In the case, In re Burns, 894 N.E.2d 567 (Ind. 2008), the husband’s attorney failed to submit proposed qualified domestic relations orders to the trial court for a period of eleven months after the entry a decree dissolving the parties’ divorce. Thereafter, the attorney submitted two qdro forms, which were rejected as defective. Court directs reprimand of attorney based, among other things, failure to act with reasonable diligence.
In Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722 (Ind.App. 2006), the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s issuance of a revised QDRO where the initial QDRO had been rejected by the plan administrator. The Court opined:
Wife's motion to submit a revised QDRO informed the court that the part of the decree distributing the pension was for all intents and purposes a nullity and, as a result, that the trial court had not completely divided the parties' property. Thus, the trial court had an affirmative duty to amend the decree in order to divide the pension. It fulfilled that duty when, through the order granting Wife's motion, it provided a workable method for determining Wife's interest in Husband's pension in compliance with ERISA and the pension plan.
Inman v. Inman, 898 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009): Husband held in contempt where, instead of submitting a proposed QDRO as directed by the Court, he transferred his 401k to his self-directed IRA plan.