Articles Tagged with QDRO

Published on:

A Court in Houston recently reinforced the importance of honesty and full disclosure during the Collaborative Law process when it found that a husband potentially committed fraud by failing to disclose changing job circumstances. See Rawls v. Rawls, 2015 WL 5076283 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.).

A husband and wife in Houston chose to use Collaborative Law to complete their divorce proceedings in 2014. They successfully reached a settlement that included provisions for the wife to receive portions of her husband’s bonus over the next few years. Unfortunately, before the settlement agreement was signed, the husband received a job offer, which he failed to disclose to his wife, and he resigned from his job. Full and complete disclosures of such information is a critical part of the Collaborative Law process, because the goal is to make both parties feel safe to make informed decisions.  The Houston Court is currently examining whether the husband committed fraud and breached a fiduciary duty under the Collaborative Law agreement he signed by concealing his job change from his former spouse during the collaborative law process.  Continue reading →

Published on:

Many of you may know about ERISA, but for those of you who do not, here is a quick run down:

ERISA is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. It is a federal law that sets minimum protective standards for almost all voluntarily established pension plans in the private sector.

Just recently, the D.C. Circuit Court held in Vanderkam v. Vanderkam that ERISA preempts a party’s attempt to use state law to seize a benefit that federal law has vested in a spouse or former spouse entitled to a survivor annuity. ERISA usually bars alienation or waiver of a spouse’s survivor annuity unless the spouse waives the annuity in writing in conformity with section 205 of the content and timing rules of ERISA. This may sound confusing, so let me give some background on this issue…

John Vanderkam was employed by a corporation and was a participant in the pension plan. He married the defendant, Melissa Vanderkam in 1984 and designated her as a 100% beneficiary of his joint and survivor annuity of his pension plan, paid upon his death. John retired in 1994, at which time the survivor annuity vested in Melissa while John began to receive his monthly benefits from the pension plan. In 2002, John and Melissa divorced. This is where it all gets tricky… Continue reading →