North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog

Articles Posted in QDRO

Published on:

By

Among the most complex issues involved in divorce cases is the distribution of retirement benefits through the entry of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). Retirement plans that are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) must be divided by QDROs, and alternate payees of such plans can be spouses, ex-spouses, or dependents of the plan participant.

When the participant dies before retirement, their surviving spouse is often the recipient of their retirement benefits. However, distributing funds in these circumstances can quickly become a challenge if there are multiple parties with claims to the funds and there is no QDRO in place. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is an order that awards one person the right to receive some or all of another person’s retirement benefits. The person whose retirement account is being divided is known as the participant, and the person receiving the rights to the benefits is called the alternate payee. QDROs are common in divorces because retirement plans are often assets divided in equitable distribution or other distribution of property. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) are used to divide certain retirement plans and award a portion of the funds to an alternate payee. QDROs are typically used as part of the distribution of assets and property in a divorce, and the alternate payee is typically a spouse or former spouse. However, there are other scenarios in which a QDRO may be used to give someone rights to a retirement plan as an alternate payee. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Divorce decrees often include terms regarding the division of property, like bank accounts and real estate, but these court orders do not always have the authority to distribute every asset. Typically, a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) must be used to divide and distribute rights to pension funds and certain other retirement accounts. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In the case of Hopkins v. AT&T Global Information Solutions Co., the U.S. District Court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment. The main issue in this matter was regarding the award of surviving spouse benefits to a former spouse rather than a current spouse. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

When spouses in North Carolina divorce, retirement funds and pension benefits are among the many assets that may be divided between the parties. If you were awarded a portion of your ex-spouse’s pension benefits, the question of when you can receive your payments often has a complicated answer. Often a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) will be required to divide retirement benefits, and the standards for QDROs are set by a federal law known as ERISA, or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Continue reading →

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 →