The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to use July 23, 2019 as the valuation date for the wife's pension in the QDRO, rejecting the wife's argument that this date improperly modified the divorce decree.
Excerpt
Divorce division of pension QDRO date of the termination of marriage. The QDRO issued by the trial court is affirmed. It is within the trial court's discretion to select a date for distribution purposes regarding each marital asset in order to achieve an equitable division of marital property. Furthermore, there is no merit to appellant's claim that the QDRO improperly modified the terms of the judgment entry of divorce.
What This Ruling Means
# Karabogias v. Zoltanski Summary
**What Happened**
A former University Hospitals employee disputed how her pension should be divided during her divorce. The disagreement centered on what date should be used to calculate the value of her retirement benefits. She argued the trial court's chosen date incorrectly changed the original divorce agreement.
**What the Court Decided**
The appeals court sided with the trial court. The court confirmed that using July 23, 2019 as the valuation date was appropriate and did not improperly alter the divorce settlement. The court ruled that judges have the authority to choose fair valuation dates when dividing retirement benefits between spouses.
**Why This Matters for Workers**
This case demonstrates that courts have flexibility in determining how pensions are split during divorce proceedings. The specific date chosen can significantly affect how much each former spouse receives. Workers with pensions should understand that divorce settlements involving retirement benefits require careful attention to valuation dates, as these decisions can impact their retirement security.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.