can a QDRO be included in a bankruptcy ?

[kolabok]

THis is not about your views of how well off she is...the point is you were ordered to pay her XX out of your pension account and somehow you got distribution of the entire account made to you.

AS a practical matter it may make no sense to issue a QDRO to the administrator of a now empty pot ...but the intent of the order is clear...you owe her let's say $40,000 and some judge might not be amused at your games.....as an extreme example some bright guy in the Philadelphia area made his divorce payment money disappear...the judge said go get it, the guy said I cannot find it, the judge threw him in jail for DECADES on contempt ...and for technical reasons it is hard to set aside or appeal a nonfinal order , it was decades before he got out.

I suppose you could recreate a retirement account to replecitate her share ...but I suspect that's one heck of a lot of legal and tax work, if the law even allows for same .

Why not just pay her in full ? Get over your sour grapes.

Funny ! I'm broke and need to survive life after 50 and thereabouts. Sure cut a check from the only money I have. don't you think most people that visit here are already wound-up with their legal problems and from time to time spurt out blah blah, human nature don't you know ?
not amused by your logic, for one you do not have all the facts and therefore only opinionate ,thank god. secondly, there are always two entities involved in a dispute, thirdly she is as culpable as I for not upholding her side of the contract. And lastly no more lawyers that prey on this feeding frenzy with divorcee's. very lucrative business, helping people fight each other in a court setting with a liquored up judge who probably has more problems than everybody else in the room. Finding an edge is why I came here, evidently nothing new under the sun.
But I will give credit where it is due. Right about one thing, its all about the document and what it says. step 1, then 2 and so on and so forth until the document is satisfied, whoever misses a step is vulnerable.

Now I understand why people go off the grid.

 

[LdiJ]

Funny ! I'm broke and need to survive life after 50 and thereabouts. Sure cut a check from the only money I have. don't you think most people that visit here are already wound-up with their legal problems and from time to time spurt out blah blah, human nature don't you know ?
not amused by your logic, for one you do not have all the facts and therefore only opinionate ,thank god. secondly, there are always two entities involved in a dispute, thirdly she is as culpable as I for not upholding her side of the contract. And lastly no more lawyers that prey on this feeding frenzy with divorcee's. very lucrative business, helping people fight each other in a court setting with a liquored up judge who probably has more problems than everybody else in the room. Finding an edge is why I came here, evidently nothing new under the sun.
But I will give credit where it is due. Right about one thing, its all about the document and what it says. step 1, then 2 and so on and so forth until the document is satisfied, whoever misses a step is vulnerable.

Now I understand why people go off the grid.

Don't you think that your ex needs the money just as badly as you do? I do not understand why people do not live up to their obligations in a divorce and then whine about it later.

 

[HRZ]

....

Well I don't think you are funny at all...you knew darn were there was a legal requirement to pay her. $ X. Or % Y out of a retirement account ! And for unrelated reason, you took or were given possession of the entire account and did not give her her share , instead you converted what should have been her share to your personal use ...and least in a moral sense you used her money .

Personally I think you owe her her full share adjusted for performance thru the date it's delivered to her...and by that I mean if the underlying fund went up 30 % since you took possession then you owe 30 % more .

WHether you eat Spam for a few years and live in a tent has nothing to do with it

ALL the rest of it is water over the dam...you had various appeal rights and rights to seek she follow the order ...but as for your duty to pay out ..that's still valid and you semingly never enter a timely appeal about that.

 

[kolabok]

Don't you think that your ex needs the money just as badly as you do? I do not understand why people do not live up to their obligations in a divorce and then whine about it later.

would it help if I told you she was from the Ukraine ? Tracking with me ?

 

[HRZ]

NO....you keep thinking of excuses not to comply with the intent of the order and admitting you got the entire proceeds of that account .

It would not matter if she hit the lottery and married the richest man in the Ukraine and had 7 recent DUI arrests .
AT least morally, you spent her money after it was award to her ..and in violation of spirit if not the letter of the order .....worse conduct in my view than Mr CHadwicks..

 

[kolabok]

NO....you keep thinking of excuses not to comply with the intent of the order and admitting you got the entire proceeds of that account .

It would not matter if she hit the lottery and married the richest man in the Ukraine and had 7 recent DUI arrests .
AT least morally, you spent her money after it was award to her ..and in violation of spirit if not the letter of the order .....worse conduct in my view than Mr CHadwicks..

1. The divorce decree has never been approved by the retirement administrator from the prior employer because the x-spouses' lawyer would not change the language in the document to suit the retirement administrators liking.
unfortunate I am no longer working for that entity and decided to take out the money to SURVIVE, since I am unable to gain employment.
There are two retirements involved via same employer, pension plan which I have received and the deferred comp plan (Stock market) of which I can not even get a dime if I wanted too. The county didn't care if they cut me a check or not, they are absolved of this matter In so far as the pension portion.

