(a) Unless the qualifying court order expressly provides otherwise, the former spouse's share of employee retirement benefits terminates on the last day of the month before the death of the former spouse, and the former spouse's share of employee retirement benefits reverts to the retiree.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, OPM will honor a qualifying court order or an amended qualifying court order that directs OPM to pay, after the death of the former spouse, the former spouse's share of the employee annuity to—
(1) The court;
(2) An officer of the court acting as a fiduciary;
(3) The estate of the former spouse; or
(4) One or more of the retiree's children as defined in section 8342(c) or section 8424(d) of title 5, United States Code.
[57 FR 33597, July 29, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 43493, Aug. 17, 1993]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1997–2014 · leading case:
Wahl v. Wahl, 945 P.2d 1229 (Alaska 1997).
Wahl v. Wahl, 945 P.2d 1229 (Alaska 1997).
· cites it 3× “Jerrold also asserts that the "Death of Former Spouse” language violates 5 C.F.R. § 838.1012 . This regulation governs when OPM will pay a deceased former spouse’s share of an employee's retirement benefits to the former spouse’s children.”
Kadlecek v. Kadlecek, 93 S.W.3d 903 (Tex. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 838.1012 (a) (2001); see also McClure, Federal Retirement Plans, supra, at 23 (“No special provision is required to restore the entire [retirement benefits] to the retiree upon the death of the former spouse.”
Couvillion v. Couvillion, 769 So. 2d 747 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
“We do find merit in Michael's final objection to the QDROthat it does not require Beverly to pay any expenses connected with administration of her share of the benefits she receives as part of his pension.”
Couvillion v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 129 F. App'x 613 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
· cites it 3× “237 (b) (2005); see 5 C.F.R. § 838.1012 (b) (2005). Couvillion first argues that there is no statutory basis for 5 C.”
Edward John Kadlecek, Jr. v. Marilyn Holtman Kadlecek (Tex. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 838.1012 (a) (2001); see also McClure, Federal Retirement Plans , supra , at 23 ("No special provision is required to restore the entire [retirement benefits] to the retiree upon the death of the former spouse.”
Mark E. Cahill v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2014).
“For instance, the appellant cites OPM’s regulation at 5 C.F.R. § 838.1012 (b)(4), which states that OPM will honor a 6 qualifying court order directing OPM to pay, after the death of the former spouse, the former spouse’s share of the employee annuity to one or more of the…”
— 5 C.F.R. § 838.1012(b)(3) — 1 case
Couvillion v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 129 F. App'x 613 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“237 (b) (2005); see 5 C.F.R. § 838.1012 (b) (2005). Couvillion first argues that there is no statutory basis for 5 C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.