Bucksin6 Posted February 18 Posted February 18 The question I am asking relates to the divorce of the plan administrator and their former spouse, this case takes place in Wisconsin. A brief overview of people involved: Person A: employee of company X, where they are not only the plan administrator but they are a partial owner (the other owners are family members as well) Person B: ex-spouse Lawyer A: Lawyer for Person A Fiduciary Divorced was finalized in May of 2021. In January of 2022, the QDRO was filed and signed off by the judge with a May 2021 valuation date (this is key point for later on). The QDRO was signed by Lawyer A, with a December 2022 date, however, court records show that they had withdrawn from the case in June of 2022. Does the dates above invalidate the QDRO? Since the signature date of Lawyer A doesn't make sense? As of August 2025 the QDRO was never executed and the assets in Person A's 401k were never split, Person A has been contributing to the plan since the divorce was finalized. In order to get things finished and complete the QDRO, person B asked for plan documents to understand what they were entitled to do with the money owed to them (like rollover, cash out etc) as they had not been given ANY documents prior to this. Person A supplied a SPD dated August 2021 and claimed that was enough information and that was all they had. Under Miscellaneous: Domestic Relations Orders - "You may obtain, without charge, a copy of the Plan's QDRO procedures from the Plan Administrator". If this document exists it hasn't been provided Person B spent weeks asking for more plan documents and then received a Adoption Agreement with the same effective date as the SPD (August 2021), Person A then stated again that they have provided everything they have and everything that Person B needs. Only relevant information in this is that the valuation date is "Each Business Day" More correspondence over another few weeks led to Person A sending Person B a Basic Plan Document and again stating that is all they had and is everything Person B needed. this document says copyright 2002-2020 through ftwilliam.com ISSUE: The QDRO filed, signed by Lawyer A and the judge has a valuation date that is 99 days prior to the Adoption Agreement passed in August 2021. During the correspondence outlined above, Person A, has suggested to the fiduciary and Person A that the valuation date should actually be a different day in May 2021. This new valuation date conveniently falls within 90 days prior to the Adoption Agreement in August 2021. Person A has repeatedly denied having any documents prior to the ones effective August 2021 and even asked the Fiduciary if they had any documents to try and avoid responsibility. The question then is. With the dates and timelines given, what, if any, legal actions can Person B take? Is an ERISA lawyer the best way to handle this? Or is another kind of lawyer that is versed in small/family business better?
QDROphile Posted February 19 Posted February 19 First, an overview observation, and then an attempt to give a helpful answer. As someone that you might refer to as a QDRO lawyer, I see a lot of information and query that I think is very unlikely to matter in terms of determining whether or not the domestic relations order is a QDRO, including different vintages of plan document. A 401(k) account is a relatively easy thing to divide from a qualification perspective, assuming conventional liquid assets. Plan terms usually have no substantial effect. Because of the excess of text that appears to be irrelevant, it seems that there is a lot of confusion. The confusion also appears involve identification of the relevant “fiduciary” or fiduciaries who will be responsible for cutting through all of the noise and making decisions about the domestic relations order as qualified or not. The usual circumstances relating to a QDRO involve two pieces: (1) what part of the 401(k) account will the alternate payee get? This has everything to do with the divorce settlement and not necessarily anything to do with the terms of the 401(k) plan (except maybe vesting). The plan is totally agnostic about what the alternate payee should receive, except that the alternate payee cannot receive an amount or type of benefit that the plan does not provide for (which is a qualification matter and almost never an issue with a 401(k) plan). For determining the amount that the alternate payee should receive in the greater scheme of things, the parties need domestic relations lawyers to come up with a domestic relations order that I will refer to as the “divorce decree” which may or may not be the domestic relations order that is submitted to the plan to end up with a QDRO (probably not; see the explanation below about the role of the QDRO lawyer). (2) A domestic relations order (DRO) must be submitted to the plan in order to tell the plan what the divorce decree specifies to be the interest in the plan awarded to the alternate payee. The DRO must set forth the information that the relevant statutes require, which neatly corresponds to the information that the plan administrator (or other QDRO fiduciary) actually needs to administer the DRO and give the alternate payee what the divorce decree has determined that the alternate payee should get. Unfortunately, a QDRO lawyer (or other competent professional) may be required to make sure that the formal qualification requirements are satisfied. A QDRO lawyer will be concerned with plan terms, but, as mentioned before, plan terms usually have little effect. An experienced QDRO lawyer can probably put together a perfectly good domestic relations order while being almost blind to plan terms — not that they actually would. A QDRO lawyer is indifferent to the settlement terms that relate to what the alternate payee “should” receive from a 401(k) plan as long as the “what” is expressed in the divorce decree as a dollar amount or a percentage of the account balance as of a particular date. Valuation dates may be a matter affected by plan terms, which gets us to: (3) A common arrangement is for the domestic relations lawyer to have an association of sorts with a QDRO lawyer (or other professional) to make sure that the divorce decree defines the alternate payee’s interest in the plan in a way that can be implemented by the plan, such as by specifying a valuation date that is workable for the plan. The QDRO lawyer then drafts a domestic relations order that meet the qualification requirements to become a QDRO. So, the answer to your question is: both, especially since there seems to be so much confusion about what matters or not, and people seem to be enmeshed in a probably unnecessary push/pull. I am not unmindful of the misfortune that something that is conceptually quite simple ends up needing the assistance of expensive professionals to make things “right” whether or not anyone is made happy. Important addendum: No mention has been made of an extremely important document that plans are required to have: written procedures on qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO Procedures). If I were to have only one document from the plan, that is the one that I would request. However, while that document should be the most important and informative of all plan documents, that document often sucks and will disappoint. The QDRO Procedures may be incorporated into an SPD. blguest and Bill Presson 2
justanotheradmin Posted February 19 Posted February 19 When a DRO is signed - and the asset valuation date (via date or otherwise) are two different things. The DRO might say the alternate payee gets 65% of the vested benefit as of November 17, 2019, with adjustments for earnings thereafter, but the actual DRO might be signed and recorded with the court years later. And the actual split of the money might be well after that. TL:DR Present the DRO - ask for copies of the QDRO policy and ETA on decision - get decision - get forms to get money out. Person B can perhaps start by giving a copy of the DRO that was filed with the court to the Plan Administrator (this person, can be an entity, business is usually listed in the SPD). If it is the EMPLOYER it is helpful if it is going to someone whose responsibilities include the retirement plan. Person B might want to include a cover letter with the DRO - asking for a copy of the plan's QDRO procedures/policy, and confirmation that the DRO has been received by the Plan Administrator and that it will be reviewed. Ask for an ETA on when the DRO will be accepted as Qualified, or rejected. And include where the written acceptance or rejection should be sent to notify the alternate payee. Keep notes - and dates - and copies of correspondence. When the ETA passes - and no Acceptance or Rejection is received in writing - ask for an update, in writing. If DRO is accepted as Qualified - the Plan Administrator(or perhaps a recordkeeper) calculates how much the current account belongs to the alternate payee, and the segregates or tracks it separately. Then the alternate payee asks for a distribution form, and can do whatever the plan allows with the money, often rolling it out into their own IRA. If the alternate payee disagrees with the amount that was segregated - then they can ask for supporting documentation, such as statements or what formula was used to arrive at the split amount. How much detail they receive will vary a lot based on a variety of factors. You do not mention where the plan's money is held. None of this is legal advice. Just a simplification of what to actually focus if someone wants to get the plan to review a DRO. I'm a stranger on the internet. Nothing I write is tax or legal advice. I'd like a witty saying here, but I don't have any. When in doubt, what does the plan document say?
Bucksin6 Posted February 19 Author Posted February 19 Hi QDROphile and justanotheradmin, thank you for your responses. The issue that Person B is having is that they divorced Person A; Person A is the Plan participant, the plan administrator, the plan trustee and part owner of the company. Person A, submitted the DRO, to themselves as plan administrator and then approved it and filed it with the courts, so there is an QDRO signed by Person A, their lawyer and the judge. They did this without sharing any plan documents with Person B. Person B only saw the three documents I mentioned in my original post almost 4 years later. The SPD provided by Person A to Person B states "Domestic Relations Orders - "You may obtain, without charge, a copy of the Plan's QDRO procedures from the Plan Administrator". However, Person A has never given over that document (if it exists) and claims that Person B has all the information needed. Both of you say this is a must have. Without the plan QDRO procedures document, it sounds like Person B can't be sure Person A is being truthful when the DRO was created in the first place. From my original post, the valuation date of the QDRO is in May 2021, the Adoption Agreement states that the valuation date criteria changed to be "each business day". So did Person A, since they are in charge of the plan/company change the rules of the plan in order to screw over the alternate payee, Person B? Who is to say that prior to the Adoption Agreement the valuation date wasn't "end of year" and it was changed to hurt Person B. Based on my own research, most of the times when the Plan Administrator gets divorces someone else involved with the plan/company would handle it to avoid conflicts of interest, this obviously did not happen and if it did, anyone else that is qualified to do so is a blood relative of the Plan Administrator.
