North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog

Articles Posted in QDRO

Published on:

By

Equitable distribution in North Carolina can involve numerous types of marital property and hybrid property, including real estate, bank accounts, investments, vehicles, and personal property like jewelry. Retirement accounts are also a common asset that courts are asked to divide in divorces, but distributing certain retirement plans comes with complex legal requirements. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

MCMURRAY V. MCMURRAY, 2023-NCCOA-______ (2023) (unpublished)

As a new generation of divorcees begin to reach retirement age since the enactment of ERISA in 1974, we will begin to see cases were a party needs a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to receive a retirement benefit, but somewhere in the divorce process the QDRO was never entered. Below is one such case. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

WELCH V. WELCH, 2023-NCCOA-______ (2023) 

  1. Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant married in 1981. In 2007, the parties initiated divorce proceedings, including filing for equitable distribution (ED). In 2008, the parties entered into a consent judgment wherein marital property was distributed. One such item was an IRA at Charles Schwab. Pursuant to the parties’ consent judgment, each party was supposed to receive half of this IRA. This never happened, and eleven years had passed by the time Defendant realized it. After exhausting remedies under contempt and the rules of civil procedure due to being time-barred by the statute of limitations, Defendant moved for the entry of a domestic relations order (DRO) under the ED statute. This too was denied by the trial court, citing the ten-year statute of limitations. Defendant appealed. 

Continue reading →

Published on:

By: Carolyn J. Woodruff, JD, CPA, CVA
By

Patterson v. Chrysler Group Addendum

Shortly after the Sixth Circuit decided Patterson v. Chrylser Group, 845 F.3d 756 (2017), I first wrote about this case. Based on some recent comments, updating the blog with dates for clarification is necessary. The issue is when the statute of limitations starts on the qualification of a domestic relations order. It is proper to note that this dispute is between the Plan and the Alternate Payee or the Transferee Spouse.  The Plan Participant (ex-Husband)  is not a party and does not have standing. It is the Transferee Spouse’s vested benefit under consideration. Ex-Husband no longer has an interest. The Plan is the legal owner as Trustee of the retirement benefits. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Ostanek v. Ostanek, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2319

Issues with division of retirement accounts are seemingly springing up all over the place. At heart in most of these cases is a domestic relations order. Those are the orders of court that instruct an entity to, in short, divide the retirement funds. And since many people that have these retirement divisions are finally reaching retirement age, they are findings issues with the orders. Below is an example of an issue in the Ohio courts. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Schorse v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2018176, 2018 WL 5270556 (2018)

(a) Facts: Husband was a computer programmer and wife was a physician. During the marriage, the wife earned 80% to 90% of the parties’ income.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Does the entry of a court-ordered equitable distribution create an interest to a retirement asset? Do you even need to file a DRO or QDRO when an equitable distribution consent order is signed by a judge? See how the North Carolina Court of Appeals saves the award of the marital portion of a retirement account that had not been disbursed before the intestate death of the former husband. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Hoak v. Plan Adm’r of Plans of NCR Corp., 389 F. Supp. 3d 1234 (N.D. Ga. 2019)

(a) Facts: Two wives were divorced from their husbands. Both husbands were members of a senior executive retirement plan. The plan provided that survivor benefits would be paid to the “eligible spouse” of each plan participant. “Eligible spouse” was defined as “the spouse to whom the Participant is married on the date the Participant’s benefit payments under the Plan commence.” 389 F. Supp. 2d at 1278. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Culwick v. Wood, 384 F. Supp. 3d 328 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)

(a) Facts: Husband and wife were divorced. Their divorce decree incorporated a separation agreement. The agreement provided:

[T]he Husband shall otherwise retain all pensions and annuities acquired by him at any time, including during the term of the marriage. . . . The Wife waives any claims she might have in and to these benefits including the right to be named as a survivor beneficiary.

384 F. Supp. 3d at 335. The agreement further provided that “nothing herein contained shall require either party to renounce or disclaim any gift, devise or bequest which he or she may be given by the other’s Will, Trust, or other document.” Id. Continue reading →