Jump to content

Can AP and current spouse share spouse pension ?


Recommended Posts

Participant  divorced in 2011. DRO wasn’t qualified, but a hold was placed on retirement account.   
Participant remarries is 2014 (updating his beneficiary to current spouse ) , and becomes disabled as of Jan 2017, and opted to receive reduced  disability retirement. Commencing December 2018.   Participant elected optional spouse pension, and began receiving 50% of benefits.  
Erisa law allowed for plan to withhold for 18 months while waiting for a QDRO.   (Beginning Jan 1, 2017).   The plan continues to withhold 50%.   (December 2019 ).   
Having already commenced, and finding AP and her Attorney negligent in completely a qdro (as written in DRO) husband hires QDRO attorney to complete QDRO   It’s now being written as “Shared” QDRO.  
In our state disability retirement is not a marital assets so her shared payment will begin after participant turns 65.    
If participant dies before 65, survivor benefits are to go to current spouse.  ( as there was no QDRO at commencement )    If participant dies after 65 ...is it legal for AP to share the spouse pension with the current spouse?    And continue to receive her percentage of the “spouse benefit”  for her lifetime or until the current spouse passes ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are combining and conflating multiple issues.  In one sentence you are presumably talking about the Participant's retirement annuity, and in the next you are talking about the Participant's survivor annuity.  It is unclear whether you are referring to an ERISA qualified Plan or a state or local Plan of some sort.  At one point you are referring to an "Alternate Payee" which by definition relates to a former spouse who can be awarded a share of a retirement and/or survivor annuity via a QDRO, and then you are talking about a current spouse who cannot be awarded a share of a retirement annuity but can be named as the recipient of a survivor annuity following the death of the Participant.

It is unclear if the former spouse was awarded the survivor annuity in the QDRO and if the QDRO was approved by the Plan before or after the Participant: (i) remarried and named his new spouse as the beneficiary of the survivor annuity; and (ii) retired.  If it not even clear if the new QDRO has been approved by the Plan.  You seem to suggest that the QDRO has not yet been prepared, let alone approved.  And you refer to the QDRO as being prepared as a "shared" allocation - as opposed to a "separate" allocation?  

Assuming the Former Spouse is actually entitled to a survivor annuity benefit per the QDRO, then how would you propose  that she "share" that annuity with the current spouse?  What do you mean by "is it legal'?  The only plans I know of where a survivor annuity can be shared between a former and a  current spouse are FERS and CSRS Federal plans.  And how would you work out the tax burden between the parties? 

Without a clear timeline of all of the events stated above, and without knowing what sort of Plan you are dealing with, there is not much I can do to assist you unless I try to guess the status of the matter.  It would also be nice to know what role you play in the matter.        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response.  
There has never been a QDRO prepared or approved by the ERISA qualified plan.   
The DRO awarded the AP a Percentage interest in the the participants retirement annuity.   DRO never addressed survivor annuity but the QDRO attorney is drafting an attempt to include a shared portion of the survivor benefits. 
I asked if “its legal “ to split survivor annuity benefits.  There has NEVER been a QDRO.  
I am the current spouse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is what is the language of the underlying written Agreement, or if none, the language of the Judgment of Absolute Divorce.  In most jurisdictions if the Agreement or the JAD don't award a survivor annuity, the Alternate Payee cannot get it.  In other words, the DRO must track the language of the Agreement or the JAD.  It is an enforcement tool, like an attachment or a garnishment, designed to enforce the terms of the Agreement that is normally incorporated into the JAD.   

On top of everything else, you may have statute of limitation or laches (sleeping on one's rights)  issues, or the request for the new QDRO may be outside of the applicable Court Rule that requires a motion to modify or revise a previous court order to be filed within a limited period of time, 30, 60, or 90 days.  

Unless this is a FERS or CSRS Federal Government Plan, (you didn't tell me what sort of plan it was) I don't know of any plan that will agree to pay a shared survivor annuity.  The cost of a survivor annuity is the actuarial reduction in the retirement annuity to fund payments of benefits over 2 lifetimes, the Participant's and the Alternate Payee's.  The Plan is not required to make payments over 3 lifetimes. 

