Search Results

Official Troyan QDRO Site: Original Troyan QDRO & Pension Evaluator Firm. Troyan & Associates, P.A (Now Located in Sarasota, FL) (formerly Troyan, Inc. - New Jersey) Our Experienced NY QDRO Attorney prepares all Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Visit us: www.TroyanLaw.com or www.QDROAttorney.com Equitable Distribution of Pensions: The Must Know Case for New York How To Deal With Pre-Marital 401(k) Balances QDROs Not prepared by a New York Attorney is the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Sample Form: Consent to Release Participant's Benefit Information. What is a Summary Plan Description ("SPD"). NY State Teachers' Retirement System: Consent To NY Jurisdiction Form. NYPD: Consent To NY Jurisdiction Form. Stock Market Fluctuations and the consequences for QDROs. Who or what Qualifies as an Alternate Payee. Shared Payment vs. Separate Interest QDROs Pension Valuation Interest Rates - Troyan Valuations . NYCERS Tier IV Pension Statement (Sample) Link to:( My NYCERS ) New York City Employees' Retirement System Form: Pension Valuation (New York) New York State Actuarial Assumptions (2022) New York City Actuarial Assumptions (2021) Form: NYCERS Consent to New York Jurisdiction Form: Personal Data Addendum New York City Deferred Compensation Plan Statement (Sample) NYCERS New York City Employees' Retirement System - Tier 6 (SPD) New York City Actuarial Assumptions (2023) NYSLRS Tier 6 (SPD) TRSNYC Service Credit Summary Statement (Sample) TRSNYC Total Service Credit Request Form TRSNYC Alternate Payee's TDA Direct Rollover Form NYSLRS Member Annual Statement (Sample) New York City Police Pension Fund - Matrimonial Action Pension Request Form New York City Police Pension Fund - Financial Statements New York City Police Pension Fund - Pension Award Certification (sample) New York City Police Pension Fund - Annual Benefit Statement (sample) New York City Fire Department Pension Fund - Actuarial Report New York City Police Pension Fund - Actuarial Report New York Unified Courts Electronic Document Delivery System (EDDS) New York City Police Pension Fund - Statement Request Form NYSLRS PFRS Consent To New York Jurisdiction and Release Form NYSLRS ERS Consent To New York Jurisdiction and Release Form NYSLRS Actuarial Report - 2025 New York State Unified Court System : Attorney Search: Rodney D. Troyan, Esquire

Retired Military Pay, Survivor Benefits Know when to contact an expert. What is the 10/10 Rule and why does it matter? The Single Most Important Form for a Former Spouse Survivor Benefit. Form dd2293: Time Sensitive / Urgent Howell v. Howell - What is the effect? Howell v. Ho well, 137 S. Ct. 1400 (2017) A Family Law Must Read Case! Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) & How to Read it. Instructions to obtain U.S. Air Force Reserve Points Example of: U.S. Army Reserve Point Summary Form U.S. Navy: Qualifying Year towards Retirement - Explained Example of: U.S. Navy Reserve Point Summary Form Military Contacts to obtain Data in a Divorce. Form 2656-1 Form 2656-10 Form to Obtain Military Data in a Divorce. Concurrent Military Retired Pay and VA Disability Compensation Entitlement Amount (for Retirees Who Did Not Retire Under Chapter 61 for Disability) Decoding the Jargon: Military Terms National Defense Authorization Act of 2017 (NDAA '17) Valuation of the Military Retirement Fund - Actuarial Report (January 2025)

Troyan & Associates Glossary Glossary - Terms - Definitions Terms and Definitions 401(k) Plan is a defined contribution plan where an employee can make contributions from his or her paycheck either before or after-tax, depending on the options offered in the plan. The contributions go into a 401(k) account, with the employee often choosing the investments based on options provided under the plan. In some plans, the employer also makes contributions such as matching the employee’s contributions up to a certain percentage. SIMPLE and safe harbor 401(k) plans have mandatory employer contributions. 403(b) Tax-Sheltered Annuity (TSA) Plan is a retirement plan offered by public schools and certain tax-exempt organizations. An individual’s 403(b) annuity can be obtained only under an employer’s TSA plan. Generally, these annuities are funded by elective deferrals made under salary reduction agreements and nonelective employer contributions. Accrued Benefit The is generally expressed as a monthly accrued benefit. Such form of benefit is limited to Qualified Defined Benefit Plans. It is expressed a an accumulation to a specific date and payable at a specific date. For example William's monthly accrued benefit as of August 31, 2006 was $800.00. Assuming no further service this benefit will be payable upon William's attaining his normal retirement age. Actuarial Equivalent As used in pensions this term relates to forms of an employee's benefit. It compares different forms of benefit payments and determines if they are mathematically equal or nearly equal. For example, a monthly Single Life Annuity of $800.00 could be the actuarial equivalence of a Single Lump Sum of $250,000.00. This means they both have a dollar value of $250,000.00. ADRO Approved Domestic Relations Order. This term is used by some state and municipal retirement systems that prefer ADRO to the term QDRO. Alternate Payee Any spouse, former spouse, child or other dependents of a plan participant who is recognized by a domestic relations order as having a right to receive all, or a portion of, the benefits payable under a plan with respect to such plan participant. Annual additions are the total of all employer contributions, employee contributions (not including rollovers), and forfeitures allocated to a participant's account in a year. Annuity – A series of payments under a contract that are made at regular intervals and over a period of more than one year. Annuity Options The forms in which retirement benefits may be paid to a retiring employee. Among the options are: Single Life Annuity, Periodic Payments for a stated period or a Joint & Survivor Annuity. Ante-Nuptial Agreement An agreement that delineates the pre-martial property of the respective parties to the agreement who are about to marry. It is a device to limit the rights of a spouse to property that was accumulated prior to the marriage. Boyett A significant Florida Supreme Court decision. This decision discusses the formulas that may be used to divided pension benefits upon divorce. Cash Balance Plan – A type of defined benefit plan that includes some elements that are similar to a defined contribution plan because the benefit amount is computed based on a formula using contribution and earning credits, and each participant has a hypothetical account. Cash balance plans are more likely than traditional defined benefit plans to make lump sum distributions. Civil Service Retirement This is the Federal Civil Service Retirement System. It has two components: CSRS and FERS. See both definitions below. COLA For pension purposes this is a post-retirement Cost of Living Increase to a retired person's pension. Generally these increases are based on the September to September changes in the Consumer Price Index as prepared by the Department of Labor. In virtually all plans these COLA increases are compounding. If you are reading this as an Alternate Payee, be sure to insert a COLA increase provision into your Property Settlement Agreement. Collective Bargaining Agreement A union negotiated agreement. This can be for a union and a single employer or a multi-employer group. Community Property For property acquired during the marriage there is a presumptive basis that this is joint property. Coverture Fraction A pension division formula created in 1983 by William M. Troyan . The basic Coverture Fraction applies to a Defined Benefit Plan and is structured as follows: Step I The plan's administrator computes the benefit as of the employee's actual retirement date. Step II The monthly accrued benefit computed at Step I is multiplied by a fraction: Numerator: total period of time the parties were married and the employee was accruing a benefit under this plan up to your jurisdiction's end of marriage date. Denominator: the employees total period of benefit accrual up to his or her actual retirement date. The product of this calculation is the marital/community property part of the pension. Step III Multiply the product of the Step II calculation by the agreed share of the Former Spouse (frequently 50%). The product of this Step is the marital/community property benefit to be paid to the Former Spouse (Alternate Payee). For Example: Let Step I equal a monthly accrued benefit of $800.00 Let the Step II numerator equal 15 Let the Step II denominator equal 27 So 15 divided by 27 equals 55.5% So the marital/community property part of the pension is $800.00 multiplied by 55.5%. That equals a monthly benefit of $444.00 For Step III assume the Wife is to receive 50% of the marital/community property part of the pension. So: $444.00 multiplied by 50% equals $222.00. Thus the Coverture Fraction gave the Wife a monthly benefit of $222.00. Deferred Compensation Any form of compensation other than the direct wage or salary of the employee. Deferred Distribution Settlement A form of settlement that requires a Domestic Relations Order. The Alternate Payee must generally wait until the actual retirement of the employee to collect his or her pension benefit. It is possible for an Alternate Payee to begin collecting a benefit at the employee's Earliest Retirement Age. Alternate Payee's are strongly cautioned against beginning to collect prior to the earlier of the employee's normal retirement age or actual retirement. Reason: Under the federal pension a substantial actuarial reduction will be imposed on the Alternate Payee's pension