Secondly, I never said I would not cut her the portion she is entitled too. It is based on the years of marriage, no the length of my employment. There are circumstances I resist, however this is not the topic at hand. the current laws of VA, allow a married woman with a child to extract a man's testicles thru his wallet. Look at the VA state flag, woman standing over the man with her foot on his neck, nice!
3. She (x-spouse has never attempted to live up to her part of the decree to begin with, as ordered in the document. If anything she is in conflict and violation of the divorce decree, as in medical, dental, academic and so on. In fact she was commanded by the court to pay child support, albeit a small sum every month. not received a dime from her as commanded by the court (have all receipts to prove the point).
4. The fact that I have not officially retired, means nothing about dispersing funds to her at this moment. I could reinvest the money or just let in sit in a bank account until such time As I officially reach retirement age set by our great government.
5. The divorce decree is in a limbo and technically because of the broken legal system remain that way until a new empire emerged, I suppose.
All I need to do is to start the ball rolling again is do item number 1 on the list and go to court and say hey, no child support for 3 years, no help with medical, dental, academic and so on.

Simply we both paid over 60k for this document that nobody gives a rats ass about (I think this is why lawyers have the label rip-offs, just listening to the pulse of America) and will set there for a long time. The ridiculous thing about this scenario, is I have vested heavily into the differed comp plan and because of the divorce, I cant change the contributions what so ever. Basically I would be better off throwing the money into the woodstove as kindling.

Anyway, hopefully this sheds light on the dilemma and the reason for including this in to a bankruptcy proceeding

 

[kolabok]

Don't you think that your ex needs the money just as badly as you do? I do not understand why people do not live up to their obligations in a divorce and then whine about it later.

she is in violation firstly to begin with. ready other post before this one

 

[Taxing Matters]

But that provision of the Bankruptcy Code has nothing whatsoever do with a QDRO which prescribes the respective property rights of husband and wife in a retirement or pension plan. It does not represent an obligation owed by one spouse to the other.

And that is the heart of the problem. The QDRO is not a debt of the OP to his ex-spouse and therefore is not something that can be discharged in bankruptcy. I found no Fourth Circuit opinion directly on point, but the Ninth Circuit explains it well:

ERISA section 1056 permits a state court to apportion pension proceeds pursuant to state domestic relations laws so long as the order complies with the section's QDRO requirements. Whether Colleen had acquired a QDRO at the time of William's bankruptcy, however, is irrelevant for the purposes of this appeal. Colleen does not have a personal claim against William that could be discharged by his bankruptcy-her rights are against United. Furthermore, William's rights to United's pension plans were limited, or subject to limitation by Colleen, at the time of the divorce decree and he cannot use bankruptcy to obtain a greater interest in an asset than that which he possessed prior to bankruptcy. Finally, to allow William to cut off Colleen's right to obtain a QDRO based on the timing of his bankruptcy petition would subvert Congress' efforts to safeguard the financial interests of plan participants' spouses and protect plan administrators from inconsistent claims on pension proceeds, without furthering bankruptcy's goal of preserving a pool of assets to be divided among the debtor's creditors. Accordingly, we hold that Colleen's claim against the pension plan for a portion of the benefits is not discharged by William's bankruptcy petition.​

In re Gendreau, 122 F.3d 815, 819 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, the OP can’t use bankruptcy here to deny his ex-wife her share of the plan that the state court has already said is hers, even if the formal QDRO documents themselves have not yet been filed with the plan administrator.

 

[kolabok]

And that is the heart of the problem. The QDRO is not a debt of the OP to his ex-spouse and therefore is not something that can be discharged in bankruptcy. I found no Fourth Circuit opinion directly on point, but the Ninth Circuit explains it well:

ERISA section 1056 permits a state court to apportion pension proceeds pursuant to state domestic relations laws so long as the order complies with the section's QDRO requirements. Whether Colleen had acquired a QDRO at the time of William's bankruptcy, however, is irrelevant for the purposes of this appeal. Colleen does not have a personal claim against William that could be discharged by his bankruptcy-her rights are against United. Furthermore, William's rights to United's pension plans were limited, or subject to limitation by Colleen, at the time of the divorce decree and he cannot use bankruptcy to obtain a greater interest in an asset than that which he possessed prior to bankruptcy. Finally, to allow William to cut off Colleen's right to obtain a QDRO based on the timing of his bankruptcy petition would subvert Congress' efforts to safeguard the financial interests of plan participants' spouses and protect plan administrators from inconsistent claims on pension proceeds, without furthering bankruptcy's goal of preserving a pool of assets to be divided among the debtor's creditors. Accordingly, we hold that Colleen's claim against the pension plan for a portion of the benefits is not discharged by William's bankruptcy petition.​

