Nebraska Court of Appeals finding plain error, revises QDRO to require wife to receive half of husband's state patrol retirement plan based either upon his choice of a refund or annuity, the marital share of the patrol retirement fund is that share of the fund that the time of the marriage divided by total service represents. Klimek v. Klimek, A-09-023, 18 Neb. App. 82. The Appeals Court further awards half of the wife's defined contribution 401k to the husband.

Nebraska Court of Appeals admonishes trial judges to better supervise QDRO preparation after they rule in divorce cases. Court of Appeals adds judgment interest of over $27000 to wife's judgment for almost $183000 from husband's 401k plan that was worth over $600000 when the husband took almost two years to file an acceptable QDRO. Fry v. Fry, A-09-011, 18 Neb. App. 75 "Ultimate responsibility for assuring that a proper decree is entered, and for entry of a QDRO if the court determines that the situation so requires, rests upon the trial judge. While the judge may call upon the assistance of counsel, the decree and the QDRO are orders of a court and not mere agreements of the parties. we encourage trial courts to implement procedures to ensure that their responsibility to enter QDRO’s is fulfilled at the same time as the decree is entered, bearing in mind that in practice, the drafting of a QDRO may require approval by the retirement plan administrator, which counsel can secure prior to submitting the QDRO to the court. Even though more than 2 years passed following entry of an unappealed decree, we conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to enter the QDRO in accordance with the terms of the decree, because a QDRO is merely an enforcement device. Based upon Kullbom v. Kullbom, 215 Neb. 148, 337 N.W.2d 731 (1983), we conclude that the court did not err in awarding judgment interest on Janet’s share of the profit-sharing plan accruing from the date of the divorce decree."

Nebraska Court of Appeals in an opinion not designated for permanent publication reverses Washington County District Court ruling that gave divorced husband credit for income tax he paid on retirement plan benefits he kept because the parties failed to file a qualified domestic relations order, QDRO, for nearly three years after the court's divorce decree. Sears v. Sears, A-09-378Parties divorced in 2005 and the court ordered a QDRO to deal with the husband's retirement plan. The parties appealed the divorce but did not deal with the retirement assets, so the court's award to the wife of the retirement funds became the law of the case. For nearly three years however without a QDRO the husband continued to receive the full retirement check. Wife sought an accounting for those amounts. Nebraska Court of Appeals rules in her favor and reverses the husband's credit for taxes he paid on the full amount. Blaine v. Blaine, 275 Neb. 87, 744 N.W.2d 444 (2008), holds that an accounting is appropriate to address the monetary balancing required by the delayed entry of a QDRO required by a divorce decree. If and when the judgment is paid, the tax consequences are between the parties and the IRS. To the extent that the record supports a conclusion about taxability, Sonderup‟s testimony was clear that the judgment would not be income to Donna. Accordingly, the award of a credit of $7,458 for husbands income taxes is reversed.

Wife who couldn't get her ex-husband to file correct QDROs for nearly six years gets the Nebraska Supreme Court on her side. Blaine v. Blaine, S-06-927, 275 Neb. 87 Wife and Husband divorced in October 1998 and the divorce court ordered the Husband to draft Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) for two qualified accounts and one individual retirement account to give half of the accounts to the wife as of February 3 1998. The husband did not finally accomplish completing the QDROs until 2006, six years later. The trial court and the lawyers must have assumed they could divide IRA accounts with a QDRO, a dangerous and mistaken assumption. See Qualified Domestic Relations Order HandbookBy Gary A. Shulman Section 21.01 and Bougas v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2003-194 In the meantime one of the 401k accounts had declined considerably in value. Some of the accounts had moved into other assets such as IRA. After the wife instituted contempt proceedings the husband prepared the QDROs and the judge awarded the wife have of the accounts current value. Nebraska Supreme Court, with Justice Stephan dissenting reverses and orders the trial court to direct the husband to issue correct QDROs or other orders to divide the retirement assets and finding a way to give the wife half the value of the assets as of February 1998. Blaine v. Blaine, S-06-927, 275 Neb. 87 "(The Nebraska Supreme Court) remands the cause with directions. Specifically, the district court is directed to (1) determine the value of each of the disputed accounts as of February 3, 1998, and (2) supervise the entry of QDRO’s transferring one-half of the February 3, 1998, value of each account to Stephanie. I f the balance of any of the accounts is insufficient to satisfy the award, then the district court, assisted by the parties, should determine how Dennis will comply with the decree. Justice Stephan dissenting argues the majority erred by equating ownership in the disputed retirement accounts with their value as of the target date of February 3 1998. "The majority would have the husband bear the risk of any decline in market value from target date until the entry of the QDRO, even if that entry were accomplished in a timely manner, and the wife would lose the benefit of any appreciation in the value of the assets during the same period. The decree does not direct this. Instead, the decree is entirely silent as to how market gains or losses occurring after the target date and prior to entry of the QDRO’s are to be treated by the parties in dividing the retirement plans “equally.”