Articles Tagged with pension

iStock-1132277483-300x200Property division in a Texas divorce is intended to be final, and a court generally is not allowed to change the division set out in the final decree.  Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.007. The court may, however, issue orders to clarify or enforce the property division set out or incorporated by reference in the decree. Issues related to retirement benefits are often addressed in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) for private employees or a Court Order Acceptable for Processing (“COAP”) for employees of the federal government, which may be incorporated into the decree.  Courts may therefore correct or clarify a QDRO or COAP to achieve the property division set out in the decree.

An ex-husband recently challenged an order allowing his ex-wife half of his entire monthly federal pension.  The husband started working for the federal government in 1989. The parties got married in 2000 and divorced in 2011.

Language in the decree seemed to award the wife half of the community share of the husband’s federal government pension benefits, but another provision seemed to award her half of all of those benefits.  The decree stated the “community portion” of the pension benefits would be identified in a COAP. The court rendered the COAP in January 2012, but it indicated the wife was awarded 50% of all of the federal pension benefits.

Continue Reading ›

iStock-1187184203-300x200Retirement benefits are often subject to property division in a Texas divorce.  In some cases, calculating the community interest is straight forward; however, in other cases, it can be somewhat more complex.  In a recent case, a former wife challenged a trial court’s handling of the former husband’s retirement benefits after it concluded she had already received all of the benefits to which she was entitled.

The parties had been married 22 years when they divorced.  The wife was awarded 50% of the husband’s Civil Service Retirement Benefits accrued as of the date of the decree’s entry.  The trial court signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) authorizing payment of an interest in the husband’s monthly annuity payments to the wife and stating that she was entitled to a survivor annuity.

Trial Court Enters Original QDRO

The parties began receiving the monthly annuity payments pursuant to the QDRO after the husband retired at the end of 2011.  In March 2016, the husband moved to vacate the QDRO, arguing the wife was not entitled to a survivor’s benefit under the decree but a premium was being deducted from his monthly benefit.  He asked the court to amend the QDRO to match the property division in the divorce decree.

Continue Reading ›

does-adultery-affect-alimony-in-idaho-1080x600-1When the parties to a Texas divorce agree on a property division, they may agree that certain obligations or conditions must be met.  If a party fails to meet their obligations as agreed to and set forth in the divorce decree, they may not be entitled to the property they were expecting.  In a recent case, a husband challenged a court order requiring him to reimburse the wife for certain tax liabilities after she failed to provide him the documentation required to calculate the amount he owed in accordance with the decree.

Wife Fails to Comply with Requirements of Divorce Decree

The parties’ mediated settlement agreement was incorporated into their divorce decree. The decree required the wife to withdraw funds from the husband’s pension plan. After paying certain debts, her attorney was to distribute 30% of the remainder to the wife and 70% to the husband. The decree required the husband to reimburse the wife 70% of her income tax liability for those funds. The decree ordered the wife have two draft income tax returns prepared, one showing the pension plan funds as income and the other not including the funds, to allow the husband to calculate that reimbursement. She was to provide the husband with the draft returns by June 1 of the year after the year the funds were liquidated.

The wife hired a tax preparation company.  The first draft return was a joint return with her new husband and included his wages, her wages, her social security disability income, and the liquidated pension plan funds.  The second draft return indicated it was a joint return, but only included her wages.  She sent the drafts to the husband before the deadline. He informed her he needed a draft return that included only her wages and the liquidated pension plan funds.  The wife went back to the tax preparer multiple times, but said they kept getting it wrong.

Continue Reading ›

iStock-543681178Under federal law, a court may not treat military disability benefits as community property for purposes of property distribution in a Texas divorce case. A husband recently challenged the property distribution in his divorce decree, arguing the court had improperly divided a portion of his military disability benefits.

Trial Court Divides Husband’s Military Retirement Benefits

The wife petitioned for divorce and sought a majority of the community assets.  The court granted the divorce on grounds of insupportability and adultery.  The decree gave the wife 55% of the husband’s disposable military retired pay, attorney’s fees, and conditional appellate attorney’s fees. The husband appealed.

The husband contended the 55% of his disposable military retired pay awarded to the wife erroneously included disability payments. The wife, however, argued the award did not include disability benefits and the decree had specifically awarded him his “VA Disability and Social Security Disability benefits” as separate property.

Continue Reading ›

retireRetirement benefits can be a complex and contentious issue in a Texas divorce case.  Generally, any income earned during marriage is considered community property unless proven to be separate property, including funds contributed to a retirement account or earned as pension benefits.  In a recent case, a husband challenged a court’s order awarding a portion of his military retirement benefits to his ex-wife.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the wife petitioned for enforcement of property division by contempt, alleging the husband had not paid her the retirement benefits awarded to her in their divorce decree.  The husband argued the military benefits had either been awarded to him or had not been divided at the time of the divorce.

The wife filed an amended motion to clarify, asking the court to enter a clarifying order if it found any part of the previous order was not specific enough for enforcement through contempt.  She specifically asked the court to clarify the order to reflect the length of the marriage and the husband’s dates of military service.  She also asked the court to sign a Military Qualified Domestic Relations Order.

Continue Reading ›

In a positively surprising ruling, a federal Court refused to dismiss a hearing where FedEx denied survivor benefits to a same-sex spouse. The Plaintiff is Stacy Schuett and she was in a committed relationship for 27 years with her spouse when they were finally married in a civil ceremony in Sonoma County in June of 2013. A day later, her wife, Lesly Taboada-Hall passed away after a long struggle with cancer. The deceased wife worked for FedEx for 26 years and was fully vested in her company’s retirement plan. It was not until six days after her death that same-sex marriage licenses were available in the state of California. At this time, the surviving spouse, Stacy Schuett, submitted a claim as a surviving spouse entitling her to her deceased wife’s pension plan, but FedEx immediately denied her claim because they said she did not meet the definition of “spouse.”

Continue Reading ›

Contact Information