What if court amends QDRO and fund rejects it?

[Guest Chelsi]

I had a QDRO pre-approved by the Detectives Endowment Association Annuity Fund regarding my ex-husbands account with the fund. The fund told me that they required that the QDRO state a specific dollar amount instead of a fraction as of the asset cut off date.

I submitted the QDRO to the court with a specific dollar amount and the judge amended the QDRO to state that my share would be a fraction (50%) of the account as of the asset cut off date. This reflected what was stated in my divorce agreement, which did not specifiy a dollar amount.

What do I do if the fund refuses to accept the amended QDRO that was signed by the judge becasue it did not contain a dollar amount for the distribution?

Can they refuse to accept a judge's order?

[J Simmons]

The fund can refuse the order (i.e., determine it not to be a QDRO) and ignore it if the order does not meet certain statutory requirements. One of those requirements is that the order specify clearly the portion of the benefits awarded to you. That "clearly" is in the context of what the specific plan provides. An order that may be clear in the context of the type of benefits provided under one plan may not be clear in the context of another plan the defines and provides benefits differently.

The plan should provide you the opportunity for a fresh review of the rejection, by other fund officials that are not subordinate to those that made the initial decision to reject.

If that doesn't work, you might go back to the divorce judge, asking for a new order, one that specifies a dollar amount. If the divorce judge cannot be convinced to enter a new order that does specify a dollar amount, then you might want to contact contact an ERISA attorney to look at the Fund's documents and advise you if it would be worth seeking a review of the Fund's rejection in federal court (in some parts of the country, court rulings allow the divorce judge to overrule the Fund's decision).

[david rigby]

... Detectives Endowment Association Annuity Fund ...

Is this plan sponsored by a governmental unit or agency?

[GMK]

Chelsi - If you go back to the judge to get the order changed (which is the most expeditious option), having your ex's approval of the change in writing will probably help move things along. I'm assuming you know or can agree to the dollar amount to list in the DRO.

[david rigby]

... regarding my ex-husbands account ...

It appears this is a plan covering some segment of NYC retirees. Sounds like a governmental plan, but check carefully.

Be careful assuming that governmental plans are subject to QDRO procedures.

Also, it appears this is a defined benefit plan (just a guess after 20 seconds of internet skimming), so be careful about using the word "account". Might be applicable, might not. This could affect the plan administrator's understanding of how to apply the proposed DRO.

[Guest Chelsi]

The DEA Anuuity Fund is for the detectives of the NYPD. It is a defined contibution plan.

Unfortunately, my ex is not willing to communicate with me and has been rather adverserial so he is unlikely to sign anything. I had to submit the QDRO to the court on notice to him and he opposed it.

I was married on Feb. 14, 1991.

The asset cut off date is September 30, 2005. The total in the account was $15,613.94 on Sept. 30, 2005.

His employment with the police department began in mid-July 1984. He claimed that he was contributing since 1984 and that this should be excluded from the amount. He never provided me with any of his account statments so I was unable to figure out what the marital portion was.

The DEA fund said they only had statments for him since March 2007 and both the DEA and PBA fund said they keep statments for only 7 years and that all records prior to 2002 have been destroyed. Therefore, the DEA Fund told me that a specific dollar amount has to be indicated in the QDRO since thay have no records.

I had specifed in the QDRO that was submitted to the court:

"The alternate payee is hereby awarded $7,806.97, which represents fifty percent (50%) of the balance of the total vested balance of the Participant's Annuity Fund account, determined as of September 30, 2005.

From mid-July 1984 to July 1, 1991 the City of New York contributed $261 per year to each Fund members account. I married him on February 14, 1991. As of July 1, 1991, the PBA fund contributed $522 to each members account per year. From mid-July 1984 until Feb. 14, 1991 the City contributed $1,717.38 to his account.

He never even told me that in March 2007 he was promoted and he had switched from the PBA union (for police officers) to the DEA union.

The judge modified the language the QDRO to read;

"The alternate payee is hereby awarded fifty percent (50%) of the balance of the total vested balance of the Participant's Annuity Fund account, that accumulated between February 14, 1991 and September 30, 2005."

Does this mean that I subtract $1,717.38 from the total of $15,613.94 and take 50% of the difference?

1/2 of $13,896.56 equals $6,948.26.

Should I submit a new QDRO which states:

"The alternate payee is hereby awarded $6,948.26."

Thank you for all your help!