Herring v. Herring
373 P.3d 521
Alaska2016Background
- Parties (Patton and Herring) mediated a divorce settlement that the superior court incorporated into a decree; the settlement allocated 100% of the “qualified” portion of Herring’s BP pension to Patton and the “nonqualified” portion to Herring, and placed $140,000 of a Fidelity Roth IRA in escrow to permit equitable adjustment if verified pension amounts materially differed from estimates.
- The QDRO was entered and Fidelity’s actuarial calculations produced values materially different from the estimates: Patton’s award declined substantially (about 27% or ~$374k) and Herring’s award increased substantially (to roughly $609,000), in part due to actuarial equivalence factors and Patton’s election to begin benefits early.
- Patton attempted to obtain Fidelity’s calculation details, moved to reopen limited discovery, and later moved to amend the QDRO (seeking the early-retirement subsidy) and to trigger the settlement’s equitable reallocation of escrowed Roth IRA funds.
- The superior court denied amendment of the QDRO, declined to order an equitable reallocation (finding the contract mechanism not triggered or time-barred), found Herring complied with firearms transfer, and awarded Herring enhanced attorney’s fees.
- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the denial of equitable reallocation (holding the escrow/reallocation clause was triggered by the material disparity), affirmed denial of QDRO amendment and the firearms ruling, and vacated the attorney’s fees award as Herring was no longer the prevailing party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement’s verification/escrow clause was triggered so the court must equitably reallocate escrowed Roth IRA funds | Patton: the parties bargained for approximate dollar values and an escrow/reallocation mechanism; the large shift in actual pension allocations triggers that mechanism | Herring: mechanism was not meant to cover this situation; it was limited to preventing transfers/withdrawals and protecting Herring only; distributions were percentage-based, not dollar-based | Court: Triggered — specific BP/QDRO provision controls and required equitable reallocation of escrowed Roth IRA funds; remanded to determine amount |
| Whether the QDRO could be amended to award Patton an early-retirement subsidy | Patton: QDRO should be corrected because she was erroneously deprived of the subsidy | Herring: QDRO was prepared (with Patton’s advisors) and expressly disclaimed the subsidy; BP/Fidelity will not unwind elections | Court: Denial affirmed — QDRO amendment not an appropriate remedy; parties’ contractual reallocation remedy applies instead |
| Whether Herring failed to deliver the guns specified in the settlement (contempt) | Patton: Herring did not deliver the specific Uzi and shotgun bargained for | Herring: He offered a firearm that matches the settlement description (Uzi with folding stock in black case; chambering and ammo align) | Court: Affirmed superior court credibility finding for Herring; no contempt; ordered parties to effect transfer under settlement description |
| Whether enhanced attorney’s fees to Herring were justified | Patton: her post-judgment motions were pursued in good faith and discovery was needed due to Herring’s obstructive conduct | Herring: Patton pursued vexatious/bad-faith litigation and should pay fees | Court: Vacated fee award — Herring is no longer prevailing party after reversal on reallocation; enhanced fees not sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070 (Alaska 2011) (apply contract interpretation to property-division agreements incorporated in divorce decrees)
- Beal v. Beal, 209 P.3d 1012 (Alaska 2009) (equitable powers in family law matters)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 239 P.3d 393 (Alaska 2010) (standard reviewing attorney-fee awards and de novo review of certain fee-related legal issues)
- Voss v. Brooks, 907 P.2d 465 (Alaska 1995) (doctrine on mistake and modification of settlements)
- Pierce v. Catalina Yachts, Inc., 2 P.3d 618 (Alaska 2000) (parties may prescribe contractual remedies; courts enforce bargained-for remedies)