In re the Marriage of Drexler, 2013 COA 43

Marriage between Bruce and Drexler dissolved in 2010; husband ordered to pay substantial child support and maintenance arrearages.
Bruce accumulated $101,486 in support arrearages and his law license was suspended due to nonpayment.
Wife sought a QDRO to collect arrearages from Bruce's ERISA retirement plan held at the law firm.
Bruce objected, claiming Colorado and federal law exempt retirement funds from assignment; trial court rejected his position.
Trial court ordered transfer via QDRO, and, upon noncompliance, imposed sanctions and authorized transfer without Bruce's signature.
Bruce appealed challenging the QDRO enforcement and related orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the QDRO allowed to assign ERISA funds for arrearages?	Bruce argues funds are exempt under state and federal law.	Drexler contends ERISA allows QDRO assignments to enforce support.	Yes; QDROs may enforce support in ERISA plans.
Is Colorado's exemption statute preempted by ERISA in this context?	Bruce asserts state exemption protects funds from attachment despite QDRO.	Drexler contends ERISA preempts state exemptions when a QDRO is used.	ERISA preempts the statute to the extent it adds restrictions beyond ERISA.
Was the noncompliance order properly entered against Bruce without a hearing?	Bruce did not demonstrate error requiring a hearing.	Drexler maintains the order was appropriate given noncooperation.	No reversible error; order affirmed.

Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1997) (ERISA anti-alienation with QDRO exception)
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 944 P.2d 686 (Colo. App. 1997) (QDROs; ERISA and state law interaction)
In re Marriage of Thomas, 389 Ill. App. 3d 214 (Ill. App. 2003) (QDRO enforcement of arrearages not barred by exemption)
Nichols v. Nichols, 891 P.2d 1303 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995) (state exemption preemption by ERISA in QDRO context)
Taylor v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2003) (QDRO enforcement and ERISA preemption implications)