Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Merrimack No. 2007-227 IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD R. LEMIEUX AND JOANNE LEMIEUX Argued: May 21, 2008 Opinion Issued: June 13, 2008 Cook & Molan, P.A., of Concord (Shawn J. Sullivan on the brief and orally), for the petitioner. McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, P.A., of Manchester (Jeanmarie Papelian and Joel T. Emlen on the brief, and Mr. Emlen orally), for the respondent. DALIANIS, J. The petitioner, Richard R. Lemieux, appeals an order recommended by a Marital Master (Rein, M.) and approved by the Superior Court (McHugh, J.) dismissing his petition to bring forward and approve a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The primary issue in the case is whether the trial court erred when it found that the petitioner failed to state a claim for reformation based upon mutual mistake of law. We reverse and remand. The record supports the following facts: The petitioner, a federal employee, has a pension plan with the federal civil service retirement system. He and the respondent, Joanne Lemieux, were married in 1969 and divorced in 1990. Their final divorce decree incorporated the terms of their permanent stipulation, paragraph five of which provided:

The [petitioner's] pension shall be equally divided between the parties in a QDRO benefit arrangement. a. [The respondent] is awarded 50% of the value of [the petitioner's] pension plan as of the date of the entry of the Libel of Divorce, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section [1056] (d)(3)(C). .... c. The percent of benefits to be paid to [the respondent] is 50% of the value as of the date of the entry of the Libel for Divorce. d. This Order applies to the entire pension plan in existence as of the above-referenced date. e. This Order applies to all pension plans in which [the petitioner] participates as a result of his employment by the Federal Government. f. Benefits for [the respondent] shall begin on the date [the petitioner] reaches earliest retirement age under the plan, whether or not he actually retired on that date. On December 12, 2000, and January 24, 2001, the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which administers the civil service retirement system, informed the petitioner that it had processed the respondent's claim pursuant to this paragraph of their stipulation. OPM awarded her fifty percent of the value of the petitioner's pension as of the date upon which he became eligible for retirement, a benefit of $1,354.93 per month. In March 2001, the petitioner challenged OPM's decision, arguing that the respondent was entitled only to fifty percent of the value of his pension as of the date on which the divorce action was filed, January 19, 1990. According to his calculations, the respondent was entitled to a benefit of $794.50 per month. OPM rejected the petitioner's arguments, and he appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which upheld OPM's decision. The petitioner then appealed the board's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that OPM's calculation of the respondent's retirement benefit was correct. Lemieux v. Office of Personnel Management, 87 Fed. Appx. 727 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In February 2006, the petitioner filed a petition to bring forward and approve a QDRO in superior court, arguing, in part, that a QDRO was needed to reform the parties' property settlement. The petitioner contended that

2

reformation of the parties' property settlement was necessary because of a mutual mistake of law. The mutual mistake, he contended, was that paragraph five of the parties' permanent stipulation referenced the QDRO provision of ERISA, see 29 U.S.C.A.

Download 2007-227, I/M/O RICHARD LEMIEUX AND JOANNE LEMIEUX.pdf

New Hampshire Law