Recovering money from a QDRO in Pay status

[Guest msharpabc]

My question relates to: a participant in a DB plan who has been in pay status for 5 years and we have not been presented with a QDRO. We have calculated the amount overpaid to him, but am struggling if we recover this amount with interest or no interest.

Thanks for your consideration.

[J Simmons]

Check out Carmona v Carmona, Sept 19, 2008, D Nev. You may not have to recalculate if you have just now received the QDRO, after the benefits in question have already commenced and are in pay status. Check your plan language too. Get a legal opinion as to what is required.

[QDROphile]

Nice answer, John. What was the question?

[J Simmons]

Thanks, QDROphile. Maybe I should have phrased my post as a question in Jeopardy style. That would have interjected a question into this thread.

[QDROphile]

John: I saw the question and could not figure out what the issue was, so I did not respond. You were either bolder in speculation or more able to read between the lines about what was going on.

The question still does not makes sense to me, even with the clarification. There is no overpayment in the picture. A domestic relations order that comes to a benefit in pay status has to deal with the benefit at the time the order is delivered. I think in this case, the answer to my reformation of the question is that the order cannot touch the payments made before the the order was delivered (there was no overpayment). If the order wants to make up a share of the prior payments, it must do it out of future payments. There is no amount to recover and therefore no interest question. This answer is from the point of view of the plan. As between the participant and alternate payee, the economics may be different, but the resolution has to be expressed differently.

[david rigby]

The original post uses the pronoun "we", but does not indicate what that means.

John's answer appears to assume the questioner is the plan administrator (or perhaps, a consultant). Maybe.

In addition to the lack of a question, it's not clear what perspective is being addressed.

[Guest msharpabc]

Sorry for the lack of clarity, but thank you anyway for the responses.