In Re the Marriage of Tamara D. Veit and Gregory H. Veit Upon the Petition of Tamara D. Veit
2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 15
| Iowa | 2011Background
- Tamara Veit filed for dissolution; parties reached property settlement awarding Tamara $127,000, approved in decree.
- Decree required Gregory to pay $127,000 within sixty days; source of funds not specified; tax consequences implied to be Gregory’s burden.
- Gregory used funds from his Cemen Tech ESOP via a QDRO to satisfy Tamara’s share; Tamara signed the QDRO drafted by Gregory’s counsel; tax consequences were discussed as zero by counsel.
- QDRO provided Tamara $127,000 from Gregory’s vested Cemen Tech account, with Tamara responsible for any tax consequences.
- Tamara later discovered a tax burden over $27,000 upon withdrawal and sought modification or enforcement; Gregory resisted, claiming the QDRO was a property settlement or binding as formed.
- District court found the QDRO did not fulfill the decree; allowed Gregory to reform the QDRO or use other assets within sixty days;Court of Appeals reversed; Supreme Court granted further review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the QDRO fulfill the decree’s payment obligation? | Veit | Veit | QDRO did not fulfill the decree; need to enforce via reform or other assets |
| Is the QDRO modifiable without affecting the decree? | Veit | Veit | QDRO is a method to effect the decree and may be modified without altering the decree |
| Did mutual mistake regarding tax consequences bind Tamara to bear taxes under the QDRO? | Veit | Veit | Stipulation showed no tax consequence for Tamara; mutual understanding binds Gregory |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644 (Iowa 2009) (QDRO can be used to implement but not alter the decree; Brown governs modification)
- In re Marriage of Goodman, 690 N.W.2d 279 (Iowa 2004) (construction of dissolution decree; address implied tax consequences)
- Bales v. Murray, 186 Iowa 649 (1919) (contract interpretation; parties bound by prior stipulation regarding tax effects)
- Roberts’ Estate, 131 N.W.2d 458 (Iowa 1964) (supporting interpretation of implied terms in wills/estates)