Case Law Sprole v. Sprole

Sprole v. Sprole

Document Cited Authorities (9) Cited in (9) Related

Linda S. Sprole, Ithaca, appellant pro se.

Harris Beach, PLLC, Syracuse (John A. Cirando of D.J. & J.A. Cirando of counsel), for respondent.

Before: McCARTHY, J.P., LYNCH, ROSE, CLARK and PRITZKER, JJ.

PRITZKER, J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Ames, J.), entered April 29, 2016 in Tompkins County, which awarded defendant a share of plaintiff's marital interest in a 401(k) account pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, and (2) from an order of said court, entered April 29, 2016 in Tompkins County, which awarded defendant a share of plaintiff's marital interest in a retirement trust account pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order.

Pursuant to a September 2015 judgment, plaintiff (hereinafter the husband) and defendant (hereinafter the wife) were granted a divorce. Supreme Court ordered "that the marital portion of [the husband's] Therm, Inc. 401(k) account and [his] interest in the Therm, Inc. Employee Retirement Trust will be divided equally between [the husband] and [the wife] by [d]omestic [r]elations [o]rder and [q]ualified [d]omestic [r]elations [o]rder [hereinafter QDRO], and said [o]rders will be prepared and filed by the attorney for [the wife]." Through a letter dated April 26, 2016, the husband submitted a proposed QDRO as to the 401(k) account and another proposed QDRO as to the retirement trust account for the court to sign. On April 29, 2016, the court signed both QDROs. The wife appeals.

"No appeal lies as of right from a qualified domestic relations order that merely implements those portions of the judgment of divorce awarding one spouse an interest in the marital portion of the other spouse's retirement pension" ( Bernstein v. Bernstein, 18 A.D.3d 683, 683–684, 795 N.Y.S.2d 733 [2005] ; see Smith v. Smith, 59 A.D.3d 905, 906 n., 874 N.Y.S.2d 300 [2009] ). In the judgment of divorce, Supreme Court specifically ordered "that the marital portion of [the husband's 401(k) account] and [his] interest in the [retirement trust account] will be divided equally between [the husband] and [the wife] by ... [QDROs]." Such decree reflects the parties' stipulation during the trial that the wife would receive half of the marital portions of both accounts and that the marital portions would be calculated according to the Majauskas formula. Further, the parties stipulated that the marital portion of the 401(k) account was $118,514.42, and the QDRO awarded the wife $59,257.21, which is 50% of that sum. Notably, the wife does not challenge the sum that she was awarded, and the arguments she raises as to the substance of the QDRO are meritless. Under these circumstances, where the QDRO pertaining to the 401(k) account merely implemented the parties' stipulation, the wife's appeal from this QDRO must be dismissed (see Bernstein v. Bernstein, 18 A.D.3d at 684, 795 N.Y.S.2d 733 ). Finally, while the wife claims that she was deprived notice to object to the QDRO, since it merely implemented the stipulation within the divorce, there was no prejudice and the wife is not an aggrieved party (see CPLR 5511 ; Weissman v. Weissman, 99 N.Y.2d 638, 638, 760 N.Y.S.2d 91, 790 N.E.2d 264 [2003] ).

The wife similarly argues that the husband improperly filed a proposed QDRO pertaining to the retirement trust account. Although this QDRO states that the wife is entitled to a 20.5% interest in the entire account, it does not explain how that figure was reached. While the record reflects the date of the parties' marriage and the date the husband commenced the divorce action, it is devoid of the dates on which the husband entered the retirement trust account and the last date benefits were earned from the retirement trust account. Therefore, as the record sufficiently reflects the pertinent issue—the lack of proof to determine the relevant dates caused, in part, by the lack of notice to the wife—this Court will treat the wife's notice of appeal from this QDRO as an application for leave to appeal and grant the application (see Wojtaszek v. Wojtaszek, 64 A.D.3d 1035, 1036, 881 N.Y.S.2d 916 [2009] ; Lavin v. Lavin, 263 A.D.2d 932, 932–933, 694 N.Y.S.2d 243 [1999] ; see also Zebrowski v. Zebrowski, 28 A.D.3d 883, 884, 813 N.Y.S.2d 803 [2006] ). Unlike the QDRO pertaining to the 401(k) account, where the wife's lack of notice did not divest the record from information to ensure that the QDRO reflected the...

