In Re the Marriage of Carol A. Tinker and Geoffry A. Tinker Upon the Petition of Carol A. Tinker, and Concerning Geoffry A. Tinker
902 N.W.2d 819
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Geoffry and Carol Tinker divorced in 2016; their pretrial stipulation addressed dividing Geoffry’s IPERS retirement benefits using the Benson service-factor formula.
- The dissolution decree incorporated the stipulation and awarded Carol 50% of the service-factor portion of Geoffry’s IPERS benefit; it directed Carol’s attorney to prepare a QDRO within 90 days.
- The parties could not agree on QDRO language; Geoffry objected to provisions that would force him to select a particular IPERS distribution option, name Carol beneficiary of any preretirement death benefit, and designate her as contingent annuitant.
- The district court approved a QDRO containing those disputed provisions, concluding it effectuated the decree’s intent.
- Geoffry appealed, arguing the QDRO impermissibly modified the dissolution decree by imposing benefit elections and survivorship designations not contained in the decree.
- The appellate court reviewed the matter de novo to determine the district court’s intent as expressed in the decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carol) | Defendant's Argument (Geoffry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether QDRO may require Geoffry to select a specific IPERS benefit option | QDRO language effectuates decree and implements the parties’ stipulation | Decree only fixed percentage share; benefit option left to Geoffry’s election | Court: Decree did not require a particular option; QDRO impermissibly modified decree — vacated |
| Whether QDRO may require designation of Carol as beneficiary of preretirement death benefit | Such designation reflects intent to effectuate Carol’s share | Decree is silent on preretirement death benefit; such right is separate and was not bargained for | Court: Preretirement death benefit is a separate property right; cannot be imposed absent express decree |
| Whether QDRO may name Carol as contingent annuitant/survivor | Naming her effectuates the intended transfer to Carol | Surviviorship/contingent annuitant rights were not addressed in decree and are significant rights left to Geoffry | Court: Contingent annuitant designation cannot be imposed; QDRO exceeded decree’s terms |
| Whether the district court’s QDRO approval was an improper modification/serial final judgment | QDRO simply implemented decree | QDRO changed substantive rights beyond decree — an improper modification | Court: Approval was an impermissible modification/serial final judgment; vacated and remanded for a QDRO limited to decree terms |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Morris, 810 N.W.2d 880 (Iowa 2012) (QDRO/review of retirement award rights are reviewed de novo; retirement incidentals are separate negotiable rights)
- Wilker v. Wilker, 630 N.W.2d 590 (Iowa 2001) (standard for appellate review of equitable proceedings)
- In re Marriage of Jones, 653 N.W.2d 589 (Iowa 2002) (stipulation is a contract but decree, not stipulation, determines post-judgment rights)
- In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644 (Iowa 2009) (dissolution decree construed like other instruments; intent found in four corners)
- In re Marriage of Thatcher, 864 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2015) (discussing when bifurcated decrees constitute reviewable final judgments)