In re Marriage of Richardson
Illinois Appellate Court
884 N.E.2d 1246 (2008)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Paul Richardson (defendant) began participating in a state-established defined-benefit pension plan (DBPP) when he started working for the police department in 1973. Paul married Patricia Richardson (plaintiff) in 1984, and the couple divorced in 1995. Under their settlement agreement, Patricia was awarded half of Paul’s pension “as it has accrued” from 1984 through 1995, the dates of the marriage. On granting the divorce, the court retained jurisdiction for the purpose of entering a qualified domestic-relations order, which directs a pension administrator to pay benefits to the employee spouse. Paul retired and started collecting $6,000 per month in pension benefits in 2002. Pursuant to the state pension code, because Paul’s police service lasted 29 years, his monthly benefit was calculated at 50 percent of his salary at retirement plus 2.5 percent of his salary for each year of employment up to 30 years. Paul started paying Patricia about $625 per month, which was equal to half of the benefit he would have received had he retired in 1995 when the couple divorced. Patricia moved the court to require Paul to comply with the settlement agreement, arguing that her share was about $1,113 per month, calculated as a percentage of Paul’s actual monthly benefit at his retirement in 2002. The trial court ordered Paul to pay Patricia about $1,113 per month. Paul appealed, arguing that the separation agreement’s language required him to pay Patricia $625 per month.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Karnezis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.