In Re the Marriage of Jamie Tekippe N/K/A Jamie Weiss and Joseph Tekippe Upon the Petition of Jamie Tekippe N/K/A Jamie Weiss, and Concerning Joseph Tekippe
16-1297
| Iowa Ct. App. | Feb 8, 2017Background
- Joseph and Jamie TeKippe divorced; their dissolution decree incorporated a stipulated property division awarding Joseph a portion of Jamie’s IPERS account to be implemented by a QDRO.
- The stipulation and decree were silent about whether Joseph (the alternate payee) could name a successor alternate payee or other optional IPERS QDRO provisions.
- Parties disagreed over optional QDRO provisions (successor alternate payee, account information access, barring member refunds without alternate payee consent); Joseph filed for a hearing on QDRO language.
- The district court approved a QDRO containing only IPERS’ mandatory language and declined to add optional provisions not negotiated in the stipulation.
- Joseph appealed the district court’s order approving the QDRO; he did not appeal the underlying dissolution decree.
Issues
| Issue | Joseph's Argument | Jamie's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the QDRO may include a paragraph allowing Joseph to name a successor alternate payee | The IPERS award carries ordinary incidents of ownership, including survivorship/transfer rights; QDRO should permit naming a successor alternate payee | The stipulation/decree did not bargain for or include optional QDRO provisions; court should use only mandatory IPERS language | The court affirmed: optional successor-payee language cannot be added absent agreement in the decree; QDRO limited to mandatory IPERS provisions |
| Whether the district court could exercise reserved jurisdiction to add optional QDRO terms after the decree | Joseph asked court to use its reserved authority to include successor-payee language in the QDRO | Jamie argued optional terms were not part of the decree and should not be added later | Held: Adding optional terms would bifurcate property resolution and contravene precedent barring serial final judgments; relief denied |
| Standard of review for QDRO-approval order | — | — | Review is de novo (court applied de novo review) |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded to Jamie | — | Jamie requested $1500 for appellate fees | Denied after weighing needs, ability to pay, and appeal merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Morris, 810 N.W.2d 880 (Iowa 2012) (addressing survivor-benefit ambiguity and remand to district court to determine intent)
- In re Marriage of Thatcher, 864 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2015) (district court may not enter serial final judgments; property issues must be resolved in the decree)
- In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1996) (method for dividing public retirement accounts)
- In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644 (Iowa 2009) (QDRO-related orders are supplemental to enforce property division)