Connie Joughin v. William Joughin
329993
Mich. Ct. App.Jul 11, 2017Background
- Divorce judgment (Apr 28, 2003) awarded plaintiff a portion of defendant’s annuity and ordered the parties to cooperate in entry of a QDRO to effect the transfer.
- Plaintiff sought entry of a QDRO 12 years after the divorce; defendant contended the claim was time-barred.
- Both parties agreed MCL 600.5809 (10-year dormancy/statute of limitations for enforcement of a divorce judgment) is the pertinent statute; they disputed when the claim accrued.
- Plaintiff argued accrual occurs when defendant reaches “pay status” (i.e., when benefits become payable), so the limitations period should not run until then.
- Defendant argued accrual occurred at entry of the divorce judgment, so the 10-year period expired before plaintiff sought the QDRO.
- Judge Jansen (dissent) reasons a request for entry of a QDRO is an action to enforce the divorce judgment and thus accrues when the right to seek entry arises (at divorce), so the claim was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (dissent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a claim to enforce a divorce award of retirement benefits (via QDRO) accrue for MCL 600.5809 purposes? | Accrues when plan benefits become payable (when ex-spouse reaches pay status); statute should run from that date. | Accrues at entry of the divorce judgment because the right to seek entry of a QDRO exists immediately; statute should run from judgment date. | Claim accrues at the time the right to seek entry of a QDRO arises (at divorce judgment); plaintiff’s QDRO action filed 12 years later is barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peabody v. DiMeglio, 306 Mich. App. 397 (Mich. Ct. App.) (MCL 600.5809(3)’s 10-year limitations applied to divorce settlement incorporated into judgment)
- Duhamel v. Duhamel, 188 Misc. 2d 754 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (limitations period begins when participant reaches pay status)
- Larimore v. Larimore, 52 Kan. App. 2d 31 (Kan. Ct. App.) (alternate payee must file QDRO within limitations period; delay can extinguish enforceability)
- Torakis v. Torakis, 194 Mich. App. 201 (Mich. Ct. App.) (each alimony installment accrues when due for MCL 600.5809(3) purposes)
- Jordan v. Jordan, 147 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn.) (entry/approval of QDRO is adjunct to divorce judgment; not an enforcement action until benefits are payable)