QDRO

Bade v. Bade, App. Div. (7 pp.) Court reverses order denying defendant’s application for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to plaintiff’s pension plan to secure the latter’s obligation to pay off the mortgage on the marital home, since there are questions which must be resolved as to what “transfer” mechanism, if any, was contemplated by the parties to effect the agreed-upon pledge of plaintiff’s pension plan.

Forsha v. Valichka, App. Div. (9 pp.) Giving the requisite deference to the judge’s opportunity to evaluate the witness and the evidence, the court affirms the judge’s conclusion, on remand, that the QDRO in this case accurately reflected the parties’ settlement agreement, and was valid. [Opinion includes 4 pp. Appendix with full text of the QDRO.]

Thornton v. Thornton, App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Motion judge, in executing qualified domestic relations orders submitted by defendant, justifiably found that the judgement of divorce was clear and precise in articulating plaintiff’s responsibility for preparation of the QDRO’s that plaintiff’s arguments concerning inability to determine valuation lacked credibility or were irrelevant, and that three years was ample time for him to have accomplished this task.

Ruppert v. Ruppert, App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Where the court was asked to interpret the parties’ settlement agreement consonant with the parties’ intent hearing on the use of a QDRO, a hearing was required in the absence of any judicially cognizable evidence before the judge upon which he could base a determination as to such intent, and the judge erred in ruling on his own interpretation of the QDRO.

Lavezzi, Jr. v. Lavezzi, App. Div. (per curiam) (6 pp.) (1) Although the parties’ settlement agreement provided that a specified accountant was to prepare the “pension QDRO’s,” it did not provide that the accountant was to prepare only those QDRO’s, and the judge as well within his discretion in declining to reject the accountant’s prepared “Fund QDRO’s” because they were “unauthorized,” as contented by plaintiff. (2) The judge also committed no error by the judgement, was equitable and within the spirit of the agreement. (3) Panel also affirms the ruling of the judge that the plaintiff was not entitled to the interest earned during marriage from pre-marital monies contained within the two funds in question.

Samaroo v. Samaroo; AT&T Management Pension Plan v. Robichaud, Third Cir. (Gibson, Sr. C.J.) (17 pp. – including dissent by Mansmann, C.J.) Although the parties’ divorce decree did not state that the e-wife should received benefits under her former husband’s pre-retirement survivor’s annuity, after his death she nevertheless obtained a nunc pro tunc amendment to the divorce decree purportedly creating such an entitlement. The circuit panel affirms the district court judge’s holding that the amended order was not qualified domestic relations order capable of conferring on ex-wife the benefits she sought. [Filed Sept. 24, 1999.]

Ingham v. Ingham, App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) The trial judge did not err in utilizing R. 4:50-1(f) to correct a mistake -- an error in the coverture fraction -- in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that equitably distributed the pension of defendant, plaintiff's former husband.

Leidy v. Leidy, App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) The panel affirms an order of the Family Part denying defendant's post-judgment motion seeking to vacate a QDRO, rejecting defendant's contention that he never received or read the QDRO and was unaware of the calculation contained therein until he attained the pension pay period, twelve years later. The QDRO's calculation of the coverture share is widely accepted; and, while the defendant may have calculated it differently, plaintiff has undoubtedly relied on the express terms of the QDRO for all these ensuing years. It would be inequitable and unfair to amend the order at this late date.

Q.D.R.O. – TAX CONSEQUENCES

Carroll v. Martini, App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) The Family Part judge accurately denied plaintiff's motion seeking to compel defendant to pay the $35,000 in federal and state tax liabilities, penalties and interest she incurred when she withdrew monies that had been transferred to an account in her name defendant's pension and profit sharing plans, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The judge noted that the divorce judgment provided certain forms of security to plaintiff, however it did not provide for plaintiff to unilaterally liquidate any of these security provisions. Although he was in arrears, the defendant had been granted extra time by the court to pay his obligation; plaintiff chose not to wait and, instead, with knowledge of the consequences through her attorney, liquidated the QDRO.