fmsinc

First of all it is HER share computed at the Valuation Date that will be adjusted for gains and losses from the Valuation Date to Distribution Date. Your remaining share at the Valuation Date and deposits that you and your employer make to your account after the Valuation Date will not factored into the calculations. The calculation of her share will be made, if at all, by the Plan Administrator. Having said that, however, IRA Custodians cannot or will not adjust for gains and losses. Most of them have their own forms that make it very clear that if the IRA Retirement Benefits Order directs that the Former Spouse will receive $100,000, and seven years go by, she still gets $100,000 Gains and losses are disregarded. TIAA CREF has taken the position that it will no longer adjust for gains and losses. The Valuation Date in all cases will now be the "Transfer Date", that is, the date on which the payment due to the Alternate Payee is segregated by the Plan into a separate account for the use and benefit of the Alternate Payee. A problem has recently surfaced when Plan Administrators have outsourced the QDRO review and approval functions to a Third Party Administrator (“TPA”) (e.g. Fidelity, MassMutual, Vanguard, Voya, Alight, Empower), or has changed TPAs between the Valuation Date and the date of distribution to the Alternate Payee. The TPA will not have the historical records available to adjust the amount due to the Alternate Payee for gains, losses and investment experience from and after the Valuation Date. It will only be able to make such adjustments from and after the date that it became the TPA. But will the parties be able to compute gains and losses themselves? On the TSP website the parties can compute the gains and losses by using the online program at https://www.tsp.gov/share-price-history/ In my home state, Maryland, the case of Reynolds v. Reynolds, 216 Md. App. 205, 85 A. 3d 350 (2014) discusses the proof necessary to prove the increase in value of the wife’s IRA from the date of marriage to the date of divorce. Said the CSA: "The trial court found that Wife's IRA was worth $30,443.28 when the parties were wed and $133,519 at the time of trial, but there were no records indicating the account's balance during the intervening time. Wife proffered evidence of the rate of return on U.S. Treasuries and argued that the trial court should impute at least that rate to the $30,443.28 IRA balance when the parties were wed, and so find that approximately $64,000 of the balance at trial was non-marital property. The court, however, reasoned that it was unclear whether the IRA contained U.S. Treasuries, and found that "it is not clear that the treasury bill rate is an accurate reflection of the growth that may have occurred in this account." The court concluded that it "was not willing to speculate" that the U.S. Treasury rate reflected the IRA growth, and therefore it found that the non-marital portion was exactly $30,443.28. "We agree that a trial court could, in principle, attribute a reasonable rate of return to assets, and that the rate on U.S. Treasuries would be a conservative estimate of returns for nearly any asset. But the present case required the trial court to reconstruct accounts long neglected and lost and factor in possible losses, withdrawals, and deposits, of which there remained no record. Such complex financial accounting was beyond the scope of the court's ordinary fact-finding ability, and it required expert testimony, which Wife did not provide. See Gallagher v. Gallagher, 118 Md.App. 567, 578-79, 703 A.2d 850 (1997), cited in Walker v. Grow, 170 Md.App. 255, 273-77, 907 A.2d 255 (2006). We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it took account of its own limitations and refused to speculate as to matters beyond its knowledge." (Emphasis supplied.) I have a stockbroker friend who has used the Trusuary rates to make such computations. Other options include taking the value of the Alternate Payee's share as of the Valuation Date and using an average of the Dow Jones Industrials, the NASDAQ, the S&P 500 and the Moody’s bond rate as of Valuation Date and as of the current Distribution Date. Apply the average of the yearly percentage changes to the Alternate Payee's share from the Valuation Date to the Distribution Date and you have the amount due to the former spouse. I have done this many times. It always seems to work out to 5.X%. If is possible that the Alternate Payee's share is defined as a percentage as of the Valuation Date and that the Participant (and his employer) never makes any further contributions to the account. In that event gains and losses will self adjust. Even if the Alternate Payee's share is defined as a hard dollar amount as of the Valuation Date, and that Participant (and his employer) never make any further contributions to the account, you simply divide the Alternate Payee's share by the total in the account as of the Valuation date and create a fraction what will then automatically adjust for gains and losses. But all of these options ignore what can happen in those 7 years. Read my attached Memo "Consequences of Delay". Your ex is the one who is potentially in trouble. Make sure you have names someone other than your ex-wife as the beneficiary of your account if you die. You would be surprised how many people divorce and never remove their former spouses as their beneficiary. Whoops. Good luck. David CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY 02-14-2025.pdf

My QDRO Alternate Payee clients will move to a new home, or remarry and take a new spouse's surname, and they will notify the Social Security Administrations, Motor Vehicle Administration, their Post Office, credit card companies, banks, everyone they know EXCEPT the Plan Administrator of the defined benefit Plan from which they are hoping to someday receive a share of their former spouse's retirement and survivor annuity benefit. I have for years included in all of my QDROs the current addresses of both parties, their personal phone numbers, and their personal email addresses. My motive is to give the Plan Administrators a second and third shot at finding the parties at significant events such as retirement and death. You administrator folks should insist upon it. David