So when you ask if it's legal, I am not sure what you mean.  If you mean is it legal for the Plan to pay out a shared annuity, the answer is likely no because it is not required by ERISA and the Plan documents don't permit it - so it's not legal and it's not possible.   I have never heard of a "shared survivor annuity" in a allocation in a QDRO except under FERS or CSRS, so the QDRO being prepared will not be accepted by the Plan.  

If you are asking whether or not the current spouse widow can voluntarily agree to pay a share of her survivor annuity to the former spouse, certainly that is "legal", but the current spouse widow will pay income taxes on the amount she receives and that will have to be addressed in computing the amount paid to the former spouse.  If the current spouse widow agrees to this you should nominate her for sainthood.  In all events the payments would stop on the death of the current spouse widow.   And what would be the consideration for such an Agreement??   

If the Participant remarried and retired before the QDRO was approved by the Plan, and if it's an ERISA plan, then the new spouse becomes vested in the survivor annuity and the former spouse cannot get it, PERIOD, end of story.   There is plenty of law on this.  See, e.g., Hopkins v. AT&T Global Information Solutions at
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9954117838131396049&q=hopkins+at%26T+global&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9
followed by the 5th Circuit in 1999  Rivers v. Central and South West Corporation at   http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2296953953561556363&q=rivers+central+and+south+west&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9:

The new QDRO will be effective to provide the Alternate payee with her share of the retirement annuity, but if payments have already been paid out to the Participant by the Plan, the Play will not make retroactive payments to the Alternate Payee, and any arrears will have to be recovered by a separate lawsuit.  But if your state law does not provide for the allocation of disability retirement benefits as marital property, then the amounts that you say are being held by the Plan should be paid to the Participant to the extent that they became due prior to age 65 or whatever age.  [I hope you are talking about disability retirement benefits and not workers' comp benefits.]  Note that there are cases that provide that even though state law may not provide that certain benefit are not marital and cannot be the subject of a QDRO, nevertheless the parties can agree to share such benefits, but such sharing will have to be implemented in another way. 

Good luck.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am frustrated at the fact that the QDRO is  prequalified  by the plan to be considered qualified once signed by a Judge. 

The JAD made no mention of survivorship benefits , however I suppose that because  7 years  has passed since the divorce , the qdro attorney assumes that survivorship “should be” included.   

The spouse pension section  reads similar to this: 


If alternate payee survives participant , the alternate payee shall be entitled to the alternate payees shared interest in the spouse pension.  Payment of the spouse pension will end  with the last payment before the current spouses death.  
 

How is this ok ??  I feel betrayed by the plan as well as the Qdro attorney.  Am I misinterpreting this ? 
Why would a qualified qdro attorney write this , and why would plan admin be ok with it?    
I’m I missing something? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my responses in ALL CAPS BOLDED:  

YOU SAID IT'S A TEAMSTERS PLAN, BUT THERE ARE MANY SUCH PLANS: 

TEAMSTER AFFILIATES PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS - FOOD INDUSTRY SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME SECURITY PLAN
TEAMSTERS 401K PLAN
TEAMSTERS ALLIED PENSION FUND OF MARYLAND
TEAMSTERS CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY & MISC PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS EMPLOYERS LOCAL 945 PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL 41 SERVERANCE PLAN
TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL NO 10 ANNUITY PLAN
TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL NO 16 PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL NO 53 RETIREMENT TRUST
TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL NO 73 PENSION & TRUST FUND
TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL NO 83 OF VIRGINIA PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 11 PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 142 PENSION TRUST FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 179 401K SAVINGS & RETIREMENT PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 211 PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN AND TRUST
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 WELFARE FUND PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 264 VAN DRIVERS PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 277 PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 284 IBTC & HA RETIREMENT PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 301 PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 344 OFFICERS BUSINESS AGENTS & EMPLOYEES SEVERANCE PAY PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 346 SAVINGS & 401K PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 381 - VANDENBERG AFB 401K PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 408 ANNUITY FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 408 PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 418 PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 445 - CONSTRUCTION DIVISION ANNUITY PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 445 CONSTRUCTION DIVISION PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 456 ANNUITY FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 469 PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 575 PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 617 PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 639- EMPLOYERS PENSION TRUST
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 641 PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 676 AND EMPLOYERS ANNUITY FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 786 VENDING EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 814 ANNUITY FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 814 PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 830 LAUNDRY DIV & THE PHILA TEXTILE MAINTENANCE & OTHER INDUSTRIES PEN PL
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 830 RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 878 - FLEXSTEEL ASSOCIATES 401K SAVINGS PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 929 SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 945 HEALTH & WELFARE WORKERS SALARY SAVINGS PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO 348 401K RETIREMENT PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO 35 PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO 377 H&W FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN AND TRUST
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO 469 ANNUITY FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 299 MULTI-EMPLOYER 401K PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 500- SEVERANCE TRUST FUND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 777 SEVERANCE AND RETIREMENT
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 134 PENSION AND DEATH BENEFIT PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 572 RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 716 PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 727 PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS MANAGED ANNUITY TRUST FUND
TEAMSTERS NEGOTIATED PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST FUND OF PHILADELPHIA & VICINITY
TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 293 PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 331 SEVERANCE TRUST FUND
TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 970 REVISED PENSION PLAN - METAL MATIC INC
TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 970 REVISED PENSION PLAN - SICO AMERICA
TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL NO 52 PENSION FUND
TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL NO 73 PENSION PLAN
TEAMSTERS-FOOD PROCESSORS MONEY PURCHASE PENSION TRUST
TEAMSTERS-NATIONAL 401K SAVINGS PLAN
TEAMSTERS/UPS NATIONAL 401K TAX DEFERRED SAVINGS PLAN