QDROphile Posted February 19 Posted February 19 Is there something that Person B thinks is wrong with what the purported QDRO awards to person B? Is there something that Person B thinks wrong with what the divorce decree (or whatever it is called in Wisconsin) awarded to person B? I am having difficulty with understanding what the real problem is (though I grant you that Person A is in a ticklish position and does not seem to be acting beyond reproach). If Person B thinks they are getting the wrong amount, then they either (1) file a claim under the plan's claims procedures (which will force the plan to give an explanation about the plan's position on qualification and interpretation of the order, with reference to plan and QDRO Procedures terms), or (2) go back to divorce court to amend that court's order (which will involve both Person A and Person B), write a new proposed QDRO that implements the now correct award, and submit the new proposed order to the plan for qualification. #1 will require an ERISA lawyer because claims get you into part of ERISA other than section 206(d)(3) and that is possibly the first step to yet another legal proceeding. #2 probably gets you both the divorce lawyer and the QDRO lawyer because it is essentially a do over -- and hopefully will be done right. The valuation date is not something that can be manipulated to screw anyone. A competent QDRO professional should be able to get to the amount (or a reasonable approximation) that the alternate payee is awarded in the divorce no matter how the plan frames valuation dates.
justanotheradmin Posted February 19 Posted February 19 you haven't said what the actual issue is - has Person B received money and they disagree with the amount? They don't like how the DRO was drafted? Are you saying the DRO was never signed or reviewed by Person B or their legal representative? If they have a copy of the DRO - and it is doesn't agree with their property settlement agreement - that needs to be addressed. The plan doesn't get involved with that, and the plan's QDRO procedures don't matter for that part. Bottom line - if there is an issue with the language in the DRO - specifically the asset value award - that probably has nothing to do with the plan's QDRO policy. You haven't said where the money is held either. If it is someplace like American Funds, or Hancock, etc when the distribution / segregation of accounts form is submitted they will often do the calculation for the plan administrator. You ask what legal action can be taken - What issue is it that Person B would want a remedy that the PLAN has anything to do with? Failure to receive a copy of the QDRO procedure? Failure of the Plan Administrator to correctly apply the asset valuation / award that was specified in the DRO? - then that's a math problem. See my earlier reply for suggested steps. If the issue is the DRO has the wrong amount(date) in the order, that's not a Plan problem, that's something they need to take up with whoever is helping them with the assets in the divorce. Either what you are wanting help on - has nothing to do with the plan - and is out of scope of these message boards - or, you haven't given the information needed to make it clear to the folks reading that there is an issue with the plan. I'm a stranger on the internet. Nothing I write is tax or legal advice. I'd like a witty saying here, but I don't have any. When in doubt, what does the plan document say?
Bucksin6 Posted February 19 Author Posted February 19 Hi QDROphile and justanotheradmin, thank you, I will do my best to answer all the questions you have asked in your latest responses. Background information as to why Person B is asking for legal help. The company that Person A works for and owns changed during the divorce from a S corp to a C corp and then back again after the divorced finalized Person A filed, during the divorce and while still LEGALLY married and against the judges order, a tax return as a SINGLE filer After years of filings and back and forth, Person B finally received this illegal tax filing in the end of summer 2025 The tax filing uncovered that Person A, not only hid assets but sold marital stocks and other things during the divorce and hid them Person A has not updated their income with the State of Wisconsin since May 2021 (you are required to do so every time your income changes) Given, the new information acquired Person A lied about hundred of thousands of dollars in assets both during and after the divorce along with underreporting their income by tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Person B has not, nor anyone representing them signed off on the QDRO that was filed in 2022, they have not received any money from the account The filed QDRO was for 50% of Person A’s 401k account as of May 2021 The value of the account as of the valuation date was ~$360,000 The Plan 401k assets are held with Ascensus Person B had been in contact with their financial advisor in Summer of 2025, who instructed them on getting plan documents and account statements from Person A before signing off on any QDRO and as of writing this has not received them all still In Short, Person B can’t be sure that any information in regards to the filed QDRO is correct, they are missing the key piece of information (QDRO procedure document), as has been pointed out. As QDROphile suggested in his second response, Person B has been already been looking and meeting with lawyers to hire, in order to file and reopen the case to get a new judgement. In doing that, Person B is wondering if they should also hire a QDRO or ERISA lawyer on top of the divorce lawyer. Thank you.
