Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gendreau v. Gendreau (In Re Gendreau)

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 31, 1996No. BAP No. NV-94-1832-HaMeAs. Bankruptcy No. 93-31897-JHT. Adv. No. 93-3119Published

1Dissent

HAGAN, Bankruptcy Judge,

dissenting:

My analysis of the applicable law would mandate a reversal of the order appealed. I therefore respectfully dissent. The order stating that the Appellee had a property interest in the Debtor’s pension plan was not a Qualified Domestic Relations Order; it could not create a property interest in the pension plan; and therefore it was a debt discharged in bankruptcy.

DISCUSSION

1. The Appellee Could Not Obtain an Interest in the United Pension Plans in the Absence of a QDRO.

The majority opinion properly notes that the Order did not create a debt that was…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Home State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Patterson v. ShumateSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension FundSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Farrey v. SanderfootSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. In Re Robert Burns Jensen Rosemary Tooker Jensen, Debtors. California Department of Health Services v. Robert Burns Jensen Rosemary Tooker JensenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API