See my comment in bold type. I am re-married. I have a QDRO [Without knowing the name of the Plan it is difficult to answer your questions. In some plans, e.g., FERS and CSRS, you ex-wife's remarriage will result in a permanent loss of her survivor annuity benefits. In some plans, e.g. Military, remarriage of your ex-wife prior to age 55 will result in a suspension of survivor annuity benefit if her new marriage ends in divorce or the death of her new husband prior to age 55. You use the word QDRO which would indicate that you have an ERISA qualified plan, but many people use "ERISA" in a generic sense, e.g. Kleenex when it may actually be Scotties or Puffs. And even if it is an ERISA qualified plan, if you remarried and retired prior to the entry of the QDRO, your new wife and not your ex-wife would be entitled to your survivor annuity benefits. And without knowing the method by with you ex-wife's share is computed we cannot figure the present value of her future benefits in order to formulate a settlement offer. from my divorce some years ago that names my ex-wife to joint & survivor benefits from my pension. [The joint and survivor annuity required by law is not less than 50% of your retirement annuity, some plans offer 66.6%, 75% and 100%, and some people will agree to 25% or 33.3%.] I did not realize that this meant ex-wife would receive lifelong benefits. I was younger and emotional and bad lawyer if I knew that is what it meant I would have never agreed to this. Fast forward I hired a QDRO attorney who suggests I offer ex-wife a lump sum to cover her interest for the years we were married and age differential in exchange for ex-wife to remove herself from the survivor benefits. Ex wife concern is that if she removes herself, she could potentially get no payments if I were to pass away. Does this seem like a good option to offer? My pension would accept a modification, and I heard it's better to have agreed upon new QDRO in order for court to accept it. Any advice? [There are two components of you ex-wife entitlement: (i) a share of your retirement annuity generally computed by the time rule formula, that is: 50% of your retirement annuity multiplied by a fraction (the coverture fraction) where the numerator is the number of months during your marriage that you accrued retirement benefits, and the denominator is the total number of months during your employment that you accrued benefits. So, for example, if you monthly retirement annuity is $10,000 (unknown until you actually retire), and if the number of months during the marriage is 120 months and the total number of months is 360 months (unknown until you actually retire), then the formula is .5 x $10,000 = $5,000 x 120/360 = $1,666.67 to your ex-wife. Compute the present value of her payout and you might find out it is worth less than you think. The second component is the survivor annuity payable to your ex-wife after your death. Since women live 5 to 6 years longer than men, if you compute the present value of the survivor annuity it might also be less than you think. And if you're lucky and die with you boots on in your office she will get nothing. And she might just die before you do. So you see how many variables there can be.] [More. I don't believe the plan can accept a modification unless it's in the form of an Amended QDRO. I doubt that your consent would be enough, but who knows. Since you have a new wife the Plan Administrator owes her a fiduciary duty as a potential Alternate Payee and your new wife would have to consent to the Amended QDRO and would likely need to hire a her own attorney for advice. And depending of where you live, there may restrictions of the ability of the Court to amend a QDRO, e.g. statute of limitations, the doctrine of laches, the expiration of the time for an appeal of the original Judgment of Divorce, the failure of the Judgment of Divorce to reserve the Court's jurisdiction to amend the QDRO and the underlying Judgment of Divorce, or the fact that the Amended QDRO is not intended simply to clarify the underlying Agreement of the parties or the Judgment of Divorce, but is designed to change the terms of the underlying Agreement or Judgment of Divorce - not permitted in may states. And if you live in a community property state or in Louisiana nothing I said in this post may relevant.] [Your lawyer is on the right track, but make sure he/she considers the matters I have commented on above.]

The first 37 lines of the attached Excel spreadsheet are FedEx ERISA qualified pension and retirement Plans that filed a Form 5500 with the DOL in 2023. The searchable DOL website is at https://www.efast.dol.gov/5500Search/ You need to FIRST find out the exact name of the Plan you are dealing with, then you can check the Form 5500s and get the name and address and telephone number of the Plan Sponsor and the name and contact information for the Plan Administrator. Then you can call and ask for the "QDRO Package" that Plans are required to have available pursuant to ERISA Section 206(d)(3)(G)(ii), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(G). If you would like to post the exact name we can get you the information instantly. Most likely you are dealing with FEDEX CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN FEDEX CORPORATION RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN FEDEX CORPORATION RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN FOR PUERTO RICO FEDEX EMPLOYEES CREDIT ASSOCIATION, FCU 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND TRUST FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. PENSION PLAN FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC. 401(K) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN FEDEX SCA 401(K) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN OR, you will likely find what you want in the 9 links attached. Most Fedex Plans use Alight/Qualified Order Center as its Third Party Administer ("TPA"). I retrieved them for you from their website. Procedures and model QDROs are included. Having found what you are asking for, the odds are 100% that you will NOT be able to prepare an acceptable QDRO that conforms to your State law, the terms of your Marital Settlement Agreement, the language of he Judgment of Divorce, and Federal law. In the meantime there a lots of problems that can occur if you delay having the QDRO prepared and approved in a timely way. See my "Consequences of Delay" Memo attached attached. I have been preparing such ORDERS for 39 years and I run into problems on a regular basis. You need to hire an attorney who knows what they are doing. FedEx 5500s.csv 0447103SPML001 (1).pdf 0447103SIML007 (2).pdf 0447103SIML006 (1).pdf 0447103SIML005.pdf 0447103SIML004 (1).pdf 0447103SIML003 (1).pdf 0447103SIML002.pdf 0447103SIML001 (1).pdf 04471GLPD001 (1).pdf CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY 02-14-2025.pdf