justanotheradmin Posted February 19 Posted February 19 All of that needs to be sorted with a family law/ divorce lawyer first. If the divorce lawyer needs help from an ERISA attorney should know that they don't know enough and suggest additional counsel. Once an agreed upon DRO is written - that conforms to whatever the property agreement (original or updated etc) has in it - if there are issues getting the money out of the account for Person B - THEN the plan gets involved. Is the split in the property settlement agreement appropriate given all the new information? - not a question for these boards or the plan Does the DRO reflect the 401(k) award amount/value in the property settlement agreement ? - not a question for these boards or the plan, get an attorney or accountant who specialize in that to review Is the DRO accepted as qualified by the Plan? - that's a question for the Plan Administrator. If Person B doesn't like the answer, or isn't getting a response, they need to request a copy of the QDRO policy If person B wants to contact EBSA - they certainly could. None of the background information matters to EBSA. They would need to tell EBSA the date they presented the DRO to the plan, or the date the plan was notified there might be a QDRO, the date they requested a copy of the plan's QDRO policy in writing, and then any communication they received from the plan in response either saying no, we aren't giving you a copy, or you aren't entitled to it etc. If a participant/beneficiary is entitled to a plan disclosure, document, SPD etc, and they requested it and haven't received it, then I've seen good success when EBSA contacts the sponsor / plan admin to get it. and then EBSA forwards it on to that person. The QDRO procedure isn't going to tell person B if the stuff in the DRO is correct in regards to the dates, values, etc. Its going to say what the plan will do, notices, etc if a DRO is presented for the plan to accept as qualified or deny it as not. If the property settlement awarded half the 401(k) to person B, as of that date, then the DRO might be fine. Sounds like Person B might have wanted marital assets split differently if they knew the full picture, include a different portion of the 401(k). All that needs to be ironed out first. I'm a stranger on the internet. Nothing I write is tax or legal advice. I'd like a witty saying here, but I don't have any. When in doubt, what does the plan document say?
Artie M Posted February 20 Posted February 20 Note that under ERISA a valid QDRO does not require the signatures of both parties. The essential legal requirement is that the order be issued or approved by a court of competent jurisdiction. However, judges normally insist on both signatures to confirm that the document accurately reflects the parties' divorce settlement before they will sign it…. having both signatures is the standard to avoid a contested court hearing but sometimes it is necessary to file a DRO only one signature (e.g., a former spouse refuses to cooperate, so the other spouse petitions the court to issue the order regardless of their lack of consent) but in these cases the judge usually requires that they show that the QDRO aligns with the existing court-ordered property division. If the OP wants to contest the property division, that’s a bigger issue than a QDRO justanotheradmin and blguest 2 Just my thoughts so DO NOT take my ramblings as advice.
