Appellate Court Untangles Twelve Year Old Marital Settlement Agreement Regarding Pension

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
Contact

In a 2016 non-precedential appellate court decision, Grothey v. Grothey, the court attempted to untangle an agreement by husband and wife reached in 2004. The agreement provided that wife was to receive 65% of husband’s “defined benefit” pension plan and 65% of husband’s deferred compensation plan. The parties did not transfer wife’s 65% share immediately after the agreement. Thus, the parties disputed whether wife was entitled to approximately 10 years’ worth of increases on her share due to the delay in transfer. The appellate court determined that the trial court improperly calculated the amount wife was to receive by ignoring post-separation enhancements.

In 2004, the parties agreed that wife would receive 65% of the “marital” portion of husband’s deferred compensation and defined pension plan. Often, as in this case, the retirement account administrators  required a “Domestic Relations Order” (“DRO”) and a “Qualified Domestic Relations Order” (“QDRO”) to transfer funds from husband to wife. Although the parties reached an agreement in 2004, several years passed without actually transferring the funds.

The parties had two disagreements. First, regarding the deferred compensation, wife believed that she was entitled to interest and other increases on her share of the deferred compensation plan.  Husband believed that wife was not entitled to any increases. The court decided that since wife’s attorney prepared the QDRO, and the QDRO did not provide for any post-separation increases, Wife was not entitled to an increase. The approximate 10 year delay in preparing the QDRO (or not including language that wife was entitled to increases and income earned on her 65% share) likely resulted in a significant loss by wife.

Second, regarding the pension, wife believed that she was entitled to a percentage of husband’s post-separation enhancements, including a 20 and 25 year bonus. Wife argued that she should be awarded a portion of those adjustments since the 20 and 25 year bonuses were partially earned during the marriage. Husband argued that Wife was not entitled to any post-separation enhancement.

The appellate court agreed with wife that post-separation increases, which were not entirely the result of husband’s post-separation contributions or efforts, should have been included in determining wife’s 65% share.

As evidenced by the Grothey v. Grothey appellate matter, significant issues can arise if proper documentation is not prepared to transfer assets immediately after parties reach a marital settlement agreement.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
Contact
more
less

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.