5 C.F.R. § 838.122
State courts' responsibilities
State courts are responsible for—
(a) Providing due process to the employee or retiree;
(b) Issuing clear, specific, and express instructions consistent with the statutory provisions authorizing OPM to provide benefits to former spouses or child abuse creditors and the requirements of this part for awarding such benefits;
(c) Using the terminology defined in this part only when it intends to use the meaning given to that terminology by this part;
(d) Determining when court orders are invalid; and
(e) Settling all disputes between the employee or retiree and the former spouse or child abuse creditor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2022 · leading case: In Re Marriage of Washington v. Washington, 2000 WI 47 (Wis. 2000).
In Re Marriage of Washington v. Washington, 2000 WI 47 (Wis. 2000). “We reject this argument based on the federal regulations.”
Philip M. King v. Antonietta Cerbone., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 783 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022). “5 C.F.R. § 838.122 (b). [Note 9] The regulatory language that the husband urged upon the contempt judge is contained in a portion of the regulations entitled "Payment Procedures.”
Harrington v. Ford, 2015 Ohio 3571 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “Federal regulations grant state courts exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes regarding court orders awarding benefits under the CSRS to former spouses.”
Kathaleen Moriarty King v. Hal David King (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “) In addition, 5 C.F.R. § 838.122 (2008) explains that state courts are responsible for “[i]ssuing clear, specific, and express instructions consistent with the statutory provisions authorizing OPM to provide benefits to former spouses or child abuse creditors and the…”
Hasanadka v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 248 F. App'x 190 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Hasandaka also argues that OPM should not have implemented the court’s order because that court had not satisfied the *192 requirement in 5 C.F.R. § 838.122 that the court “issu[e] clear, specific, and express instructions consistent with the statutory provisions authorizing OPM…”
Elizabeth A. Emond v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2015). “5 C.F.R. § 838.122 (d); see 5 C.F.R. § 838.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 838.122(e) — 1 case
Harrington v. Ford, 2015 Ohio 3571 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “Federal regulations grant state courts exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes regarding court orders awarding benefits under the CSRS to former spouses.”
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.