Troyan, A Legendary Actuarial Consulting Firm, For Pension Evaluations.

Court Admissible Reports Per Your Jurisdiction at an affordable cost.

We specialize in retirement plan analysis for divorce & economic loss matters

court admitted pension experts, available to testify nationwide.

Pension evaluations prepared for lawyers, mediators, & non-attorney litigants.

We guarantee your qdro gets approved!

headquarters of troyan, inc. Home of accucalc & accuqdro software

Pension Evaluation Lawyer Services Downloads Fee Schedule Pay Online Online Order Form
Pension Evaluation
Basic Pension Principles
Cases
Community Property
Dividing Marital or Community Property
Divorce & Retirement FAQs
Equitable Distribution
Experience with Your Plan
Pension Evaluation Issues
Pensions
Retirement Terms
Social Security Offsets
State Pension Evaluation Alerts
State Pension Evaluation Classification
State Specific Information
State Retirement Plans and Divorce Information
State Listing of Statuses Disallowing Personal Identities In QDROs
State Analysis of IRA Exemptions
Collection Laws and Exemptions by State
Tax Treatment in Pension Evaluation
Distribution from Qualified Plans
Webutation
Click here to learn more about pension evaluations
Get a pension evaluation in less than 1 week Click here to read and print our company forms

Cut-Off Date

Listed Chronologically

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

VEIDT v. COOK, Unpublished Decision (6-21-2004)

Case No. CA2003-08-209.

June 21, 2004.

{1} Plaintiff-appellant, Vernon Byron Veidt, appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, denying both his motion to clarify the terms of the divorce decree regarding retirement benefits and his motion for relief from judgment.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

BYRON v. BYRON , Unpublished Decision (4-22-2004)

Case No. 03AP-819.

Rendered on April 22, 2004.

{1} Defendant-appellant, Bruce A. Byron, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, that granted the motion of plaintiff-appellee, Deborah M. Byron (n.k.a. Zak), to hold defendant in contempt for failure to comply with the trial court's divorce decree. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

New Hampshire Case Law

IN THE MATTER OF SUTTON AND SUTTON , 148 N.H. 676 (2002)

No. 2001-531

Opinion Issued December 17, 2002

The petitioner, Anne C. Sutton, appeals from the final divorce decree recommended by a Master (Larry B. Pletcher, Esq.) and approved by the Family Division (Cyr, J.). We affirm.

Hawaii Case Law

KAEO v. KAEO , 24326 (Haw. App. 11-19-2002)

No. 24326

November 19, 2002.

Defendant-Appellant Agenhart Wayne Kaeo (Agenhart) appeals the division and distribution of the property and debts of the parties part of the Decree Granting Absolute Divorce entered on May 9, 2001. We vacate that part and remand.

Alaska Case Law

WILLIAMS v. CRAWFORD , 47 P.3d 1077 (Alaska 2002)

No. S-9791.

February 8, 2002. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing June 24, 2002.

This case is before us for the second time. In Williams v. Crawford, we remanded with instructions that Camille Williams be awarded "one-half of the value of the marital portion of [William McVey's] civil service pension - valued as of the date the parties entered into the property settlement agreement, August 12, 1992."[fn1] On remand, the superior court awarded Camille one-half of the marital share of the pension benefits that William, who died in June 1995, had actually received. Because this award turned on information - the actual date of William's death - not available on August 12, 1992, when the parties entered into their agreement, we vacate the award and remand for further proceedings.

Hawaii Case Law

DONNELLY v. DONNELLY , 98 Haw. 280 (App. 2002)

No. 23462

May 6, 2002. Certiorari Denied June 10, 2002.

Defendant-Appellant William Horace Donnelly (William) appeals from the May 3, 2000 Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Motion for Reconsideration, Alteration or Amendment of Decree (Order Granting Motion for Amendment), entered by District Family Judge Linda K. C. Luke. We affirm the order appealed and remand for two changes to the January 15, 2000 Divorce Decree.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

AVERY v. AVERY , Unpublished Decision (3-8-2002)

C.A. Case No. 2001-CA-100. T.C. Case No. 00-DR-0389.

