Carr v. Jonbil, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carr v. Jonbil, Inc.

245 A.D.2d 369, 666 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12877

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 8, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 369 (Carr v. Jonbil, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carr v. Jonbil, Inc., 245 A.D.2d 369, 666 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a turnover proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225 (b) and 5227, the intervenor John Carr, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered January 16, 1997, and an order of the same court, entered March 18, 1997, which, inter alia, granted Susan Carr’s petition and directed Jonbil, Inc., as the administrator of the Jonbil, Inc., Merged Profit Sharing Plan, and South Trust Bank of Alabama, N.A., as the trustee thereof, to pay Susan Carr $37,368.73, plus investment earnings on such amount accruing on or after February 5, 1997, less fees and expenses, from his account with the Jonbil, Inc., Merged Profit Sharing Plan.

Ordered that the judgment and the order are reversed, with one bill of costs, on the law and the facts, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Contrary to the trial court’s determination, no qualified domestic relations order was entered in the present proceeding (see, Internal Revenue Code [26 USC] § 414 [p]; 29 USC § 1056 [d] [3]). Therefore, pursuant to CPLR 5205 (c), the funds in the appellant’s account with the Jonbil, Inc., Merged Profit Sharing Plan (hereinafter the plan) are exempt from satisfying the petitioner’s judgment (see, Dallin v Dallin, 225 AD2d 728). Moreover, a pension plan may not be assigned or alienated unless a qualified domestic relations order is issued (see, 29 USC § 1056 [d] [1], [3]; Winter v Boskin, 181 AD2d 1000).

Furthermore, the evidence presented failed to establish that Susan Carr and the appellant are joint beneficiaries of the appellant’s account. Rather, the evidence established that the appellant is a participant in the plan and Susan Carr’s consent was needed merely to approve early lump sum payment in order to protect her rights as a potential surviving spouse. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a turnover proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225 (b) and 5227, the intervenor John Carr, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered January 16, 1997, and an order of the same court, entered March 18, 1997, which, inter alia, granted Susan Carr’s petition and directed Jonbil, Inc., as the administrator of the Jonbil, Inc., Merged Profit Sharing Plan, and South Trust Bank of Alabama, N.A., as the trustee thereof, to pay Susan Carr $37,368.73, plus investment earnings on such amount accruing on or after February 5, 1997, less fees and expenses, from his account with the Jonbil, Inc., Merged Profit Sharing Plan.

Ordered that the judgment and the order are reversed, with one bill of costs, on the law and the facts, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Contrary to the trial court’s determination, no qualified domestic relations order was entered in the present proceeding (see, Internal Revenue Code [26 USC] § 414 [p]; 29 USC § 1056 [d] [3]). Therefore, pursuant to CPLR 5205 (c), the funds in the appellant’s account with the Jonbil, Inc., Merged Profit Sharing Plan (hereinafter the plan) are exempt from satisfying the petitioner’s judgment (see, Dallin v Dallin, 225 AD2d 728). Moreover, a pension plan may not be assigned or alienated unless a qualified domestic relations order is issued (see, 29 USC § 1056 [d] [1], [3]; Winter v Boskin, 181 AD2d 1000).

Furthermore, the evidence presented failed to establish that Susan Carr and the appellant are joint beneficiaries of the appellant’s account. Rather, the evidence established that the appellant is a participant in the plan and Susan Carr’s consent was needed merely to approve early lump sum payment in order to protect her rights as a potential surviving spouse. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 369, 666 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-jonbil-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack