It's been more than 8 years since entry of the New Jersey judgment of divorce. Yet, the QDRO has still not been entered and the case is "remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." Orr v. Orr, New Jersey App. Div., April 16, 2012
Good news : they got divorced in New Jersey in 1995. Bad news : the language of their New Jersey divorce agreement was ambiguous regarding. Worst news : by 2005, they still had no QDRO entered after 7 years, thus requiring the next 5 years of trial/appellate litigation. The antidote to this kind of post-judgment food fight? Get the QDRO approved/entered at the time of the divorce. Cully v. Cully, New Jersey App. Div., March 8, 2010
They obtained their New Jersey divorce judgment in 1990, when they were supposed to divide his pension, pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO]. 15 years later, the QDRO was finally entered, and the ex-husband appeals from the New Jersey divorce judge's award of $30,657.48 to the ex-wife. However, that determination is affirmed : there was an equitable and contractual obligation to give defendant her due share of his pension benefits, independent of the existence of the QDRO.Branca v. Branca, September 14, 2009
This case involves an MCO [Military Qualifying Order], the military version of a QDRO [Qualified Domestic Relations Order]. The appellate panel reverses and remands : their New Jersey divorce agreement was that plaintiff would collect 40% of the entitlement accumulated during the years of coverture. By employing the active duty formula, plaintiff receives the true amount of her entitlement. Leins v. Leins, New Jersey App. Div., July 13, 2009
"We granted certiorari to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals and State Supreme Courts over a divorced spouse’s ability to waive pension plan benefits through a divorce decree not amounting to a QDRO, 552 U. S. ___ (2008). We subsequently realized that this case implicates the further split over whether a beneficiary’s federal common law waiver of plan benefits is effective where that waiver is inconsistent with plan documents, and after oral argument we invited supplemental briefing on that latter issue, upon which the disposition of this case ultimately turns. We now affirm, albeit on reasoning different from the Fifth Circuit’s rationale."Kennedy, Executrix v. Plan Administrator, et al., United States Supreme Court, January 30, 2009; No. 07-636
On October 7, 2008, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument on an appeal from the 5th Circuit of critical importance to matrimonial lawyers and to divorcing or divorced spouses subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). The issue presented is whether a spousal waiver of the right to receive benefits from an ex-spouse's pension is valid and effective without execution and entry of a QDRO, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA].Kennedy v. Plan Adm. for DuPont Savings (07-636); September 23, 2008.
"The parties agree that the Wife shall have a One-Third (1/3) interest at such times that payments are made to the Husband upon his retirement." This vague language was in their New Jersey divorce agreement. So does she get a third of the whole amount? Or does she only get a third of the coverture fraction?Quatse v. Quatse, New Jersey App. Div., September 5, 2008
Peters retained Michael Stanton Esq. to obtain a qualified domestic relations order [QDRO] to enforce the equitable distribution provisions of her 1993 New Jersey divorce agreement. She claims his inordinate delay caused her substantial monetary loss. Finding that prior enforcement proceedings and the subsequent appeal do not bar the current claims, the appellate panel reversed and remanded.Schachter, Trombadore, Offen, Stanton & Pavics, P.A. v. Peters, App. Div., September 4, 2008