- 4 -
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that with respect to the
Defendant’s pension, the Defendant shall pay to the
Plaintiff, if, as, and when he receives each pension
payment, that sum which is determined in accordance
with the following formula:
50 percent X (12 years and seven months of
marriage ÷ by total years of employment).[4]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that if the Defendant
voluntarily takes his pension as a lump sum, either
before or after retirement, then Defendant shall, upon
receipt of * * * said lump sum, pay to the Plaintiff
the sum of Twenty-two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($22,500), with simple interest at the rate of ten
(10) percent from July 1, 1983, to the date of payment.
[Reproduced literally.]
During 2002, Mr. Bangs received monthly payments from the
Baltimore County pension plan. Pursuant to the divorce decree
provision in question, shortly after receiving each such monthly
payment, Mr. Bangs made the following monthly payments totaling
$8,803.875 (monthly payments at issue) on the dates indicated by
electronic transfers from a joint checking account that he and
Ms. Bangs maintained to a checking account of Ms. Platt:
4We shall refer to the fourth-ordered paragraph quoted above
as the divorce decree provision in question.
5The parties stipulated that during 2002 Mr. Bangs paid to
Ms. Platt $8,883 pursuant to the divorce decree provision in
question. That stipulation is clearly contrary to the facts that
we have found are established by the record, and we shall disre-
gard it. See Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 181,
195 (1989). The record establishes, and we have found, that
during 2002 Mr. Bangs paid to Ms. Platt $8,803.87 pursuant to the
divorce decree provision in question.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008