Virginia Montgomery County Separation Agreement Divorce Lawyers Attorney

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

JULIE K. OVERCASH v. JESSE L. OVERCASH

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

January 24, 2006, Decided

Facts:

The husband and wife married; a few years later, they separated. The parties then entered into a separation agreement. It provided that the marital share of all retirement benefits, deferred compensation, thrift plan, savings plan, 401(K) or equivalents, in the husband’s name were to be divided by the parties by qualified domestic relations order. The divorce decree ratified, confirmed, approved, and incorporated the separation agreement. Later, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that provided that the wife was entitled to 50 percent of the marital share portion of husband’s interest in his thrift savings plan. The Federal Thrift Retirement Board (Board) implemented the QDRO and distributed a certain amount to the wife. The husband then sought to have the wife reimburse him in a specified amount on the ground that Board had overpaid her. The trial court found that an overpayment had occurred and ordered the wife to reimburse the husband.Appellant Julie K. Overcash (“wife”) appeals from a decree ordering her to reimburse appellee Jesse L. Overcash (“husband”) for an alleged overpayment from husband’s federal thrift savings plan. Wife argues that the trial court lacked the authority to alter the distribution of funds from the account, reasoning that the federal entity charged with implementing the underlying qualified

domestic relations order

(“QDRO”) correctly applied the relevant federal regulations.

Issue:

Whether the trial court possessed the authority to enter an order modifying the board’s distribution of funds from the TSP account?

Discussion:

This court held that in this case, the trial court had the authority pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 20-107.3(K) to order the reimbursement to reflect the intent of the original divorce decree. “the marital share” of husband’s TSP account was to be “equally divided by the parties.” In accordance with Code 20-107.3(G)(1), the resulting QDRO provided that the marital share of the account would be equivalent to the value of the TSP as of July 1, 2000–the date of the parties’ separation. However, the QDRO included additional language indicating that wife was also entitled to “earnings and losses on her share from July 1, 2000 through the distribution of her share to her.” And, because of the added language, the board awarded wife funds in excess of half the value of the TSP as of the date of separation. Because the trial court entered the order to effectuate the original intent of the parties as expressed in the separation agreement, this court held that the trial court acted within its statutory authority when it issued the challenged decree.

Conclusion:

This court hence affriemd the trial court s judgement that provided that the wife was entitled to 50 percent of the marital share portion of husband’s interest in his thrift savings plan.

Disclaimer:These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the

SRIS Law Group

. The SRIS Law Group has offices in

Virginia

, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina & California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com