Katherine Ryan v. Larry Janovsky, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 600

Marriage of Ryan and Janovsky dissolved in 1991 under a settlement that allotted Ryan a QDRO portion of Janovsky’s pension.
In 2012 Ryan prepared and sought Janovsky’s signature on a QDRO; he refused.
Ryan filed a Petition for Contempt; court denied, citing timeliness issues, laches, and waiver.
Trial court found Ryan waited an inordinate amount of time to perfect her interest and denied relief.
Court acknowledged the QDRO creates Ryan’s right to benefits but that benefits were not yet payable.
Court reversed, holding the entry of a QDRO is not time-barred and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion denying a QDRO due to timeliness and equity defenses	Ryan argues timeliness, laches, and waiver do not bar entry of a QDRO.	Janovsky argues the delay is inordinate and equity should bar relief.	No abuse; QDRO not time-barred; remand for entry of QDRO.

Needham v. Suess, 577 N.E.2d 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (discusses judgment liens and their expiration)
Kuhn v. Kuhn, 273 Ind. 67, 402 N.E.2d 989 (Ind. 1980) (supporting that installment obligations accrue as installments become due)
Jordan v. Jordan, 147 S.W.3d 255 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (QDRO entry not barred by statute; ERISA governs timing and plan administrator involvement)
Ochoa v. Ochoa, 71 S.W.3d 593 (Mo. 2002) (entry of QDRO not barred by ten-year limit; ministerial task to distribute funds)
Bayen v. Bayen, 917 N.Y.S.2d 269 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (not time-barred to compel equitable distribution via ERISA-compliant QDRO)
Duhamel v. Duhamel, 753 N.Y.S.2d 673 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002) (action to compel entry of a QDRO characterized as ministerial task)
Hogle v. Hogle, 732 N.E.2d 1278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (ERISA QDRO framework; anti-alienation provisions and amendments)
Pond v. Pond, 700 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. 1998) (ERISA-derived authority to issue QDROs in dissolution actions)