TheBoxMan Posted February 20 Posted February 20 If Person B has a QDRO, signed by a judge, that gives them 50% of the 401(k) benefit as of a specific date, and Person B agrees that this is reasonable based on the divorce decree, Person B should provide that QDRO (signed by Judge) to Ascensus. Ascensus, being a very large and professionally run company will distribute the funds correctly. Even if Person A is the Plan Administrator, Ascensus will not give them favorable treatment. Ascensus will follow the terms of the QDRO. If the DRO was not Qualified and signed by a judge, then it could be problematic. Because, Ascensus may send DROs to the Plan Administrator (Person A) to qualify and then get signed by a judge. Person A could cause unreasonable delays. But, if the QDRO is already signed by Person A as the Plan Admin and by a judge, then Ascensus should accept that as being qualified and act accordingly. Typically, taking the 401(k) account as of the date in the QDRO and splitting it 50/50. A well written QDRO, would give Person B 50% of the 401(k), plus earnings/losses (not including loans/distributions) through the date that Ascensus pays Person B. Ascensus would have an account set up for Person B that has approx. $180k as of the split date and then give earnings and losses on that $180k. If Person A took a loan or a distribution after the split date, all of those funds would be taken out of Person A's $180k balance. If the QDRO was written to negatively impact Person B, such as dividing the account as of the split date, but Person B does not get any of the gains/losses on the account for the last 5 years, then Person B should probably fight the original QDRO. But, this scenario is very unlikely. I don't think any judge would sign off on a DRO with such biased language. The valuation "each business day" is typical for 401(k) administration. The assets in all of the 401(k) accounts for all the employees will be valued at the end of market trading each day. There is nothing that the plan administrator can do to the valuation methodology Ascensus is using that would impact the money owed to Person B. If Person B believes that Person A is hiding assets, that seems to be a matter for their divorce attorney to handle with a family law judge in court/mediation. It would be separate from the QDRO related to the 401(k). Person B may want to fight and get more money out of Person A, but I don't know if the QDRO is the way to do it. From what was explained, it seems like the 401(k) part of the divorce is already settled. I am not an attorney and don't give any advice...yada, yada, yada.
Bucksin6 Posted March 2 Author Posted March 2 Apologies for the delay and thank you to those that responded since my last reply. On 2/19/2026 at 1:48 PM, justanotheradmin said: Is the DRO accepted as qualified by the Plan? - that's a question for the Plan Administrator. If Person B doesn't like the answer, or isn't getting a response, they need to request a copy of the QDRO policy On 2/20/2026 at 3:28 PM, TheBoxMan said: If the DRO was not Qualified and signed by a judge, then it could be problematic. Because, Ascensus may send DROs to the Plan Administrator (Person A) to qualify and then get signed by a judge. Person A could cause unreasonable delays. These two questions posed is the issue Person B has. Person A: Drafted the DRO without any input from Person B Qualified the DRO as they are the plan administrator Sent to the judge with their signature and their representation's signature Person B has never signed the DRO or the QDRO Has not given Person B the plan's QDRO policy despite being asked dozens of times over the course of months Person A is trying to strong arm Person B in accepting the QDRO despite lying about everything related to money for the last 5 years and also not providing the plan documentation Person B is legally required to have as a plan participant. It boils down to this: How can anyone outside of Person A know the DRO is legally qualified, if they handled every single step of procedure and also refuse to show their work as to how they deemed it qualified? On 2/19/2026 at 1:48 PM, justanotheradmin said: If person B wants to contact EBSA - they certainly could. None of the background information matters to EBSA. They would need to tell EBSA the date they presented the DRO to the plan, or the date the plan was notified there might be a QDRO, the date they requested a copy of the plan's QDRO policy in writing, and then any communication they received from the plan in response either saying no, we aren't giving you a copy, or you aren't entitled to it etc. If a participant/beneficiary is entitled to a plan disclosure, document, SPD etc, and they requested it and haven't received it, then I've seen good success when EBSA contacts the sponsor / plan admin to get it. and then EBSA forwards it on to that person. Person B has reached out to EBSA in the last week but I don't know anything more about it at this point. Thanks!
