Ten Golden Nuggets in Dividing Retirement Plans in Divorce
Whether the retirement order is outsourced, or provided by the divorce attorney, the divorce attorney is responsible that the order not only gets done, but that it qualifies with the retirement plan.
June 29, 2018 at 01:20 PM
5 minute read
There are golden nuggets every attorney must know when dividing retirement plans in divorce. Whether the retirement order is outsourced, or provided by the divorce attorney, the divorce attorney is responsible that the order not only gets done, but that it qualifies with the retirement plan.
First, determine what rules govern the particular plan. Defined benefit plans (pensions) and defined contribution plans (e.g. 401k) are governed by ERISA, and the particular plan's rules. State plans are governed by the particular state law. And civil and military federal plans are governed by the particular federal law.
Second, understand how the plan can be divided. The most common mistake is when a plan is divided in a manner that cannot be effectuated. Obtain documents and information directly from the plan, or if a governmental plan, directly from the applicable statute.
Third, a “qualified domestic relation order” is an order used to divide nongovernmental plans. It qualifies with the plan that assigns to a non-employee spouse the right to receive all or a portion of the employee spouse's benefits under a retirement plan, and that includes certain information and meets certain other requirements. QDROs are made pursuant to state domestic relations law, that relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights for the benefit of a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of an employee. Interestingly, QDROs can be used for child support or alimony payments.
Fourth, be wary of model orders. Model orders can provide guidance and insight into the plan, for example how the plan can be divided, but model orders are not written to protect the interests of the non-employee spouse. Model orders and QDRO procedures should be obtained from the plan at the beginning of the case.
Fifth, a specific order must be done to effectuate the division, however the order must match the actual division. It is limited to an order to assist in the implementation of the division and may not alter or change the substantive division. An order that amends, modifies, alters, or changes the actual, substantive division of property is beyond the power of the divorce court. In Beshears v. Beshears, the Dallas court of appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the wife was only entitled to 57.5 percent of husband's retirement benefits as of the date of divorce, and that the court had the power to delete a surviving spouse provision in the QDRO to make the QDRO comport with the divorce decree which did not contain a provision for survivor benefits.
Sixth, there is no statute of limitations for correcting a defective QDRO, or any other retirement order, or amending a QDRO, or any other retirement order, to comport with the decree of divorce.
Seventh, it is vital to obtain the retirement order at the same time as the decree of divorce. Once 30 days passes from the decree, the court has lost plenary power, and an original lawsuit must be filed to obtain the retirement order. If the employee spouse dies before the order qualifies with the plan, the non-employee spouse could lose all of their benefits. Attorney fees can be awarded in obtaining a retirement order and are most often awarded when the employee spouse is being difficult.
Eighth, when dividing defined contribution plans (e.g. 401k), the date of division must be specific, as well as whether gains and losses from that date will be awarded. Loans against these plans can be problematic. Separate property can be determined by mere subtraction or by tracing the account from the date of marriage.
Ninth, when dividing defined benefit plans (e.g. pension plans), whether or not the employee spouse is in pay status can affect how the other spouse can receive their funds. Separate property is determined by a coverture fraction, applied at the time of divorce, with the numerator being the number of months married while in the plan, and the denominator being the total number of months in the plan as of the date of divorce. Cost of living adjustments and early retirement subsidies must be addressed for the non-employee spouse. And, survivor annuities can be complex but must be addressed for the non-employee spouse to obtain their funds should the employee spouse die.
Tenth, state and federal plans have their own rules and some of these plans will not allow deviation. Some plans have forms wherein there are literally boxes to check and any unchecked boxes cannot be deleted. The statutes governing the plan should be studied carefully before every attempting to divide.
Charla H. Bradshaw is a managing shareholder at KoonsFuller P.C. Family Law. She has considerable expertise in providing family law services to a broad range of clients with concentration in the area of family law, and particularly employee benefits, executive compensation and retirement.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/401/2022/11/maslanka-michael-p-19-767x633.jpg)
From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering
6 minute read![It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/401/2023/07/John-Browning-767x633.jpg)
![Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/403/2023/12/Reiter-Pollack-Siegel_2-767x633.jpg)
Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Translate Across Disciplines': Paul Hastings’ New Tech Transactions Leader
- 2Milbank’s Revenue and Profits Surge Following Demand Increases Across the Board
- 3Fourth Quarter Growth in Demand and Worked Rates Coincided with Countercyclical Dip, New Report Indicates
- 4Public Notices/Calendars
- 5Monday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250