Can I process a two-year old order?

[ERISA-Bubs]

We were sent an order two years ago and determined it was qualified. However, before we could process it, we received word from the parties that they were not sure they wanted it processed as-is.

We tried many times to contact the parties, but we didn't get confirmation from them until recently that they want the order processed as-is.

So I have an order that's dated 2014 and is otherwise qualified, but can I process such an old order, or do I need to get them to get me a new one?

[My 2 cents]

We were sent an order two years ago and determined it was qualified. However, before we could process it, we received word from the parties that they were not sure they wanted it processed as-is.

We tried many times to contact the parties, but we didn't get confirmation from them until recently that they want the order processed as-is.

So I have an order that's dated 2014 and is otherwise qualified, but can I process such an old order, or do I need to get them to get me a new one?

Assuming that there were no intervening distributions, and that you haven't changed your mind about it being qualified, if they are OK with it, what have you got to lose?

[GMK]

The Plan's QDRO Procedure may say how long the Plan will wait before requiring a new DRO, but it may also give the Plan Administrator some discretion. If everyone is now in agreement, I don't see why the Plan couldn't process a 2 year old Order that's qualified.

[MoJo]

If it's a valid order of a court having jurisdiction over the matter, it doesn't have an expiration an date. It's "effect" is continuing in nature. Now, administratively, one would have to question whether there were intervening events that have caused the order to be revoked. You could check the court's docket (usually available on-line), or - 2 Cents said, if the parties are in agreement, what do you have to lose (although, personally, I'd still do some - at least minimal - due diligence.

[david rigby]

If not already done, put this in writing, probably outlining the facts in the original post, to both parties.