If you send me a copy of the written settlement agreement and the Divorce Decree I can be more helpful to you in understanding what you are entitled do. You have not said whether it's a defined contribution plan like a 401(k), or a defined contribution plan with survivor annuity benefit as a shared allocation or a separate interest allocation. David Goldberg marylandmediator@gmail.com Fax: 301-947-0501 Tel: 301-947-0500

Life expectancy needed by actuaries to compute survivor annuity benefits and to assure adherence that pursuant to ERISA joint and survivor annuity will be the “actuarial equivalent” of the single life annuity. ERISA §§ 205(d)(1)(B), (d)(2)(A)(ii), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1055(d)(1)(B), (d)(2)(A)(ii).

See my comments in bold type. My husband went through a nasty divorce. He did what was ordered by the Court, she received over $200,000 for house and he paid child support- never late. Part of the divorce was he get half of her pension, 401K from Disney. For years, it was a cat and mouse game where exwife and Disney Fidelity would not disclose the name of her plans. If his attorney did not obtain the name of her pension and/or retirement plan and copies of the most recent statements and summary plan descriptions PRIOR to any divorce yearing, you need report that attorney to the state Grievance Commission and accuse him/her of gross incompetence. Discovery, subpoenas filed (this was back in 2005). Finally in 2022, my husband got an award What was the form of the award? A lump sum payment or a monthly payout of benefits. I suspect it was the former and that would have been a defined contribution plan, like a 401(k). The Plan now has actual knowledge that there was a divorce and is holding up the start of her defined benefit plan (lifetime pension with a survivor annuity component) until the parties agree on something or the court enters an appropriate order. from Disney Fidelity. Not much, but it was purpose. Now in Feb, we get a letter from Disney Fidelity that ex-wife is trying to retire but her funds are being held up. Trying to speak to somebody from Disney Fidelity QDRO dept is virutally impossible, but we did get this one guy who was super helpful and although couldn't come right out - told my husband to do another QDRO because she had another plan which he could be entitled to. My husband and his previous lawyer back in 2005 always felt she hid money. His ex-wife has hired her new 5th lawyer and they are trying to do a Motion to Vacate the original QDRO back in 2005. My question is that the QDRO would apply to the plans the ex wife had during their marriage of 1988 to 2005, I don't understand why the guy from Disney Fidelity told us to subpoena Fidelity for her plan subsequent to 2005? Why then? Any advice would be so helpful. Thx Here are come of the Disney pension and retirement plans - some may be duplicates: DISNEY ASSOCIATED COMPANIES' RETIREMENT PLAN DISNEY HOURLY SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN DISNEY RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN DISNEY SALARIED PENSION PLAN A DISNEY SALARIED PENSION PLAN D DISNEY SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN DISNEY 401K MASTER TRUST DISNEY ASSOCIATED COMPANIES RETIREMENT PLAN DISNEY HOURLY SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN DISNEY SALARIED RETIREMENT PLAN DISNEY SALARIED SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN DISNEYLAND AND ASSOCIATED COMPANIES RETIREMENT PLAN THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY RETIREMENT PLAN MASTER TRUST WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS & ASSOCIATED COMPANIES RETIREMENT PLAN WALT DISNEY WORLD CO & ASSOCIATED COMPANIES RETIREMENT PLAN Disney Salaried Pension Plan A: This is a defined benefit plan, meaning benefits are based on a formula, and the company bears the investment risk. Disney Salaried Pension Plan 😧 Similar to Plan A, this is also a defined benefit plan. Disney Associated Companies' Retirement Plan: This plan covers employees of certain Disney-owned companies. Disney Hourly Savings and Investment Plan: This is a defined contribution plan, where employees contribute to their own accounts, and the company may also contribute. Disney Savings and Investment Plan: This is another defined contribution plan, similar to the Hourly plan. Disney Retirement Savings Plan: This is a defined contribution plan funded entirely by the company. 21st Century Fox America Consolidated Savings Plan 21st Century Fox America Consolidated Savings Plan (Child Support Order) BAMTECH Retirement Saving and Investment Plan BAMTECH Retirement Saving and Investment Plan (Child Support Order) Disney Hourly Savings and Investment Plan Disney Hourly Savings and Investment Plan (Child Support Order) Disney Retirement Savings Plan Disney Retirement Savings Plan (Child Support Order) Disney Savings and Investment Plan Disney Savings and Investment Plan (Child Support Order) Benefit Equalization Plan of ABC, Inc. (Separate Interest Award) Benefit Equalization Plan of ABC, Inc. (Shared Interest Award) Disney Associated Companies' Retirement Plan (Separate Interest Award) Disney Associated Companies' Retirement Plan (Shared Interest Award) Disney Salaried Pension Plan A (Separate Interest Award) Disney Salaried Pension Plan A (Shared Interest Award) Disney Salaried Pension Plan D (Separate Interest Award) Disney Salaried Pension Plan D (Shared Interest Award) Fox Union Pension Plan (Separate Interest Award) Fox Union Pension Plan (Shared Interest Award) The Walt Disney Productions and Associated Companies Key Employees Deferred Compensation and Retirement Plan (Separate Interest Award) The Walt Disney Productions and Associated Companies Key Employees Deferred Compensation and Retirement Plan (Shared Interest Award) Twenty-First Century Fox Retirement Plan (Separate Interest Award) Twenty-First Century Fox Retirement Plan (Shared Interest Award) Twenty-First Century Fox Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (Separate Interest Award) Twenty-First Century Fox Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (Shared Interest Award) See attached a brochure from Fidelity on Disney Plans. If you don't know the exact name of the Plan your attorney needs take the deposition duces tecum (bring documents), and/or a request for production of document, directed at somebody at Disney that can tell you EXACTLY plans in which she participates. Disney Plans.pdf

