(a) Qualifying Domestic Relations Orders. (1) Any court order labeled as a “qualified domestic relations order” or issued on a form for ERISA qualified domestic relations orders is not a court order acceptable for processing unless the court order expressly states that the provisions of the court order concerning CSRS or FERS benefits are governed by this part.
(2) When a court order is required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section to state that the provisions of a court order concerning CSRS or FERS benefits are governed by this part the court order must expressly—
(i) Refer to part 838 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, and
(ii) State that the provisions of the court order concerning CSRS or FERS benefits are drafted in accordance with the terminology used in this part.
(3) Although any language satisfying the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section is sufficient to prevent a court order from being unacceptable under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, OPM recommends the use of the language provided in ¶ 001 in appendix A to subpart F of this part to state that the provisions of the court order concerning CSRS or FERS benefits are governed by this part.
(4) A court order directed at employee annuity that contains the language described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must also satisfy all other requirements of this subpart to be a court order acceptable for processing.
(b) Benefits for the lifetime of the former spouse. Any court order directed at employee annuity that expressly provides that the former spouse's portion of the employee annuity may continue after the death of the employee or retiree, such as a court order providing that the former spouse's portion of the employee annuity will continue for the lifetime of the former spouse, is not a court order acceptable for processing.
Notes of Decisions
Hayward v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 578 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 11× “Hayward that the QDRO which her attorney had submitted did not meet the requirements set out in 5 C.F.R. § 838.302 , 2 and thus was unacceptable for processing.”
Hudson v. Hudson, 885 N.W.2d 652 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “She asserted that because 5 CFR 838.302(b) does not allow her to obtain benefits from defendant’s federal pension in the form of an annuity payable during her lifetime, defendant’s proposed EDRO results in a distribution of the parties’ pension plans that is contrary to the…”
Wallop v. Wallop, 2004 WY 46 (Wyo. 2004).
“) In the same vein, both 5 C.F.R. § 838.302 (dealing with annuity benefits) and 5 C.”
William H. Perry, Ii, Etitioner v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt.,respondent, 243 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “That subsection provides that any court order so stating “is not a court order acceptable for processing unless the court order expressly states that the provisions of the court order concerning CSRS or FERS benefits are governed by this part” and that such “court order must…”
Heyda v. Heyda, 615 A.2d 1218 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992).
“In that regard, we call the circuit court’s particular attention to 5 C.F.R. § 838.302 which “clarifies that court orders that contain language that make it impossible for [OPM] to process the court order while maintaining [their] ministerial role are not acceptable for…”
DeEttore v. DeEttore, 100 A.D.3d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012).
“The plaintiff contends that stated portions of a “Court Order Acceptable for Processing” (hereinafter COAP) dated February 10, 2011, directing the equitable distribution of his benefits under the Federal Civil Service Retirement System, gave the defendant survivorship benefits…”
Arlene Smith In Re Paul D. Marshal v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2022).
· cites it 3× “5 C.F.R. § 838.302 (b) contains similar language regarding orders awarding an annuity to a former spouse during the Federal employee’s life, and states that court orders that provide that a former spouse’s portion of the employee annuity will continue for the lifetime of the…”
Carranza v. Gonzales (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“” See generally 5 C.F.R. § 838.302 . This decision will refer to this as the order.”
Kurt J Hein v. Terri Jo Hein (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“Although not a model of clear drafting, 5 CFR § 838.302 (b) states that a court order acceptable for processing may not provide for any portion of the employee or retiree’s pension to be paid to a former spouse after the death of the employee or retiree.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 838.302(a) — 2 cases
William H. Perry, Ii, Etitioner v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt.,respondent, 243 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
“That subsection provides that any court order so stating “is not a court order acceptable for processing unless the court order expressly states that the provisions of the court order concerning CSRS or FERS benefits are governed by this part” and that such “court order must…”
— 5 C.F.R. § 838.302(b) — 1 case
Hudson v. Hudson, 885 N.W.2d 652 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“She asserted that because 5 CFR 838.302(b) does not allow her to obtain benefits from defendant’s federal pension in the form of an annuity payable during her lifetime, defendant’s proposed EDRO results in a distribution of the parties’ pension plans that is contrary to the…”
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.