Legal Opinion · Dissent

Halbert v. Halbert

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 12, 1996No. A95A2802Published

1DissentBeasley, Chief Judge

I respectfully dissent because the trial court correctly construed the qualified domestic relations order to mean that the wife could choose to begin receiving a portion of the husband’s retirement benefits on either his retirement or on his “Unreduced Retirement Date,” as that term is defined in the pension plan maintained by the husband’s employer.

The entire order relates to the payments to be made to the wife, after divorce, in connection with the pension plan which otherwise would have covered her had the parties remained married. The order determined what her rights would be, authorized…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Friedman v. FriedmanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1989
  2. Darby v. MathisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1994
  3. Hunsinger v. Lockheed Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1989
  4. Gans v. Ga. Fed. Sav. &C. Assn.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
  5. Franklin v. FranklinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1992

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API