Rendered March 8, 2002.

This case is before us on an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment and decree of divorce. The parties in this case were married for about fifteen years and have one minor child (William). During the marriage, the husband (Joseph) was in the United States Air Force. Before the divorce was filed, Joseph began receiving military retirement benefits. The proper allocation of those benefits is a major issue in the appeal. Also at issue are the spousal support and child support awards, child care expenses, and educational expenses for the minor child. In discussing these points, we will first address the wife's (Virginia's) appeal, and then we will consider Joseph's cross-appeal. Before we do so, however, we will briefly consider whether the cross-appeal is properly before us.

Minnesota Reports

IN RE JOHNSON v. JOHNSON , 627 N.W.2d 359 (Minn.App. 2001)

No. C0-00-1654

Filed May 29, 2001.

On appeal from an order denying post-decree motions, appellant challenges the district court's rulings (1) allowing respondent to voluntarily reduce appellant's portion of respondent's pension benefits and (2) denying appellant attorney fees and costs. Because the district court did not err in clarifying the amended decree by stating it did not limit respondent's right to elect survivor annuity benefits and did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's request for attorney fees, we affirm.

Wisconsin Case Law

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF WETTSTAEDT , 2001 WI App 94, 242 Wis.2d 709

Case No. 00-3061.

Opinion Released: March 8, 2001. Opinion Filed: March 8, 2001.

Diane Wettstaedt appeals an order which reduces the amount of maintenance her former husband must pay to her by the amount of pension benefits she receives under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)[fn1] entered at the time of the divorce. She claims the trial court erred in reducing the amount of Gary Wettstaedt's maintenance obligation because her receipt of pension benefits does not constitute a substantial change in circumstances, and because the trial court's order results in the impermissible "double-counting" of the pension benefits as both an asset for property division and as income for the maintenance determination. We disagree and conclude the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in modifying the maintenance obligation in light of Diane's receipt of pension benefits under the QDRO.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial / Appeals Courts

DAUGHERTY v. DAUGHERTY , 50 Mass. App. Ct. 738 (2001)

No. 96-P-1656.

January 23, 2001.

The husband appeals a postdivorce judgment of the Probate and Family Court providing for property division and alimony. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

New Jersey Superior Court Reports

LA SALA v. LA SALA , 335 N.J. Super. 1 (2000)

DOCKET NO. A-5512-98T5

Decided November 3, 2000 Page 2

Plaintiff Karleen LaSala and defendant Alfred LaSala were in the midst of a divorce proceeding when plaintiff requested equitable distribution of defendant's Police and Firemen's pension before defendant retired. The trial court divorced the parties on April 19, 1999 and directed the Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen's Retirement System ("PFRS") to commence immediate monthly payments to plaintiff and to continue these payments for the remainder of her life or until one-half the value of defendant's pension has been paid, whichever comes first. The trial court's written decision explaining the pension distribution was published at LaSalla v. LaSalla[fn1], 324 N.J. Super. 265, 285 (Ch. Div. 1999). PFRS now appeals, and we reverse.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

HUFFMAN v. HUFFMAN , Unpublished Decision (6-21-2000)

Case No. 98 C.A. 136.

June 21, 2000.

This matter presents a timely appeal from a judgment rendered by the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, overruling the objections to the magistrate's decision filed by defendant-appellant, Donald Scott Huffman.

Wisconsin Case Law

IN RE MARRIAGE OF WASHINGTON v. WASHINGTON , 2000 WI 47 234 Wis.2d 689

Case No.: 98-1234.

Opinion Filed: June 7, 2000.