benefit. Defined Benefit Plan , also known as a traditional pension plan, promises the participant a specified monthly benefit at retirement. Often, the benefit is based on factors such as the participant’s salary, age and the number of years he or she worked for the employer. The plan may state this promised benefit as an exact dollar amount, such as $100 per month at retirement. Or, more commonly, it may calculate a benefit through a plan formula that considers such factors as salary and service. Defined Contribution Plan is a retirement plan in which the employee and/or the employer contribute to the employee’s individual account under the plan. The amount in the account at distribution includes the contributions and investment gains or losses, minus any investment and administrative fees. Generally, the contributions and earnings are not taxed until distribution. The value of the account will change based on contributions and the value and performance of the investments. Examples of defined contribution plans include 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, employee stock ownership plans and profit-sharing plans. Disability An inability to perform the services for which one was hired. The duration may be temporary or permanent. To qualify for a disability pension the employee must meet the written criteria established by the plan. Division of Retirement Benefits Retirement benefits are considered marital/community property. Upon divorce, this asset will be divided between the parties incident to a Property Settlement Agreement or imposed by a court as a result of a trial. In all states other than Florida and Texas, some form of the Coverture Fraction (Time Rule) discussed above is used to determine the respective shares of the parties. Divorce The legal and formal termination of marriage. Domestic Relations Order As used herein it is a written instrument delineating the marital/community property interest of an Alternate Payee in the pension benefits of the employee. This Order is without effect until it is executed by a court and then "Qualified" by a plan administrator. Early Retirement A participant's earliest retirement age is specified in the Plan document. There is no federal law mandating that a Defined Benefit Plan contain an early retirement provision. Nevertheless, the majority of these plans permit retirement prior to normal retirement age (defined below). Elective Deferrals are amounts contributed to a plan by the employer at the employee's election and which, except to the extent they are designated Roth contributions, are excludable from the employee's gross income. Elective deferrals include deferrals under a 401(k), 403(b), SARSEP and SIMPLE IRA plan. Employee Welfare Plans employee welfare benefit plan'' and ``welfare plan'' have the same meaning. These plans include: plans providing medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment, or vacation benefits, apprenticeship or other training programs, or day care centers, scholarship funds, or prepaid legal services End of Marriage Date Each state (jurisdiction) has a time beyond which the assets of the parties are treated as separate property rather than marital/community property. In some states this is called: Date of Filing, Date of Complaint, Date of Service of Summons, Date of Separation. Equitable Distribution First, understand that Equitable Distribution need not mean "equal" distribution of assets. "Equitable" is a subjective term subject to the facts and circumstances of each case. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is a federal law that sets standards of protection for individuals in most voluntarily established, private-sector retirement plans. ERISA requires plans to provide participants with plan information, including important facts about plan features and funding; sets minimum standards for participation, vesting, benefit accrual and funding; provides fiduciary responsibilities for those who manage and control plan assets; requires plans to establish a claims and appeals process for participants to get benefits from their plans; gives participants the right to sue for benefits and breaches of fiduciary duty; and, if a defined benefit plan is terminated, guarantees payment of certain benefits through a federally chartered corporation, known as the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) is a type of defined contribution plan that is invested primarily in employer stock. Employer is generally any person for whom an individual performs or did perform any service, of whatever nature, as an employee. A sole proprietor is treated as his or her own employer for retirement plan purposes. However, a partner is not an employer for retirement plan purposes. Instead, the partnership is treated as the employer of each partner. Excess Benefit Plan A Non-Qualified Plan that provides an executive with a pension in excess of the limits permitted for general employees. Former Spouse For federal and military plans use this term in place of "Alternate Payee". Former Spouse Survivor Annuities Under both Federal Civil Service plans this is a survivor annuity for the exclusive benefit of the prior spouse. It can be as little as $1.00 per month or to a maximum of 55% of the employee's total retirement allowance. Frozen Plan A plan that is no longer accumulating benefits. However, the assets of this plan have not been distributed. Government Pension Offset - The Government Pension Offset (GPO) adjusts Social Security spousal or widow(er) benefits for people who receive “non-covered pensions.” A non-covered pension is a pension paid by an employer that does not withhold Social Security taxes from your salary, typically, state and local governments or non-U.S. employers. Congress created the GPO in 1977 to help ensure that spousal and widow(er) benefits of those with covered or non-covered lifetime earnings would be roughly equal. a Under Social Security's dual-entitlement rule, spouses with their own covered earnings have their spousal benefits offset dollar-for-dollar by their own earned benefit. The GPO has a similar intention; the offset originally was dollar-for-dollar for non-covered pensions, but Congress reduced it to two-thirds in 1983. The GPO reduces the spousal or widow(er) benefit by two-thirds of the monthly non-covered pension and can partially, or fully, offset an individual's spousal/widow(er) benefit, depending on the amount of the non-covered pension. Highly Compensated Employee - An individual who: Owned more than 5% of the interest in the business at any time during the year or the preceding year, regardless of how much compensation that person earned or received, or For the preceding year, received compensation from the business of more than $125,000 (if the preceding year is 2019, 130,000 if the preceding year is 2020 or 2021, $135,000 if the preceding year is 2022), and $150,000 (if the preceding year is 2023) and, if the employer so chooses, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation. I.B.E.W. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Divorcing spouses are alerted that these members can have a many as seven separate benefits. Individual Retirement Account (IRA) – An individual account or annuity set up with a financial institution, such as a bank or a mutual fund company. Under federal law, individuals may set aside personal savings up to a certain amount, and the investments grow, tax deferred. In addition, participants can transfer money from an employer retirement plan to an IRA when leaving an employer. IRAs also can be part of an employer plan. Forfeiture - The part of an employee’s account balance (employer contributions) that is lost because it is not vested when the employee terminates employment. Immediate Offset Settlement A form of settlement of the pension aspect of a case in which the non-working spouse gives up his or her interest in the pension in exchange for assets of equivalent value. For this type of settlement, no Qualified Domestic Relations Order is required. Joint & Survivor Annuity An annuity payable as a result of the death of a retiree. This form of survivor annuity is payable after the death of a retiree. This is not the form of survivor benefit payable as a result of the death of an employee prior to retirement. See QPSA. Life Only Annuity An annuity payable for the lifetime of the retiree. Upon the death of the retiree, all payments cease. There is no survivor component to this form of annuity. Majauskas An early but significant New York case regarding Equitable Distribution. It contains a good description of the traditional Coverture Fraction. Marital Property In non-community property states this is the pool of assets that belong to the marriage and are subject to division upon divorce. Marx A most significant New Jersey decision regarding the division of property upon divorce. Military Divorce A divorce involving either a Regular or Reserve Component member of the armed forces. Military Reserve Benefits Retirement benefits exclusive to Reserve Component retirees. Money Purchase Plan – A money purchase plan requires set annual contributions from the employer to individual accounts and is subject to certain funding and other rules. New York Retirement System One of the two major New York retirement systems. There are separate systems for: Police&Fire, Teachers and another system for other Public Employees. Normal Retirement Age The age stated in a plan document when a plan participant may retire without any reduction in accrued benefit. Non-Titled Spouse The husband or wife of the employee whose pension is subject to division in your divorce action. Generally reference as "Alternate Payee" or "Former Spouse" PADRO Plan Approved Domestic Relations Order. This format may be used by some Deferred