Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Divorce Pensions topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Edgewater presenter outlines limits on dividing government pensions in divorce and beneficiary rules

Edgewater trustees/meeting · March 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Bonnie Jensen told trustees that governmental pension plans generally cannot be split through standard Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, explained workarounds (income withholding orders or participant‑driven account setups), and described a state law change that voids beneficiary designations after divorce for filings after 07/01/2012.

Bonnie Jensen told Edgewater trustees that government pension plans are not treated the same as private pension plans for domestic‑relations divisions. She said governmental plans are ‘‘not subject to garnishment, alienation’’ and thus generally are not divisible under standard Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs); instead trustees can accept income withholding orders for alimony or child support and participants may need to create separate account arrangements to effect equitable distributions.

Why it matters: Trustees and plan administrators commonly encounter divorce‑related orders. Jensen warned that many divorce attorneys are unfamiliar with the limits on government pension garnishment and recommended educating counsel and participants about workable administrative solutions.

Jensen described a practical workaround: a participant can request the plan administrator to withhold a payroll deduction and direct it into an account accessible by both the participant and a former spouse as part of an equitable division. She said this places the legal responsibility on the participant and the court rather than on the pension fund: ‘‘The pension fund is out of the whole process. It is not legally obligated to do anything.’’

Jensen also noted a state law change for divorces after July 1, 2012 that voids beneficiary or joint‑annuitant designations at divorce, which can create surprises for administrators if participants die without updating instructions. She recommended that trustees verify marital history when processing survivor‑benefit questions and ensure plan forms and communications reflect that change.

Trustees followed with clarifying questions and Jensen used case examples to show why careful intake and participant education are important. No formal action was taken.