I am frustrated at the fact that the QDRO is  prequalified  by the plan to be considered qualified once signed by a Judge. WRONG. "QUALIFIED" IS A TERM OF ART THAT MEANS THAT THE QDRO SIGNED BY THE JUDGE IS APPROVED BY THE PLAN ADMINISTRTOR. 

The JAD made no mention of survivorship benefits , however I suppose that because  7 years  has passed since the divorce , the qdro attorney assumes that survivorship “should be” included.   IF THE JAD DID NOT MENTION SURVIVOR BENEFITS IT IS ARGUABLE THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO GRANT SURVIVOR BENEFITS.  THE PASSAGE OF TIME WILL NOT CHANGE THAT.  

The spouse pension section  reads similar to this:  THE SPOUSE PENSION SECTION OF WHAT DOCUMENT?  

If alternate payee survives participant , the alternate payee shall be entitled to the alternate payees shared interest in the spouse pension.  Payment of the spouse pension will end  with the last payment before the current spouses death.  THIS RELATES TO A SHARING OF THE RETIREMENT ANNUITY PAYABLE TO THE PARTICIPANT DURING HIS LIFETIME. IT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE SURVIVOR ANNUITY PAYABLE TO THE ALTERNATE PAYEE AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PARTICIPANT.

How is this ok ??  I feel betrayed by the plan as well as the Qdro attorney.  Am I misinterpreting this ? THE PLAN IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS SET FORTH IN THE QDRO, NOTHING MORE. A QDRO CAN DEAL WITH THE ALLOCATION OF THE RETIREMENT ANNUITY, AND WITH SURVIVOR BENEFITS PAYABLE IF THE PARTICIPANT DIES BEFORE RETIREMENT, AND WITH SURVIVOR BENEFITS PAYABLE IF THE PARTICIPANT DIES AFTER RETIREMENT.  THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT IT DEAL WITH ALL THREE.  IF THE JAD DIDN'T MENTION SURVIVOR ANNUITY BENEFITS, IT'S NOT THE JOB OF THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR TO PROVIDE SUCH BENEFITS.  


Why would a qualified qdro attorney write this , and why would plan admin be ok with it?    
I’m I missing something? THE PROBLEM GOES BACK TO THE LAWYER YOU HAD AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE.  IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DIDN'T HAVE A WRITTEN MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT THE JUDGE MADE THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO WERE TO RECEIVE A SURVIVOR ANNUITY AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PARTICIPANT.  YOUR LAWYER SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR THAT AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE HEARING.  IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A LAWYER, THEN YOU ARE THE ONE AT FAULT.  I HOPE YOU HAVE A LAWYER NOW.  

