DeSantis v. DeSantis’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2017
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 414 (§ 1015 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Donnelly v. Bk of New York Co · 801 F. Supp. 1237 - Kahn v. Kahn · 662 So. 2d 744 - McAvoy v. McAvoy · La Roche v. La Roche · Adkins v. Adkins
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] QDRO is, in pertinent part, a "domestic relations order ... which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(3)(B)(i). In Kahn v. Kahn, 801 F.Supp. 1237, 1244 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff'd, 2 F.3d 403 (2d Cir.1993), the court stated that: The object of REA [Retirement Equity Act, which authorizes the issuance of a QUADRO] was to better protect women who had contributed to their marriage's [sic] financial security through their work in the home, anticipated sharing in the pension income received upon their husband's [sic] retirement, but were left inescapably dependent on their husband's [sic] earnings, at the mercy of death or divorce. (emphasis added). Thus, a QDRO is intended to protect one spouse's right to the other's pension or profit sharing plans by recognizing that spouse's entitlement to a portion of the future payments.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Once the final judgment awarded each party the interest in his or her own pension plan, those assets were no longer marital property but the sole property of the individual spouse. Thus, the husband had no marital property rights in the wife’s pension plan. To order a QDRO on the wife’s pension plan is to create an interest in that asset which the final judgment extinguished. That is tantamount to a modification of the final adjudication of property rights in a divorce ease, which is not permitted. Once the final judgment is entered, there are no longer marital property rights, only individual property rights. The remedies available for enforcement of those provisions of the final judgment mth regard to the equitable distribution of assets are those of creditor against debtor. While a post-judgment QDRO may be entered to secure an interest in a spouse’s pension awarded in the final judgment, we do not interpret the provisions of section 221.21(2)(b) or the Internal Revenue Code as permitting the court to create a post-judgment interest in an individual spouse’s property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Once the final judgment [of dissolution of marriage] awarded each party the interest in his or her own pension plan, those assets were no longer marital property but the sole property of the individual spouse.... Once the final judgment is entered, there are no longer marital property rights, only individual property rights. The remedies available for enforcement of those provisions of the final judgment with regard to the equitable distribution of assets are those of creditor against debtor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.