Compensation Plans. Participant - An eligible employee who is covered by a retirement plan. See the discussions of the different types of plans for the definition of an employee eligible to participate in each type of plan. Plan Administrator – The person who is identified in the plan document as having responsibility for running the plan. It could be the employer, a committee of employees, a company executive or someone hired for that purpose. Plan Document – A written instrument under which the plan is established and operated. Plan Fiduciary – Anyone who exercises discretionary authority or discretionary control over management or administration of the plan, exercises any authority or control over management or disposition of plan assets, or gives investment advice for a fee or other compensation with respect to assets of the plan. Plan Trustee – Someone who has the exclusive authority and discretion to manage and control the plan assets. The trustee can be subject to the direction of a named fiduciary and the named fiduciary can appoint one or more investment managers for the plan’s assets. Plan Year – A 12-month period designated by a retirement plan for calculating vesting and eligibility, among other things. The plan year can be the calendar year or an alternative period, for example, July 1 to June 30. Profit-Sharing Plan is a defined contribution plan under which the plan may provide, or the employer may determine, annually, how much will be contributed to the plan (out of profits or otherwise). The plan contains a formula for allocating to each participant a portion of each annual contribution. A profit-sharing plan may include a 401(k) feature. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. For bankrupt plans the benefits are administered by this agency. For more on this agency go to the Troyan web site and read the article on PBGC. PCDRO Plan Certified Domestic Relations Order. This format may be used by some Deferred Compensation Plans. QDRO (QUADRO) A formal Order of a court dividing marital/community property pension assets. This Order requires the approval of the Plan Administrator of the plan that will be distributing assets to both spouses. Qualified Pre-retirement Survivor Annuity (QPSA) A form of retirement benefit payable prior to retirement, but, subsequent to the death of the employee. The amount of this annuity is generally 50% of the benefit that would have been paid to the employee had he or she retired on the day before death. Referencing Benefit For a Domestic Relations Order it is the benefit to which the Coverture Fraction is applied. For the Traditional Coverture Fraction it is generally the actual retirement benefit of the titled-spouse at the time of his or her retirement. Restricted Stock Plan It is a Non-Qualified Plan for executives and other mid to high level executives. The general period of the plan is ten years and vesting takes place within that period. Generally an employee will fully vest in not more than five years. Upon vesting there is a taxable event as the property becomes the asset of the employee. Many firms will divide Restricted stock upon divorce. For the procedure to value this type of stock for divorce: contact Troyan, Inc. Retirement Equity Act The federal legislation enacted in 1984 that made the division of pensions on divorce possible. Retirement Options The various forms in which a retiring employee may receive his or her pension benefits. Among the major options are: Single Life Annuity, Joint & Survivor and period certain (e.g. an annuity certain[guaranteed] for 10 years). Rollover – A rollover occurs when a participant directs the transfer of the money in his or her retirement account or IRA to a new plan or IRA. Safe Harbor 401(k) – A safe harbor 401(k) is similar to a traditional 401(k) plan, but the employer is required to make contributions for each employee. The safe harbor 401(k) eases administrative burdens on employers by eliminating some of the rules ordinarily applied to traditional 401(k) plans. A Salary Reduction Simplified Employee Pension plan (SARSEP) is a SEP plan set up before 1997 that permits contributions to be made through employee salary reductions. Under a SARSEP, employees and employers make contributions to traditional IRAs set up for the employees, subject to certain percentage-of-pay and dollar limits. No new SARSEPs can be established after December 31, 1996. However, employers who established SARSEPs prior to January 1, 1997, can continue to maintain them and new employees can participate in the existing SARSEP. Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees of Small Employers (SIMPLE) – A plan in which a business with 100 or fewer employees can offer retirement benefits through employee salary reductions and employer non- elective or matching contributions (similar to those found in a 401(k) plan). It can be either a SIMPLE IRA or a SIMPLE 401(k). SIMPLE IRA plans impose few administrative burdens on employers because IRAs are owned by the employees, and the bank or financial institution receiving the funds does most of the paperwork. While each has some different features, including contribution limits and the availability of loans, required employer contributions are immediately 100 percent vested in both. Self-Employed Individual - An individual in business for himself or herself, and whose business is not incorporated, is self-employed. Sole proprietors and partners are self-employed. Self-employment can include part-time work. Simplified Employee Pension Plan (SEP) – A plan in which an employer contributes on a tax-favored basis to IRAs owned by its employees. If the employer meets certain conditions, it isn't subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of most retirement plans. Separate Interest Domestic Relations Order This form of Domestic Relations Order assigns to an Alternate Payee a portion of the titled-spouse's monthly accrued benefit as his or her sole and separate property. It is the view of this firm that not all ERISA employers fully accept this format. It is strongly suggested that you question the Plan's Administrator to determine if this separate interest becomes effective upon qualification of the Domestic Relations Order or upon the actual retirement of the titled-spouse. Shared Payment Domestic Relations Order This form of Domestic Relations Order does not automatically give an Alternate Payee an interest that is payable over the lifetime of said Alternate Payee. To insure that payments to this Alternate Payee are not extinguished by the death of the titled-spouse it is necessary to specifically award in the Property Settlement Agreement that the Alternate Payee is entitled to both QPSA (see above) and Joint & Survivor Annuity benefits. Single Life Annuity Upon retirement an annuity that is payable over the lifetime of the titled-spouse. Upon his or her death all payments cease. To avoid this outcome for an Alternate Payee you must use either a Separate Interest QDRO or award an Alternate Payee both QPSA and Joint & Survivor Annuity benefits. State Retirement Plans Retirement benefits provided by a state or any of it subdivisions. Stock Option Plan A Non-Qualified Plan. There are two forms: Non-Qualified Stock Options and Incentive Stock Options (ISO). You must be familiar with the differences, especially the tax treatment upon distribution to either the employee or an Alternate Payee. Stream of Payments QDRO: This form of payment to an Alternate Payee is applicable when the benefit payments to an Alternate Payee begin after the commencement of annuity payments to the titled-spouse. Subsidized Early Retirement A form of benefit enhancement that many ERISA plans provide as an incentive for employees to retire early. Summary Plan Description – A document provided by the plan administrator that includes a plain language description of important features of the plan, for example, when employees begin to participate in the plan, how service and benefits are calculated, when benefits become vested, when payment is received and in what form, and how to file a claim for benefits. Participants must be informed of material changes either through a revised Summary Plan Description or in a separate document called a Summary of Material Modifications. Time Rule See Coverture Fraction above. Titled-Spouse The pension holder. The employee whose plan is to be divided upon divorce. Uniformed Services Former Spouse's Protection Act A must read for Former Spouse's of military persons. This act gives detailed rights to the Former Spouse. However, to receive a part of the service person's benefits or survivor annuity one must follow the federal rules. This is a most complicated area. It is suggested that you Troyan on this issue. Union Benefits Benefits provided to member's of collectively bargained agreements. It is useful to note that benefits generally come from more than one source. Vesting The point when an employee's pension benefit is not subject to forfeiture. Waiver of Survivor Benefits A major caution to Former Spouse's and Alternate Payee's. Do not sign such waivers of rights unless you are absolutely clear on the impact of your action. You may be signing away very valuable rights. Welfare Plan An employer provided benefit other than a pension. For example: Insurance, health or disability benefits. Such benefits are generally divisible upon divorce. Check the rules of your state to be clear on your rights to these valuable employee benefits. Years of Service – The time an individual has worked in a job covered by the plan. It is used to determine when an individual can participate and vest and how they can accrue benefits in the plan. Generally, a Year of Service requires that an employee accrues at least 1,000 hours of service over a 12-consecutive-month period.

