Leaderboard

Tell him to roll money back in so it can be distributed. If he doesn’t, issue the 1099s showing some of the money can’t be rolled over and cause him some heartache.

Person B's input isn't required, in fact some divorce agreements will specifically make drafting and filing a DRO the responsibility of a particular party so that the other party doesn't have to deal with it. The plan literally CANNOT make a DRO qualified until AFTER its been filed with the court. So either these are wrong, or out of order. Person B's signature is not required keep track in writing or every written request and response for the information. This is something to hope EBSA can help with. I don't know what this means. Are they asking Person B to sign something? asking them to take money out of the plan? There isn't anything for an alternate payee to accept or reject. If they think the DRO was written wrong that is typically something for them and their lawyer to work out with the other person's lawyer. Not the plan. I don't think this means what you think it means. for a DRO to be qualified - it literally just means that it has the appropriate information mandated by federal law, such as being able to identify the people involved, the plan involved, that the award isn't in a form that the plan doesn't allow etc. Qualified doesn't mean the order has a money split that is the same as what the parties agreed upon.

If you updated the source to be included in the 2026 year, Relius does not go back and mark the source to be included in the 2025 year. Make sure that you have both years marked to include the source in the testing.

Did you pair the proper Relius account number to that source? Like, maybe your account 201 is accidentally the match source.

@Peter Gulia, having a cap on the percentage of a contribution that can be invested in a specific investment is used by some plans to limit investments in: publicly traded stock of the employer, self-directed brokerage accounts (particularly when there are few restrictions on permissible investments within the SDBA), investments in that are not easily tradable like gold bullion or real estate, and investments where the plan fiduciaries are concerned about the volatility of the investment. Most recordkeepers can support this type of limit. Note, though, that recordkeepers may not support automatic re-balancing when the value of these investments exceed a specified percentage of the value of a participant's overall plan account.

Thanks! And you're right--a big reason I waited this long to retire was that I didn't want to do so until I had something satisfying to do on the other side.

Larry Starr AND Jim Norman in the same current thread? It's a post-Festivus miracle!