Duane and Kathleen divorced in 1992 pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement. The decree awarded each party an equitable share of the other party’s retirement, pursuant to the Woodward formula. Woodward v. Woodward was a seminal Utah case regarding equitable division of pension plan benefits that accumulated during a marriage.

Each party was directed to prepare a QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order) to secure their own interest in the other party’s retirement. Each party worked for the state of Utah and their retirement plans were administered by Utah Retirement Systems (“URS”).

Kathleen prepared her QDRO in 1995. Duane prepared his in 2000.

Both parties agreed that in the year 2000 an administrative rule change was made to the way URS handled ex-spousal shares of retirement benefits. Under this change, if Kathleen were to predecease Dwayne, her interest in his retirement would no longer revert to him.

In December 2015 Kathleen filed a motion to reform her QDRO to bring it up to date with URS’ administration rule change. She argued that this was only fair, because Dwayne’s QDRO was prepared after the rule change and both parties were awarded equal benefits in the divorce decree.

The district court agreed with Kathleen. Dwayne filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied. He appealed.

In his appeal, Dwayne made three arguments: 1) that the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend the QDRO; 2) that even if the court had jurisdiction to modify the QDRO,that Utah Code Section 68-3-3, which governs the retroactive effects of code modifications, prevented it from doing so; and 3) that it was inequitable for the district court to modify the QDRO.

With laser like precision, the Court of Appeals surgically eviscerated each of these arguments. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 30-3-5(3) the court retained ongoing jurisdiction to enforce its orders with respect to equitable division of property rights. Kathleen’s Motion was not a request to modify the divorce decree, which would require a petition to modify based on a substantial change of circumstances. Rather, it was in the nature of a request to enforce the decree with respect to equitable division of retirement benefits.

Utah Code Section 68-3-3 provides that “[a] provision of the Utah Code is not retroactive, unless the provision is expressly declared to be retroactive.”

But in the instant case, Kathleen was not seeking to retroactively implement a change in Utah statutory law. Rather, she was seeking to enforce the divorce decree as it was written, which provided for equal treatment of both parties with respect to retirement benefits. A change in URS’ administrative rules made it necessary to amend her QDRO, to afford her the same treatment as Dwayne, whose later prepared QDRO took advantage of the administrative rule change.

Lastly, the Court of Appeals afforded wide latitude to the district court’s application of equitable principles. There appeared to be no abuse of discretion in the court’s allowance of Kathleen’s modification of her QDRO.

As the Court of Appeals dryly observed, this was a case that “involved not the benefit of the doubt, but some doubt as to the benefit.”

See Potts v. Potts, 2018 UT App. 169.

This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted