MEDICAL COVERAGE The plaintiff shall be entitled to COBRA benefits as are available throug


Sharon Laska v. Less Laska

Sharon Laska v. Less Laska Date: 1996-03-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Sharon Laska v. Less Laska 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.


Sharon Laska v. Less Laska


Sharon Laska v. Less Laska

QDRO: o the plaintiff a promissory note in that amount secured by a second mortgage on the Norwalk residence, payable, without interest, when the residence is sold or January 1, 2002, whichever event first occurs. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order Thirty-three and one-third ( 33-1 /3%) percent of the present value of the defendant's interest in the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund. The court retains jurisdiction to modify the QDRO ordered to comply with federal and state laws relating to retirement/pension plans. 9. Each party shall retain whatever savings or bank accounts a


Sharon Laska v. Less Laska

pension: hever event first occurs. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order Thirty-three and one-third ( 33-1 /3%) percent of the present value of the defendant's interest in the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund. The court retains jurisdiction to modify the QDRO ordered to comply with federal and state laws relating to retirement/pension plans. 9. Each party shall retain whatever savings or bank accounts are scheduled on their respective affidavits. The defendant is awarded all right, title and interest in his boat. 10. The parties shall retain their respe


Sharon Laska v. Less Laska

domestic relations order: ntiff a promissory note in that amount secured by a second mortgage on the Norwalk residence, payable, without interest, when the residence is sold or January 1, 2002, whichever event first occurs. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff by Qualified Domestic Relations Order Thirty-three and one-third ( 33-1 /3%) percent of the present value of the defendant's interest in the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund. The court retains jurisdiction to modify the QDRO ordered to comply with federal and state laws relating to retirement/pension plans. 9. Each party shall retain whatever savings or bank accounts a


Sharon Layte v. John Layte

Sharon Layte v. John Layte Date: 1998-09-14. Machine-draft public headnote: Sharon Layte v. John Layte 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.


Sharon Layte v. John Layte

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.


Sharon Layte v. John Layte

QDRO: ere be set over to the plaintiff one-half of the defendant's operating engineer's pension fund as of the date of his retirement and one-half of the operating engineer's annuity owned by the defendant, which orders shall be implemented by way of an appropriate qualified domestic relations order which shall be submitted by the counsel of record to the court for signature. The $2,000 held in escrow by the plaintiff's attorney is awarded to the plaintiff as an allowance to prosecute which the court feels appropriate in order to maintain the solidarity of the plaintiff's financial situation as ordered by the court herein. CT Page 10620 It is so or


Sharon Layte v. John Layte

pension: plaintiff one-half of the real estate taxes accrued on the family home in the present total outstanding amount of $3,721.10, one-half being $1,860.00. The court orders that there be set over to the plaintiff one-half of the defendant's operating engineer's pension fund as of the date of his retirement and one-half of the operating engineer's annuity owned by the defendant, which orders shall be implemented by way of an appropriate qualified domestic relations order which shall be submitted by the counsel of record to the court for signature. The $2,000 held in escrow by the plaintiff's attorney is awarded to the pl


Sharon Layte v. John Layte

domestic relations order: over to the plaintiff one-half of the defendant's operating engineer's pension fund as of the date of his retirement and one-half of the operating engineer's annuity owned by the defendant, which orders shall be implemented by way of an appropriate qualified domestic relations order which shall be submitted by the counsel of record to the court for signature. The $2,000 held in escrow by the plaintiff's attorney is awarded to the plaintiff as an allowance to prosecute which the court feels appropriate in order to maintain the solidarity of the plaintiff's financial situation as ordered by the court herein. CT Page 10620 It is so or


Shirley Ann Rininger v. Eugene Paul Rininger Docket: 1 THE LOWER. Date: 2000-07-24. Machine-draft public headnote: Shirley Ann Rininger v. Eugene Paul Rininger is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


QDRO: pellant argues that the court abused its discretion in awarding appellee virtually all of the liquid marital assets, while awarding appellant virtually all of the non-liquid assets. Appellant argues that the court should have divided the pension by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and the division of the pension violated the non-revokable beneficiary term of the pension plan. Appellant did not offer the terms of the plan into evidence at trial. The only evaluation of the pension was provided by appellee, with no objection from appellant. Appellant cannot now argue that the court violated the terms of the pension plan when he


pension: ERRED IN MAKING ITS MARITAL PROPERTY DIVISION BY AWARDING SUBSTANTIALLY ALL LIQUID MARITAL ASSETS TO PLAINTIFF WHILE AWARDING SUBSTANTIALLY ALL NON-LIQUID MARITAL ASSETS TO DEFENDANT, AND IN SO DOING, VIOLATED THE NONREVOCABLE BENEFICIARY TERM OF DEFENDANT'S PENSION FUND. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY IGNORING PLAINTIFF'S INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES WHEN IT INCREASED ITS SPOUSAL SUPPORT AWARD TO PLAINTIFF, THEREBY INCREASING PLAINTIFF'S SPOUSAL SUPPORT AWARD WITHOUT THE REQUISITE DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR THIS INCREASE. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3 THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY MISTATING [SIC] THE ORIGINS


domestic relations order: gues that the court abused its discretion in awarding appellee virtually all of the liquid marital assets, while awarding appellant virtually all of the non-liquid assets. Appellant argues that the court should have divided the pension by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and the division of the pension violated the non-revokable beneficiary term of the pension plan. Appellant did not offer the terms of the plan into evidence at trial. The only evaluation of the pension was provided by appellee, with no objection from appellant. Appellant cannot now argue that the court violated the terms of the pension plan when he


valuation/division: mmon Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, granting the parties a divorce, dividing marital assets, and awarding appellee Shirley Ann Rininger spousal support: ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN MAKING ITS MARITAL PROPERTY DIVISION BY AWARDING SUBSTANTIALLY ALL LIQUID MARITAL ASSETS TO PLAINTIFF WHILE AWARDING SUBSTANTIALLY ALL NON-LIQUID MARITAL ASSETS TO DEFENDANT, AND IN SO DOING, VIOLATED THE NONREVOCABLE BENEFICIARY TERM OF DEFENDANT'S PENSION FUND. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY IGNORING PLAINTIFF'S INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES WHEN IT INCREASED ITS SPOUSAL SU


Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath

Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath Date: 1996-12-12. Machine-draft public headnote: Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath 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.


Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath


Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath

QDRO: h Griffin for any debt due from the defendant. (C) The vehicles belonging to the plaintiff shall remain her property. (D) The plaintiff shall be entitled to $206.05 per month of the defendant's pension and the defendant is ordered to execute the necessary QDRO documents to effectuate this. (This represents 50% of the pension accrued during the course of the marriage. See defendant's Exhibit 2.) (E) The defendant shall retain as his sole property the land and mobile home in Okeechobee, Florida, the $19,000 savings and checking accounts at the Sun Bank in Florida and remainder of his pension and annuity. (F) De


Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath

pension: he recent past and which has an equity of approximately $20,000.00, various personal property consisting primarily of tools, metal inventory and equipment valued at $7,625.00, and lastly he has a sheetmetal worker's Local 38 annuity valued at $37,132.00 and a pension present value of $28,722.00. A considerable amount of the pension however accrued prior to the marriage and according to an expert witness in defendant's Exhibit 2, the accrued monthly benefit CT Page 7252 due when the defendant husband reaches the age of 62 for the period covered by the marriage, would be $412.10 per month. After reviewing all of the fac


Shirley E. McGrath v. John McGrath

valuation/division: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff Shirley E. McGrath commenced this action claiming a dissolution of her marriage to the defendant John McGrath, and equitable distribution of the parties property, both real and personal, temporary and permanent alimony, counsel fees and restoration of her former name, together with such other relief as the court deemed fair and equitable. The defendant John McGrath filed an answer and cross complaint and in his cross complaint he sought a dissolution of the marriage, return of personal prop


Silverbrook II LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority of the Town of Orange Date: 1999-12-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Silverbrook II LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority of the Town of Orange is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


QDRO: upport for the minor children until each child graduates from high school or turns 19 years of age, whichever event occurs first. The defendant is awarded a (1/2) one-half interest in and to the plaintiff's husband's pension from the Hershey Co. by way of a QDRO as of the date of dissolution. The plaintiff shall be responsible for any expenses relative to preparation thereof. Defendant is awarded a (1/2) one-half interest in and to the plaintiff husband's pension from the Johnson Johnson Company by way of a QDRO as of the date of dissolution. The plaintiff shall be responsible for any expenses relative to the pre


pension: l to the remaining amount to be paid as support for the minor children until each child graduates from high school or turns 19 years of age, whichever event occurs first. The defendant is awarded a (1/2) one-half interest in and to the plaintiff's husband's pension from the Hershey Co. by way of a QDRO as of the date of dissolution. The plaintiff shall be responsible for any expenses relative to preparation thereof. Defendant is awarded a (1/2) one-half interest in and to the plaintiff husband's pension from the Johnson Johnson Company by way of a QDRO as of the date of dissolution. The plaintiff shall be responsibl


401(k): yment at Johnson Johnson and is currently employed there at a gross wage of $60,000 plus annually. The defendant is employed at Petco as a retail sales employee with an annual gross wage of approximately $13,000.00. Plaintiff had accumulated a substantial 401K account at Peter Paul Hershey which was in the amount of $75,528.77; which he unilaterally withdrew incurring a tax and penalty which consumed $36,292.93 of the proceeds or almost half of the total amount. The balance of said proceeds were spent during the plaintiff's unemployment period. No portion of this was allocated to the defendant's benefit. The co


Sims v. Sims

Sims v. Sims Citation: 2020 ND 110. Extracted reporter citation: 2020 ND 110. Docket: 20190248. Date: 2020-06-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Sims v. Sims 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.


Sims v. Sims

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


Sims v. Sims

retirement benefits: month in child support, and $1,013 per month of Larry Sims' military retirement. The court found Erica Sims has the ability to work full time and increase her monthly income, she will immediately receive a portion of Larry Sims' retirement, she will have the retirement accounts in her name, and she is receiving the majority of the value of the marital estate. The court found Erica Sims sacrificed her military career and some of her earning ability, but her sacrifice was mitigated by the fact that she earned multiple educational degrees during the marriage. The court found Erica Sims alleged $6,100 in monthly living expenses, she


Sims v. Sims

survivor benefits: ettlement agreement in the judgment. She contends the parties stipulated to include an indemnification clause necessary to protect her interest in Larry Sims' military retirement and that Larry Sims would continue coverage for her as a former spouse under his Survivor Benefit Plan. [¶29] The relevant portion of the stipulation states: Erica shall be awarded a percentage of Larry's disposable military retired pay, to be computed by multiplying fifty (50) percent times a fraction, the numerator of which is nineteen (19) years of marriage during Larry's creditable military service, divided by Larry's total number of years of


Sims v. Sims

valuation/division: receive a child support deviation for the transportation costs. They agreed to decision making responsibility for the children and the amount of Larry Sims' child support obligation. They agreed on some of the property and debt distribution and agreed to the valuation date for their property and debts. [¶10] After a court trial on the remaining issues, the district court distributed the martial estate. The court awarded Erica Sims a net property award of $73,453.82, including the marital home. The court awarded Larry Sims a net property award of $6,583.16. The court denied Erica Sims' request for spousal support. The court o


Stanislaw Czaplicki v. Eufemia Czaplicki Date: 1997-01-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Stanislaw Czaplicki v. Eufemia Czaplicki is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


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


QDRO: me medical problems. Neither party is to receive alimony from the other party, however, each is to name the other party the beneficiary to the other's employment pension. This is to be accomplished within 60 days of the issuance of this decision by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. CT Page 38-B The court further finds that, subsequent to the parties separation agreement in 1982 the defendant wife proposed to the plaintiff husband that she, the wife, transfer her property known as 110 Allen Street, Terryville, Connecticut to their son, Andrzej, provided the plaintiff husband paid to her, the defendant wife, one-half the value of the


pension: ong as each of the caretakers live or until Danek's death, whichever comes first. The parties shall provide each other with copies of the checks or receipts evidencing the monies paid for Danek's benefit. Each party is 61 years old, each is employed and has pension rights through their respective employment, each has some medical problems. Neither party is to receive alimony from the other party, however, each is to name the other party the beneficiary to the other's employment pension. This is to be accomplished within 60 days of the issuance of this decision by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. CT Page


domestic relations order: problems. Neither party is to receive alimony from the other party, however, each is to name the other party the beneficiary to the other's employment pension. This is to be accomplished within 60 days of the issuance of this decision by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. CT Page 38-B The court further finds that, subsequent to the parties separation agreement in 1982 the defendant wife proposed to the plaintiff husband that she, the wife, transfer her property known as 110 Allen Street, Terryville, Connecticut to their son, Andrzej, provided the plaintiff husband paid to her, the defendant wife, one-half the value of the


State v. Huether

State v. Huether Citation: 2010 ND 233. Extracted reporter citation: 2010 ND 233. Docket: 20100178. Date: 2010-12-02. Machine-draft public headnote: State v. Huether 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.


State v. Huether


State v. Huether

retirement benefits: Scott A. Hager, 1715 Burnt Boat Drive, Madison Ste., Bismarck, ND 58503, for defendant and appellant. Hunt v. Hunt No. 20100178 VandeWalle, Chief Justice. [¶1] June Hunt appealed from a divorce judgment awarding her 25% of her ex- husband's retirement accounts, but reducing her award by a restitution obligation owed to her ex-husband after being convicted of setting fire to his mobile home. We affirm, concluding the district court did not clearly err in its division of the retirement accounts. I. [¶2] June and Brett Hunt married in 1999 and had no children together. Brett Hunt filed for divorce in 2008


State v. Huether

pension: e in 2008. June and Brett Hunt entered into a partial stipulation for divorce decree, agreeing to the distribution of all their marital property except for two retirement accounts under Brett Hunt's name. One of the accounts was a 401(k) and the other was a pension through his employer. Because of the limited scope of their dispute—the equitable distribution of the retirement accounts—the parties did not file a N.D.R.Ct. 8.3 Property and Debt Listing. To determine an equitable distribution of the retirement accounts, the district court held a hearing, and both parties testified about their relationship, their prope


State v. Huether

401(k): Brett Hunt filed for divorce in 2008. June and Brett Hunt entered into a partial stipulation for divorce decree, agreeing to the distribution of all their marital property except for two retirement accounts under Brett Hunt's name. One of the accounts was a 401(k) and the other was a pension through his employer. Because of the limited scope of their dispute—the equitable distribution of the retirement accounts—the parties did not file a N.D.R.Ct. 8.3 Property and Debt Listing. To determine an equitable distribution of the retirement accounts, the district court held a hearing, and both parties testified about the


State v. Huether

valuation/division: cree, agreeing to the distribution of all their marital property except for two retirement accounts under Brett Hunt's name. One of the accounts was a 401(k) and the other was a pension through his employer. Because of the limited scope of their dispute—the equitable distribution of the retirement accounts—the parties did not file a N.D.R.Ct. 8.3 Property and Debt Listing. To determine an equitable distribution of the retirement accounts, the district court held a hearing, and both parties testified about their relationship, their property, and the retirement accounts. [¶3] At the time of trial, Brett Hunt was 56 years old and


Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke.

Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke. Date: 1991-02-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke. 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.


Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke.


Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke.

QDRO: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER BY THE COURT. CT Page 1198 The Court hereby enters its order as of the date hereof and orders transfer of the Defendant's pension/retirement plan under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 under this Order. The Alternative Payee will receive payments from the Participant's United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Retirement Plan pursuant to the Participant's


Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke.

retirement benefits: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER BY THE COURT. CT Page 1198 The Court hereby enters its order as of the date hereof and orders transfer of the Defendant's pension/retirement plan under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 under this Order. The Alternative Payee will receive payments from the Participant's United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Retirement Plan pursuant to the Participant's assignment of benefits to the Alternate Payee, in compliance with Section 401 (a), and 414 (p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, amended, as fol


Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke.

pension: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER BY THE COURT. CT Page 1198 The Court hereby enters its order as of the date hereof and orders transfer of the Defendant's pension/retirement plan under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 under this Order. The Alternative Payee will receive payments from the Participant's United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Retirement Plan pursuant to the Participant's assignment of benefits to the Alternate Payee, in compliance with Section 401 (a), and 414 (p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,


Susan H. Fricke v. Noel E. Fricke.

alternate payee: on/retirement plan under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 under this Order. The Alternative Payee will receive payments from the Participant's United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Retirement Plan pursuant to the Participant's assignment of benefits to the Alternate Payee, in compliance with Section 401 (a), and 414 (p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, amended, as follows: 1. The Participant is Noel E. Fricke, 50 Fox Den Rd., West Simsbury, CT. Payee is Susan H. Fricke, 44 Old Mill Court, Simsbury, CT. The Alternate Payee and the Participant were married on February 29, 1972. 2. The Participant assigns to the Altern


Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy

Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy Docket: 1 is awarded to the defendant. B. Date: 2000-02-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy


Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy

QDRO: rdered to quitclaim to the plaintiff all of his right, title and interest in the family home located in Danbury, Connecticut, by March 1, 2000. 3. The defendant is ordered to elect the 50 percent joint and survivor with leveling under his pension plan and a QDRO is to be prepared with the plaintiff responsible for its preparation. 4. All of the defendant's interest in properties at 49 Fisher Hill Road, Mineville, New York; 299 Maple Lane, Clinton Corners, New York; and Bridge Road, Crown Point, New York, are awarded to the defendant. CT Page 1521 5. The 1999 Subaru, the 1969 Chevrolet, the 1990 Geo Prism, and t


Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy

retirement benefits: gery in 1993 and had lung surgery three months later for cancer. He suffers from asthma and emphysema. The defendant was employed by IBM when the parties married. He retired in August of 1991, and elected a joint and survivorship option with leveling on his retirement plan. He has had minimum earnings since his retirement. He had been earning in the low $40,000 salary range between the time the parties married and the time he retired. He was 62 years old when he retired. CT Page 1518 Under the joint and survivorship 50 percent option with leveling, the defendant received $1610.68 monthly from the date of retirement until ag


Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy

pension: r the joint and survivorship 50 percent option with leveling, the defendant received $1610.68 monthly from the date of retirement until age 65 on April 23, 1995. Commencing April 23, 1995, he receives $600.68 monthly. The present value to the defendant of his pension benefits is $71,000. The present value of the plaintiff's interest in that pension plan is $36,980. The defendant was employed at IBM for a total of twenty-three years, during which time the parties were married a total of approximately seventeen months or a coverture of 6.8 percent. The defendant owns a 1999 Subaru with a present value of $20,000 and a l


Suzanne A. Murphy v. Robert J. Murphy

valuation/division: from a prior employer. She rolled over approximately $2000 to $2050 into this fund. ORDERS This court has considered the provision of § 46b-82 regarding the issue of alimony and has considered the provision of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provision § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters the following orders: A. BY WAY OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE 1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and each party is declared to be single and unmarried. B. BY WAY OF ALIMONY 1. No alimony is awarded in favor of either party. C. BY WAY


Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew.

Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew. Date: 2002-01-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew. 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.


Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew.

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.


Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew.

QDRO: l be applied to the wife's one-half interest due to real estate commissions and closing costs in the event that the husband retains the residence. 2. Pension and Retirement Accounts (a) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order assigning to the wife one-half of the husband's accrued benefit in the R. R, Donnelly Sons Pension Plan as of the date of dissolution of marriage. (b) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order assigning to the wife one-half of the husband's accrued benefit in the R. R. Donnelly Sons 401 k Plan


Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew.

retirement benefits: permitted to retain possession of the residence. (c) The amount, if any, of credits that shall be applied to the wife's one-half interest due to real estate commissions and closing costs in the event that the husband retains the residence. 2. Pension and Retirement Accounts (a) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order assigning to the wife one-half of the husband's accrued benefit in the R. R, Donnelly Sons Pension Plan as of the date of dissolution of marriage. (b) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Qualified Domestic Relat


Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew.

pension: e husband is permitted to retain possession of the residence. (c) The amount, if any, of credits that shall be applied to the wife's one-half interest due to real estate commissions and closing costs in the event that the husband retains the residence. 2. Pension and Retirement Accounts (a) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order assigning to the wife one-half of the husband's accrued benefit in the R. R, Donnelly Sons Pension Plan as of the date of dissolution of marriage. (b) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Q


Teresa M. Drew v. Steven R. Drew.

401(k): s Pension Plan as of the date of dissolution of marriage. (b) The husband agrees that the Court in the pending action shall enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order assigning to the wife one-half of the husband's accrued benefit in the R. R. Donnelly Sons 401 k Plan as of the date of dissolution of marriage. (c) Each party shall retain their own Fleet IRA. (d) The husband shall transfer an amount necessary to equalize the parties' AMEX IRA accounts, utilizing values as of the date of transfer. (e) The Court shall retain jurisdiction as to who shall bear the cost for the preparation of the QUADROS. THE PLAI


Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ

Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ Date: 1997-10-30. Machine-draft public headnote: Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ 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.


Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ


Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ

QDRO: Suzuki shown on the plaintiff's financial affidavit is awarded to the plaintiff. 6. The court awards to the plaintiff 25 percent of the defendant's Amphenol pension plan benefits to which the defendant is entitled as of the date he retires. This award is by QDRO, and the court retains jurisdiction over any disputes involving the CT Page 10898 language thereof. The court also awards to the plaintiff 50 percent of the defendant's pension plan benefits in Kimberly Clark to which the defendant is entitled as of the date he retires. The defendant is ordered to elect a joint and survivorship option under that plan. The a


Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ

retirement benefits: sted in: one is with Amphenol; the second is with Kimberly Clark. The normal retirement age for the defendant's pension plan with Amphenol is sixty-five on March 13, 2016. His full pension benefits at age sixty-five will be $186.88 per month. He may apply for retirement benefits as early as age fifty-five, and his benefits would then be actuarially reduced. Under the Kimberly Clark pension plan he will receive, at age sixty-five, monthly benefits of $192.83. If he elects to receive his pension benefit on April 1, 2006, he will receive $126.14 a month. He left Amphenol as a result of a general layoff. He did not elect a survivorshi


Teresa Situ v. Hector D. Situ

pension: hen out of work for almost one year until January of 1980. She then went to work for Amphenol. She remained there until June of 1988. She left in order to earn more money. If she had remained there for an additional fourteen months, she would be vested in its pension plan. After Amphenol, she went to work for a doctor, commencing June 17, 1988, as a secretary/assistant. She also was working cleaning houses and cleaning rooms at a local motel. She also earned approximately $900 in 1981 and 1982 selling crystal over an approximate six to seven month period of time. She terminated CT Page 10893 her employment with the doct


Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett

Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett Date: 1992-05-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett 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.


Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett


Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett

QDRO: le and interest in the mobile home to the wife. 8. As a property distribution, the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $25,000.00 within ninety (90) days of this decree. 9. The wife is awarded 40 percent of the plaintiff's pension benefit by way of a qualified domestic relations order. 10. Each of the parties shall be responsible for their own attorney's fees and costs as well as their liabilities. 11. Except as otherwise provided, each of the parties shall retain ownership of all properties presently in their possession and in their name. CT Page 4868 MIHALAKOS, J.


Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett

retirement benefits: eived $75,541.00. (See Exhibit A.) There remains approximately $41,000.00 of these funds which have been invested in stocks. He also inherited $50,000.00 from his parents' estate. Defendant's Exhibit 5 also indicates that as of April 29, 1992, the husband's retirement account has a lump sum value of $19,601.00. Taking into consideration all of the testimony and the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes, Secs. 46b-81 , 46b-82 and 46b-84 , the court orders as follows: CT Page 4867 1. A decree of dissolution may enter. 2. The sum of $2,250.97 is owed to the State of Connecticut, which is the amount the husband shall be r


Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett

pension: husband is presently unemployed and collects $288.00 unemployment compensation plus $106.00 per week in rental and dividend income. He owns a home jointly with his girl friend and has additional stock in the amount of approximately $40,000.00. He also has a pension plan which he claims will pay him approximately $500.00 per month at age fifty-five (55). Other than the mobile home in which she lives, and which is jointly owned with the husband, the wife has no other assets of significant value. From the testimony presented, the court could reasonably find that since the separation in 1987, the husband has paid appr


Terry A. Barrett v. Penelope H. Barrett

domestic relations order: erest in the mobile home to the wife. 8. As a property distribution, the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $25,000.00 within ninety (90) days of this decree. 9. The wife is awarded 40 percent of the plaintiff's pension benefit by way of a qualified domestic relations order. 10. Each of the parties shall be responsible for their own attorney's fees and costs as well as their liabilities. 11. Except as otherwise provided, each of the parties shall retain ownership of all properties presently in their possession and in their name. CT Page 4868 MIHALAKOS, J.


The Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board, Interpleader Plaintiff, v. Leon Snow Et Al., Appellants. Estate of Clark Flesher Et Al., Respondents Citation: 26 N.Y.3d 466. Extracted reporter citation: 26 N.Y.3d 466. Date: 2015-12-15. Machine-draft public headnote: The Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board, Interpleader Plaintiff, v. Leon Snow Et Al., Appellants. Estate of Clark Flesher Et Al., Respondents is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


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


retirement benefits: t-of-laws principles and statutory choice-of-law directives, unless the parties expressly indicate otherwise. I. Plaintiff Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board (MMBB) is a New York not-for-profit corporation, based in New York County, that administers a retirement plan and a death benefit plan for certain ministers and missionaries. Decedent Clark Flesher was a minister enrolled in both plans. He named his then-wife, defendant LeAnn Snow, as his primary beneficiary and her father, defendant Leon Snow, as the contingent beneficiary. Both plans state that they \shall be governed by


The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CATHERINE THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant Citation: 1 Cal. 5th 1043. Extracted reporter citation: 1 Cal. 5th 1043. Docket: 1 and No. 4 would be excluded. According to the trial. Date: 2016-12-01. Machine-draft public headnote: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CATHERINE THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


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


valuation/division: 1101. People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983 illustrates the point. In that case, the defendant and the victim dissolved their three-year marriage, but he still owed her $700 in child support arrearages and several thousand dollars in a division of their community property. In a trial for his ex-wife‘s murder, the prosecution presented evidence of his precarious financial situation. On the defendant‘s appeal following his conviction, we rejected his challenge to the admission of this financial evidence, explaining that while evidence of poverty is generally inadmissible to prove a motive for robbery or theft, ―[o]nce the debt


Thomas F. Morrison, III v. Sharon Morrison Date: 1998-04-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Thomas F. Morrison, III v. Sharon Morrison is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.


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


QDRO: sponsible for the payment of the outstanding mortgage. 8. The parties shall divide equally the net equity from the sale of the condominium in Dallas, Texas. 9. The plaintiff's pension with Travelers shall be divided equally between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and the defendant shall receive 50% of the current value of the pension benefit when the plaintiff retires. The plaintiff's attorney shall draft the QDRO and obtain approval by Travelers. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to CT Page 4785 ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benef


pension: in his condominium at 138 Woodside Green, Stamford, Connecticut and be solely responsible for the payment of the outstanding mortgage. 8. The parties shall divide equally the net equity from the sale of the condominium in Dallas, Texas. 9. The plaintiff's pension with Travelers shall be divided equally between the parties by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and the defendant shall receive 50% of the current value of the pension benefit when the plaintiff retires. The plaintiff's attorney shall draft the QDRO and obtain approval by Travelers. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the ju


401(k): in sole and exclusive ownership of his Travelers stock and Travelers stock options, both vested and unvested, listed on his financial affidavit dated March 19, 1998. 15. The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant $235,000 of his interest in the Travelers 401K Plan listed on his financial affidavit dated March 19, 1998 by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and the plaintiff shall retain sole ownership of the balance of that plan. The plaintiffs hall cooperate in executing any documents necessary to implement this order. The court retains jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure comp