- 20 -
at 58, or the owner of an interest in such a plan, as the parties
apparently argue here, for purposes of that section, Mr. Bangs,
and not Ms. Platt, was the distributee under the Baltimore County
pension plan, unless the divorce decree qualifies under section
414(p) as a QDRO.
The final argument that Mr. Bangs advances in support of his
position in these cases and that we consider now is that the
divorce decree involved in these cases qualifies under section
414(p) as a QDRO. If the divorce decree were to qualify as such,
Ms. Platt would be an alternate payee29 under the Baltimore
County pension plan. In that event, she would be treated for
purposes of section 402(a) as the distributee under that plan of
the payments to which she was entitled pursuant to the divorce
decree provision in question. See sec. 402(e)(1)(A).
We reject Mr. Bangs’ argument that the divorce decree
qualifies under section 414(p) as a QDRO.30 The QDRO provisions
29Sec. 414(p)(8) defines the term “alternate payee” as “any
spouse, former spouse, child or other dependent of a participant
who is recognized by a domestic relations order as having a right
to receive all, or a portion of, the benefits payable under a
plan with respect to such participant.”
30We note that the parties stipulated (QDRO stipulation):
“No ‘qualified domestic relations order’ (‘QDRO’) has been issued
to either Antonina K. Platt or Herbert Bangs either on March 2,
1983 or at any time thereafter.” None of the parties argues that
the QDRO stipulation means that the divorce decree involved in
the instant cases may not qualify under sec. 414(p) as a QDRO.
We shall independently address whether that divorce decree so
qualifies.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008