This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, Washington v. Washington, No. 98-1234, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App., June 9, 1999), affirming an order of the circuit court for Ozaukee County, Joseph D. McCormack, Circuit Judge. The circuit court denied Gail M. Washington's post-divorce motion to grant her appreciation and interest, from the date of divorce until pension payments begin, on her award of a lump-sum share of her ex-husband Melvin K. Washington's federal employee pension. The circuit court held that Wis. Stat. § 767.32(1)(a) (1997-98) prohibited the circuit court from modifying or revising the provisions of the judgment and order with respect to the final division of property.[fn1]

Arkansas Cases

ROBERTS v. ROBERTS , 70 Ark. App. 94 (2000)

CA 99-722

Opinion delivered April 19, 2000

Appellant Michael Roberts appeals the March 16, 1999, Decree of Divorce from his wife, Jennifer Roberts. On appeal he argues the following points: (1) the trial court erred in entering a final decree of divorce without distributing all marital property as required by Ark. Code Ann § 9-12-315 (a)(1)(A) (Repl. 1998), and (2) the trial court erred in ruling that the property which is to be distributed should be divided as of the date of the hearing of statutory grounds for divorce, rather than when the decree is entered. We dismiss.

Missouri Case Law

FIELD v. REDFIELD , 985 S.W.2d 912 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999)

No. ED74271.

January 12, 1999. MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR TRANSFER TO SUPREME COURT DENIED: February 22, 1999. APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER DENIED: March 23, 1999.

[1] Robert Allen Redfield (husband) appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in favor of Mary Susan Field (wife) on her motion for summary judgment filed subsequent to the filing of her Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Award of Marital Property (petition).

Colorado Case Law

In Re Marriage of Lockwood , 971 P.2d 264 (Colo. App. April 30, 1998)

No. 97CA0233

April 30, 1998 Rehearing Denied June 18, 1998 Certiorari Denied January 25, 1999

[1] Ronald W. Lockwood (husband) and Lore M. L. Lockwood (wife) both appeal the trial court's division of property in the permanent orders entered after the dissolution of their marriage. Husband additionally appeals a judgment entered against him on wife's motion for post-trial relief. We reverse both judgments and remand for further proceedings.

New Jersey Superior Court Reports

RIENZI v. RIENZI , 300 N.J. Super. 355 (1997)

Decided April 29, 1997.

Defendant Gerald Rienzi appeals from a post-judgment order entered pursuant to a 1986 divorce judgment, requiring him to make certain payments to plaintiff Josephine Rienzi as equitable distribution of her share of his state pension benefits. After a plenary hearing, the motion judge concluded that Gerald had not fulfilled his obligation to Josephine with respect to his retirement pension from the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and granted her relief accordingly.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Reports

FULTZ v. SHAFFER 111 Md. App. 278 (1996)

No. 1657, September Term, 1995.

August 29, 1996.

In this case, we are asked to determine whether disability retirement benefits, received as a result of an injury occurring after the parties' divorce, were properly considered retirement benefits pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties, which entitled the wife to share in a portion of her former husband's "pension and retirement benefits" if, as, and when paid to him. The trial court found that appellee, Roberta Shaffer, was in fact entitled to receive a share of those disability benefits, despite the claim by her former husband, appellant, Douglas Fultz, that the settlement agreement did not encompass them. He appealed the trial court's judgment, asking: Whether the Trial Court erroneously awarded the former wife a marital share of the former husband's disability benefits paid as a result of injury and total disability occurring after the divorce. We are advised that, subsequent to taking this appeal, Douglas Fultz died; we are told that a suggestion of death has been, or will be, filed with this Court. We note that, because the underlying case involves the classification of significant property rights, our disposition of this appeal will not abate as a result of Mr. Fultz's death. See Goldman v. Walker, 260 Md. 222, 224-25, 271 A.2d 639 (1970).

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports

GRIEVE v. MANKEY , 451 Pa. Super. 318 (1996)

Filed July 1, 1996.

The appellant, David Michael Mankey, appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (per Mulligan, J.) awarding a fifty percent interest in his Public School Employees Retirement System (PSERS) pension to the appellee, Dolores Jean Grieve. We affirm.

