Need Published Precident Cases Fed and CA state supporting Valuation of QDRO (defined

[skywalker2009]

Jurisdiction - Family Law, County of Contra Costa, CALIF

Two IRA Accounts (valuation @ 12/06 approx $40K.

My counsel (Petitioner) will not support my desire to value @ separation. Claims Calif law establishes valuation closest to decree date.

These accounts have suffered loss in value 60% effective today, and decree is not forthcoming anytime soon. Judge is new to family law and not familiar with this area.

These two accounts were left out of equaliztion of assets, but are listed in MSA to be QDRO'd. There are offset monies I presently owe because of this. I contend that the date of separation should pevail, not the decree date, and further that I do not share in gains or losses.

My research finds conflict of position on both sides of issue, but not supporting case law.
Pls help

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by skywalker2009

Jurisdiction - Family Law, County of Contra Costa, CALIF

Two IRA Accounts (valuation @ 12/06 approx $40K.

My counsel (Petitioner) will not support my desire to value @ separation. Claims Calif law establishes valuation closest to decree date.

These accounts have suffered loss in value 60% effective today, and decree is not forthcoming anytime soon. Judge is new to family law and not familiar with this area.

These two accounts were left out of equaliztion of assets, but are listed in MSA to be QDRO'd. There are offset monies I presently owe because of this. I contend that the date of separation should pevail, not the decree date, and further that I do not share in gains or losses.

My research finds conflict of position on both sides of issue, but not supporting case law.
Pls help

Let me rephrase this because I want to make sure that I understand...

Your ex had 2 IRAs worth 40k at separations, that are now worth 16k.

You feel that you are entitled to 1/2 of the amount at separation, or 20k.

You did not do what was necessary to separate the accounts when you and your spouse separated. If you had, then you would have suffered the same losses that your spouse suffered, unless you cashed out your share.

I could understand your feeling that way if your intention was to cash out your share, and your spouse deliberately slowed down the process of the QDRO and you being able to cash out your share. However, if neither of you treated that as something that needed to be urgently handled, then you need to deal with its value today.

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by skywalker2009

Jurisdiction - Family Law, County of Contra Costa, CALIF

Two IRA Accounts (valuation @ 12/06 approx $40K.

My counsel (Petitioner) will not support my desire to value @ separation. Claims Calif law establishes valuation closest to decree date.

These accounts have suffered loss in value 60% effective today, and decree is not forthcoming anytime soon. Judge is new to family law and not familiar with this area.

These two accounts were left out of equaliztion of assets, but are listed in MSA to be QDRO'd. There are offset monies I presently owe because of this. I contend that the date of separation should pevail, not the decree date, and further that I do not share in gains or losses.

My research finds conflict of position on both sides of issue, but not supporting case law.
Pls help

Your attorney is giving you good advice. Even though you could not have had the money distributed to you, you could have asked the court to have 1/2 of the IRA converted to cash for your half. (That is, you could have petitioned the court: "I don't want to take any risk with my 1/2 of the IRA, so please order that 1/2 be converted to cash and that will be my half. The other half will belong to stbx and he will get any gains or losses from that half"). You didn't do so, so you willingly left the IRA in stocks.

If the IRA had DOUBLED in value, I'm pretty confident you wouldn't be complaining - you'd be happy to take twice the amount. The asset is properly valued when it was divided. Any other way would be unfair to one party or the other.

You're also insane if your IRA dropped by 60% from the peak to now. The market was down 55% peak to trough, but it has recovered to the point that the entire market is now down something like 33% from the peak. You must have been concentrated in some fairly risky stocks if you're off 60%.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by mistoffolees

Your attorney is giving you good advice. Even though you could not have had the money distributed to you, you could have asked the court to have 1/2 of the IRA converted to cash for your half. (That is, you could have petitioned the court: "I don't want to take any risk with my 1/2 of the IRA, so please order that 1/2 be converted to cash and that will be my half. The other half will belong to stbx and he will get any gains or losses from that half"). You didn't do so, so you willingly left the IRA in stocks.

If the IRA had DOUBLED in value, I'm pretty confident you wouldn't be complaining - you'd be happy to take twice the amount. The asset is properly valued when it was divided. Any other way would be unfair to one party or the other.

[b]You're also insane if your IRA dropped by 60% from the peak to now. The market was down 55% peak to trough, but it has recovered to the point that the entire market is now down something like 33% from the peak. You must have been concentrated in some fairly risky stocks if you're off 60%.[/

There are some people who are off that much...who didn't or don't have any control over how the account is invested. There are even some who panicked and cashed out retirement funds and are dealing with the tax consequences of that now.

I really cannot blame anyone for bad decisions the way the economy has been. Its been such a crapshoot.

I had to fight my mom kind of hard, to get her to leave her IRA alone. She is in a fund that is so safe that its almost impregnable, but she was panicking. She lost about 30%, but its recovering now.