5 C.F.R. § 838.304

Providing for payment to the former spouse

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A court order directed at employee annuity is not a court order acceptable for processing unless it provides for OPM to pay the former spouse a portion of an employee annuity as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) To provide for OPM to pay the former spouse a portion of an employee annuity as required by paragraph (a) of this section the court order must—

(1) Expressly direct OPM to pay the former spouse directly;

(2) Direct the retiree to arrange or to execute forms for OPM to pay the former spouse directly; or

(3) Be silent concerning who is to pay the portion of the employee annuity awarded to the former spouse.

(c) Except when the court order directed at employee annuity contains a provision described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a court order directed at employee annuity that instructs the retiree to pay a portion of the employee annuity to the former spouse is not a court order acceptable for processing.

(d) Although paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section provide acceptable methods for satisfying the requirement that a court order directed at employee annuity provide for OPM to pay the former spouse, OPM strongly recommends that any court order directed at employee annuity expressly direct OPM to pay the former spouse directly.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2009–2024 · leading case: Richardson v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 347 F. App'x 574 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Richardson v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 347 F. App'x 574 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “We note that 5 C.F.R. § 838.304 provides: (a) A court order directed at employee annuity is not a court order acceptable for processing unless it provides for OPM to pay the former spouse a portion of an employee annuity as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.”

Murray Johnson v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 2022 MSPB 19 (MSPB 2022). “301 ; 5 C.F.R. §§ 838.304 -.306. To the extent the administrative judge erred in citing the incorrect provisions in sections 838.”

Gerald J Bialas v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2024). · cites it 2× “ID at 6; see 5 C.F.R. § 838.304 (c). We discern no reason to disturb the administrative judge’s finding that the PSA is a court order acceptable for processing based on the appellant’s argument that the PSA assigned him payment responsibilities.”

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.