Hoy v. Hoy, Record No. 1447-98-1.
Decision Date | 02 February 1999 |
Docket Number | Record No. 1447-98-1. |
Citation | 510 S.E.2d 253,29 Va. App. 115 |
Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Parties | Ruth P. HOY, n/k/a Ruth E. Pearce v. Franklin W. HOY, Jr. |
(Richard W. Hudgins, on brief), Newport News, for appellant.
(Vicki Beard, on brief), for appellee.
Present: BRAY and ANNUNZIATA, JJ., and OVERTON, Senior Judge.
Ruth E. Pearce (Pearce) appeals the decision of the circuit court denying her motion to reinstate and for entry of a proposed qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") awarding her $84,000 from the retirement plan of Franklin W. Hoy, Jr. (Hoy). Pearce contends that, because the judgment was for unpaid spousal support, she was entitled under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C §§ 1001 et seq., to seek a QDRO allowing her to recover her judgment from Hoy's pension plan. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii) (emphasis added).
The parties were divorced in 1973, prior to the adoption of Code § 20-107.3. In the final decree of divorce, Pearce was awarded $600 in monthly spousal support. Pearce was not awarded any interest in Hoy's retirement plan, which the record indicates did not exist at the time of the divorce. In 1985, Pearce received a judgment in the amount of $84,000 for spousal support arrearages. In 1997, Pearce filed a motion seeking to reinstate the matter for entry of a QDRO allowing garnishment of Hoy's pension plan as a source for payment of the spousal support arrearages judgment.
Code § 20-107.3(K)(4). However, the parties' final decree of divorce was entered prior to the effective date of Code § 20-107.3(K). By its express terms, the section does not apply to orders entered prior to July 1, 1982.
Moreover, "Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) does not empower trial courts to make substantive modifications ... in the final divorce decree...." Caudle v. Caudle, 18 Va.App. 795, 796, 447 S.E.2d 247, 248-49 (1994). When entering a QDRO, the court may not "modify a final divorce decree simply to adjust its terms in light of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dalton v. Dalton
...court had no authority to enter an order altering or modifying the original disposition of property."); cf. Hoy v. Hoy , 29 Va.App. 115, 510 S.E.2d 253 (1999) (per curiam) ("Under Virginia domestic relations law, Pearce may not recast her claim as a judgment creditor, albeit one that seeks ......
-
Drexler v. Bruce
...funds that were awarded solely to the obligor spouse under the decree). ¶ 11On this issue, we decline to follow Hoy v. Hoy, 510 S.E.2d 253, 254-55 (Va. Ct. App. 1999), which held that using a QDRO to collect unpaid spousal support from the obligor spouse’s retirement funds constituted an im......
-
Nkopchieu v. Minlend
...that the circuit court committed reversible error when it found that it was constrained by this Court's decision in Hoy v. Hoy, 29 Va.App. 115, 510 S.E.2d 253 (1999). The record on appeal establishes that father has completely ignored and frustrated the trial court's child support orders—an......
- Armstrong v. Com., Record No. 1767-97-4.
-
Qualified Retirement Benefits
...Notwithstanding for Collection of Arrearage in Spousal Support A subsequent QDRO was held to be impermissible in Hoy v. Hoy , 29 Va. App. 115, 510 S.E.2d 253 (1999). The appellate court held that the wife’s motion for entry of a QDRO to allow her to have an interest in the husband’s pension......