Peter Gulia: In EBSA Advisory Opinion 1999-13A - https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/advisory-opinions/1999-13a  the author begins as follows: "This is in response to your request on behalf of the UAL Corporation (UAL) and United Air Lines, Inc. (United) for an advisory opinion. Specifically, you ask how a plan administrator should treat domestic relations orders the plan administrator has reason to believe are "sham" or "questionable in nature." Later on the Opinion continues: "You have asked for an advisory opinion as to whether, and if so when, a plan administrator may investigate or question a domestic relations order submitted for review to determine whether it is a valid "domestic relations order" under State law for purposes of section 206(d)(3)(B) of ERISA." The response was as follows inter alia: "When a pension plan receives an order requiring that all or a part of the benefits payable with respect to a participant be paid to an alternate payee, the plan administrator must determine that the judgment, decree or order is a "domestic relations order" within the meaning of section 206(d)(3)(B)(ii) of ERISA — i.e., that it relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child or other dependent of the participant and that it is made pursuant to State domestic relations law by a State authority with jurisdiction over such matters. Additionally, the plan administrator must determine that the order is qualified under the requirements of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA. It is the view of the Department that the plan administrator is not required by section 206(d)(3) or any other provision of Title I to review the correctness of a determination by a competent State authority pursuant to State domestic relations law that the parties are entitled to a judgment of divorce. See 92-17A (Aug. 21, 1992). Nevertheless, a plan administrator who has received a document purporting to be a domestic relations order must carry out his or her responsibilities under section 206(d)(3) in a manner consistent with the general fiduciary duties in part 4 of title I of ERISA." "For example, if the plan administrator has received evidence calling into question the validity of an order relating to marital property rights under State domestic relations law, the plan administrator is not free to ignore that information. Information indicating that an order was fraudulently obtained calls into question whether the order was issued pursuant to State domestic relations law, and therefore whether the order is a "domestic relations order" under section 206(d)(3)(C). When made aware of such evidence, the administrator must take reasonable steps to determine its credibility. If the administrator determines that the evidence is credible, the administrator must decide how best to resolve the question of the validity of the order without inappropriately spending plan assets or inappropriately involving the plan in the State domestic relations proceeding. The appropriate course of action will depend on the actual facts and circumstances of the particular case and may vary depending on the fiduciary's exercise of discretion. However, in these circumstances, we note that appropriate action could include relaying the evidence of invalidity to the State court or agency that issued the order and informing the court or agency that its resolution of the matter may affect the administrator's determination of whether the order is a QDRO under ERISA.5(5) The plan administrator's ultimate treatment of the order could then be guided by the State court or agency's response as to the validity of the order under State law. If, however, the administrator is unable to obtain a response from the court or agency within a reasonable time, the administrator may not independently determine that the order is not valid under State law and therefore is not a "domestic relations order" under section 206(d)(3)(C), but should rather proceed with the determination of whether the order is a QDRO." This opinion relates to a QDRO situation but I think it's instructive. A Plan Administrator should not ignore the obvious conclusions that might be drawn from suspicious facts. As a lawyer I live in a cynical world. I don't expect the best from people. I see and therefore expect the worst. I don't even trust my clients or opposing counsel or the judge on the bench. I am super cautious in advising my clients. It is expensive for a Plan to defend a lawsuit. If the Plan loses they will pay legal fees to the Plaintiff attorney and may wind up paying benefits twice. Here is a comment I made to one of your posts in 2022: "Posted August 6, 2022 "Peter: I found it, at least some of it. The case I mentioned was a 1999 case filed in the US District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore), Bowersox v. Bell Atlantic, No. 99-cv-176-CCB. The docket entries are attached. I don't have access to Pacer so this is about as far as I can go. "I realize the law may have changed in 23 years, but my recollection of the case is that the Plaintiff had either stolen or embezzled or maybe even negligent caused a loss and Bell Atlantic tried to access her 401(k) Plan as self help restitution. My files from those days are long gone and I cannot identify a memo of points and authorities from the docket entries." Bell Atlantic became convinced that they would lose if they continued, dismissed their case and paid me and my colleague $32,000 in legal fees. In today's dollars that would be about $62,000. If I was avising the Plan administrator under the facts presented by ejohnke, I would tell him NOT to put himself in the middle by exercising "discretion". That is a sure way to put one's head on the chopping block. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. And...... https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-distrust-and-caution-are-the-parents-of-security-benjamin-franklin-10-19-46.jpg There a times to be daring and time to be cautious. Let the parties resolve the matter in court. David

