In re Marriage of Rohrs

1

In the Matter of the Marriage of: KATHY JO ROHRS, Appellant, and JOEL DAMON ROHRS, Respondent.

No. 84708-2-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

January 22, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Dwyer J.

Kathy Rohrs appeals from an order of the superior court confirming an arbitration award and correcting a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) previously entered by the court. On appeal, Kathy asserts that the superior court erred by confirming the arbitration award because, she avers, several statutory bases exist upon which the superior court should have vacated the award. Kathy also asserts that the superior court erred by correcting its QDRO because, she contends, the court did not have the authority to correct its own judgment entry and did not follow certain civil rule and statutory requirements in so doing. Finding no error, we affirm.

I

On January 12, 2021, Kathy filed a petition in the superior court seeking the dissolution of her marriage to Joel. Twelve months later, in December 2021, Kathy and Joel participated in private mediation with their respective legal counsel and retired Judge Palmer Robinson. During the mediation, Kathy and Joel reached an agreement as to the division of their marital property and obligations. The parties' agreement was initially memorialized in a writing captioned as a "CR2A Stipulation and Agreement." The initial writing reflected, in pertinent part, the parties' agreement that

[Kathy]^[1] shall receive the following property . [Joel's] John Hancock 401(k) funds at the time the Decree is entered. No distributions or changes in investment will be made by [Joel] to this account until the QDRO is recognized by the Plan Administrator and the monies are segregated for [Kathy]).^[2]. . . .

[Joel] shall receive the following property [Joel's] [Phantom Stock Appreciation Plan (PSAP)] with his employer[.] [Joel's] Profit Sharing-Pooled Funds with his employer.

The writing reflected the parties' agreement that Kathy was to receive a segregation of monies from Joel's John Hancock 401(k) funds-i.e., his employee contributions to his 401(k) plan-and that Joel would retain the remainder of the funds therein (his employer's stock and profit-sharing contributions thereto).

The initial writing also reflected the parties' intent that Judge Robinson act as arbitrator in any disputes arising during the memorialization of their original agreement:

Any disputes in drafting or implementation of the final documents or as to omitted issues shall be submitted to [retired] Judge Palmer Robinson for binding arbitration. The parties agree that the arbitrator has authority to resolve disputes as to implementation of this Agreement, all authority of Judge Palmer Robinson to arbitrate terminates upon entry of the final documents unless otherwise agreed in writing.

This provision reflected the parties' agreement that Judge Robinson's authority to act as arbitrator would terminate when their final writings were entered as an order of the superior court, unless the parties agreed otherwise in a later writing.

Between December 2021 and March 2022, Kathy and Joel submitted several disputes to Judge Robinson while attempting to reduce their agreement to a subsequent writing.

In late March 2022, Judge Robinson reviewed the parties' subsequent writing, captioned as a "Property Settlement Agreement," and approved it as consistent with their agreement.^[3] The Property Settlement Agreement incorporated the terms and conditions of their CR 2A Stipulation and Agreement. It set forth, in pertinent part the parties' agreement that

[Kathy] shall be granted and conveyed the following property free and clear of any right, title or interest of [Joel] therein:

. . . .

B. All interest (100%) in the assets held in the Andersen Construction 401 (k) Plan (John Hancock account X4145) in [Joel's] name as of the dater [sic] of the [CR 2A agreement], December 6, 2021, including any gains and losses thereon on that amount, until transferred to [Kathy] by QDRO. . . .

. . . .

[Joel] shall be granted and conveyed the following property, free and clear of any right, title or interest of [Kathy] therein: . . . .

C. All interest (100%) in the Andersen Construction Phantom Stock Appreciation Plan in [Joel's] name.

D. All interest (100%) in the Andersen Construction Profit Sharing Pooled Funds in [Joel's] name.

Consistent with the initial writing, the division of Joel's 401 (k) fund contributions in the parties' subsequent writing mirrored their original agreement.

Their subsequent writing also contained a new arbitration provision:

Any dispute or misunderstanding arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, its implementation and operation, or unresolved or omitted issues shall be resolved by binding arbitration as set forth below:

There shall be a single arbitrator who shall be Judge (ret.) Palmer Robinson . . . . The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Parties pursuant to RCW 7.04(A).