justanotheradmin Posted March 2 Posted March 2 I think you might be conflating "legally qualified" and "aligns with an equitable agreed upon division of marital property" . they are Not the same. Legally qualified for a DRO - is just a checklist based on the rules in Federal Law. Has almost nothing to do with the amount, value, formula of the benefit awarded written into a DRO for the alternate payee. Q: Does person B have a copy of the DRO? It not, perhaps they can get one from the court records. If yes - Q: is the Plan Administrator saying the DRO is Qualified? Was that communicated in writing from the Plan Administrator to person B? The DRO is not a QDRO until the plan says it is. And then the plan is required to provide person B with all the things - the QDRO procedures, the acceptance of the plan that it is qualified, information about segregation of the money into a separate account, or distribution options, etc. If the plan administrator is not providing those things, then person B can ask EBSA to help. If the plan administrator is refusing the say if the DRO is qualified or not - and person B wants it to be qualified - then person B needs to submit the DRO to the plan and ask them to deny it or qualify it. In writing. Q: Does Person B believe the benefit awarded in the DRO is NOT what was agreed to in the property settlement agreement? If they think the DRO is drafted wrong, and doesn't align with the agreed upon split of marital assets - then it is something for a family law attorney to work on. The Plan Administrator has no say in the formula or benefit award in a DRO, qualified or not. Person B should take a copy of the DRO and a copy of their marital property agreement to a family law attorney and ask them to see if the two align. If the issue is the Marital Property agreement should be amended - then that has nothing to do with the plan either. I'm a stranger on the internet. Nothing I write is tax or legal advice. I'd like a witty saying here, but I don't have any. When in doubt, what does the plan document say?
justanotheradmin Posted March 2 Posted March 2 4 hours ago, Bucksin6 said: Person A: Drafted the DRO without any input from Person B Person B's input isn't required, in fact some divorce agreements will specifically make drafting and filing a DRO the responsibility of a particular party so that the other party doesn't have to deal with it. 4 hours ago, Bucksin6 said: Qualified the DRO as they are the plan administrator Sent to the judge with their signature and their representation's signature The plan literally CANNOT make a DRO qualified until AFTER its been filed with the court. So either these are wrong, or out of order. 4 hours ago, Bucksin6 said: Person B has never signed the DRO or the QDRO Person B's signature is not required 4 hours ago, Bucksin6 said: Has not given Person B the plan's QDRO policy despite being asked dozens of times over the course of months keep track in writing or every written request and response for the information. This is something to hope EBSA can help with. 4 hours ago, Bucksin6 said: Person A is trying to strong arm Person B in accepting the QDRO despite lying about everything related to money for the last 5 years and also not providing the plan documentation Person B is legally required to have as a plan participant. I don't know what this means. Are they asking Person B to sign something? asking them to take money out of the plan? There isn't anything for an alternate payee to accept or reject. If they think the DRO was written wrong that is typically something for them and their lawyer to work out with the other person's lawyer. Not the plan. 4 hours ago, Bucksin6 said: It boils down to this: How can anyone outside of Person A know the DRO is legally qualified, if they handled every single step of procedure and also refuse to show their work as to how they deemed it qualified? I don't think this means what you think it means. for a DRO to be qualified - it literally just means that it has the appropriate information mandated by federal law, such as being able to identify the people involved, the plan involved, that the award isn't in a form that the plan doesn't allow etc. Qualified doesn't mean the order has a money split that is the same as what the parties agreed upon. QDROphile 1 I'm a stranger on the internet. Nothing I write is tax or legal advice. I'd like a witty saying here, but I don't have any. When in doubt, what does the plan document say?
Bucksin6 Posted March 4 Author Posted March 4 On 3/2/2026 at 4:25 PM, justanotheradmin said: The plan literally CANNOT make a DRO qualified until AFTER its been filed with the court. So either these are wrong, or out of order. I know have more information in regards to all the paperwork signed/filed etc. I can't say for certainty this is everything. I again want to point out that the Person A is the Plan Administrator. So any time I say Person A or Plan Administrator I could use either qualifier. This conflict of interest, lack of transparency and other fraud found out in regards to assets/income are why the actions of Person A/Plan Administrator are being questioned. MID January 2022, a file was submitted to court and electronically signed by the Judge, titled: QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. It lists out over a dozen definitions like plan name, participant, alternate payee and other legal information. At the end of the form it says: Approved As To Form Only and is signed by Person A/The Plan Administrator's attorney. However, the date on the signature says DECEMBER 2022. This attorney requested and received recusal from the case in JUNE 2022. A letter dated April 2022, Ascensus addresses person B, stating "regarding the QDRO dated END January 2022, a full two weeks after the judge's signature mentioned in the point above" and included Distribution Request Forms A letter dated the following day in April 2022, again addressed to person B, with the header "QDRO Notice", states "we are in receipt of a DRO assigning you benefits...". The next section says "Upon our review of the provisions of the Order in accordance with the attached QDRO procedure (not attached), we have determined that it meets all requirements to be considered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). The signature at the bottom is Person A/Plan Administrator. There is an attachment to this letter. That attachment is titled "Determination as to Qualification as QDRO", then lists court information, then again says "DETERMINATION AS TO QUALIFICATION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER", then states the parties involved/case number. This letter then states its purpose "The Plan Administrator hereby states and agrees as follows: The Attached Order is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. It is then signed MID MAY 2022 by the Plan Administrator/Person A. There are no court records for April or May of 2022. The only item signed by the judge was in January 2022.