JM is correct that all you need to have in a FERS COAP is an agreement to pay $1/month from the employee's retirement annuity and $1/month from the survivor annuity and the former spouse can remain eligible for FEHB during his/her lifetime. The cost is 20 cents a month starting when the employee retires and ending when the employee dies. Whoever told you 1% was mistaken. 5 CFR § 838.133 Minimum awards. awards provides: "Payments under this part will not be less than one dollar per month. Any court order that awards a former spouse a portion of an employee annuity or a former spouse survivor annuity in an amount of less than one dollar per month will be treated as an award of an annuity equal to one dollar per month." If you really want to pursue it, read Holly v. OPM at -https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/precedential/HOLLY_NANCY_DC_0843_13_0329_I_1_OPINION_AND_ORDER_1033309.pdf David

Is the impaired wife merely unable to execute a spousal consent on the beneficiary designation, or is she so cognitively impaired that she doesn't understand what she is being asked to consent to? I think it might be better for the family to go to court and ask for the appointment of a guardian for the wife. The guardian will be invested with the power to make a decision about whether it is in the wife's best interest to consent to a change in the beneficiary. Even if the Plan Documents permit the use of a power of attorney as suggested by Peter, keep in mind that Plan Administrators have a fiduciary duty toward the participant and the beneficiary and you don't want to be seen as promoting or facilitating the interests of one over the other. I would be very careful. What will happen to the wife when dad dies and the daughter is now the beneficiary? Will the daughter take care of mom? If so, then why not appoint the daughter as the guardian of the person and of the property of the wife?

Section IRC § 401(k)(14)(C)(w)(t)(f), provides that you will be removed from you home at night and placed on an airplane that will take you to a prison in El Salvador without due process where you will be incarcerated for the rest of your life. So your best course of action to protect yourself is to interrogate the prospective lying SOS in the customary way before permitting the hardship distribution. https://www.meisterdrucke.uk/kunstwerke/1260px/English%20School%20-%20Cuthbert%20Simpson%20also%20Symson%20Simson%20or%20Symion%20tortured%20on%20th%20-%20%28MeisterDrucke-673723%29.jpg

I neglected to quote another important paragraph from page 1 of the TSP Death Benefit Booklet attached to my first response. "As a participant in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), you will likely accumulate a sizeable amount of money in your TSP account over the years. One of the things you need to think about now is, “Who will receive the money in my account when I die?” This may be an uncomfortable question, but it is very important not to put off decisions regarding who should receive your money. You need to take the time to ensure that your money goes where you want. You cannot rely on your will,prenuptial agreement, separation agreement, property settlement agreement, or court order to specify who will inherit your TSP account because we do not use any of these documents to distribute death benefit payments."

If she worked for the VA and her plan is a Government Plan it must have been a TSP account. It not it would be nice if you would identify the exact Plan. See page 1 of the attached TSP pamphlet that provides: "Your Beneficiary Designation Order of Precedence. If you die with a balance in your TSP account and you did not designate beneficiaries for that account, the account will be distributed according to the following order of precedence required by law: 1. To your spouse 2. If none, to your child or children equally, with the share due any deceased child divided equally among that child’s descendants 3. If none, to your parents equally or to your surviving parent 4. If none, to the appointed executor or administrator of your estate 5. If none, to your next of kin who is entitled to your estate under the laws of the state in which you resided at the time of your death" Here is another source. https://www.tsp.gov/bulletins/14-4/ See 5 U.S. Code § 8424(d) and (h). If it's not a TSP, get back to me. David TSP Death Benefits.pdf

