View Single Post
  #7  
Old 01-01-2018, 11:50 AM
IMP's Avatar
IMP IMP is offline
= I Must Pass
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: in my pants, and yours
Studying for drinking
Favorite beer: blue moon....cuz i'm a female
Posts: 31,752
Blog Entries: 11
Default

1. If the participant had terminated on the day of the divorce division, he would have been entitled to an Accrued Benefit of $2,726.29, payable monthly at his NRD (FOMF 65) as a 10C&C annuity.

ok, then I would say she is assigned 1363.15 at his NRD.
2. The PA determined that a QDRO was qualified and notified the AP that she was entitled to 50% of his benefit, $1,363.15, but payable at her age 65 (6.5 years after his age 65) as a 10C&C annuity over her lifetime.

I disagree. the benefit payable to her at her age 65 would be 1363.15 * early reduction factor based on his age at that time (58.5) * PVF for his age / PVF of her age.

At the time of qualification, she was offered a lump sum, using then current published tables, of $66,602.15.

the LS payable to her at the BCD, should be 1363.15 * reduction or increase based on his age * PVF for his age / PVF of her age (these PVF can be deferred or immediate...it depends on how the qdro is written) * PVF of her age (this PVF can be deferred or immediate depending on the plan) * 12

note that the PVFs for the age adjustment and the PVF for the conversion to the LS may be based on different interest and mortality. it depends on the plan.


3. Using the same Plan tables (the Plan apparently uses the same tables for participants and beneficiaries), the participant would have been eligible to elect a lump sum payment of $195,126.74 for his Accrued Benefit at the same time. 50% of this is $97,563.37.



Question: can anyone think of anything which would make the PAs determination of her award a valid interpretation of a divorce decree and QDRO which stated that she was entitled to 50% of his Accrued Benefit?
(I'm leaving out all of the other typical divorce questions, such as whether the award was equitable, whether there were any subsidized benefits subject to division, whether any survivor benefits which should have been considered, etc. Let's just assume that all of the typical restrictions were included (no increased benefits, nothing that the Plan wouldn't normally pay, etc.) and concentrate on whether this interpretation makes any sense to anyone.)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patience View Post
that's why they invented doggy style
Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.21793 seconds with 9 queries