QDROphile Posted March 5 Posted March 5 I continue to be drawn to the divorce proceeding, including the domestic relations order (NOT the qualification of the order by the plan), in which B does not seem to have participated in the identification, valuation, or terms of division of the plan interest in the context of the larger division of property between A and B in the divorce proceeding. That is a state court matter in which there may have been ignorance, inattention, unfairness, deception, omission, or other skulduggery, or not. There is nothing* about federal QDRO rules that relates to what B “should” or could get from the plan in consequence of divorce. In fact, the plan is generally not supposed to have any concern for what happened in the state court and may/should look only at whether the proposed QDRO appears to be an actual domestic relations order. The alarm about A’s position and behavior relating to the plan (other than refusal to provide (1) benefit information necessary for fairly adjudicating or settling rights in the state court divorce proceeding, and (2) information about plan procedures) seems misguided, despite the bad optics relating to A. The bad things that may have happened — or things that should have happened and did not — probably happened (or not) in the state court. Which brings me back to, “What does B think B should be getting from the plan by way of benefits that B is not getting under the terms of the QDRO?” The answer probably relates to the terms of the domestic relation order — the product of the state court — not the qualification of the domestic relations order by the plan. *Well, almost nothing. Bill Presson and justanotheradmin 2
justanotheradmin Posted March 5 Posted March 5 23 hours ago, Bucksin6 said: There are no court records for April or May of 2022. The only item signed by the judge was in January 2022. Why would there be? DRO gets written, submitted to the court, then someone forwards to the plan, plan determines if it is actually qualified or not (just having the word qualified on it doesn't make it qualified), If it is qualified - plan sends the alternate payee information about what they can do with their money that is in the plan. Which sounds like occurred when Ascensus sent the distribution forms. Nothing gets sent to the court again for QDROs. If there are issues about dates and representation - such as a posted dated item being filed with the court - that is something to take up with the court. As @QDROphile mentions, the things that you seem to take contention with, are not things the plan can resolve. A and B and their counsel need to work it out. I'm a stranger on the internet. Nothing I write is tax or legal advice. I'd like a witty saying here, but I don't have any. When in doubt, what does the plan document say?
Bucksin6 Posted March 6 Author Posted March 6 Thank you both for your responses. 21 hours ago, justanotheradmin said: DRO gets written, submitted to the court, then someone forwards to the plan, plan determines if it is actually qualified or not (just having the word qualified on it doesn't make it qualified), If it is qualified - plan sends the alternate payee information about what they can do with their money that is in the plan. So the steps SHOULD be: 1. Write DRO 2. Submit to court, judge signs off 3. Plan Qualifies or does not Qualify DRO 4. If Qualified, plan sends information to alternate payee about what they can do with their share of the money However, steps 3 and 4 aren't in order in this case. At least based on the dates of the files/forms Person B has been given: 1. Letter from Ascensus with distribution forms is dated END of April 2022 2. Letter from The Plan, signed by the Plan Administrator, indicating Person B will get information from Ascensus is dated the DAY AFTER the letter from Ascensus is dated 3. File signed and dated by the Plan Administrator qualifying the DRO in MID MAY 2022, almost two weeks after the dated letter and forms from Ascensus. Q: How can the Ascensus' letter claim Person B is entitled benefits, based on the information Person B has, from a DRO qualified after their letter was sent? One piece of information I received today is that the letter addressed to Person B from Ascensus with the distribution forms was sent to Person A/The Plan and then forwarded to Person B (not sure if this is standard procedure either). Person B already reached out to EBSA since they have never been given the QDRO procedure document (this document is mentioned in the file signed by the Plan Administrator in MID MAY 2022 qualifying the DRO so it must exist). Person B has also reached out directly to Ascensus for all documents they have on record concerning the QDRO, since all their communication with them has been through or with Person A attached.