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTORNEY WHO PREPARED THE QDRO.  THE QDRO SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE HEARING AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE AT THE SAME TIME THE JAD WAS SIGNED AND IMMEDIATELY SENT TO THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR APPROVAL.  THE LANGUAGE YOU QUOTE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE NEW QDRO BEING PREPARED DOES NOT INCLUDE SURVIVOR BENEFITS.  MY PREVIOUS MEMO WAS INTENDED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PARTICIPANT'S NEW SPOUSE IS LIKELY TO BE ENTITLED TO THE SURVIVOR BENEFIT AND THAT YOU CANNOT NOW RECEIVE SUCH BENEFITS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  

YOU CANNOT FIND THE ANSWERS YOU WANT ON THIS BLOG.  YOU NEED A COMPETENT ATTORNEY IN YOUR JURISDICTION WHO SPECIALIZES IN QDRO MATTERS.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2019 at 6:35 AM, fmsinc said:

WRONG. "QUALIFIED" IS A TERM OF ART THAT MEANS THAT THE QDRO SIGNED BY THE JUDGE IS APPROVED BY THE PLAN ADMINISTRTOR. 

Just a point of clarification, in case it hasn't been clear:  The court/judge provides a DRO.  It is not a QDRO until the Plan Administrator approves it.  For this reason, it's common that the parties/attorneys prepare a draft for review by the PA before going to the court.  Sometimes, a second draft is needed.

I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David is correct, of course. 

Unfortunately it is common to call the document submitted to the Court a QDRO even through it is not yet "qualified" by the Plan.  In the Federal arena many practitioners title their FERS and CSRS Orders as a "Court Order Acceptable for Processing" even before it has not been accepted by OPM.  The language in this area is complicated enough without having the explain this distinction without a meaningful difference to lay clients.  

Bottom line, the "Q" in QDRO means "qualified", and "qualified" means "approved" by the Plan and not by the Judge or by the parties or anyone else.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make clear exact references.   But there was NO qdro ever started/completed at the time of the divorce in 2011.  The language in the JAD is vague.  
It was included that the ex wife  was responsible to complete  a qdro and to hire a qdro attorney if needed.  She never did. 

 The plan started paying only 50% of retirement to my husband.  After 18 months passed , he inquired about the segregated portion  but was denied any rights to the other 50% as it was intended for the AP if and when a qdro was received.  

The plan notified the APs divorce attorney to ask if they planned to complete a qdro.   Her divorce attorney attempted to write a qdro himself .   After getting this information my husband consulted with a qdro attorney that suggested he should complete the qdro process,  as the ex wife and her attorney were negligent (7 years) in completing the qdro.  And for the fact that a divorce attorney has no business attempting to write a qdro. 
 
My husband has a family law attorney as well as a qdro attorney retained to complete this process.  The plan is active in trying to complete this as well ,  as there has been many bad decisions made on their part.   We now have a draft , that includes language that’s conflicting.  That gives AP her shared percentage of spouse benefits after participants death.  

How can we proceed forward and accept this “proposed qdro” when it’s so misconstrued.  When my husband questions his qdro attorney about his concerns, he was told he shouldn’t be so greedy.  
 
The plan is opening the door for continued issues in this case.  Do we stop before signing and head to court ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SEE MY RESPONSES IN ALL CAPS BOLDED:

FIRST - WHAT ARE YOU?  CURRENT WIFE I AM GUESSING?  

SECOND - WORDS MATTER. I CANNOT ANSWER A QUESTION WITHOUT CORRECT FACTUAL INFORMATION.  

You make clear exact references.   But there was NO qdro ever started/completed at the time of the divorce in 2011.  The language in the JAD is vague.  I WOULDN'T KNOW IF IT'S VAGUE OR NOT SINCE NEITHER YOU NOR YOUR HUSBAND HAS BOTHERED TO SET FORTH THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE JAD, SO ANYTHING I MIGHT SAY IS LIKELY JUST AN EDUCATED GUESS.  
It was included that the ex wife  was responsible to complete  a qdro and to hire a qdro attorney if needed.  She never did. 

 The plan started paying only 50% of retirement to my husband.  After 18 months passed , he inquired about the segregated portion  but was denied any rights to the other 50% as it was intended for the AP if and when a qdro was received.  WHAT ABOUT THE DISABILITY RETIREMENT WHAT YOUR HUSBAND SAYS IS NOT MARITAL PROPERTY IN YOUR STATE?  I CANNOT COMMENT ON WHY THE PLAY PUT A FREEZE ON THE EX-WIFE'S SHARE OF THE PLAN BENEFITS UNLESS THEY DETERMINED THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO SO TO PROTECT THEIR OWN BUTT. 