In re Gendreau, 122 F.3d 815, 819 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, the OP can’t use bankruptcy here to deny his ex-wife her share of the plan that the state court has already said is hers, even if the formal QDRO documents themselves have not yet been filed with the plan administrator.

the clearest definition yet, thank you

 

[HRZ]

OP you now add a new critical wrinkle...the spouse's attorney apparently dropped the ball to complete the QDRO ?

Do you by chance have a governmental plan which operates under a different set of rules outside of ERISA?

ITs going to be interesting if and when the ex wises up and gets a ODRO entered against an empty pot that you admit was earlier delivered to you and you balk at making her portion whole for a lot of your views as to your personal issues.

Your view of your marriage rights or women's roles or her conduct or any other supposed violations of the order she may have committed is not relevant Unless perhaps some court allows for an offset of sums due her by sums due you for child support and not otherwise paid ( which I doubt )

Your views of women are somewhere back with my stepfathers generation who thought it amusing to list the wife in legal docuements as " et ox "

 

[kolabok]

[QUOTE=HRZ;3489998]OP you now add a new critical wrinkle...the spouse's attorney apparently dropped the ball to complete the QDRO ?

Dropped? Why do people think lawyers are so honest and sincere? This fat cat lawyer had ample warnings and plenty of time to fix a half dozen words or so and submit it back to the approving authority of the one part of the pension plan. We call this back home a "money pit". It is acrimonious to having to stop at the gas station each time for a gallon of gas of a journey of a thousand miles. Apparent or not, is unknown, but having sent two certified letters to her attorney to wrap up his much delayed, and paid for services to fulfill his part in this monstrosity. How is that ethical and fair to me?

Do you by chance have a governmental plan which operates under a different set of rules outside of ERISA?

I did not see the language, but what is the relevance to a local government entity's retirement system. I do not believe it has any advantages to my situation

ITs going to be interesting if and when the ex wises up and gets a ODRO entered against an empty pot that you admit was earlier delivered to you and you balk at making her portion whole for a lot of your views as to your personal issues.


1. No one is eligible for retirement as 2017 and would not be edible to receive retirement funds until the obligor has legally retired. I just can't just jump up and say I am retired and expect my pension to automatically appear from nowhere. Now that being said, an individual who is terminated, quits or other could request the annuity with all the taxes and penalties piled on top and that would also affect the obliges portion as well, no tax break for the poor divorced woman neither. She already knows and even admitted to me that her attorney was attempting to put a lien on it. I believe the problem is, she doesn't want to spend a dollar to get a quarter and I can understand the argument for having to pay (waste) more money to an otherwise worthless cause of giving her attorney another nice vacation.



Your view of your marriage rights or women's roles or her conduct or any other supposed violations of the order she may have committed is not relevant Unless perhaps some court allows for an offset of sums due her by sums due you for child support and not otherwise paid ( which I doubt )


It would appear there are those who hold a biased opinion, perhaps thru their own trials and tribulations and would insult the intelligence of this forum with pointed rhetoric which does not provide for avenue of discovery of the warrants that make inference to the claim. There always two sides in an argument. To be fair the x-spouse can not respond with her claim. And I certainly would not bid ill will towards the mother of my daughter. How would that look having one spouse in a divorce, having the other spouse put in jail for what money? What about the children in this country who have endured such lopsided justice? You wonder why America is sliding to the tipping point in all things. Everyone is a victim in divorces'

Your views of women are somewhere back with my stepfathers generation who thought it amusing to list the wife in legal docuements as " et ox "[/QUOTE]


I asked in an earlier post, (not sure why it is not posted, unless I am being censored), what do you mean by this statement?


thank you

 

[kolabok]

finished with topic

thanks to all, even the ardent hardliners in all matters of legally spewing forth opinions and such. I suppose that is what makes America, well American. In that note, ALL, empires, kingdoms and governments, run their course and disappear in he chronicles of history. It is sad to see my country and home diverge into so many ways to make money and take money thru otherwise what are devices of immoral men bent with instinctive behaviors to allow rich to become and the poor slide into deeper poverty. Yeah a waste, we could be so much better

informative, somewhat combative and a display of intelligence with a pinch of sarcasm

thanks to all for entertaining the OP's question

 

[HRZ]

I hope the judge thinks you are funny. Mr Chadwick sat in jail to think about it for 14 years