Leaderboard

I have a QDRO that has been submitted to Plan Administrator and was approved as a good QDRO and mailed back to my Attorney as well as the defense in April of 2016. It needed the signature of the Judge and while it was held by the Defense attorney stating he thought it had a lot of errors in it and needed some questions answered. WHY WAS THE QDRO NOT SUBMITTED TO THE JUDGE FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS? I have over the 3 years with proof of it, asked for this QDRO to be signed. SIGNED BY WHO? Court ordered in August 2018, for it to be signed. SIGNED BY WHO? and we had 60 days. Now that I sent a letter last week to my Union asking AGAIN about the 18 month rule and that I wanted this rule to be explained and then acted YOU DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THIS RULE. WHEN THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR GETS A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE QDRO SIGNED BY THE JUDGE IT WILL ACT ON IT PROMPTLY. on as I am financially not able to hire any more attorneys to fight the defense but found that maybe the DOL THE DOL DOES NOT HELP IN THIS SORT OF SITUATION. YOU NEED TO HAVE THE QDRO SIGNED BY THE COURT AND A CERTIFIED COPY SENT TO THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR. THAT'S IT. could help and if that would help to get this QDRO released and pay us. NOW, a new QDRO was submitted SUBMITTED TO WHO? August 20, 2019 and approved APPROVED BY WHO? but I asked for only a date change not a new QDRO which states exactly word for word the same thing as the QDRO that has already been approved by the plan administrator. YOU NEED TO GET THE QDRO SIGNED BY THE COURT. WHO PREPARED THE QDRO FOR YOU? DID YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY? This is a 401(a) Money Purchase Plan. IN MOST JURISDICTIONS A QDRO IS MERELY AN ENFORCEMENT TOOL TO FACILITATE THE COURT'S AWARD OF PENSION OR RETIREMENT BENEFITS FROM ONE PARTY TO THE OTHER. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SIGNED BY THE PARTIES. THE JUDGE CAN SIGN IT IN THE SAME WAY THAT IT WOULD SIGN A GARNISHMENT OR ATTACHMENT ORDER.

Careful with your coffee, wouldn't want one of those nice bow-ties stained!

Thank you.

Here's an article from yesterday with links to the new proposed rules and additional information from the DOL. DOL Proposed Electronic Disclosure Rules

This situation suggests two key law issues, first under State law and then under Federal law: (1) If yesterday a court had ended Pat’s marriage to Sam, can a court tomorrow order that Pat and Sam were married yesterday? (2) If a State court’s order says Pat and Sam were married yesterday (and the order is a domestic-relations order within the meaning of ERISA § 206(d)(3)(B)(ii)), would following that order “require [the] plan to provide any type or form of benefit, or any option, not otherwise provided under the plan [or] require the plan to provide increased benefits (determined on the basis of actuarial value)[.]” ERISA § 206(d)(3)(D). It’s hard to do much about question 1. But employee-benefits practitioners might help some judges learn the legal, economic, and practical effects of question 2. A related point: The situation the originating post describes illustrates some usefulness of venue provisions in an employee-benefit plan’s governing document. If the plan’s administrator decides the revised order is not a QDRO and the would-be surviving spouse challenges that decision, would the plan’s employer/sponsor/administrator prefer that the challenger be compelled to proceed in Federal (rather than State) court and in the district the plan’s sponsor chose? Newbie’s committee has a lawyer and we don’t presume to advise either of them. As we use this thread for academic interest or professional development, among many court decisions about the issues raised one might read these: (1) Padgett v. Little, 172 Cal. App. 4th 830, 91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 475, 47 Empl. Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1050, 1061 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (A trial court exceeded its authority by using the ruse of a nunc pro tunc [now for then] order in its attempt to create an interest.). (2) Garcia-Tatupu v. Bert Bell/Peter Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, 249 F. Supp. 3d 570 (D. Mass. 2017) (whether a nunc pro tunc order entitled a participant’s former spouse to a benefit turned on whether the former spouse’s interest had been established before the participant’s death so that the order did not create a new benefit not otherwise payable).