Email completed forms. QDRO Attorney. Troyan Law. Forms E-mail Completed Forms To Us. General QDRO Retainer Form for: State/Municipal Plans (Examples: City, State, Police, Fire, Teacher, Public Employee ) Pension Valuation Form Form for: Civil Service Retirement System, Federal Employees' Retirement System, Federal Thrift Savings Plan Examples: Postal Employee, FBI, TSA, Any U.S. Agency Form for: Individual Retirement Accounts ("IRA") Form for: ERISA Plans (Examples: Coca-Cola, IBM, Boeing, Merck & Co., FedEx, General Motors) Form for: Pension Valuation / Present Cash Value Computation Form for: Authorization Form For A Participant To Sign To Release Pension Plan Data

Official Troyan QDRO Site: Original Troyan QDRO & Pension Evaluator Firm. Troyan & Associates, P.A (Now Located in Sarasota, FL) (formerly Troyan, Inc. - New Jersey) Our Experienced NJ QDRO Attorney prepares all Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Visit us: www.TroyanLaw.com or www.QDROAttorney.com QDROs Not prepared by a New Jersey Attorney is the Unauthorized Practice of Law. QDRO Tutorial for Family Lawyers How To Deal With Pre-Marital 401(k) Balances Marx v. Marx - The Must Know Case. Former Spouse Survivor Annuity and the Best Kept Secret. Sample Form: Consent to Release Participant's Benefit Information. What is a Summary Plan Description ("SPD"). Form: To to obtain records in from your own Divorce. Guide to Submitting my QDRO to the Court in NJ electronically. Stock Market Fluctuations and the consequences for QDROs. Who or what Qualifies as an Alternate Payee. Shared Payment vs. Separate Interest QDROs Files vs. ExxonMobil (An Important Case to Know) Disability Pensions and Computing Equitable Distributions E-Certification by Clerk of Court (Example) New Jersey Pension R eform (Big Changes for NJ State Employees) Pension Valuation Interest Rates - Troyan Valuations Click for Pension Valuation of New Jersey State Employee Plans Pension Valuation Form . Example of New Jersey Benefit Information . Where to find My NJ State Employee Pension Account: MBOS System How to Run a Retirement Estimate (NJPERS & NJTPAF): MBOS System State of New Jersey Retirement Options(A,B,C,D & 1,2,3 4) (Sample) Accidental Disability Benefit Award Letter (Sample) State of New Jersey Personal Benefit Statement (Sample) State of New Jersey Retirement Options (Detailed Example) MBOS Member Account Application Main Menu (Sample) Summary of Retirement Application Information (Sample) State of New Jersey Actuarial Report (NJPERS) (2023) State of New Jersey Actuarial Report (NJTPAF) ( PUBLISHED 2/23) eCourts and JEDS (filing QDROs with the NJ Courts) N.J. Police & Firemen's Retirement System Retirement Age Rollback! Return of Contributions Does NOT equal Present Value! New Jersey Police & Firemen's Retirement System Survivor Benefits (Spouse Only) New Jersey Police & Firemen's Retirement System Actuarial Report New Jersey Courts: Attorney Search: Rodney D. Troyan, Esq. New Jersey Judiciary: Attorney Grievance Form Notice to New Jersey Family Law Attorneys

TroyanLaw.com Rodney D. Troyan, Esq. - QDRO Attorney. The Original Troyan QDRO Firm. Troyan & Associates, P.A (formerly Troyan, Inc.), Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Pension Valuations, Divorce Orders. William M. Troyan, Actuary. SERVICES How Can We Help You? GETTING STARTED About Our Managing Attorney Our Managing Attorney A graduate of NYU - Stern School of Business with a Finance/Mathematics background. Employed by J.P. Morgan Investment Management in NYC prior to becoming an Attorney. After graduating from Law School in New York City, this 29 year resident of Marlboro, NJ relocated to Sarasota, FL and has practiced law in the QDRO field for over 20 years. Rodney is married to his high school sweetheart Kristine and are the proud parents of four sons. Rodney is admitted to practice law in: New Jersey Florida U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida New York Washington, DC Rodney D. Troyan, Esq. About Our Managing Attorney Our Office is located in Sarasota, Florida CONTACT Contact Us Address: Troyan & Associates, P.A. 560 Communications Parkway Sarasota, FL 34240 Toll Free: 877.443.4867 Email: info@TroyanLaw.com Email Us! Join our firm.We are hiring. We Proudly Support: Proud Member of: Membership is not an endorsement by any association. Admitted to Practice Before the Courts of: Admission is not an endorsement by any Court.

Commonwealth of Virginia Virginia Code for Equitable Distribution

Sample letters. QDRO Attorney. Troyan. Sample Letters For Plan Administrators: These letters may be utilized by Plan Administrators and or Third Party QDRO Administrators: Sample Pre-Approval Letter Download File

N.J. Cases N.J. Specific QDRO Info. The Marx Case The most important case for equitable distribution in N.J. QDROs & Unauthorized Practice of Law in NJ QDRO Tutorial for Family Lawyers Files vs. ExxonMobil Separate interest vs. shared payment Sternesky The formula for computing the portion of pension exempt from equitable distribution. Former Spouse Survivor Annuity . Shared Payment vs. Separate Interest QDROs Market Fluctuations and QDROs. N.J. Guide to e-file a QDRO . Examples of Benefit Statements NJ State Employee Pension Account: MBOS System State of N.J. Retirement Options(A,B,C,D & 1,2,3 4) State of N.J. Personal Benefit Statement State of N.J. Retirement Options MBOS Application for Retirement Retirement Application Summary Consent to Release Participant's Benefit Information. Who or what Qualifies as an Alternate Payee. What is a Summary Plan Description ("SPD"). How To Deal With Pre-Marital 401(k) Balances Pension Valuations Form: To to obtain records in from your own Divorce. Pension Valuation Interest Rates - Troyan Valuations Employee of a Private Company Employee of a Publicly Traded Co. Federal Employee Military ( Reserve or Regular) Storytelling I’m a paragraph. Double click me or click Edit Text, it's easy. Read More > DESIGN I’m a paragraph. Double click me or click Edit Text, it's easy. Read More > Consulting I’m a paragraph. Double click me or click Edit Text, it's easy. Read More > State of New Jersey Employee NJPERS, NJTPAF, NJP&F, Pension Valuations Forms for download. Click for Pension Valuation of New Jersey State Employee Plans Pension Valuation Form

State Specific Cases of Interest Alabama Case Law WILKINSON v. WILKINSON, 2011255 (Ala.Civ.App. 4-16-2004) No. 2011255. Decided April 16, 2004. This is the second time these parties have been before this court. See Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 828 So.2d 924 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) (" Wilkinson I"). In Wilkinson I, this court reversed the trial court's divorce judgment insofar as it failed to order the wife to provide the husband continued health- insurance coverage, failed to award the husband any portion of the wife's retirement benefits, and failed to order the wife to pay sufficient alimony to the husband On remand, the trial court entered an order modifying its alimony award but failing again to require the wife to provide continued health insurance for the husband or to divide the wife's retirement benefits. The husband appeals, arguing that the trial court is in error for failing to comply with the mandate of this court in Wilkinson I. Alaska Case Law LAING v. LAING, 741 P.2d 649 (Alaska 1987) S-1357. August 21, 1987. This appeal challenges a marital property division. The husband challenges generally the trial court's finding that the wife was entitled to more than fifty percent of the marital assets. He also contests the court's allocation of certain assets and credits. We affirm the trial court's findings and conclusions except with regard to its disposition of the husband's nonvested pension, which we conclude cannot be presently divided. We remand the case with instructions that the trial court redetermine the property division in a manner consistent with this opinion. Colorado Case Law In re Marriage of Hunt, 909 P.2d 525 (Colo. 1995) No. 93SC565, No. 93SC631 Decided December 18, 1995 Rehearing Denied (93SC631) January 29, 1996. [1] We granted certiorari in In re Marriage of Hunt, 868 P.2d 1140 (Colo. App. 1993), and in In re Marriage of Raimer, No. 92CA0759 (Colo. App. Aug. 5, 1993), to determine whether pension increments based on post-dissolution increases in rank are included in determining what portion of a military pension is subject to division as marital property. In both cases, the court of appeals affirmed the trial courts' deferred distribution of military pensions based on the "time rule" formula which includes distribution of benefits attributable to post-dissolution increases in rank. The petitioners, in both instances the husbands, petitioned the court to review the distributions. We issued a consolidated opinion on May 15, 1995, reversing judgment in both cases and remanding with directions. By order dated June 19, 1995, we granted the respondents' motions for rehearing and withdrew our previously issued opinion. After requesting and receiving additional briefs, we now affirm the court of appeals' decision in Hunt and approve the trial court's distribution in that case. We reverse the court of appeals' decision in Raimer. We find that the trial court in Raimer abused its discretion in altering the "time rule" formula. In re Marriage of Beckman, 800 P.2d 1376 (Colo. App. 1990) No. 88CA0966 Decided October 25, 1990. [1] In this dissolution of marriage action, the husband appeals from portions of the judgment relating to maintenance and property division and from a finding regarding the length of the marriage. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. #3 Case Law In re the Marriage of Heupel, 936 P.2d 561 (Colo. 1997) No. 95SC754 April 21, 1997 [1] We granted certiorari in In re Marriage of Heupel, No. 94CA1291 (Colo. App. Oct. 19, 1995) (not selected for official publication), to determine the applicability of a property division clause in a marital separation agreement to a payment received by the former husband when he resigned from his position as a member of the armed services. Specifically, we consider whether DuWayne P. Heupel's lump sum payment, received from the United States Air Force under the Special Separation Benefit (SSB) program when he voluntarily elected to switch from active duty to reserve status, should be treated as retired pay for purposes of equitable distribution under the separation agreement of his dissolution decree. #4 Case Law In Re Mar. of Riley-Cunningham, 7 P.3d 992 (Colo. App. September 16, 1999) No. 98CA1487 September 16, 1999 Rehearing Denied November 4, 1999. Certiorari Denied August 21, 2000. In this dissolution of marriage action, Barbara U. Riley-Cunningham (wife) appeals the portion of the permanent orders distributing 16.2% of the disposable military retirement pay of James A. Cunningham (husband) to her. We affirm. Connecticut Case Law Appellate Decision KRAFICK v. KRAFICK, 234 Conn. 783 (1995) (15043) Decision released August 8, 1995 The principal issues in this certified appeal are whether vested pension benefits constitute property for the purposes of equitable distribution pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-81;[fn1] and, if so, what methods are appropriate by which to value such benefits. The plaintiff, Patricia A. Krafick, appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her thirty-three year marriage to the defendant, John H. Krafick, and distributing the parties' marital assets. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court without opinion. Krafick v. Krafick, 34 Conn. App. 930, 643 A.2d 314 (1994).[fn2] We granted certification[fn3] and now reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court. Kansas Case Law IN RE MARRIAGE OF CRAY, 254 Kan. 376 (1994) No. 67,312 Opinion filed January 21, 1994. This is an appeal and cross-appeal from various orders and judgments of the trial court in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The petitioner in the divorce action, Aileen M. Cray, appealed from the district court's orders (1) selecting the date of the parties' separation as the valuation date of marital assets; (2) failing to award profits and/or losses upon certain pension plan assets; and (3) awarding child support. The respondent, Thomas M. Cray, cross-appealed from the court's orders regarding (1) maintenance; (2) assessment of certain litigation expenses; and (3) modification of his settlement proposal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's orders and judgments in part and reversed in part, remanding the case with directions to the trial court to reweigh the evidence as to property division and maintenance using a different valuation date. In re Marriage of Cray, 18 Kan. App. 2d 15, 846 P.2d 944 (1993). Both parties filed petitions for review. We granted Aileen's petition for review on the issues of the selection of a valuation date for marital assets and whether profits and/or losses should have been allowed on her share of the pension plan assets. We denied the petition for review of Thomas. For the sake of clarity, the petitioner will be referred to as Aileen and the respondent as Thomas. Louisiana Case Law HARE v. HODGINS, 586 So.2d 118 (La. 1991) Nos. 90-C-2405, 90-C-2445. September 9, 1991. [1] We granted certiorari to decide whether the court of appeal correctly partitioned a divorced couple's community property interest in the employee spouse's defined benefits pension after it matured in 1988. The trial court divided the community interest by awarding the non-employee spouse a fixed percentage of the pensioner's retirement payments. The court of appeal amended, restoring full pension payments to the retiree spouse, and relegating the non-employee spouse to a lump sum representing her share of the unmatured pension as of the date in 1975 when the community was terminated. Hare v. Hodgins, 567 So.2d 670 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1990). We vacate the partition decree and remand for further proceedings by the trial court consistent with this opinion. Michigan Case Law Court of Appeals Report KILBRIDE v. KILBRIDE, 172 Mich. App. 421 (1988) Docket No. 95295. Decided October 18, 1988. Defendant appeals as of right from the trial court's judgment of divorce awarding plaintiff partial attorney fees, alimony, and one-half of defendant's pension. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Missouri Case Law LYNCH v. LYNCH, 665 S.W.2d 20 (Mo.App. 1983) No. 46123. December 20, 1983. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 24, 1984. This case is an action brought by the respondent-wife (petitioner below) to dissolve a marriage of nearly twenty-seven years. The trial court dissolved the marriage, divided and disposed of the parties' separate and marital property, awarded primary custody of the minor children to the wife, and awarded her child support, maintenance, and attorney's fees. Appellant-husband (respondent below) seeks review of that portion of the decree which categorizes his vested but non-matured [fn1] pension plan as marital property and which divides it between the parties. We modify the decree and affirm it as modified. New Jersey Case Law #1 Superior Court Report CLAFFEY v. CLAFFEY, 360 N.J. Super. 240 (2003) A-6632-00T2 Decided May 19, 2003 This matrimonial appeal illustrates the special problems posed by the equitable distribution of a defined benefit pension plan where there are no available survivor benefits, and the pensioner spouse has a significant alimony obligation to the non-pensioner spouse. Plaintiff Dale Eagan Claffey appeals from certain provisions of the final judgment of divorce, as later modified during a limited remand, that provide security for the potential termination of her deferred-distribution share of the defined benefit pension plan of defendant Daniel Claffey in the New Jersey Police and Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS). Plaintiff also appeals from the manner of distribution of her equitable share in defendant's deferred compensation fund. The following factual and procedural history is relevant to our resolution of the issues posed in this appeal. #2 Superior Court Report Eisenhardt v. Eisenhardt, 325 N.J. Super. 576 (App. Div. 1999). Where husband retired prior to the divorce and received early retirement benefits, proper coverture fraction to be used in determining wife’s share of pension must be based on actual years worked and not additional years added for early retirement benefits, affirming the principle set forth in Reinbold. #3 Superior Court Report Hayden v.Hayden, 284 N.J. Super. 418 (App. Div. 1995). Husband’s pre-retirement cost of living increases under the State Police Retirement System are not subject to equitable distribution. (Court distinguishes the post-retirement benefits in Moore v Moore). 2.) There should be no reduction in value of husband’s pension due to Social Security benefits he would have received in equivalent private employment. #4 Superior Court Report Kikkert v. Kikkert, 177 N.J. Super. 471 (App. Div. 1981), aff’d88 N.J. 4 (1981). Held– husband’s vested pension plan subject to equitable distribution. #5 Superior Court Report LaSala v. LaSala, 335 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2000)certif. denied,167 N.J. 630 (2001). Trial court ordered immediate monthly benefits to be paid to wife from husband’s Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS) pension plan even though husband was not retired and not currently eligible to collect benefits. App Div reversed, finding that the trial court impermissibly required the PFRS to provide a benefit which was not authorized by the plan. Court says that the coverture formula (Marx) must be used to determine wife’s benefits. Good description of 3 methods of distributing pensions: deferred distribution, immediate offset, and partial deferred distribution. #6 Superior Court Report LINEK v. KORBEIL, 333 N.J. Super. 464 (2000) DOCKET NO. A-3719-98T1 Decided: August 3, 2000 Page 465 Defendant appeals from the trial courts order clarifying and modifying the provision in the parties' 1981 judgment of divorce which purported to distribute defendant's pension equitably. We affirm. #7 Superior Court Report L.M. v. State of New Jersey, Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, 140 N.J. 480 (1995). Good discussion of equitable distribution of pensions at 496-497. #8 Superior Court Report MARX v. MARX, 265 N.J. Super. 418 (1993) Decided March 26, 1993. Page 419 This matter comes before the court on a post-judgment motion to settle the form of qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be entered pursuant to the parties' inter-spousal agreement. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to have the court determine her rightful interest in defendant's American Airlines Pilot Pension Plan. The facts are undisputed in this case. The sole issue to be determined by the court is the method of distributing defendant's fixed income plan. #9 Superior Court Report MENAKE v. MENAKE, 348 N.J. Super. 442 (2002) A-4784-99T3 Decided February 22, 2002 This is an appeal arising from a post-matrimonial dispute over defendant's entitlement to a portion of plaintiff's defined-benefit pension that he has with the New York State and Local Retirement System as a result of his employment with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It is a dispute that has spanned eight years with four different judges and numerous court applications and orders, two different Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO) and several recalculations by the New York State and Local Retirement System. It is the formula for the calculation of defendant's share of plaintiff's pension in the second of the two QDROs that prompts this appeal. By order entered April 1, 1996, defendant's share was to be determined by a formula which consisted of the "[number of months of marriage of the parties while in the retirement systems divided by total number of months in retirement systems multiplied by 50%.......................... " In contrast, a March 27, 2000, order directed that defendant's share be determined by a formula which consisted of "50% of the hypothetical retirement allowance computed using final average salary as of May 14, 1990, and the service credit accrued between July 9, 1973, and May 14, 1990." The latter dates reflect the duration of the parties' marriage to the date of the filing of the divorce complaint. The differences in these two formulas are significant. Indeed, because the Retirement System had made a number of payments to defendant under the first order, the effect of the March 27, 2000, order was a recalculation, which resulted in a $93,809.92 overpayment. In order to repay this amount, defendant will receive no pension benefits until July 30, 2012. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. #10 Superior Court Report Monteforte v. Monteforte, (unreported) 2002 WL 32862137 (App. Div. 2002). Trial Court entered QDROs distributing Husband’s PERS pension and military pension using the coverture formula. Husband appealed claiming that using the coverture formula improperly gave wife share of post-divorce salary increases which were solely attributable to husband’s efforts. App Div affirmed the trial court’s use of the coverture formula. This case contains a very good discussion of why the Husband’s argument is incorrect and the coverture formula is the most appropriate method for distributing a deferred defined benefit pension. #11 Superior Court Report Moore v. Moore, 114 N.J. 147 (1989). Husband’s post-retirement cost of living increases under NJ Police and Firemen’s Retirement System are subject to equitable distribution. The Supreme Court encourages use of “immediate payment” approach of distributing pensions. Cost of living increases are distributed by way of the coverture formula. #12 Superior Court Report PANETTA v. PANETTA, A-1424-02T5 (N.J. Super. 7-1-2004) No. A-1424-02T5 Decided July 1, 2004 In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, we focus on two issues: the appropriate formula for calculating the marital share of plaintiff's federal pension and whether plaintiff is entitled to an offset against defendant's share of his pension for defendant's social security benefits.[fn1] #13 Superior Court Report REINBOLD v. REINBOLD, 311 N.J. Super. 460 (1998) Decided May 14, 1998. Plaintiff Linda Reinbold and defendant Frank Reinbold were married on October 29, 1960. Two children were born to them, both of whom are emancipated. After thirty-four years of marriage, plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce on June 20, 1994. At the time the complaint was filed defendant was 55 years old and had 28 years of service at Sandoz Pharmaceuticals ("Sandoz"). #14 Superior Court Report RISOLDI v. RISOLDI, 320 N.J. Super. 524 (1999) Decided May 3, 1999. In this post-judgment matrimonial pension evaluation and distribution dispute, we examine the appropriate method for evaluating the non-pensioner wife's equitable distribution, deferred- distribution, interest in her husband's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension where the parties agreed to a partial distribution through the present-value offset of a portion of her interest in exchange for the husband's interest in the marital domicile, and a deferred distribution of the remainder of the wife's interest in his pension until the husband's retirement date, through entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). #15 Superior Court Report WHITE v. WHITE, 284 N.J. Super. 300 (1995) Decided May 10, 1995. Page 301 The evidence in this case indicates that the parties were married on July 10, 1965. The jurisdiction and venue requirements for the divorce were met and the grounds for extreme cruelty were satisfactorily proven. #16 Superior Court Report WHITFIELD v. WHITFIELD, 222 N.J. Super. 36 (1987) Decided December 18, 1987. The issue before us is whether that portion of a pension which was earned during coverture but which is neither vested nor matured is subject to equitable distribution upon divorce. We hold that such a pension is "property" acquired during the course of the marriage within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 and that the practical difficulties inherent in its valuation in no way affect its includability in the marital estate. In so doing we part company from prior decisions of this court which have concluded otherwise. Barba v. Barba, 198 N.J. Super. 205 (App. Div. 1985); White v. White, 136 N.J. Super. 552 (App. Div. 1975). #17 Re:End date of Marriage Genovesev. Genovese, 392 N.J. Super. 215 (App. Div. 2007). Husband filed for divorce in New York and a Judgment of Divorce was entered in 1994. Wife appealed and Judgment was vacated and complaint dismissed due to insufficient evidence to support the cause of action. Husband later filed complaints for divorce in New Jersey in 2001, 2002, and 2003, all of which were dismissed for lack of prosecution. Husband filed again in New Jersey in 2005 and case was tried and a Dual final Judgment of Divorce was entered. Trial Court found that for purposes of equitable distribution of husband’s pensions, the marriage ended in 1994 when husband filed his first complaint for divorce and that date was used for the coverture fraction for distributing the pensions. Wife appealed and App Div affirmed. [Note: the facts in this case are somewhat unusual and the date of the complaint which results in a final judgment is still the rule which is most often followed by the courts for determining the end of date of a marriage and determining which assets accrued “during the marriage” for purposes of equitable distribution. Portnor v Portnor, 93 N.J. 215 (1983), Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 83 N.J. 198, (1980), Painter v. Painter, 65 N.J. 196, (1974)] #18 Re:Life insurance Claffey v.Claffey, 360 N.J. Super. 240 (App. Div. 2003). Trial court improperly tied Husband’s security requirement (life insurance) for wife’s share of deferred compensation pension (PFRS) to present day value of pension. App Div reversed and remanded for trial court to determine proper amount of life insurance to be secured by husband. #19 Larrison v.Larrison, 392 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2007). This case involved equitable distribution of Husband’s disability pension which the App Div remanded for the trial court to determine which portion of the pension represented a retirement component and which portion represented compensation for disability and economic loss. In addition, the App Div vacated the trial court’s order which required the Husband to maintain life insurance to protect the wife’s share of the pension benefits in the event of his death. The App Div stated that since the pension plan did not provide for survivor benefits, then “…there was no legal support for the trial court’s order directing otherwise.” (Contrary to Claffey). #20 Re:Distribution of Disability Pension Sternesky v.Salcie-Sternesky, 396 N.J. Super. 290 (App. Div. 2007) Trial court determined that husband’s disability pension through PFRS was income and not distributable to the wife. In the alternative, the trial court found that even if husband’s disability pension was determined to be an asset, the wife was not entitled to share in that asset through equitable distribution. The App Div reversed and set out a formula for determining which part of the disability pension was for ordinary retirement benefits and therefore subject to equitable distribution. #21 Re:Value of 401(k) at time of distribution Settenbrino v.Schwartz, (unreported) 2007 WL 3085151 (App. Div. 2007) certif. denied, 194 N.J. 270 (2008). The Final Judgment of Divorce entered on August 22, 2000 awarded the wife $32,500 as her equitable share of husband’s 401(k) which was to be distributed by QDRO. The accompanying QDRO stated that “… the plaintiff is to receive a 50% distributive award of the marital portion of the defendant’s 401(k) to wit: the sum of $32,500 to be distributed by separate QDRO…” The plan administrator did not transfer the funds until April 1, 2001 at which time the value of wife’s share had diminished to $18,724.61. Wife filed motion to compel the pension plan to transfer the balance of the money owed to her. Pension plan wrote to the wife and stated that they had complied with the QDRO and transferred her 50% interest in the 401(k). The trial court relied upon the decision by the pension plan and denied the wife’s motion. Wife appealed and App Div affirmed finding that the intent of the QDRO was to award the wife half of the value of the 401(k) and if she were to receive the full $32,500, she would be receiving more than 50% of the marital asset contrary to the Final Judgment of Divorce #22 Re:Consequences of not filing a QDRO Ross v.Ross, 308 N.J. Super 132 (App. Div. 1998) The parties were divorced and their attached PSA provided that wife would receive half of husband’s annuity and pension and also provided her with all of the survivor benefits under all of the plans in the event of his death. The PSA specifically referenced 2 of the 3 pension plans of the husband and required the wife to prepare QDROs to effectuate the division of the pensions. The husband remarried immediately after the divorce. One month later he died. Wife moved in the Family Court for the entry of QDROs or in the alternative to deem the PSA to be a QDRO and to declare her to be the surviving spouse. New wife (widow) opposed the motion claiming that she was the surviving spouse for purposes of entitlement to survivor’s benefits under the plans. Widow also filed an action in Federal Court seeking survivor’s benefits under ERISA. Family Court judge entered the QDROs and widow appealed. App Div held thata QDRO cannot be entered after the death of a participant, but found that the PSA met the requirements of a QDRO under ERISA and the REA for the specific plans mentioned but not for the plans that were not stated in the PSA. #23 Samaroo v.Samaroo, 193 F.3d 185 (3rd Cir. 1999) Cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1062 (2000) Parties were divorced and the PSA stated that the wife was to receive one half of the