Connie Joughin v. William Joughin
329993
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2003; judgment awarded plaintiff $23,823 from defendant’s Iron Workers Local #55 Profit Sharing Annuity Plan and directed the parties to cooperate in executing a QDRO.
- No QDROs were promptly filed; plaintiff submitted proposed QDROs in June 2015 (about 12 years after the divorce).
- Defendant objected under MCR 2.602, arguing the request was time-barred by the 10-year statute of limitations in MCL 600.5809(3).
- Plaintiff argued the claim had not yet accrued because defendant had not retired and ERISA/QDRO mechanics delay enforceability until plan administrator qualification.
- Trial court allowed entry of the proposed QDROs; defendant appealed only as to the annuity-plan QDRO (the pension QDRO was not challenged on appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry of a proposed QDRO is an action to enforce a noncontractual money obligation subject to MCL 600.5809(3)’s 10-year limit | Joughin: The claim has not accrued because defendant has not retired; statute does not begin to run and the QDRO filing is timely | Joughin: The divorce judgment fixed the money obligation in 2003, so plaintiff’s 2015 QDRO filing is time-barred by the 10-year rule | The court held entry of a proposed QDRO is not enforcement of a noncontractual money obligation and MCL 600.5809(3) therefore does not apply; QDRO entry is ministerial and part of the judgment process, and proposed QDROs are not enforceable until the plan qualifies them |
| Whether a proposed QDRO confers immediate entitlement to plan funds (distinguishing defined-contribution vs defined-benefit plans) | Plaintiff: QDRO must be qualified by plan administrator under ERISA before funds become payable; no immediate entitlement | Defendant: Because the annuity is a defined-contribution plan, plaintiff could have obtained funds immediately upon entry of a QDRO, so the 10-year clock should run from the divorce | The court rejected defendant’s argument: proposed QDROs are not enforceable until plan qualification under ERISA; defendant offered no record or authority showing immediate disbursement was possible |
Key Cases Cited
- DiPonio Const Co, Inc. v. Rosati Masonry Co, Inc., 246 Mich. App. 43 (discussing de novo review for statute-of-limitations questions)
- Roth v. Roth, 201 Mich. App. 563 (ERISA background and anti-alienation rule; QDRO exception)
- Moore v. Moore, 266 Mich. App. 96 (QDROs and ERISA interplay)
- Neville v. Neville, 295 Mich. App. 460 (QDRO treated as part of divorce judgment)
- Jordan v. Jordan, 147 S.W.3d 255 (Tenn. App.) (entry/approval of proposed QDRO is adjunct to divorce judgment and not enforcement)
- Rock v. Crocker, 499 Mich. 247 (statutory interpretation de novo review)