The plan notified the APs divorce attorney to ask if they planned to complete a qdro.   Her divorce attorney attempted to write a qdro himself .   After getting this information my husband consulted with a qdro attorney that suggested he should complete the qdro process,  as the ex wife and her attorney were negligent (7 years) in completing the qdro.  And for the fact that a divorce attorney has no business attempting to write a qdro. 
 
My husband has a family law attorney as well as a qdro attorney retained to complete this process.  The plan is active in trying to complete this as well ,  as there has been many bad decisions made on their part.   We now have a draft , that includes language that’s conflicting.  That gives AP her shared percentage of spouse benefits after participants death.  THIS IS A SURVIVOR ANNUITY THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED BY THE JUDGE.  AS ABOVE.  I WOULD NEED TO SEE THE ACTUAL JAD TO BE SURE.  AND YOUR ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE TO CHECK THE LAW OF YOUR STATE TO SEE IF A SURVIVOR ANNUITY IS SUBSUMED INTO AN AWARD OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS....OR WHATEVER THE JAD SAYS.  

How can we proceed forward and accept this “proposed qdro” when it’s so misconstrued.  When my husband questions his qdro attorney about his concerns, he was told he shouldn’t be so greedy.  
 
The plan is opening the door for continued issues in this case.  Do we stop before signing and head to court ?  IF YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT THE JAD FAX IT TO ME AT 301-947-0501 AND INCLUDE A TELEPHONE NUMBER WHERE I CAN CALL YOU BACK.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The portion of the JAD you sent refers to a Western Conference of Teamsters Retirement Account.  I cannot find that Plan in the Department of Labor database.  I did, however, find a WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS PENSION PLAN.  Generally the phrase "retirement account" refers to a defined contribution plan, like a 401(k), where a fixed dollar amount or percentage is transferred to the Alternate Payee at the time of divorce.  The phrase "Pension Plan" refers to a defined benefit plan where the Participant retires at a certain age an received a multiyear payout (usually for life) base on his time in service and income history - and there is a survivor annuity available for a former spouse or current spouse.  

I cannot assume that the court just made a mistake.  Maybe the court did not intend to give the a share of the "pension plan" to the Alternate Payee.

I took about 30 seconds to find the following websites (assuming this is the correct plan):

https://wctpension.org/participants/plan-summary

https://wctpension.org/participants/plan-summary/other-information

https://www.wctpension.org/forms-documents/plan-forms/instructions-and-explanation-model-qdro-provisions

https://www.wctpension.org/forms-documents/plan-forms/model-provisions-qualified-domestic-relations-order

and see the attached booklet.

Call Mr. Gulia is an attorney in Pennsylvania and he can likely help you.  Call him at 215-732-1552.  

WCTPT_Summary_Plan_Booklet.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is one more example of how vague and misstated this whole divorce was.   
Is the confusion of the intended plan enough to be argued in court ?  As well as no survivorship being addresses ?  
It was written equal parts which would make better sense if it was referring to a  contribution plan not a pension plan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you again.  We will make contact with Mr Gulia.    We need to finish the qdro and get this behind us.   
We are also looking to retain an ERISA attorney to represent us in federal  court against the plan.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Months and years have passed and we finally have a qdro that we don’t agree with.

SURVIVORSHIP   We were expecting for the plan administrators to fix our concerns.   Instead the plan administrators sent a final letter to our qdro Attorney saying qualified unless we have any changes that need to be made.  
The issue is : Participant divorced (2012), remarried(2014), updated beneficiary(2016) commenced (2017) and then the qdro (2020).   
Federal law allows for spouse at commencement to solely receive survivor benefits if participant dies before retirement age.  ?
 For death benefits after retirement age “Employee and spouse pension” was selected (based on ages of participant and current spouse).  The QDRO is prepared giving the AP her “shared percentage” of survivor benefits/death benefits? (which should have been hers had she completed the qdro as court ordered in 2012) .  
Rightfully/Morally  ? Legally ?  
Please help direct us on our next step.  Plan summary rules should’ve made this impossible. (you can’t change beneficiary designation but can you share survivor benefits ?)

 The AP did not follow through with getting a qdro in a timely matter.  Life has moved on.  Now what should the outcome be ?? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...