142 Md. App. 448 - Potts v. Potts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(C) A domestic relations order meets the requirements of [a QDRO] only if such order clearly specifies— (i) the name and last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant’s benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined. (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies and (iv) each plan to which such order applies.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Robinette v. Hunsecker · 181 Md. App. 390 - Barnes v. Barnes

2. “A number of courts in other states have also found that survivor benefits are marital property separate and apart from the pension plans to which they are attached. Fielitz v. Fielitz, 1998 WL 918815 at , 1998 Del.Fam.Ct. LEXIS 182 at (Dd.Fam.Ct.1998) (“The Court, however, views survivor annuities as a unique form of marital asset.”) (citing Caldwell [v. Caldwell], supra [ 103 Md.App. 452 , 653 A.2d 994 (1995)]); Smithberg v. Illinois Mun. Retirement Fund, 192 Ill.2d 291, 302 , 248 Ill.Dec. 909 , 735 N.E.2d 560, 567 (2000) (the “survivor benefit ... has been held to be a ‘distinct property interest’ ”); Workman v. Workman, 106 N.C.App. 562, 564 , 418 S.E.2d 269, 270 (1992) (mentioning pension and survivor benefits as separate marital property); Rowlan v. Rowlan, 1991 OK CIV APP 88 , 817 P.2d 1285, 1286 (Okla.Ct.App.1991) (referring to a disability pension and survivor benefits as distinct pieces of marital property); Nemeth v. Nemeth, 325 S.C. 480, 488-89 , 481 S.E.2d 181, 186 (S.C.Ct.App. 1997); Dugan v. Childers, 261 Va. 3, 8 , 539 S.E.2d 723, 725 (2001) (citing King v. King, 225 Ga.App. 298, 300 , 483 S.E.2d 379, 382 (1997), for the proposition that a military Survivor Benefit Plan is a distinct piece of marital property); and Smith v. Smith, 190 W.Va. 402, 404 , 438 S.E.2d 582, 584 (1993) (same).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stiel v. Stiel

3. “Notwithstanding their importance, issues and practice surrounding QDROs can give rise to contentious proceedings after a judgment of absolute divorce has been granted, because “ERISA does not necessarily require that a QDRO be part of the actual judgment in a case.” Hogle v. Hogle, 732 N.E.2d 1278, 1281 (Ind. Ct.App.2000), transfer denied, 753 N.E.2d 9 (Ind.2001) (citing In re Marriage of Bruns, 535 N.W.2d 157 , 162 (Iowa Ct.App.1995)). See also Rohrbeck [v. Rohrbeck], 318 Md. [28] at 42-43, 566 A.2d 767 [ (1989) ], and Elizabeth M. Wells, Step One: Draft the QDRO, 24 Fam.Adv. 20 (Fall, 2001).... Whatever the reason, this delay unfortunately creates a false sense of finality and generates questions regarding the appealability of divorce judgments involving pension issues. In the opinion of one commentator, “[drafting a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) concurrently with the divorce is essential.” Gary Shulman, QDROs-The Ticking Time Bomb, 23 Fam. Adv. 26, 26 (Spring, 2001). We agree that this would appear to be the better practice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stiel v. Stiel