Online Joinder Generator for California Family Law

[David T. Ruegg QDROs]

Hi I'm new to this forum (I just signed up). I hope I can contribute from time to time.  I am a California QDRO Attorney.  I want to share a recently completed project that I think will be useful to pro per litigants (and maybe a few attorneys).  It's an online 'Joinder Generator' and it generates joinder packets (groups of judicial council forms required to join a plan) after answering a few questions via online form.  

Please check it out and give me any feedback about it.  Do you like it? Would you use it?  Did it work?

Thanks so much for your time and feedback.

http://www.qdrodivision.com/joinder-generator/

-David T. Ruegg

[MoJo]

Just curious here, why is it necessary to join a plan to the domestic action?  I work for a service provider and we get these ALL THE TIME "naming" us as the contact for the plan and we respond with - absent a DRO determined to be qualified, go to you know where....  Fundamentally, a DR court has no jurisdiction over a plan except through a QDRO.

People seem to forget that the service provider and the plan are not the same - and we service in a non-fiduciary capacity (and in many cases don't even hold the assets - the TRUSTEE does) so serving us is really just inappropriate.

Some enterprising attorneys has agreed - but then get an injunction or other device AGAINST THE SERVICE PROVIDER (if they have jurisdiction over them) to not process a distribution pending the outcome.  That, at least, makes legal sense to me.

[My 2 cents]

The pension plan and its service providers should not ever be parties to the divorce action.  At most, the divorce action would generate a court order dividing the benefits/account balance under the pension plan, which would be subject to acceptance or rejection (for good reason) by the plan.  Even in California.

[QDROphile]

Hooray for efforts to improve anything relating to joinders, but the only reasonable thing to do with the travesty of that California Law is to get rid of the whole concept altogether, as suggested by the previous comments.  But then the California divorce bar would have to learn how to use the federal law effectively.

I apologize for not reading the materials to provide constructive comments, but I do not care about the color of the lipstick on the pig.

[David T. Ruegg QDROs]

The Joinder is a unique feature of California law and it's only required for Local Governmental Plans and Plans that require it as part of their policies and procedures (mostly union plans).

I agree 100% that it's extra red tape that is-frankly-a pain in the rear end with no real purpose.  I would jump for joy if they got rid of joinders and took a more reasonable approach-like the other 49 states that don't have joinders. 

I feel CA runs a lot of things that way-with no purpose/reason...sigh....but we have great weather and beaches.  So here I stay.

[MoJo]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 5:53 PM, David T. Ruegg QDROs said:

The Joinder is a unique feature of California law and it's only required for Local Governmental Plans and Plans that require it as part of their policies and procedures (mostly union plans).

 

Someone ought to explain that to the DR bar in CA - because I get 4 or 5 of these for CORPORATE plans a month....

[K2retire]

17 hours ago, David T. Ruegg QDROs said:

I feel CA runs a lot of things that way-with no purpose/reason...sigh....but we have great weather and beaches.  So here I stay.

And that's why my attorney friends refer to it as "Disney law".

[QDROphile]

Mr.  Ruegg:

Please don't feel personally attacked because of the animosity that ERISA professionals have toward the California joinder law and procedures.  The Department of Labor shares that animosity and unsuccessfully attempted to have it invalidated as preempted by ERISA (biting my tongue on the behavior of the courts of the sovereign nation of California*).

I would appreciate it if you would explain how it is that the law only applies to government plans and those plans that embrace it.  The forms and the statute (at my last reading years ago) do not suggest that limitation and I do not think the DOL would have taken such extraordinary action if the limitation truly applies as you stated.  ERISA does not apply to governmental plans and the DOL objects to pre-empted laws only because the attempt to make plan do what plans are not otherwise required by ERISA to do (e.g. those laws that try to dictate who the appropriate beneficiary is despite plan terms and procedures).  If a plan chose to go wacko and submit to local courts and follow the mandates of the law, I do not think the DOL would bother with that exercise of bad judgment.

In fact, the substance and purpose of the joinder law (preservation of the benefit until the judicial proceeding can resolve the interests of the parties) can be reconciled with ERISA if a little creativity is applied, but the plans should not have to contort themselves and go through a stupid paper chase to accommodate somebody's uninformed notion of a nifty procedure that facilitates practice of law by filling in forms.

*Ironically, the Ninth Circuit has produced some of the most credible rulings on interesting QDRO issues.

 

[RatherBeGolfing]

22 hours ago, David T. Ruegg QDROs said:

but we have great weather and beaches.  So here I stay.

Ha ha, I say the same thing about Florida, but we also have that no state income tax thing :)

[MoJo]

On 2/24/2017 at 4:01 PM, RatherBeGolfing said:

Ha ha, I say the same thing about Florida, but we also have that no state income tax thing :)

Um, I just feel compelled to say:  We don't have earthquakes or hurricanes, but we have an abundance of fresh, drinkable water - which is why I stay in the midwest/Great Lakes states....