QDRO verbage, need simple explanation

[Johndeere720]

What is the name of your state? OHIO

Hello,
Divorce was finalized Nov 9, 2007. Docs said that I would have 30 days to sign the QDRO giving to my ex-wife a portion of my 401k. QDRO docs finally arrived today. March 10, 2008. 4 months later. I will have my atty review the QDRO, but I'd appreciate your input as well - as I've recieved good info from here in the past.

What does this mean:

6. this order assigns to the alternate payee(wife)...a lump sum equal to $20,400 of the vested balance as of Nov 15, 2007 and any and all interest and/or investment gains thereafter earned or investment losses incurred on said amount, or if less, the entire amount of the participants (me) account determined as of the date a separate account is established for the alternate payee. blah, blah....


MY QUESTION....what does that mean? "her" portion has decreased in value by about $2500....
I take it to mean that she can get any gains and/or any losses, but if that is less, she can get the entire amount of the plan...therefore, she will for sure get the $20,400???

Is that correct?
I know my atty might have made a mistake when we didnt define the account balance....subject to loss/gains, but not sure how we could have done that.

Since they took 120 days, not 30 days to get the docs to me, is there any recourse to reduce her portion of the assignment down to $18,000?
Why should I bear the loss of her investment as a result of the delays of her atty?

Thanks in advance!

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Johndeere720

What is the name of your state? OHIO

Hello,
Divorce was finalized Nov 9, 2007. Docs said that I would have 30 days to sign the QDRO giving to my ex-wife a portion of my 401k. QDRO docs finally arrived today. March 10, 2008. 4 months later. I will have my atty review the QDRO, but I'd appreciate your input as well - as I've recieved good info from here in the past.

What does this mean:

6. this order assigns to the alternate payee(wife)...a lump sum equal to $20,400 of the vested balance as of Nov 15, 2007 and any and all interest and/or investment gains thereafter earned or investment losses incurred on said amount, or if less, the entire amount of the participants (me) account determined as of the date a separate account is established for the alternate payee. blah, blah....


MY QUESTION....what does that mean? "her" portion has decreased in value by about $2500....
I take it to mean that she can get any gains and/or any losses, but if that is less, she can get the entire amount of the plan...therefore, she will for sure get the $20,400???

Is that correct?
I know my atty might have made a mistake when we didnt define the account balance....subject to loss/gains, but not sure how we could have done that.

Since they took 120 days, not 30 days to get the docs to me, is there any recourse to reduce her portion of the assignment down to $18,000?
Why should I bear the loss of her investment as a result of the delays of her atty?

Thanks in advance!

I suspect that the main intent of the provision was to ensure that she got the full 20,400 even if you removed money from the account in the interim, plus any gain if there was a delay in the distribution/division. I doubt that anyone anticipated a loss, because normally retirement funds are fairly conservatively invested.

Talk to your attorney about this, but if the funds are invested in a manner that volital, any delays could result in additional changes (gain or loss) which could recomplicate the matter.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

I suspect that the main intent of the provision was to ensure that she got the full 20,400 even if you removed money from the account in the interim, plus any gain if there was a delay in the distribution/division. I doubt that anyone anticipated a loss, because normally retirement funds are fairly conservatively invested.

Talk to your attorney about this, but if the funds are invested in a manner that volital, any delays could result in additional changes (gain or loss) which could recomplicate the matter.

And there you go again!! Making sure right along with the courts that the wife doesn't take any hits from market fluctuations!! The MAN needs to take all the hits because he has control of the market?!! Protect the woman and screw the man!!

That is total horsesh!t!! The 401k SHOULD have been split using the quantity of invesment SHARES instead of specifying a dollar amount!! The thinking you people have makes me ill!!

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

And there you go again!! Making sure right along with the courts that the wife doesn't take any hits from market fluctuations!! The MAN needs to take all the hits because he has control of the market?!! Protect the woman and screw the man!!

That is total horsesh!t!! The 401k SHOULD have been split using the quantity of invesment SHARES instead of specifying a dollar amount!! The thinking you people have makes me ill!!

Well, since the man has control of the account in this case, it's up to him to decide whether to invest the money conservatively or in risky investments.

In my case, as soon as QDRO was reported, I placed my ex's half into safe investments right away. That way, I didn't have to worry about any losses (or gains) from her half while waiting for the distribution to occur.

Oh, and btw, it has nothing to do with sexism. If the tables were reversed, the answer would be the same.

[tuffbrk]

Most likely the attorney will review the QDRO and have the wording ammended to 1/2 the units in the plan, not 1/2 the financial value at the time the divorce was originally filed.

Trying to keep pace with financial value in most cases would be incredibly difficult to do.

Once QDRO is processed by a plan administrator, it is up to the Ex to manage their allocations as they see fit. I will not have any access to their allocations or what the value of their allocation is at current market costs. I'm somewhat surprised that this mistleoffees party is indicating that they had the authority to impact the allocation of their Ex's half....guess every plan has its own administrative rules.

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by tuffbrk

Most likely the attorney will review the QDRO and have the wording ammended to 1/2 the units in the plan, not 1/2 the financial value at the time the divorce was originally filed.

Trying to keep pace with financial value in most cases would be incredibly difficult to do.

Once QDRO is processed by a plan administrator, it is up to the Ex to manage their allocations as they see fit. I will not have any access to their allocations or what the value of their allocation is at current market costs. I'm somewhat surprised that this mistleoffees party is indicating that they had the authority to impact the allocation of their Ex's half....guess every plan has its own administrative rules.