5 cases
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2018
Carlson v. Dorsey
"...the 401(k) QDRO was not inconsistent with the provisions of the underlying order and judgment of divorce (see Sprole v. Sprole , 155 A.D.3d 1345, 1345–1346, 65 N.Y.S.3d 334 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1032, 69 N.Y.S.3d 204, 91 N.E.3d 1183 [2017] ; Dagliolo v. Dagliolo , 91 A.D.3d 1260, 1..."
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2018
Econopouly v. Econopouly
"...No appeal lies as of right from a QDRO, which generally implements the terms of a judgment of divorce (see Sprole v. Sprole , 155 A.D.3d 1345, 1345, 65 N.Y.S.3d 334 [2017] ; Dagliolo v. Dagliolo , 91 A.D.3d 1260, 1260 n., 937 N.Y.S.2d 466 [2012] ). Inasmuch as defendant has consistently arg..."
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2018
Sprole v. Sprole
"...reviewed and rejected on prior appeals (see e.g. Sprole v. Sprole, 156 A.D.3d 1265, 65 N.Y.S.3d 815 [2017] ; Sprole v. Sprole, 155 A.D.3d 1345, 65 N.Y.S.3d 334 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1032, 69 N.Y.S.3d 204, 91 N.E.3d 1183 [2017] ; Sprole v. Sprole, 152 A.D.3d 1094, 60 N.Y.S.3d 545 [2..."
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2017
Sprole v. Sprole
"...orders that this Court has previously reviewed or have otherwise been rejected on her prior appeals (see e.g. Sprole v. Sprole, 155 A.D.3d 1345, 1346–47, 65 N.Y.S.3d 334 [2017]; Sprole v. Sprole, 152 A.D.3d 1094, 60 N.Y.S.3d 545 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1032, 2017 WL 6330443 [Dec. 12,..."
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2017
Treistman v. Cayley
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2018
Carlson v. Dorsey
"...the 401(k) QDRO was not inconsistent with the provisions of the underlying order and judgment of divorce (see Sprole v. Sprole , 155 A.D.3d 1345, 1345–1346, 65 N.Y.S.3d 334 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1032, 69 N.Y.S.3d 204, 91 N.E.3d 1183 [2017] ; Dagliolo v. Dagliolo , 91 A.D.3d 1260, 1..."
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2018
Econopouly v. Econopouly
"...No appeal lies as of right from a QDRO, which generally implements the terms of a judgment of divorce (see Sprole v. Sprole , 155 A.D.3d 1345, 1345, 65 N.Y.S.3d 334 [2017] ; Dagliolo v. Dagliolo , 91 A.D.3d 1260, 1260 n., 937 N.Y.S.2d 466 [2012] ). Inasmuch as defendant has consistently arg..."
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2018
Sprole v. Sprole
"...reviewed and rejected on prior appeals (see e.g. Sprole v. Sprole, 156 A.D.3d 1265, 65 N.Y.S.3d 815 [2017] ; Sprole v. Sprole, 155 A.D.3d 1345, 65 N.Y.S.3d 334 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1032, 69 N.Y.S.3d 204, 91 N.E.3d 1183 [2017] ; Sprole v. Sprole, 152 A.D.3d 1094, 60 N.Y.S.3d 545 [2..."
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2017
Sprole v. Sprole
"...orders that this Court has previously reviewed or have otherwise been rejected on her prior appeals (see e.g. Sprole v. Sprole, 155 A.D.3d 1345, 1346–47, 65 N.Y.S.3d 334 [2017]; Sprole v. Sprole, 152 A.D.3d 1094, 60 N.Y.S.3d 545 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1032, 2017 WL 6330443 [Dec. 12,..."
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2017
Treistman v. Cayley
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex