QDRO Upheld Even Though Errors and Variance from Decree

Tennessee case summary on entry of QDRO after divorce.

Doris Mpoyi v. Richard T. Mpoyi

The husband and wife in this Rutherford County, Tennessee, case were divorced in 2010.  Among the assets were the husband’s retirement accounts totaling about $100,000.  The wife received 30% as of the date of divorce, with the husband receiving the other 70%.

There were various post-trial motions, but the wife didn’t submit a proposed QDRO (qualified domestic relations order) until 2018.    The court entered the order, but the husband moved to alter or amend, alleging a number of inaccuracies.  He also argued that it didn’t accurately reflect the original distribution in the case.  The trial court, Judge J. Mark Rogers,  denied his motion.  Acting as his own attorney, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  The wife did not file a brief in the case.

The appeals court first noted that it reviewed the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion.  It noted that since the husband was representing himself, he was entitled to a certain amount of leeway in considering his brief.

The husband first argued that the QDRO deviated from the final decree in the case.  Specifically, he argued that the wife was entitled only to a fixed amount as of the date of the divorce, and not the appreciation that took place later.

After reviewing the two documents, the appeals court concluded that they were consistent.  It noted that it is implicit that parties will share the risks and rewards of investment, and that only express language to the contrary would change this.

The husband also pointed to some alleged inaccuracies in the QDRO, such as the date of the marriage and the date of the divorce.  But the appeals court dismissed these as, at most, harmless error.   It noted that the husband was not able to point to any way in which he was prejudiced by the alleged errors.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

No. M2018-01816-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27,  2020).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.