. . . .

The Arbitrator shall have full authority to make an award in the form of injunctive or other equitable relief, as well as damages or other monetary awards, and any such award shall be fully enforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction.

The subsequent writing's arbitration provision did not have an end date or a condition terminating the arbitrator's authority to act as arbitrator in disputes arising from the memorialization of the parties' agreement. This provision, in light of the arbitration provision in the parties' initial writing, reflected Kathy's and Joel's written agreement that Judge Robinson's authority to act as arbitrator would continue even after the superior court entered the parties' final writings as an order of the court.

In late March and early April 2022, Kathy and Joel submitted their Property Settlement Agreement to the superior court, which the court signed and entered as the court's order. Shortly thereafter, Kathy drafted a QDRO.^[4] The sixth paragraph, regarding the assets that Kathy was purportedly entitled to receive, reads as follows:

The portion of [Joel's] Plan benefits payable to [Kathy] under this QDRO is 100% of assets credited to [Joel's] account segregated as of the date December 6, 2021, [plus earnings and losses to the date of distribution] to [Kathy]. The balance of the assets credited to [Joel's] account shall remain [Joel's].

(Fourth alteration in original.) The paragraph did not mirror the language of Kathy's and Joel's earlier writings.

On April 21, 2022, the superior court entered its judgment, signing its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and its decree of dissolution. Each judgment entry incorporated Kathy's and Joel's Property Settlement Agreement, itself a memorialization of their original agreement.

Five days later, on April 26, 2022, the superior court entered as an order of the court the QDRO drafted by Kathy and signed by both parties. In doing so, the superior court entrusted that the QDRO was in harmony with the court's decree and the Property Settlement Agreement incorporated therein.

The following month, Joel was informed that the trustee plan administrator for Joel's employer's benefits plan had reviewed the QDRO but that, as written, the plan administrator could not process the QDRO for assignment of Joel's 401(k) plan contributions to Kathy.^[5] Counsel for Joel's employer suggested a correction to paragraph 6 of the QDRO that would make clear that the funds to be assigned to Kathy were only those funds that Joel himself had contributed to his 401(k) account (along with any investment earnings or losses), rather than a combination of both Joel's contributions and his employer's contributions. The language proposed by his employer's counsel reads as follows:

"The portion of [Joel's] Plan benefits awarded to [Kathy] under this QDRO is 100% of the amount credited to [Joel's] Plan account attributable to elective employee contributions under the Plan's cash or deferred arrangement, as of December 6, 2021, adjusted for any investment earnings or losses until the date of distribution to [Kathy]. The balance of the benefit credited to [Joel's] Plan Account (i.e., amount attributable to employer-funded contributions) shall remain [Joel's]."

Thereafter, Joel drafted an amended QDRO containing the suggested language. Its sixth paragraph reads as follows:

The portion of [Joel's] Plan benefits payable to [Kathy] under this QDRO is 100% of the amount credited to [Joel's] Plan account attributable to elective employee contributions, as of the date December 6, 2021, adjusted for any investment earnings or losses until the date of distribution to [Kathy]. The balance of the assets credited to [Joel's] account (i.e. employer-funded "Profit Sharing Trust" contributions) shall remain [Joel's].

Joel sought to obtain Kathy's signature on the amended QDRO. Kathy did not sign it.

In July 2022, Joel sent the draft amended QDRO to the trustee plan administrator, and the plan administrator indicated that, as amended, it was able to process the QDRO for assignment of Joel's 401(k) plan contributions to Kathy. Joel again sought to obtain Kathy's signature on the amended QDRO. Kathy again did not sign it.

In August 2022, Joel submitted the dispute regarding the amended QDRO to arbitration before Judge Robinson. Joel requested that Judge Robinson, as the parties' designated fact finder, review the amended QDRO to determine whether it was consistent with their original agreement as he and Kathy had memorialized in their earlier writings.^[6] Kathy's counsel, in a letter, responded that (1) per the parties' CR 2A Stipulation and Agreement, the arbitrator's authority to act as arbitrator had expired when the superior court entered...