That's not the way it worked in my case. In my case, the full amount stayed in my account and I had absolute control over it until the date that the plan wrote a check to the ex for her share. They have computer programs to calculate the percentage gain and loss, so it's not that big a deal.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by mistoffolees

That's not the way it worked in my case. In my case, the full amount stayed in my account and I had absolute control over it until the date that the plan wrote a check to the ex for her share. They have computer programs to calculate the percentage gain and loss, so it's not that big a deal.

I think she misunderstood. I think that she thought that you still had control over the funds once the account was officially divided by the plan administrator. Remember, someone does not HAVE to take a distribution, they can leave the funds alone in their newly separated account. That rarely happens, but it does once in a while.

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

I think she misunderstood. I think that she thought that you still had control over the funds once the account was officially divided by the plan administrator. Remember, someone does not HAVE to take a distribution, they can leave the funds alone in their newly separated account. That rarely happens, but it does once in a while.

True. Once the account has been divided, the ex would have control. But I understood the OP's issue to be what happened to the account while waiting for the administrator to split it.

In my case, as well, as soon as the account was split, they mailed a check to my ex. I don't know if that's typical, but I know of quite a few cases where it happened that way. That's the other reason I assumed that we were talking about the time pre-split.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by mistoffolees

Well, since the man has control of the account in this case, it's up to him to decide whether to invest the money conservatively or in risky investments.

In my case, as soon as QDRO was reported, I placed my ex's half into safe investments right away. That way, I didn't have to worry about any losses (or gains) from her half while waiting for the distribution to occur.

Oh, and btw, it has nothing to do with sexism. If the tables were reversed, the answer would be the same.

It has EVERYTHING to do with sexism. Wake up!!

Your ex's half is quite often worded as HALF of the entire account if all of it accumulated during the marriage.

If the QDRO was not executed for a year and her half earned 2% interest and your "half" earned 25% in aggressive growth mutual funds, you would find yourself splitting the 23% of "your" earnings with her. Now if your "half" took a nose dive that's your problem and not hers.

OP's stupid lawyer went right along with her lawyer and the court and screwed him over. If you can't see this, you had better get your eyes checked!!

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

It has EVERYTHING to do with sexism. Wake up!!

Your ex's half is quite often worded as HALF of the entire account if all of it accumulated during the marriage.

If the QDRO was not executed for a year and her half earned 2% interest and your "half" earned 25% in aggressive growth mutual funds, you would find yourself splitting the 23% of "your" earnings with her. Now if your "half" took a nose dive that's your problem and not hers.

OP's stupid lawyer went right along with her lawyer and the court and screwed him over. If you can't see this, you had better get your eyes checked!!

Oh, I don't doubt that OP's lawyer messed up. What does that have to do with sexism? If the situation had been reversed and his ex had the bad lawyer and the large retirement account, then HE is the one who would have benefited.

I hate it when people scream sexism or racism or ageism or any other ism every time there's what appears to be an injustice. There's no sexism here - just negligence on the part of his attorney and his own negligence in not catching it.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by mistoffolees

Oh, I don't doubt that OP's lawyer messed up. What does that have to do with sexism? If the situation had been reversed and his ex had the bad lawyer and the large retirement account, then HE is the one who would have benefited.

I hate it when people scream sexism or racism or ageism or any other ism every time there's what appears to be an injustice. There's no sexism here - just negligence on the part of his attorney and his own negligence in not catching it.

If it was her that had the large retirement account, her lawyer, the judge AND his lawyer would never have let wording into the decree that would have put her at a disadvantage.

That is SEXISM!!!

I have nothing to say about any other "ism's" here as this is a family law forum and EVERYBODY knows that the wife is unfairly favored by the justice system in a divorce. Lawyers, judges, women and some men won't admit that, but there absolutely is sexism in the family justice system!!

[mlane58]

Bali it will be nice to see the day you stop chewing on sour grapes, but I think that day is a long way off.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by mlane58

Bali it will be nice to see the day you stop chewing on sour grapes, but I think that day is a long way off.

Yeah well some people just don't like hearing the truth and I just can't do anything about that.

I know what you people would like others to view the family court system as and everything was profoundly fair and just. If you're willing to live with that deception then more power to you.

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

Yeah well some people just don't like hearing the truth and I just can't do anything about that.

I know what you people would like others to view the family court system as and everything was profoundly fair and just. If you're willing to live with that deception then more power to you.

You know you've lost the argument when you have to make things up and pretend your opponent said them.

I never claimed that the family court system is always 100% fair and just. Just like everyone else, they make mistakes, but they try to do their best.

What I was objecting to was your insistence that every act of negligence must be due to sexism. Since you've never provided any evidence of that and since I pointed out that the situation above would apply regardless of which sex was involved, your concept of 'truth' appears to be badly distorted.

[Silverplum]

Originally Posted by mistoffolees

You know you've lost the argument when you have to make things up and pretend your opponent said them.

I never claimed that the family court system is always 100% fair and just. Just like everyone else, they make mistakes, but they try to do their best.

What I was objecting to was your insistence that every act of negligence must be due to sexism. Since you've never provided any evidence of that and since I pointed out that the situation above would apply regardless of which sex was involved, your concept of 'truth' appears to be badly distorted.

You don't need to "correct" Bali, or to jump into the ongoing discussion as to his attitude toward family court systems, or where he is currently located on the Forgiveness Tree of Mental Health.

It's been going on longer than you have been here, and it'll continue till he's done.

Meanwhile, he's ours, warts and all. Don't snarl at our pet, newguy.