justanotheradmin Posted March 6 Posted March 6 sounds like the DRO was forwarded to Ascensus for processing before the plan sent the letter to the alternate payee. Maybe they didn't want to sit on it or though Ascensus would take some time getting the information out. Its perhaps like giving someone who is leaving a job a distribution form for their 401(k) account before they leave, even though they can't take the money out until after their last day. If Person B took out the money from Ascensus before all the other things occurred, that might be an issue. and doing things out of order isn't ideal. but in this case, sounds like Person B hasn't actually filled out any Ascensus forms or moved the money out. Ascensus probably didn't look at the QDRO. The employer probably just filled out a form saying there is one, here's the benefit formula, here's the Alternate Payees information etc. They are going to take direction from the Plan Administrator( in this case sounds like the employer) If a step gets missed - the main corrective action is generally to then do that step. and improve plan procedures so the error doesn't happen again. So if the Alt payee wasn't notified BEFORE ascensus, well, they were notified after. Failure to follow the terms of the plan is a common error, but unless person B was harmed, such as not getting the full benefit awarded by the QDRO, I'm not sure what else you want the plan to do. Forwarding the forms - that can be standard procedure depending on the particular service arrangement with the financial institution. I'm a stranger on the internet. Nothing I write is tax or legal advice. I'd like a witty saying here, but I don't have any. When in doubt, what does the plan document say?
QDROphile Posted March 7 Posted March 7 I have another explanation, based on pure speculation that is less likely than the scenario offered by justanotheradmin, but it also is only a story of botched paper handling by an unsophisticated plan administrator and not anything untoward or that adversely affects anyone's plan interests. And I still see nothing to worry about in the description about how the formal qualification of the order was handled on behalf of the plan. I remind you that this forum is mostly for professionals to discuss technical matters. It is not designed to help individuals with their problems or questions about their individual circumstances. Some of us try to be more helpful than others, and none of us are offering advice on the boards that can be relied on in individual circumstances. We have been dismissive or reassuring (? depends on your point of view) about some of the concerns you raised and have offered some thoughts about where our concerns would be based on inadequate information (not meant as an insult -- you have done well for a nonprofessional in what appears to be a messy situation fraught with suspicions -- divorce is not pretty). I hope that there has been some clarification that helps the affected persons get the professional advice that that will resolve issues that may affect whether or not the plan benefits were divided as they "should" have been. justanotheradmin 1
Artie M Posted Tuesday at 05:40 PM Posted Tuesday at 05:40 PM Right, this is not an advice column. I responded once above and have not read all the various posts since (I am confident the responses contain a wealth of good information but I am not reading through all of them) because this appears to be a situation of one spouse being taken advantage of (or fearful of being taken advantage of) by another spouse. I did read the OPs posts for the facts and lingering questions. Staying in the lines (addressing QDRO question), the key facts seem to be Divorced May 2021, 50% split with valuation date in May 2021, daily valuation, assets not segregated (yet... I think... only quick read of facts). The only real questions you need answered are what was the value of the account on May __, 2021, the date of the divorce (presumably the date the 50% is assigned). So, you want a copy of the P's account statement for that month to ensure that the value you have been given is in the ballpark and you want Ascensus to give you something stating that the amount assigned to you is the amount in the account on May __, 2021, the daily valuation amount. Ascensus is not going to collude with the P and give you bad info. They have no stake in this and are too big to worry about the ex-spouse. Then since this was almost 5 years ago hopefully the QDRO contains language that the assigned value should include earnings and losses from the date of assignment to the date of actual segregation (i.e., the funds are put into an account in AP's name). AP wants the earnings clause since the market has experienced substantial growth since May 2021 (even with recent dips). Otherwise, AP doesn't get those earnings. It sounds like the amounts have never been segregated which may be good because AP has not been able to direct the investments, etc. If the QDRO contains all this language, then seems like AP's next questions should be why hasn't the amount been segregated and why haven't the distribution and/or investment forms been provided? Wanting the language from the Plan, etc. is just window dressing ... AP: just get your 50% and move on. The Plan is not going to have any language that affects your split. The Procedures will just lay out what ERISA requires, etc. Daily valuation is daily valuation. Move on with life.... Just my thoughts so DO NOT take my ramblings as advice.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now