Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellant challenges vacatur of QDRO and contends rapid post‑judgment withdrawals deprived her of benefits
Summary
Joanne LaVida (formerly Kelly) appealed rulings that vacated or refused to enforce a QDRO after the defendant withdrew significant retirement funds post‑judgment; counsel argued withdrawals (including a $170,000 withdrawal days after judgment) made compliance and implementation impossible and sought reversal of contempt rulings and fee outcomes.
Sandy Pasredes, counsel for Joanne LaVida (formerly Kelly), told the panel that immediate and repeated withdrawals from the respondent’s retirement account made implementation of the QDRO impossible and that the lower court erred by vacating the QDRO and failing to find contempt and award fees. Pasredes emphasized a $170,000 withdrawal shortly after the consent judgment and argued the plan rejected an earlier QDRO for insufficient balance; she said both the QDRO mechanics and the timing of withdrawals deprived her client of the bargained‑for protection of gains and losses.
Respondent John Kelly (self‑represented) said the agreement did not include entitlement to gains and losses and that the QDROs were meant to implement the judgment rather than modify it; he said the parties could have negotiated and that implementation issues had been litigated and resolved below. Counsel and the court examined plan records, the timing of withdrawals and gains, and whether an order was impossible to comply with at issuance.
Panel focus: The court asked whether the August 23, 2023 QDRO could have been implemented when issued, whether withdrawals soon after the judgment made compliance impossible, and what relief is appropriate to make a former spouse whole when a plan rejects a QDRO for insufficient balance. Pasredes sought reversal of contempt findings and the vacatur that removed gains‑and‑losses protection.
Status: Argument ended and the panel took the case under advisement.
