The acronym “QDRO” stands for “qualified domestic relations order,” and it is among the most important orders in all of family law. QDROs come into play when one spouse obtains a property interest in the other spouse’s retirement benefits. In essence, the QDRO is a formal recognition of this property interest. The QDRO includes all he relevant details regarding this property interest, such as the exact portion of the benefits to which the recipient spouse is entitled, when those benefits will be available, and so forth. Retirement benefits are frequently quibbled over in divorce, and so QDROs provide a measure of finality to this issue.
One case which shows how retirement benefits can be a very contentious issue is Jean-Baptiste v. Jean-Baptiste (2023). In this case, the husband apparently consented to certain terms regarding his retirement benefits, but ultimately he tried to back out and undo his consent at a later date. In the end, he was unsuccessful in withdrawing his consent. Let’s look at the details of this case in depth.
Facts of the Case
The spouses in this case privately worked out an agreement with respect to the husband’s retirement benefits. More specifically, the husband agreed to give his ex-wife a portion of his Federal Employee Retirement System Pension (FERSP), and also a portion of his Thrift Savings Plan. The wife’s precise portion was included in the settlement agreement (MSA), as was the husband’s commitment to sign the necessary documents to ensure that the wife’s portion was guaranteed (i.e. in the QDRO). However, the husband’s subsequent behavior demonstrates some of the difficulties involved when ex-spouses deal with retirement benefits.
More than one year after the MSA was developed, the parties were back in court attempting to resolve the matter of the retirement benefits. The wife contended that the husband refused to sign the QDROs which would ensure that she received her agreed upon portion of the benefits. The husband was apparently reluctant to sign the QDROs because he supposedly objected to certain terms within the MSA. But, during trial, the husband testified that he intended to consent to the terms related to the transfer of retirement benefits. He also still wanted to quibble over the validity of the MSA, however, and argued that the terms of the MSA rendered the QDROs unenforceable. Ultimately, the husband lost at the trial court level and then appealed.
Outcome & Discussion
The husband was unsuccessful on appeal. The husband had already agreed to the transfer of the retirement benefits during the negotiation of the MSA; this consent was further solidified during the trial when the husband gave testimony regarding the benefits. If the husband wanted to reverse his decision regarding the benefits, the time to make this reversal was during the negotiation process of the MSA. The husband’s arguments regarding how the MSA affected the QDROs and divorce decree were also rejected; again, the husband had already agreed to the terms of the MSA, and his time to bring up these arguments had already passed. The appellate division affirmed the trial court determination and the QDROs took effect.
One of the lessons here is that objecting to the transfer of retirement benefits rests partly on timing. If you don’t want to give your ex-spouse a certain portion of benefits, don’t give any consent in a MSA, as this will establish a precedent which will go against the consenting spouse in the future.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you would like additional information on QDROs in Maryland, retirement benefits in divorce, property division in general, or another related topic, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.