Update to my Blog Posts Dated July 20 & July 29, 2014: the Rest of the Story

2014Eileen ZellSeptember 9, 2014OH, Ohio, Avoiding Pitfalls, QDRO

Show me the Money: Update to my Blog Posts Dated June 12 & July 1, 2014

2014Eileen ZellAugust 24, 2014KY, OH, QDRO, Tracing, Kentucky, Ohio

Update to my Blog Post Dated July 20, 2014: Anticipation is Keeping me Waiting… (But not Anymore in Ohio)

2014Eileen ZellJuly 29, 2014QDRO, Ohio, OH, CR 60

Anticipation is Keeping me Waiting…

2014Eileen ZellJuly 20, 2014KY, KRS, QDRO, Kentucky, Statute of Limitations, SOL

Show me the Money: Update to my Blog Post Dated June 12, 2014

2014Eileen ZellJuly 1, 2014KY, OH, QDRO, Tracing, Kentucky, Ohio

Show Me the Money: Tracing Pre-Marital Retirement Accounts in Kentucky and Ohio

Smith v. Smith, NO. 2011-CA-002306-MR (Ky. App. 2014)
Evidentiary Burden is on Employee to Prove Non-Marital Amounts to be Assigned as Separate Property Interest

Rendered: May 23, 2014
To Be Published
Opinion Affirming

Welcome readers. This is the one-year anniversary of my inaugural blog post, and over this past year I am proud to say that I have picked up the unforced readership of at least one attorney. You know who you are TM. I won’t embarrass you. But I truly thank you.

I have been otherwise blessed by the support of my family, friends, and colleagues, each of whom fight through their yawns and read this post with regularity because they know they will be tested at the next happy hour. There are too many to count (friends, family, colleagues... and happy hours). So you all will also escape the embarrassment of being named. There are not words to express my appreciation for your patience and seemingly endless lists of suggested revisions (both solicited and unsolicited).

Here’s to many more (blog posts... and happy hours).

*** *** ***

This blog post analyzes the evidentiary burden of proving a non-marital separate property interest in a commingled defined contribution retirement account under state domestic relations law in both Kentucky and Ohio. First, the holding in Smith is examined; then this post provides family law practitioners on both sides of the river with applicable law specific to each jurisdiction, as well as some practical guidance.

2014Eileen ZellJune 12, 2014KY, OH, QDRO, Tracing, Kentucky, Ohio

Presenting CLE: Cost Efficiency of the Collaborative Process

2014Eileen ZellMay 14, 2014OH, CLE, Collaborative, Ohio

Valuing KTRS Pensions in Divorce: Where Do We Go From Here?

How Does the Family Law Practitioner Properly Advise a Client in Divorce When One Party Participates in KTRS?

This blog post is based upon a topic I have researched over the past year, and am continuing to explore with the intention of ultimately submitting something more formal for publication. This post follows my general blogging trend. I present a problem – for instance, in this case arising from legislative and judicial ambiguity – and then submit to my reader a possible solution to chew on. It is a longer post than usual, and is not for the faint at heart. Venture at your own risk...

Recently, in Eden v. Eden, No. 2012-CA-000819-MR (Ky. App. 2014), the Kentucky Court of Appeals considered the proper classification and division of a Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System Pension (“KTRS Plan” or “KTRS Pension”) in divorce pursuant to the governing statutes and regulations (see my blog post dated March 25, 2014). Although not directly at issue in Eden, because the participant was already retired and drawing his monthly retirement allowance, this author could not help but to be reminded of the uncertainty under state law when valuing, classifying, and dividing a KTRS pension in divorce.