Legal Opinion

Taylor v. Taylor

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 1989No. 88-819PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

The issue here concerns whether the attachment order issued by the trial court in this case is a “qualified domestic relations order” as defined in ERISA Section 1056(d) (3)(B). We hold that R.C. 3113.21 (D)(4) (now renumbered [4][a]) authorizes a domestic relations court to issue a “qualified domestic relations order” (“QDRO”) attaching pension plans qualifying under ERISA.

Private pension plans qualifying under ERISA are subject to numerous restrictions, the most significant of which is that the benefits provided in such plans may not be assigned or alienated. ERISA Section 1056(d)(1).…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Stinner v. StinnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Iannotti v. Iannotti, No. Fa-85-0238433-S (Jan. 17, 1997)Connecticut Superior Court · 1997
  2. Lyddy v. LyddyOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. Mary Kathryn C. Wallace v. Kristin W. WildenseeSupreme Court of Iowa · 2023
  4. Sippe v. SippeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API