Qualified Domestice Relations Orders...Are they all the same?
Many lawyers settle cases and draft agreementts that are vague. When you sign a divorce agreement make sure the language in the agreement spells out exactly what pension options you or your former spose will choose. Pension options vary. Every pension is different. Under New York Divorce laws, a former spouse is entitled to a qualified domestic relations order........
The
66.2.8 - - - LemesisLemesis v. Lemesis, --- A.D.3d ---, --- N.Y.S.2d --- (Fourth Dept. 2007)(2007 WL 779760)(2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 02339)(Mar. 16, 2007):
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Bridget Fitzgerald LEMESIS, Now known as Bridget Fitzgerald Scott, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Aldis A. LEMESIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Mar. 16, 2007
In this divorce action, defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in granting that part of plaintiff's postjudgment cross motion seeking a qualified domestic relations order directing that plaintiff's share in defendant's federal employment retirement system (FERS) benefits is to be calculated as if defendant had opted for the highest benefit option available. We agree. According to the terms of the parties' separation agreement, which was incorporated but not merged in the judgment of divorce, defendant's FERS pension was to be divided in accordance with Majauskas v. Majauskas (61 N.Y.2d 481). Defendant remarried following the divorce and, upon his retirement, he opted for a distribution plan that created a survivor benefit for his second wife and reduced the benefits that he would have received if he had opted for the self-only distribution plan. We agree with defendant that the court erred in directing that plaintiff's share of the FERS pension benefits be calculated as if defendant had opted for the highest benefit option, i.e., the self-only distribution plan, inasmuch as there was no express provision in the separation agreement requiring him to do so (see Von Buren v. Von Buren, 252 A.D.2d 950), and we therefore modify the order accordingly.
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court properly determined that plaintiff was entitled to an equitable share of the monthly retirement supplement benefits and any cost of living adjustments as part of the pension benefits despite the absence of an express provision to that effect in the separation agreement (see Pagliaro v. Pagliaro, 31 AD3d 728, 730).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying that part of the cross motion with respect to calculation of plaintiff's share of defendant's federal employment retirement system benefits and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
following case details how a former spouse can lose out on alot of money.