QDRO Smadro

[Andy the Actuary]

A portion of a participant's monthly benefit was previously assigned via QDRO. The participant has now requested to start the pension and low and behold, the participant is remarried to the former spouse, and the QDRO was never revoked (I presume this could be done?).

So, presumably we still present benefits as if there had been no remarriage?

[J Simmons]

The remarriage does not invalidate the divorce, the QDRO nor the fact that each was single until the remarriage. The spouse is yet the alternate payee of the QDRO awarded benefits.

The remarriage may mean the spouse is such for QJSA/PJSA with regards to the benefits the employee retained by the employee.

[david rigby]

A couple of prior threads may provide interesting reading:

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31094

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23284

[WDIK]

Does anyone think the title of this thread should be "QDRO Smoodro"?

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40343

[jpod]

Would this not be a question of state law: does the re-marriage invalidate the QDRO or any other unexecuted aspect of the divorce settlement? For example, if there was an outstanding order of child support or alimony would that continue? The only thing Federal law says is that you have to comply with a good QDRO, but that presupposes that it still is a good QDRO. JSimmons may be correct, but I don't know.

[J Simmons]

jpod--A state domestic relations court could issue a subsequent order submitted to the PA and found thereby to be a QDRO, possibly impacting the effect of the earlier QDRO. To that extent I agree it would be a matter of state law--whether a subsequent order will or will not be issued.

The concern I have for the suggestion you make about the continuing validity of an order previously found to be a QDRO is that it would put every PA on the edge, having to determine before making any payment pursuant to an order having once been found to be a valid QDRO whether a remarriage has occurred and what the effect under state law would be. That is the type of uncertainty for PA that the QDRO statutes were designed to avoid. Once it is determined to be a QDRO, I do not think the PA's acting upon it depends any longer on the vicissitudes of state law.

[Andy the Actuary]

Thank you, all.

My solution is to encourage a delayed distribution to allow time for the parties to divorce again and remove the ambiguity.

[david rigby]

... the vicissitudes of state law.

Surely you jest. State law is never in such flux.

("vicissitude" is such a cool word.)

[jpod]

JSimmons: I hear what you're saying and feel your pain, but I would not be so quick to advise a client to go ahead and implement the QDRO without investigating state law. Or, are you saying you know that there is concrete legal support for your position (in which case I would be curious to see that)?

[J Simmons]

JSimmons: I hear what you're saying and feel your pain, but I would not be so quick to advise a client to go ahead and implement the QDRO without investigating state law. Or, are you saying you know that there is concrete legal support for your position (in which case I would be curious to see that)?

In DoL Opinion 92-17A (8/21/1992), the DoL opined that a PA did not need to delve into whether the alternate payee designated in a QDRO was a 'spouse' under state law, called into question because the dissolution of the marriage was an annulment (meaning legally it is as if they were never married) rather than a divorce (meaning they were legally married but the marriage is ended). So I do not think the PA has to review state law issues such as those that would be raised by the re-marriage.