husband’s pension benefits at the time of his retirement. Three years later, husband died while still employed and prior to reaching retirement age. The pension plan denied the wife’s claim to pre-retirement survivor’s benefits since the divorce decree did not mention such benefits and there was no QDRO which designated the wife as the surviving spouse. The wife filed a motion in state court to amend the divorce decree nunc pro tunc to provide her with pre-retirement survivor’s benefits and that motion was granted. The pension plan was joined as a defendant and the case was removed to federal court. The district court held that the amended divorce decree was not a QDRO since it would require the plan to provide increased benefits to the wife and this was prohibited by ERISA and the REA. The 3rd Circuit affirmed. #24 Files v. ExxonMobil Pension Plan 428 F.3d 478 (3rd Cir. 2005) Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1160 (2006). Parties were divorced and the PSA stated that the wife was entitled to one-half of husband’s Exxon Savings account and one-half of the pension. The transfer was to be by QDRO for the pension and by transfer to an account designated by the wife for the savings account. The pension plan was notified of the divorce and the provisions of the PSA relating to the pension and savings account. Husband died 2 ½ years after the divorce at age 54 and no QDRO had been submitted at that point. The pension plan refused to pay any survivor’s benefits to the wife since the PSA did not designate the wife as the surviving spouse. Wife filed a motion in Family Court for relief and the court entered an order nunc pro tunc as a QDRO to compel the pension plan to pay wife her share of the pension. The pension plan again denied benefits to the wife stating that since no QDRO was entered at the time of the husband’s death, no benefits were payable to any party. Wife filed suit in federal court against the pension plan and the attorneys for the parties in state court. The district court granted summary judgment to the pension plan finding that the PSA was not a QDRO and, relying on the decision in Samaroo, also found that the nunc pro tunc order was not a QDRO. Wife appealed. Circuit Court reversed distinguishing Samaroo and finding that the PSA had created a separate interest in husband’s pension plan for the wife prior to husband’s death and the nunc pro tunc order was a QDRO which was simply enforcing a right given to the wife in the PSA. The court went on to note that nothing in ERISA precluded the entry of a QDRO after the death of a plan participant. New Mexico Case Law MATTOX v. MATTOX, 105 N.M. 479 (App. 1987) No. 8319. February 10, 1987. Respondent-appellant (husband) and petitioner-appellee (wife) appeal the decision of the trial court in this divorce proceeding. Husband raises five issues: (1) whether the trial court properly valued his pension plan; (2) whether the trial court properly valued his employee stock option plan; (3) whether the trial court properly valued his employee savings plan; (4) whether the trial court erred in the award of a coin collection as husband's separate property when its value was already included in the award of household goods; and (5) whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding lump sum alimony in addition to alimony of $500 a month for one year. We affirm on issues 1 and 2 and remand as to issue 3 with instructions. As to issue 4, we grant the parties' request to correct the arithmetic error on the personal property list. We discuss issue 5 in conjunction with wife's cross-appeal since the parties appeal the common issue of alimony. New York Case Law Miscellaneous Report McGOWAN v. McGOWAN, 136 Misc.2d 225 (1987) July 15, 1987 Defendant in this divorce action governed by the Equitable Distribution Law moves for an order determining that plaintiff's teaching license is marital property subject to equitable distribution, and that the pension of both parties should be valued as of the date of the earliest retirement as provided by their respective plans. Appellate Division Report CASELLA v. CASELLA, 306 A.D.2d 800 [3d Dept 2003] 93283 Decided and Entered: June 26, 2003. The parties to this divorce action entered into a stipulation of settlement resolving the distribution of all of their marital assets. The stipulation was incorporated, but not merged, into their judgment of divorce. Under the terms of this stipulation, the parties agreed that plaintiff's state pension would be divided in value as of the commencement date of the action (May 20, 1998) and that defendant would be entitled to 50% of this value to be accomplished through a domestic relations order.[fn1] The stipulation further provides, without differentiation, that "counsel" shall prepare the domestic relations order to be "viewed by other counsel" and further permits, but by no means requires, that a certain pension evaluator, namely William Troyan , may prepare the order "subject to approval by both counsel." Miscellaneous Report HEBER v. HEBER, 112 Misc.2d 799 (1982) January 22, 1982 This motion by defendant for an order pursuant to section 237 Dom. Rel. of the Domestic Relations Law directing plaintiff to pay defendant her costs in retaining an actuary and an appraiser is granted as set forth below. North Carolina Case Law Report BISHOP v. BISHOP, 113 N.C. App. 725 (1994) No. 9329DC288 Filed 1 March 1994 Prior to the hearing on equitable distribution in this case, plaintiff and Harry H. Bishop, Sr. (defendant), resolved many of the equitable distribution issues by consent. At the hearing, the trial court was asked to classify, value, and distribute three assets: defendant's military retirement, defendant's DuPont retirement, and defendant's DuPont incentive plan. The trial court concluded that the DuPont retirement plan was a marital asset and that the military retirement was defendant's separate property. The trial court further concluded that an equal division of the marital property was equitable and entered the following order: Pennsylvania Case Law Supreme Court Report BERRINGTON v. BERRINGTON, 534 Pa. 393 (1993) Decided November 12, 1993. This is a divorce case involving equitable distribution of a defined benefit pension fund. The issue presented is whether the non-employee spouse's share in a deferred distribution of a pension should be based upon the salary which the employee-spouse earned at the date of separation or upon the amount earned at some post-separation retirement date. The trial court determined that the marital share should be based on the employee's pension to be received at the time the pension plan enters pay status. Superior Court reversed, holding that the amount to be awarded the non-employee spouse should be based on the employee's salary at the date of separation, but augmented by growth in the pension fund based on factors other than the employer's or employee's contributions to the fund after the date of separation. 409 Pa. Super. 355, 372, 598 A.2d 31, 40 (1991). We affirm. #2 Superior Court Report KING v. KING, 332 Pa. Super. 526 (1984) Filed August 24, 1984. Appellant is the former husband of appellee. He contests the distribution of property ordered by the trial court in conjunction with the parties' divorce. Specifically he challenges the valuation of his pension plan, which was subject to equitable distribution, and what he claims was the failure of the trial court to take into consideration in making its distribution of marital property the fact that appellee had resided since the date of separation in the marital residence rent free. #3 Superior Court Report KRIZOVENSKY v. KRIZOVENSKY, 425 Pa. Super. 204 (1993) Filed May 4, 1993. Linda Krizovensky ["wife"] appeals the order entered July 23, 1992, in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. The court's order apportioned the post-retirement distribution of John Krizovensky's ["husband"] Civil Service Retirement System pension. On this appeal, wife argues that the court misinterpreted the parties' property settlement agreement and disputes the amount awarded to her pursuant to the court's order. We agree and reverse the trial court's order. #4 Superior Court Report BRADERMAN v. BRADERMAN, 339 Pa. Super. 185 (1985) Filed February 8, 1985. These cross-appeals arise from an order of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas in a divorce proceeding concerning the equitable distribution of marital property, alimony, and counsel fees. Roslyn S. Braderman, is the appellant in appeal No. 272 and Jay R. Braderman is the appellant in appeal No. 273. In order to avoid the confusion which the terms "appellant" and "appellee" would cause in dealing with these cross-appeals, the term "plaintiff-wife" will be used throughout this opinion to describe Roslyn S. Braderman and Jay R. Braderman will be designed as "defendant-husband". #5 Supreme Court Report HOVIS v. HOVIS, 518 Pa. 137 (1988) Decided May 20, 1988. The issue before this Court is under what circumstances potential tax liability should be considered in the valuation of marital property for purposes of equitable distribution under the Pennsylvania Divorce Code, 23 Pa.S.A. § 401(d). #6 Superior Court Report FLYNN v. FLYNN, 341 Pa. Super. 76 (1985) Filed March 29, 1985. This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County entered November 23, 1982, granting a decree in divorce and an award of temporary alimony. The appellant, Mary Flynn, requests that the divorce decree be reversed and that her award of alimony be vacated and remanded for additional consideration. #7 Superior Court Report MANTELL v. MANTELL, 384 Pa. Super. 475 (1989) Filed May 11, 1989. I agree with President Judge Cirillo that, except for the trial court's award of counsel fees in the Texas action, the decree of divorce and order of distribution must be affirmed. The award of counsel fees in the Texas action, however, was improper and must be vacated. #8 Superior Court Report DeMASI v. DeMASI, 366 Pa. Super. 19 (1987) Filed August 10, 1987. Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied March 2, 1988. These are four consolidated appeals: three filed by Rocco J. DeMasi, and one filed by Tanya J. DeMasi. As both parties are appellant and appellee, we shall refer to Rocco J. DeMasi as "husband" and to Tanya J. DeMasi as "wife." The orders under review concern child support, spousal support, alimony pendente lite, equitable distribution of marital property, counsel fees and litigation expenses.[fn1] #9 Superior Court Report ZOLLARS v. ZOLLARS, 397 Pa. Super. 204 (1990) Filed August 28, 1990. Robert D. Zollars appeals from an order distributing marital property. He specifically takes issue with the valuation of his pension and with the trial court's decision to award Dolores 60 percent of the marital property. We affirm the portion of the order granting Dolores 60 percent of the marital property and the valuation of his pension, but reverse as to the manner of distribution. #10 Superior Court Report LYONS v. LYONS, 401 Pa. Super. 271 (1991) Filed January 17, 1991. Appellant-wife (hereinafter "Wife") appeals from a December 15, 1989 equitable distribution and child support order. The order in question denied Wife's motion for post-trial relief and modified a September 15, 1989 order to require appellee-husband (hereinafter "Husband") to provide medical insurance coverage for two of the parties' minor children and to pay for half of their unreimbursed medical expenses.[fn1] Wife contends that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to distribute Husband's pension on a 50/50 basis; (2) underestimating the present value of the marital portion of Husband's pension; and (3) failing to order Husband to pay all of the children's medical and dental expenses that are not covered or reimbursed by insurance.[fn2] For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's order regarding Husband's payment of uncovered or unreimbursed medical expenses, and we vacate the portion of the court's order disposing of Husband's pension and remand for proceedings consistent with this Opinion. #11 Superior Court Report HOLLAND v. HOLLAND, 403 Pa. Super. 116 (1991) Filed February 12, 1991. Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied August 6, 1991. In this appeal of an equitable distribution order, Appellant raises four questions. Chief among them is the method used by the trial court in distributing the marital share of Appellant's pension. The trial judge, after entering a decree of divorce, ordered Mr. Holland's government retirement plan be equitably distributed using the deferred distribution method. The court ruled that the basic benefit of this asset should be determined at the time that husband retires based upon an application of the coverture fraction. #12 Superior Court Report GORDON v. GORDON, 436 Pa. Super. 126 (1994) Filed July 11, 1994. Reargument Denied September 14, 1994. This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County dividing the parties' marital estate. Rhode Island Case Law Supreme Court Case STEVENSON v. STEVENSON, 511 A.2d 961 (R.I. 1986) No. 83-550-Appeal. June 26, 1986. This is an appeal from a divorce decree entered in the Family Court in which the trial justice granted the husband's petition and the wife's cross-petition for absolute divorce based upon irreconcilable differences that had caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage.[fn1] The husband appeals from the court's assignment of property and from the award of alimony and counsel fees to the wife. We affirm in part and reverse in part. #2 Supreme Court Case RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE EMPLOYEES' v. DiPRETE, 845 A.2d 270 (R.I. 2004) No. 2000-0429-Appeal (PC 99-206) March 26, 2004 Abraham Lincoln once explained that "[t]he legitimate object of government is to do for * * * people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves * * *."[fn1] Implicit in this is an indispensable ingredient of a well-functioning democracy - the element of trust. Public officials are honored with the opportunity to serve the public to benefit the people. It is expected that those officials will fulfill their commitments with loyalty, honor and integrity. This opinion comes in the wake of an elected official's decision to breach that commitment. Tennessee Case Law KENDRICK v. KENDRICK, 902 S.W.2d 918 (Tenn.App. 1994) November 16, 1994. Published Pursuant to Tenn. Ct. App.R. 11. This appeal involves the right of a divorcee to receive a portion of her former spouse's nonvested military pension. After over ten years of marriage, the wife sued the husband for divorce in the Chancery Court for Franklin County. The trial court granted the wife a divorce and awarded her a portion of the husband's nonvested military pension as part of the division of the marital property. The husband asserts on this appeal that his nonvested military pension should not have been considered marital property. We have determined that the wife is entitled to a portion of the husband's military pension when and if he begins to receive it and that her share should be based on the husband's salary at the time of the divorce. Virginia Case Law Court of Appeals Report ZIPF v. ZIPF, 8 Va. App. 387 (1989) 46009 No. 1114-87-4 Decided July 11, 1989 On this appeal from a decree entered in a divorce proceeding, Marion K. Zipf contends that the trial judge erred in: (1) selecting as the valuation date of marital property the date of filing of the bill of complaint instead of a date as near as practical to the evidentiary hearing; (2) awarding her twenty-five percent of the value of the husband's military pension and twenty-five percent of the value of stock titled in the husband's name; (3) fixing as a sum certain the value of her share of the husband's pension without adjustment to compensate for delayed receipt of that sum in the form of periodic payments; and (4) requiring her to exhaust her share of the marital property before awarding more than nominal spousal support. For the reasons which follow, we affirm in part the trial judge's decision, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. #2 Court of Appeals Report GAMBLE v. GAMBLE, 14 Va. App. 558 (1992) 47876 No. 1726-90-2 Decided June 2, 1992 By final decree entered on September 21, 1990, the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville granted Constance P. Gamble a final divorce on the grounds of desertion and adultery from Harry Yandle Gamble, Jr. The decree further granted Mrs. Gamble a monetary award and spousal support, and ordered Mr. Gamble to convey his interest in the jointly owned marital home to Mrs. Gamble in partial satisfaction of the monetary award. On appeal, Mr. Gamble challenges the monetary and spousal support awards. He does not challenge the grounds for the divorce. West Virginia Case Law Supreme Court Report BUTCHER v. BUTCHER, 178 W. Va. 33 (1987) No. 16705. April 2, 1987. Petition for Rehearing April 17, 1987. Rehearing Denied June 3, 1987. The primary issue presented in this appeal is whether military nondisability retirement benefits can be considered for alimony and child support purposes and as marital property subject to equitable distribution in a divorce proceeding. A secondary issue involves whether the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding only temporary rehabilitative alimony. The circuit court concluded that military retirement benefits were exempt, and we find this to be error. The circuit court also erred in awarding only temporary rehabilitative alimony. Wisconsin Case Law IN RE: MARRIAGE OF WASHINGTON v. WASHINGTON, 2000 WI 47 234 Wis.2d 689 Case No.: 98-1234. Opinion Filed: June 7, 2000. This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, Washington v. Washington, No. 98-1234, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App., June 9, 1999), affirming an order of the circuit court for Ozaukee County, Joseph D. McCormack, Circuit Judge. The circuit court denied Gail M. Washington's post-divorce motion to grant her appreciation and interest, from the date of divorce until pension payments begin, on her award of a lump-sum share of her ex-husband Melvin K. Washington's federal employee pension. The circuit court held that Wis. Stat. § 767.32(1)(a) (1997-98) prohibited the circuit court from modifying or revising the provisions of the judgment and order with respect to the final division of property.

Official Troyan QDRO Site: Original Troyan QDRO & Pension Evaluator Firm. Troyan & Associates, P.A (Now Located in Sarasota, FL) (formerly Troyan, Inc. - New Jersey) Our Experienced QDRO Attorney prepares all Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Visit us: www.TroyanLaw.com or www.QDROAttorney.com

Official Troyan QDRO Site: Original Troyan QDRO & Pension Evaluator Firm. Troyan & Associates, P.A (Now Located in Sarasota, FL) (formerly Troyan, Inc. - New Jersey) Our Experienced QDRO Attorney prepares all Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Visit us: www.TroyanLaw.com or www.QDROAttorney.com Fees: QDRO and Related Fees: Drafting Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO"): Legal Aid, State Non-Profit Legal Services & U.S. Legal Services, Inc. $400.00 Includes: (Click on Plan Type to Access Correct Form) Civil Service Retirement System Federal Employees Retirement System Thrift Savings Plan U.S. Railroad Retirement System IRA Transfer Orders State and Municipal Plans All private and public companies Drafting Domestic Relations Orders against Non-Qualified Plans: $750.00 (minimum) Drafting Property Settlement Agreement Language for QDRO: $550.00 (per Plan) Drafting Consent Order for Equitable Distributions: $750.00 (minimum) Miscellaneous QDRO Fees: $125.00-$250.00 (per QDRO) (depending on changes required) Revision Fees to Previously Prepared QDRO: Revision to Previously Prepared QDRO (Address' Only): $75.00 (per QDRO) QDRO Rush Fee (48-hour (business days)): $150.00 (per QDRO) Superceding QDRO (when prior QDRO prepared by Troyan): $250.00 (per QDRO) Written Review and Commentary on QDRO (when QDRO not prepared by Troyan) (This service does not include drafting a QDRO): $455.00 (review per QDRO)