Mondo v Christman
Annotate this CaseDecided on June 28, 2005
Supreme Court, Monroe County
JOAN D. MONDO f/k/a JOAN CHRISTMAN, Plaintiff, .
against
MICHAEL S. CHRISTMAN, Defendant.
1984/2845
John J. Ark, J.
The parties were divorced by Decree of the Honorable Wilmer J. Patlow dated June 14, 1985. The Decree incorporated by reference an in-court Stipulation of the parties, made on June 3, 1985. Said Stipulation provided that the ex-wife would receive her share of her husband's New York State Teachers' Retirement System pension in accordance with the well-known Majauskas formula.
A Qualified Domestic Relations Order purporting to effectuate the above-referenced equitable distribution of Mr. Christman's New York State teacher's pension was signed by this Court on March 19, 2003. While it had been drafted by Robert M. Hardies, Esq. (The ex-wife's attorney), it had been modified in various respects at the request of Anthony P. LaFay, Esq., who first represented the husband on the approval of the QDRO.
Defendant/husband, now represented by Francis C. Affronti, Esq., takes issue with three provisions of the QDRO, which were not specifically authorized by the parties' in-court Stipulation. As written, the QDRO assigns to plaintiff/ex-wife a portion of the husband's pre-retirement death benefit, requires the husband to appoint his ex-wife beneficiary of his pension, and allows the ex-wife to receive her share of the participant's pension in a joint-and-survivor annuity for her lifetime.
Argument was heard by the Court on May 27, 2005. Plaintiff/ex-wife contends that the QDRO constitutes the law of the case; that no statutory or common law authority exists for this Court's amendment of the QDRO; and, in any case, the time periods for appeal of the QDRO, or for renewal or reargument of an appropriate motion have all long since passed. Plaintiff cross-moves for an Order directing Mr. Christman to complete a beneficiary form respecting the pre-retirement death benefit.
Plaintiff's counsel has opined that the modification authority granted to the Court in the QDRO only applies to technical changes needed to conform to federal tax law or Internal Revenue Service regulations. The Court disagrees.
The next-to-last decretal paragraph of the QDRO reserves to the Court "... jurisdiction to implement and supervise the payment of retirement benefits as provided herein should either party or the Plan Administrator make such application, and the Court determines such to be appropriate and necessary" (emphasis added). In addition to this unequivocal language , it is [*2]clear that the Court's inherent equitable powers anticipate its intercession to avoid injustice or the perversion of the parties' contractual intent.
It is interesting to note that the Stipulation, as spread upon the record by the ex-wife's attorney, Mr. Hardies, allows the husband to "elect the retirement option that will pay him the greatest amount of monthly benefit" (see, Exhibit "B" to Mr. Affronti's April 6, 2005 Affirmation, at page 29 of Stipulation transcript). Traditionally (and also in this instance), the greatest monthly payment comes from selection of the straight annuity for the plan participant's lifetime. A joint-and-survivor annuity, while giving the ex-spouse a monthly income for her lifetime, of necessity results in a lower monthly payout to be divided between the participant and the alternate payee.
Furthermore, the Majauskas formula, while setting forth the fractional elements required to determine the marital share of a pension, does not mandate election of a joint-and-survivor annuity option.
The pre-retirement death benefit, while doubtless a very desirable component of a retirement plan, is separate and apart from a pension monthly allowance, and must be strictly negotiated by the divorcing spouses. This Court can not reform the parties' contractual intent retrospectively in order to conform to the wife's apprehension of the in-court Stipulation. The language of the oral stipulation is unambiguous and must be honored in effectuating equitable distribution by means of a QDRO.
It is, therefore, the Decision of this Court that the relief requested in defendant's Order to Show Cause is granted in its entirety, and the relief requested in plaintiff's cross-motion is denied. The "Amended Domestic Relations Order" attached as Exhibit "D" to Mr. Affronti's Affirmation is to be submitted to the Court for signature.
All of the above is SO ORDERED.
Dated:
HONORABLE JOHN J. ARK, JSC
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
