GMK

Go ahead and laugh, but a person's a person no matter the smell. (I think Dr. Seuss said that). And I'm pretty sure that I don't know any of the 9 persons who passed the exam this year. Sorry. This was a fun moment after a yucky week. Thanks. Have a great weekend.

HEY! Watch it. You know we don't like being treated with disrespect because of our evolutionary status.

Invest some of your thoughts in maintaining a positive attitude toward yourself and life in general. Attitude is a choice, and happiness is linked to attitude.

You might consider asking the experts at the investment advisor you praised in your other post. They can answer these basic questions as well as your more specific concerns.

For what it's worth (consider the source): Typically, the notice given to the person going on FMLA says that if the employee's share of the premium is not paid, then the coverage ceases. At that point, the person has to pay their own medical bills. Your plan may allow for premium payments to be made up and coverage restored, even retroactively back to the date it was discontinued. In that case, the person can file for reimbursement of the medical payments she/he paid while coverage was discontinued. FMLA does not require you to continue coverage if the person does not make required premium payments. When the employee returns to work, however, FMLA does require you to return the person to the coverage she/he had before going on FMLA leave. I suggest that you talk to the insurer about what you may need to do to ensure that coverage will be restored after the FMLA leave in cases where the employee does not pay for coverage during the leave. When the employee returns to work, the company is allowed to try to get the employee to pay back any of the employee's premiums that the company paid during the leave, but I have no experience with this.

Yes, it could have said "no later than" instead of "after," but ... The purpose of the SPD is to give the employee information about the plan. Providing that information before the employee becomes a participant, so the employee has the opportunity to know what she or he is getting into, seems to me to be in the best interests of the employees. And providing the SPD on or about the entry date highlights the importance of the SPD to the employee at a time (during the first months of employment) when the employee is most likely interested enough to read it. I like the idea of handing out SPD's at employment, but if the actual entry is months later, then on or a few days before the entry date, I would remind the employee that she or he received the SPD and offer another copy if they want one then.

Thanks, Austin. I gotta remember to read the topic line.

I must be missing something. Is it not true that the 30 some people working 10 hours a week will never become eligible to participate, because they won't get 1000 hours in a year? So they aren't countable as participants because of the 1000 hours requirement, with or without a <20 hours exclusion. And even with the <20 hours exclusion, if someone gets some extra hours and ends up with 1000 hours, that person becomes a participant forever, even if they go back to a schedule of <20 hours. So what am I missing here?

Writing on a paper isn't a DRO until it's signed by the judge. It is common (and generally wise) to send a draft of the proposed DRO to the Plan to find out if the Plan finds anything in the draft that would prevent it from being qualified, so you can fix it before taking it to the judge. The Plan determines if a DRO (signed by the judge) is qualified, that is if it is a QDRO. Instead of meeting with you, your attorney should meet with or write to the Plan Administrator to clarify that the IDR is not to be split. And she/he should see to it that a new draft DRO is written in accordance with the terms to which you agreed. QDRO's can be frustrating, but hang in there. Good luck.

With what wouldn't you bother if the distribution is $1200? Sorry if I'm a little slow on the uptake after a long, hot, lazy weekend.

Try again. It seems to be OK now.

Chelsi, Recommended reading: See post #4 here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=45227 (which you may have already seen), and here's some more: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=44973

That's cool, Tom. Thanks. (and it's to the tune of what?)

Good luck, Relief.

2nd shot in the dark: Is it possible that by "contribution" they meant deferral plus match? (I realize that we're grasping for straws here.)

I don't watch any more. It's not the DH, interleague play, playoffs. I despise (hate is such a mean word) chemical baseball and too-big-to-play "all stars" who are on their planes heading home before the "all star game" is even to the ninth inning. Consider 1955. Extra innings. Who batted in the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th innings? Do the names: Mantle, Berra, Schoendienst, Musial, Mays, Kaline, Kluszewski, and Aaron ring a bell? Whose homer won it in the 12th? Musial. Those were All Stars. Doubters can check the play by play listing here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NL...195507120.shtml

... said the lawyer. I don't think he was given credit for either back then. But he did pitch 12 perfect innings in one game, and a one-hitter with no earned runs (thanks in part to Mr. Aaron's base running boo-boo) in 13 (OK, in 12-2/3), which is hard to top. At the time, I was amazed by Mr. Haddix's performance and happy for Mr. Burdette's win.

12 perfect innings and then to lose on a 3 run homer that turned into a 1 run (unearned) double. And Burdette pitches a 13 inning shutout. But Haddix had a night. Wow. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/183935-...x-burdette-duel

Thought about you, Sieve, as soon as I heard. My condolences and commentary: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=45675&hl= The commissioner could change the call, but he'd probably call it a tie (a la the all star game), which would go to the runner. Some you lose; some you don't win.

Wow! That's impressive. Congratulations to them. and I'm told there is a song called "Third of June" (Corey Hart), but it's too new for me to know it.

"... And she and Billy Joe was throwing somethin' off the Tallahatchie Bridge." Do you suppose it was a first base umpire?

Yup. The RMD is required FOR the year in which the participant attains the age of 70-1/2 (2010) and is based on the previous year end balance (12/31/09). The first amount(s) distributed in 2010 (or in 2011 if none in 2010, for the first RMD year only) are considered RMD's until the RMD is satisfied.

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong), that WDIK's comment relates not to the plan document, but to this "mutual agreement" that the Trustees reached with regard to allocating their responsibilities. Is there any documentation of what they agreed to with regard to whose signature(s) are needed to authorize a distribution?

In the case to which I refer, line 11 was blank, and that was not cited as an error. Personally, I'd check something in lines 11, 12, and 13a, and be done, rather than spending time trying to figure out if they can be left blank, but they're not asking me.

I know of a case where a filing for a DC plan was kicked back, because lines 12 and 13b were left blank. The 13b part is strange, because 13a was checked "No." It may have gone through if line 12 had been checked, but who knows?