See my responses in all bold type. "Obligor has a Pension Is it a defined contribution plan or a defined benefit plan? Normally the word "pension" means a defined benefit plan and such plans will have survivor annuity beneficiary of a future stream of income. But if it's a defined contribution plan it will have a "beneficiary" of a lump sum payment. If you don't know what sort of plan you are dealing with you need to get back us with the exact name of the plan. but he passed away. Pension has a beneficiary. Obligor left owing Child Support Arrears of 110k. He had no other Assets. The Attorney Generals Special Collection Unit Since you are dealing with the Attorney General it is most likely a State plan of some sort. There are lots of reasons you might not be able to recover your child support judgment. It may be that you did not obtain a Domestic Relations Order prior to the obligor's death and the Plan was required to pay the benefit to the named beneficiary in the absence of a preexisting DRO. In many state, county and municipal plans that involve police, firefighters or correction officers benefits can only be payed to a spouse and not a former spouse. Timing is important. You mention a "lien" but I don't know what that is in Texas. In most states when a judgment is entered by a court it become a lien against the debtor's real estate in the county where the judgment was entered. has closed my case an won’t tell me why.. a Money Judgement was given to me by the Courts in 2007. I’ve reach out to : Family Law Attorneys, Estate Attorney, Congressman , Texas House of Rep never replied. Under the Family Code Chapter 157.3271- LEVY ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ACCOUNT OF DECEASED OBLIGOR. The section of the Code can be found at https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/family-code/fam-sect-157-3271/ It is filled witn time limits that must be followed. Did you follow them. It may very well be that your ability to collect the judgment expired in certain number of years after the judgment was entered. In Texas the statute of limitation for the collection of child support seems to be 10 years after the child reaches age 18. Why am I having so much trouble trying to find the help I need. I wouldn’t think it would be so complicated but what do I know.. I’m not an Attorney. Any help would be appreciated. You used the word "assigned" to the beneficiary. What does that mean. "Paid out" to the beneficiary? How was the beneficiary related to the decedent? There is a possibility that if you are the rightful recipient of the plan benefits you file a "post distribution" suit against the beneficiary. But the answers to all of these questions depend on whether the beneficiary received a lump sum or is receiving a payout in the future. But this is something that requires the services of a knowledgeable family lawyer in the County where all of this transpired. BTW: If you expect that the Attorney General's office is there to serve and protect the citizens of the state, that's only true when it comes to filing suit against criminals. They mostly don't exist to help somebody like you (or me in Maryland) in navigating the complexities of State law. I had a case recently where they were 4 MD state plans in which the opposing party might have participated - he was uncooperative to the extreme. The AG would not tell me which one - privacy they said - even though they had certified copy of the Judgment of Divorce and the DRO. I was forced to submit 4 DROs that were identical except for the name of the Plan. They rejected 3 and accepted the 4th one. Hard to believe. Good luck. DSG

Peter: This is a belated response to your post in March, 2024: See attached Memo dealing the courts that have found plans who did not believe they were ERISA qualified were in fact qualified. Other workarounds are also discussed. David PRELIMINARY ISSUES.pdf

This is over a year late, but see if the attached Memo helps you find the answer to your question about the ability of a court to order a non-qualified plan to enforce a QDRO. I think the answer is the Court can do so if they first find that the plan is in fact qualified (if all of the criteria for qualification) even though the plan doesn't think it's qualified. There are a few other workarounds in the Memo. David (Let me know if you received this.) PRELIMINARY ISSUES.pdf

Can one of you fine folks tell me how to DM someone who posts a message that I cannot respond to online? I assume DM means direct message? Thanks, David

So rare is QOSA that I searched every appellate decision, State and Federal, in the USA and found only a handful of cases that even mention the option. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q="Qualified+Optional+Survivor+Annuity"&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=20000006&as_vis=1 Some of these cases discuss value, but it's my impression that it's actuarial value based on the life expectancies of he parties that ignores the fact that you might walk out of your house tomorrow and get run over by a bus. Learn something every day. David

Wow. In 38 years of preparing thousands of QDRO I have never come across a QOSA. But assuming I know what it is and the rationale for it's existence, logic compels me to suggest that the Alternate Payee is going to receive one or the other, not both. If the Participant dies before retirement the QPSA will be computed in one way; and if the Participant dies after retirement the QOSA (or QJSA) will be computed in some other way (or maybe not). The Alternate Payee doesn't get both and the Alternate Payee is not in control of that he/she receives. So it seems that in order to maximize the benefits the Participant needs to determine whether he should kill himself before retirement or retire while he is still alive to retire. 😄 Or perhaps ask the actuary.

