Neville v. Neville
295 Mich. App. 460
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff married defendant in 1978; divorce judgment entered November 14, 1994, requiring a QDRO to divide retirement benefits.
- QDRO entered March 14, 1995; it apportioned 50% to the Alternate Payee based on years of marriage and survivorship.
- The March 14, 1995 QDRO treated plaintiff as the surviving spouse under the plans and allowed modifications to carry out the parties’ intent.
- Defendant moved in April 2009 for clarification and amendment to align the QDRO with the divorce judgment, arguing plan administrator construed benefits differently.
- Trial court granted the motion August 12, 2009 and issued a March 11, 2010 amended QDRO; court treated the QDRO as nunc pro tunc and expanded benefits beyond the judgment.
- Supreme Court remanded for consideration on timeliness, survivorship, and whether the divorce judgment controlled over the QDRO; this Court reverses and reinstates the 1995 QDRO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of defendant’s motion to amend | The motion was untimely under MCR 2.612(C). | Motion sought relief to align QDRO with judgment, not relief from judgment; timeliness should not bar amendments. | Motion barred as time-barred for substantive changes; but some issues reviewed de novo. |
| Survivorship benefit interpretation | Divorce judgment did not limit survivorship to proportionate interest. | Survivorship limited by divorce judgment according to marriage years. | Divorce judgment does not limit survivorship; March 14, 1995 QDRO controls survivorship. |
| Divorce judgment vs QDRO controlling terms | QDRO could be reconciled with the judgment; the agreement governs. | Judgment terms should control where conflict exists. | QDRO treated as part of the final judgment; terms of the agreement control, not the separate judgment alone. |
| Nunc pro tunc treatment of March 14, 1995 QDRO | No nunc pro tunc entry; March 14, 1995 QDRO was a standalone consensual order. | Amendment improperly relied on nunc pro tunc effect to expand benefits. | Court erred in giving nunc pro tunc effect to the 1995 QDRO; reinstate the 1995 QDRO. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mixon v Mixon, 237 Mich App 159 (1999) (divorce judgment requires pension rights be decided conclusively)
- Thornton v Thornton, 277 Mich App 453 (2007) (untimeliness of amendment to QDRO)
- Quade v Quade, 238 Mich App 222 (1999) (distinguishes cases where agreement includes QDRO terms)
- Roth v Roth, 201 Mich App 563 (1993) (contested order vs. divorce judgment components)
- Heike v Heike, 198 Mich App 289 (1993) (no required uniform method; contract interpretation governs)
- Coates v Bastian Bros, Inc, 276 Mich App 498 (2007) (contract terms read as a whole; survivorship rights interpretation)
- Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131 (2005) (contractual interpretation of agreements treated de novo)
- Bers v Bers, 161 Mich App 457 (1987) (court may interpret agreement without altering substantive rights)
- Forge v Smith, 458 Mich 198 (1998) (readings of related writings read together to determine terms)
- Adell Broadcasting Corp v Apex Media Sales, Inc, 269 Mich App 6 (2005) (mutual assent may modify contract terms)