Alaska Case Law

HATTEN v. HATTEN , 917 P.2d 667 (Alaska 1996)

No. S-6183.

May 31, 1996.

In this appeal we are required to determine whether the superior court properly characterized and apportioned tort litigation proceeds in dividing a marital estate upon divorce. In addition, this appeal involves an attorney's fees issue.

Oklahoma Case Law

THIELENHAUS v. THIELENHAUS , 1995 OK 5

No. 80048.

January 31, 1995. As Corrected February 1 and 9, 1995.

[1] This certiorari presses for our decision two first-impression issues: (1) What portion, if any, of the in-marriage[fn1] increase in the husband's retirement fund is divisible as marital property? and if any be divisible, (2) What cut-off date should be set for valuation of this marital asset? We hold: (a) that the in-marriage enhancement (or growth) in the husband's retirement fund which is attributable to the employer's participatory payments[fn2] or to either spouse's monetary contribution, skill or effort is a divisible marital asset, but any increase in the husband's separate (pre-marital) interest in that fund, produced by investment (managed by neither spouse), appreciation, inflation, changing economic conditions or circumstances beyond the parties' control is to be deemed the husband's separate property; and (b) the cut-off date to be set for valuation of the divisible marital interest in the fund is the date the nisi prius court reached this suit for trial that is now on certiorari review. Because the record is insufficient for this court to determine the value of the divisible in-marriage enhancement component of the marital asset in the retirement fund, we remand the cause for further proceedings.

Indiana Case Law

SKINNER v. SKINNER , 644 N.E.2d 141 (Ind. App. 1994)

No. 29A02-9403-CV-111.

December 7, 1994.

David B. Skinner appeals the judgment in his marital dissolution action against Carla S. Skinner, presenting the following consolidated and restated issues for review: I. Did the trial court err in dividing the marital assets?

Missouri Case Law

DUKES v. DUKES , 859 S.W.2d 264 (Mo.App.S.D. 1993)

No. 18558.

August 19, 1993.

[1] Appellant, Priscilla Dale Dukes (wife), filed an action in equity against her former husband, Gerald Ernest Dukes (husband). Claiming that the husband's non-disability military pension was omitted from the parties' October 15, 1982, dissolution decree through accident or mistake, the wife sought to have the trial court divide and award to her a proportionate share of that pension. Her request was rejected and this appeal followed. We affirm.

Arizona Case Law

IN RE MARRIAGE OF FLYNN , 168 Ariz. 269 (App. 1991)

No. 2 CA-CV 90-0195.

January 31, 1991. Review Granted July 10, 1991.

This is an appeal from the trial court's judgment finding that appellee was entitled to 49 percent of appellant's military retirement benefits and the award of a judgment in appellee's favor in the sum of $35,834.37. Appellant concedes that appellee is entitled to 49 percent of his military pension, but contends that the trial court abused its discretion in not applying the doctrine of laches and in granting complete retroactivity. We agree and reverse with directions.

Alaska Case Law

BAYS v. BAYS , 807 P.2d 482 (Alaska 1991)

No. S-3635.

March 15, 1991.

Raymond Bays appeals from a judgment of the superior court which awarded his ex-wife, Judy Wilmarth, formerly Judy Bays, temporary rehabilitative support and an interest in his pension plan. Raymond argues that the superior court abused its discretion by awarding rehabilitation alimony. He also claims that the superior court invaded his "separate" pre-marital and post-separation property without justification when it equally divided his entire pension as of the time of trial. Finally, Raymond argues that the court improperly calculated his child support obligation under Civil Rule 90.3.

Virginia Court of Appeals Reports

CLEMENTS v. CLEMENTS , 10 Va. App. 580 (1990)

46360 No. 1182-88-4 No. 1227-88-4

Decided July 17, 1990

Sylvia J. Clements (wife) and Douglas M. Clements (husband) both appeal from a decree in which the trial court awarded the husband a divorce on the grounds of adultery. The final decree provided for a $50,000 monetary award to the wife.