It is my experience that Plan Administrators are loathe to become involved in litigation if they act or fail to act in the best interests of both the Participant and the prospective Alternate Payee. The owe a fiduciary duty to both. Attached are a number of Memoranda I have prepared over the years that touch on that relationship and its real world implications. Also attached is a form of Notice of Adverse Interest and cover letter I have used many times when there was any possibility that the Participant might take action that would deprive the Alternate Payee of a share of the Participant's D/B or D/C benefits. Once the Plan has "actual notice", I have never had a Plan Administrator refuse to put a hold on distributions pending an agreement of the parties or an order of the Court. Holding up a Participants retirement money is a powerful incentive to resolve the issues. You might be surprised at how often a Participant will fill out an online form that does not require an attestation by a Notary Public and check the box "unmarried". Is it fraud? Yes. But it's also rampant and victimizes the Plan and the prospective Alternate Payee. "Better safe than sorry" applies. I have come to the point where I suggest to all (mostly) Maryland attorneys within the reach of my online voice to send this sort of Notice and letter immediately when a prospective Alternate Payee walks through the door. It might be malpractice and a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct not to do so. A delay in having a QDRO entered by the Court and sent to and approved by the Plan can have disastrous consequences. See my attached Memo on that issue. Having addressed the issue from a macro perspective, I note that ERISAlaw addresses not only distributions but "loans" from a defined contribution plan. If that's the case, a few things are noteworthy. First, a loan from one's D/C plan is not a "loan" in any sense of that word. The Participant is borrowing from himself, paying the "loan" back to himself, and paying interest to himself. The only real penalty is that the amount of the loan is not a part of his account and will not benefit from interest, dividend, gains, losses or investment experience until it is repaid. It is more like taking $20 from the cookie jar in the kitchen and putting $21 back a week later. Plus, the loan is limited to 50% of the vested account balance but not to exceed $50,000. Furthermore the QDRO will either "include" (disregard) or "exclude" (net out ) the loan in determining the amount or percentage of the account payable to the Alternate Payee. If the Alternate Payee is entitled to 50%, the most the Alternate Payee has as risk is $25,000 if the loan is "excluded". The same problem arises if the Participant tries to take a hardship withdrawal, an in-service withdrawal, or a post-termination withdrawal. Except for TSP accounts, the law does not require notice to or consent by a spouse to any of these actions. Once the money has been withdrawn it is unlikely that an Alternate Payee will ever recover their share. The Participant will roll it into successive IRA accounts in remote locations, or cash it out, pay the taxes and hide it in his brother's business checking account in Vancouver. Contempt matters not if the Participant never returns to the home state where the court is located. David Benefits Link Memo.pdf Notice of Adverse Claim-Interest December 5, 2024.pdf Cover Ltr. Notice of Adverse Interest-Claim Dec 5, 2024.pdf CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY 02-14-2025.pdf

Response to Susan L. The folks at OPM are not the brightest bulbs on the marquee in good times. I have no idea what they will be doing now. I am concerned with delays. See my attached Memo. . CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY 02-14-2025.pdf

If the representative at Edward Jones is using the word "QDRO" they don't know what they are talking about. Talk to someone higher up in the company who understand that the acronym "QDRO" stands for QUALIFIED Domestic Relations Order" and that "QUALIFIED" meana qualified under ERISA and that IRAs are not governed by ERISA. The problem is that you may not be able to get a post-mortem "Retirement Benefits Order" and may have to rely on the language of the IRA plan documents.

See my comments in bold type. So I just retired - 7 months ago - I have a QDRO [It's not called a QDRO. It's a Court Order Acceptable for Processing or "COAP". Did the COAP contain the address of your former spouse?] from my 1st marriage - to ensure my retirement didn't get held up I sent a copy of my Divorce decree and QDRO to OPM - [Did you send OPM a certified copy (not a "teste" or "true test" copy) of the divorce decree and a certified copy of the COAP and a copy of the Marital Settlement Agreement if there was one? And did you include a cover letter with the full names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers for you and your former spouse? Did your cover letter state "This COAP is currently in full force and effect and has not been amended, vacated, set aside, superseded, or otherwise declared invalid by the Court?" Did you send all of the above via USPS Certified Mail (with tracking) to Office of Personnel Management Retirement and Insurance Group, P.O. Box 17, Washington DC 20044-0017? Did you receive notification from the Post Office that the package was delivered? Did you receive a determination letter from OPM saying confirming that they received the COAP, that it was approved (or rejected and telling you why), and telling you how they interpret and plan to implement the COAP? Did the COAP provide for survivor annuity benefits be be paid to your former spouse; and if so, is the cost of that survivor annuity being deducted from your you share, your former spouse's share, or partly from each party's share of your retirement annuity?] I just got my OPM booklet explaining my benefits and all that jazz about my annuity payment [If you retired seven months ago why was there such a delay in the commencement of your benefits? Who prepared the QDRO for you? Did you know that an Order labeled as a QDRO is not acceptable to OPM and will be rejected. Scroll down to "Exemption from ERISA" at https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/reference-materials/attorney-handbook/ ] but what I didn't see is the explanation part about the payment portion to my ex. Since I've sent everything to OPM and they have it, I feel like I've done everything I need to do and if my ex wants to find out why he isn't getting anything it's up to him to contact OPM and ask. Any pointers? [Once OPM approves the COAP you will likely be required to pay your former spouse the share of the retirement annuity not paid, and OPM will allocate the cost of the survivor annuity as directed in the COAP. I suspect you either didn't have an attorney handling this matter or that the attorney didn't know what he/she was doing.]

