Pension QDRO

Michigan

During my divorce my ex-wife's lawyer wrote up a non-conforming QDRO to divide my pension. There were four (I believe) ways to structure a pension division. Instead of choosing one, her attorney pick and chose which elements of each he liked best and constructed his own.

In my response pleading (I fired my attorney and finished my divorce myself) I pointed out to the judge that what they constructed was non-conforming and would not be approved. In response I petitioned for one of the methods which was fair (more than fair) that would give her a percentage based on time married and overall time employed (standard).

The judge refused to "listen" to me and ruled in favor of her attorney's proposal. Sure enough, a month or two after the papers were filed we all (me, her, her attorney) received a notice that the Pension QDRO was rejected. This was ten years ago. Nothing has happened since then. Her attorney has not sought to go back to court, etc.

Can my ex-wife go back to the court in another five or ten years -- twenty years after the fact -- and still contest my pension if she finds out she won't get any? Or could my pension be held in limbo for even me because of this unresolved matter?

Forty-two said:

Michigan

During my divorce my ex-wife's lawyer wrote up a non-conforming QDRO to divide my pension. There were four (I believe) ways to structure a pension division. Instead of choosing one, her attorney pick and chose which elements of each he liked best and constructed his own.

In my response pleading (I fired my attorney and finished my divorce myself) I pointed out to the judge that what they constructed was non-conforming and would not be approved. In response I petitioned for one of the methods which was fair (more than fair) that would give her a percentage based on time married and overall time employed (standard).

The judge refused to "listen" to me and ruled in favor of her attorney's proposal. Sure enough, a month or two after the papers were filed we all (me, her, her attorney) received a notice that the Pension QDRO was rejected. This was ten years ago. Nothing has happened since then. Her attorney has not sought to go back to court, etc.

Can my ex-wife go back to the court in another five or ten years -- twenty years after the fact -- and still contest my pension if she finds out she won't get any? Or could my pension be held in limbo for even me because of this unresolved matter?

Click to expand...

You didn't state who rejected the QDRO, but I am going to assume that is was your employer.

If the judge signed off on it, then its a court order whether your employer rejected it or not. So yes, she is still entitled to whatever the QDRO said she was entitled to receive.

It is not uncommon for QDRO's to be rejected on their first submission to the plan administrator. If a QDRO is rejected, an amended QDRO should be prepared, entered in court and submitted to the plan administrator.

Just because there are issues with the QDRO does not make the decree invalid or unenforceable. A QDRO can almost surely be framed to comply with both the plan administrators requirements and the intent of the decree. Even if this is inconsistent with what you consider to be 'fair'.

It would be best to be proactive and clear up these matters now rather than have them come up later, as they certainly will, and bite you then.

LdiJ said:

You didn't state who rejected the QDRO, but I am going to assume that is was your employer.

If the judge signed off on it, then its a court order whether your employer rejected it or not. So yes, she is still entitled to whatever the QDRO said she was entitled to receive.

Click to expand...

I find this interesting. It seems that there are conforming rules to which one must abide. One can't pick cafeteria style on which ones to choose and which ones to ignore. At least that is the way I read it. Unfortunately I am out of town on business and cannot reference my original documents for a week.

I doubt that this has any bearing on the matter, but it is General Motors.

Forty-two said:

I find this interesting. It seems that there are conforming rules to which one must abide. One can't pick cafeteria style on which ones to choose and which ones to ignore. At least that is the way I read it. Unfortunately I am out of town on business and cannot reference my original documents for a week.

I doubt that this has any bearing on the matter, but it is General Motors.

Click to expand...

You're confusing what the plan allows and what the judge can order.

For example, let's say that the plan administrators have a rule that they can only do 50:50 splits and will not process any other types. There's no law that says they have to offer 75:25 splits or any other type. Their rule is entirely valid.

Now, let's say the judge decides that what is fair is for you to keep 2/3 of your pension and give 1/3 to your ex. That is also a valid, enforceable order.

What it means is that you need to find some other mechanism to implement the court order rather than letting the plan administrator do it.

Ronin said:

It is not uncommon for QDRO's to be rejected on their first submission to the plan administrator.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why because a pension QDRO is very straightforward. The only reason it should be rejected is because the person writing it had the IQ of a turnip.

Okay, I am only an engineer, I am not an attorney (although I have actually represented myself as one and written my own pleadings, etc). But this stuff isn't rocket science.

If a QDRO is rejected, an amended QDRO should be prepared, entered in court and submitted to the plan administrator.

Click to expand...

Should? What if it is not?

Just because there are issues with the QDRO does not make the decree invalid or unenforceable.

Click to expand...

Issues? The entire thing is non-conforming.

A QDRO can almost surely be framed to comply with both the plan administrators requirements and the intent of the decree.

Click to expand...

You are going far afield here. Of course a QDRO can be framed to comply with the intent and requirements, within reason. That's the point. The within reason comes in when her attorney is picking and choosing the best elements of approved pension settlements.

Even if this is inconsistent with what you consider to be 'fair'.

Click to expand...

What I said was 'fair' was half of my pension for the time we were married. Even her attorney agreed to that. That is not the problem. The problem is he began adding all sorts of things on to that like survivor rights to full pension, future marriages, etc. that are strictly spelled out as to what is allowed and what is not.

To spell it out plainly, my ex-wife was living with some other guy (I had the kids) and her attorney said that she should get my full pension should I die, even if I had remarried, etc. All this stuff he made up out of whole cloth and did not conform to any existing pension allocation.

I never objected to the initial division (which although legal I think is unfair because she is the one who whored around while I raised the kids, but I understand that doesn't enter into it. I've been through this. The divorce is settled except for the pension which is still in limbo because her attorney screwed up and that's all I'm asking about).

It would be best to be proactive and clear up these matters now rather than have them come up later, as they certainly will, and bite you then.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Since my assumptions appear to be wrong (everything I did was legally correct, everything she did was legally wrong, but she will still win) I will take your advice.

Forty-two said:

I'm not sure why because a pension QDRO is very straightforward. The only reason it should be rejected is because the person writing it had the IQ of a turnip.

Okay, I am only an engineer, I am not an attorney (although I have actually represented myself as one and written my own pleadings, etc). But this stuff isn't rocket science. Should? What if it is not? Issues? The entire thing is non-conforming. You are going far afield here. Of course a QDRO can be framed to comply with the intent and requirements, within reason. That's the point. The within reason comes in when her attorney is picking and choosing the best elements of approved pension settlements. What I said was 'fair' was half of my pension for the time we were married. Even her attorney agreed to that. That is not the problem. The problem is he began adding all sorts of things on to that like survivor rights to full pension, future marriages, etc. that are strictly spelled out as to what is allowed and what is not.

To spell it out plainly, my ex-wife was living with some other guy (I had the kids) and her attorney said that she should get my full pension should I die, even if I had remarried, etc. All this stuff he made up out of whole cloth and did not conform to any existing pension allocation.

I never objected to the initial division (which although legal I think is unfair because she is the one who whored around while I raised the kids, but I understand that doesn't enter into it. I've been through this. The divorce is settled except for the pension which is still in limbo because her attorney screwed up and that's all I'm asking about).Thank you. Since my assumptions appear to be wrong (everything I did was legally correct, everything she did was legally wrong, but she will still win) I will take your advice.

Click to expand...

Let me repeat something. If the judge signed off on the QDRO then you are stuck with it. Its far too late for an appeal.

Therefore you are going to be held to its terms which puts you in an awkward position.

I suggest that you consult a local attorney to see if there is any way to reopen the issue of the QDRO to resolve the non-conforming issues...because its really YOUR problem, not hers. This is something that you should have done as soon as it was rejected. However you will need the paperwork provided by your company outline what specifically was "non-conforming".

Because this is a pension, rather than a 401k or something similar, your company has the right to make rules as to how the pension is handled. It is legal for them to do this, but its not "law".

LdiJ said:

However you will need the paperwork provided by your company outline what specifically was "non-conforming".

Click to expand...

I do have that information. Thank you.

...Since my assumptions appear to be wrong (everything I did was legally correct, everything she did was legally wrong, but she will still win) I will take your advice.

Click to expand...

Your assumptions failed to factor in some unpleasant realities of our legal system. Even if the judge was legally wrong, if their ruling was not challenged or appealed and modified within a very short time, then the judgment stands. Judges know this. I believe that in part, a judges willingness to abuse their discretion is directly proportional to how well the person standing before them is represented. Given the odds of a pro se filing, much less winning an appeal, are pretty close to zero...


But the QDRO issue at hand is actually more of "her" problem than yours, from the perspective of whose responsibility it is to ensure the QDRO is properly prepared and submitted. A rejected QDRO should have been promptly corrected by her attorney. However, the sensible approach is to be proactive and avoid later complications that could be more costly for both sides.

Ronin said:

But the QDRO issue at hand is actually more of "her" problem than yours, from the perspective of whose responsibility it is to ensure the QDRO is properly prepared and submitted. A rejected QDRO should have been promptly corrected by her attorney. However, the sensible approach is to be proactive and avoid later complications that could be more costly for both sides.

Click to expand...

I'd go one step further and say that later complications WILL be more costly for both sides.

In general, NEVER leave loose ends in a divorce. Not only will it be financially expensive to fix, it drags out the emotional pain for years.