Kentucky Case Law Review by Topic: August 1, 2023 through October 31, 2023

2023EZ QDRO LAWDecember 20, 2023Attorney Fees, Appeals, Avoiding Pitfalls, Tax, Marital Property, Maintenance, Family Law, Valuation, Laches, Statute of Limitations, IRA, Tracing, Standard of Review, Coverture, CR 60, Divorce, QDRO, Equitable Division, Expert, ERISA, Pension, Vesting, Retirement, FERS, Offset, Property Settlement Agreement, Survivorship, IRC, Witness, KY, Kentucky, COLA, Spousal Support, Support, Trace, Stocks

Kentucky Case Law Review by Topic: March 1, 2023 through April 30, 2023

Supreme Court of Ohio Lays Down the Law: Void vs. Voidable QDROs

2021Eileen ZellAugust 11, 2021CR 60, Coverture, Divorce, Family Law, FERS, Property Settlement Agreement, Ohio, OH, Survivorship, Marital Property, Pension, Retirement, Ohio Supreme Court, Appeals

Ohio Case Law Review by Topic: July 31, 2020 through September 30, 2020

Kentucky Case Law Roundup

2018Eileen ZellAugust 23, 2018KY, Kentucky, Appeals, Marital Property, Family Law, IRA, Tracing, Equitable Division, Coverture, Expert, ERISA, Vesting, Retirement, FERS, Pension, Avoiding Pitfalls, Survivorship, Divorce, QDRO, Stocks, Restricted Stock, Employee Incentive Programs, Poe

QDRO Primer for Ohio Family Law Practitioners

Saks v. Riga, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101091, 2014-Ohio-4930
Lions (Expert Witnesses), Tigers (Coverture), and Bears (Deferred Distribution), Oh My!

Released and Journalized: November 6, 2014
Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded

Today’s feature case is just plain good ole’ domestic relations law fun. It hits on several pinnacle issues related to QDROs (or in this case rather, a Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP), which divides Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pensions). In fact, the issues are so well canvased that this Opinion makes a wonderful primer – or refresher course – for domestic relations attorneys practicing in Ohio.

For starters, both parties in this case were/are attorneys. So that may help explain the need for a 34 page Opinion. After trial, the magistrate divided the parties’ marital property, and ordered Husband to pay monthly child and spousal support and one-half of Wife’s attorney fees. Both parties filed objections to the magistrate’s decision; the trial court overruled all of the objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision except for a few limited modifications. Husband appealed, raising eleven assignments of error. Wife cross-appealed, raising one assignment of error.

I have broken down the relevant issues in Saks v. Riga in an index-like format below, for future quick reference. But I strongly encourage every attorney reading this blog (or just the two, thanks DP and GA) to read this Opinion in full. You know, with all your spare time.