Let me expand by inquiry my directing you to an article about Secure 2.0 and QLACs and QDRO's. https://www.businessofbenefits.com/2023/01/articles/secure-2-0/secure-2-0s-new-qdro-rules-the-mainstreaming-of-the-qlac/ Section 202(a)(2) and (b) of Secure 2.0 provides: "(2) FACILITATE JOINT AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS.—The Secretary shall amend Q&A–17(c) of Treasury Regulation section 1.401(a)(9)–6, [I cannot confirm that these amendments have been made unless they did away with the Q&A format and addressed it at paragraph "(q)" at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR6f8c3724b50e44d/section-1.401(a)(9)-6#p-1.401(a)(9)-6(q)] and make such corresponding changes to the regulations and related forms as are necessary, to provide that, in the case of a qualifying longevity annuity contract which was purchased with joint and survivor annuity benefits for the individual and the individual's spouse which were permissible under the regulations at the time the contract was originally purchased, a divorce occurring after the original purchase and before the annuity payments commence under the contract will not affect the permissibility of the joint and survivor annuity benefits or other benefits under the contract, or require any adjustment to the amount or duration of benefits payable under the contract, provided that any qualified domestic relations order (within the meaning of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) or, in the case of an arrangement not subject to section 414(p) of such Code or section 206(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1056(d)), any divorce or separation instrument (as defined in subsection (b))— (A) provides that the former spouse is entitled to the survivor benefits under the contract; (B) does not modify the treatment of the former spouse as the beneficiary under the contract who is entitled to the survivor benefits; or (C) does not modify the treatment of the former spouse as the measuring life for the survivor benefits under the contract. (b) Divorce Or Separation Instrument.—For purposes of subsection (a)(2), the term “divorce or separation instrument” means— (1) a decree of divorce or separate maintenance or a written instrument incident to such a decree, (2) a written separation agreement, or (3) a decree (not described in paragraph (1)) requiring a spouse to make payments for the support or maintenance of the other spouse." These sections presuppose that the parties will agree to the purchase of a QLAC in their "divorce or separation instrument". But what if that is not the case? Can the participant purchase a QLAC during the marriage without notice to or consent by the spouse? When can the participant purchase the QLAC? (i) prior to retirement during the marriage; (ii) at retirement and during the marriage; (iii) not during the marriage without the consent of the spouse; (iv)only in connection with a proceeding for and incident to a divorce? If the participant has purchased a QLAC prior to the time the matter reaches the divorce court (assuming that spousal consent was not required and the spouse in fact did not consented), will a QDRO awarding the spouse a lump sum distribution of a DC plan supersede the participant's purchase of the QLAC? Are Alternate Payees of D/C plans now treated the same as a spouse of a Participant in a D/B plan pursuant to 26 CFR § 1.401(a)-20? It's now 2026. A new client walks into my office and says that her husband works for Lockheed Martin and participates in the Lockheed Martin Capital Accumulation Plan, a defined contribution plan. He is planning to retire next month before the divorce hearing, and she believes that he is going to elect a QLAC with a "life only" option. I don't know of any provision of law that requires notice to her or her consent. [Does IRS Manual Sections 4.72.9.3.5 (Spousal Consent Rules) and 4.72.9.3.5.1 (Exceptions to Spousal Consent Rules) apply?] Based on her age and his age and their relative ages and their life expectancies, she thinks it would be better to have a lump sum distribution of 50% of the vested balance in his CAP and roll it into her IRA. My client is very knowledgeable and understands that pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1055(d) a single life annuity and a QJSA are actuarially equivalent to each other (and that the same is true of a QPSA pursuant to 1055(e)). What do I tell her? In my world of divorce and QDRO this threatens to become a BFD. Thanks. David

What Government. If it's the Federal Government it would be a Thrift Savings Plan that is similar to but not a 401(k). TSP was created pursuant to 5 U.S. Code § 8437 and 5 U.S. Code § 8351 and subject to 5 CFR Part 1601. So it must one of thousands of State, County, or Municipal 401(k) plans. It seems unlikely that a 401(k) plan that can be distributed in a lump sum is not able to be rolled over to an IRA or other eligible retirement account. I would bet that it could be rolled over to a former spouse pursuant to a QDRO. So the answer must be found in the underlying plan documents. But who knows what Secure 2.0 has wrought. I see nothing a thttps://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/rollovers-of-retirement-plan-and-ira-distributions that suggests that a rollover is not possible. Take a look at the "Rollover Chart". And see https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc413 If you have some documentation from the plan in question that limits the ability to implement a rollover (unless it's because the balance is under $7,000) post it here. What is your relationship to this matter. Are you the participant or the Participant's lawyer or financial advisor or accountant? David