Indiana Case Law

WAGGONER v. WAGGONER , 531 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. App. 1988)

No. 57A03-8803-CV-75.

December 19, 1988.

Appellant Richard P. Waggoner appeals the trial court's order in the dissolution of his marriage to Janet A. Waggoner. Richard P. Waggoner argues that the trial court erred in paragraph 8 of its judgment and findings. Paragraph 8 reads, in part: "8. That during the course of the marriage the husband (age 46) worked for International Harvester (now Navistar) and acquired pension benefits. That the value of the pension is subject to some dispute due to the fact that when the husband achieves 30 years of credited pension service (approximately June 30, 1991) the pension benefits will be greatly enhanced over their current level. On date of separation the husband had 25.4 years of credited service. The court finds that given the uncertainty of the husband achieving the 30 years credited service milestone; and the present diversity of the evidence as to the value of the pension (largely due to the uncertainty of the husband achieving the 30 year pension plateau) that the court should take the pension issue under advisement until such time as the uncertainties have been removed by events and the passage of time (on or about June 30, 1991)." In Indiana divorce proceedings, the trial court must divide the marital property in a just and reasonable manner. In making the division, the trial court must dispose of all the marital property in one final settlement. No part of the distribution may be conditioned upon a subsequent change in circumstances. Since all marital property must be disposed of, the trial court must have before it a fixed, presently ascertainable value for the assets. Murphy v. Murphy (1987), Ind. App., 510 N.E.2d 235, 236-237.

California Courts of Appeal Reports

IN RE MARRIAGE OF CASTLE , 180 Cal.App.3d 206 (1986)

Docket No. D002869.

April 23, 1986.

In this case involving the division of a military pension, both parties, William Robert Castle (William) and Beryl Geraldine Castle (Beryl), appeal from portions of the trial court order.

New Hampshire Case Law

HODGINS v. HODGINS , 126 N.H. 711 (1985)

No. 84-445

Decided July 1, 1985

The plaintiff in this divorce action, Bernice Hodgins, appeals from a final order recommended by a Master (Stephanie T. Nute, Esq.) and approved by the Superior Court (Contas, J.), as modified after rehearing and approved by Gray, J. The principal issues before us are: (1) whether the award of alimony to the plaintiff was adequate, and (2) whether the master, in distributing the parties' property, took proper account of Mr. Hodgins's pension plan. We affirm on the first issue and remand for further findings of fact on the second.

Washington Court of Appeals Reports

MARRIAGE OF WOOD , 34 Wn. App. 892 (1983)

No. 4629-0-III.

June 9, 1983.

Gene Lee Wood and Rosemary Annette Wood were married on July 10, 1955. At this time, the husband had been in the Air Force approximately 2 1/2 years. He retired on June 1, 1973, and received $841.44 military retirement pay per month.

Idaho Case Law

SHILL v. SHILL , 100 Idaho 433 (1979)

No. 12948.

September 11, 1979.

Appellant Jeanette T. Shill and respondent Douglas K. Shill were married September 29, 1957. In April, 1958, Douglas Shill was hired by the City of Burley, Idaho, fire department and commenced making contributions from his wages to the State of Idaho Firemen's Retirement Fund, established pursuant to Title 72, chapter 14, of the Idaho Code. On October 24, 1977, appellant and respondent were divorced. At the time of the divorce Douglas Shill had completed nineteen and one half years of employment with the City of Burley fire department and had been promoted to the position of fire chief.

Available M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST
Toll Free: 800.221.0706 Tel: 732.212.1114
Fax: 732.212.1113
info@pension-evaluators.com

Pension Evaluators® at Troyan, Inc.
P.O. Box 8722
Red Bank, New Jersey 07701

> Back to top

 

Visitor Security About Us Resources Contact Us
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.