SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0224-17T1

JOANNE K. SNYDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HOWARD I. SNYDER,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________

Argued August 8, 2018 – Decided August 24, 2018

Before Judges Hoffman and Currier.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington 

County, Docket No. FM-03-1076-11.

Ronald G. Lieberman argued the cause for 

appellant (Cooper Levenson, PA, attorneys; 

Ronald G. Lieberman, on the briefs). 

Jonathan Stone argued the cause for 

respondent.

PER CURIAM

In this matrimonial action, plaintiff Joanne K. Snyder 

appeals from the provisions of the August 4, 2017 order compelling 

her to execute a Qualified Domestic Relation Order (QDRO) for the 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-0224-17T1

division of her ex-husband's pension. After a review of the 

contentions in light of the record and applicable principles of 

law, we affirm.

After thirty years of marriage, the parties were divorced in 

June 2011. A Final Judgment of Divorce incorporated the parties' 

Property Settlement Agreement (PSA). Defendant Howard I. Snyder 

had a pension in pay status at the time of the divorce from which 

he was receiving established payments. This pension is the subject 

of this appeal.

Paragraph 3.5 of the PSA addressed the parties' retirement 

accounts and pension plans. Specifically as to defendant's pension 

in pay status, it stated:

Wife shall be entitled to $2800.00 a 

month from Husband's Pension with the 

remaining monthly payout being the sole

property of the Husband. Wife will remain on 

the bank account where the funds from the 

Pension are currently deposited until such 

time as a [QDRO] can be drafted and the . . .

Pension [is] divided as per the above

specifications. Until such time as a QDRO is 

completed, wife may withdraw $2800.00 a month 

from the bank account that receives the 

monthly Pension payments. 

Paragraph 4.4, entitled "Income Tax Effect," provided: "All 

of the foraging(sic) transactions as set forth in Article III,

(Equitable Distribution), are intended to be tax-free events." It 

further stated that any financial events required under Article 6 
3 A-0224-17T1

of the PSA were "intended to be non-taxable events under the 

Internal Revenue Code 1041."

For more than five years after the divorce, as per the PSA, 

plaintiff withdrew $2800 a month from the joint bank account as

her share of defendant's pension. During this time period 

defendant paid the tax liability for the entire distribution. In 

February 2016, defendant self-prepared a QDRO and presented it to 

the pension plan administrator. Plaintiff's counsel objected to 

the form of the QDRO, the plan administrator took no action, and 

plaintiff continued to withdraw $2800 tax-free from the bank 

account.

In June 2017, defendant filed a motion, in pertinent part,

compelling plaintiff to execute the QDRO. Plaintiff's crossmotion asserted she was entitled to receive $2800 net of taxes 

under the PSA, and judicial estoppel prevented defendant from 

requiring her to pay taxes on her share of the distribution, which 

would result in a downward modification of her net monies.

Following extensive oral argument, the Family Part judge 

issued an oral decision on August 4, 2017, memorialized in an 

order under the same date. In applying the plain language of the 

PSA, the judge noted that Paragraph 3.5 did not address the "tax 

consequences of distributions received by the Wife from Husband's 

pension." Although he acknowledged the statement in Paragraph 4.4
4 A-0224-17T1

that the parties intended transactions in Article III to be nontaxable events under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 1041, the judge

advised that Section 1041 did not apply to the tax consequences 

of pension distributions made pursuant to a QDRO. A pension 

distribution was governed by Sections 402(e)(1)(A) and 72 of the 

IRC, which provided that a spouse or former spouse of a participant

who receives a distribution or payment under a QDRO is an 

"alternate payee," and must pay federal income tax on the 

distribution or payment. 

Concluding that there was "no explicit provision" in the 

parties' PSA that contradicted the pertinent sections of the tax 

code, the judge resolved that, going forward, plaintiff was

required to pay federal income tax on her share of defendant's 

pension; the $2800 was deemed a gross figure subject to tax 

obligations under the QDRO. Defendant's motion was granted and 

plaintiff was ordered to execute the QDRO.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the parties' course of 

conduct for five years evidenced an intent that plaintiff was to 

receive a distribution of $2800 per month from defendant's pension

net of taxes, and that the judge erred in not ordering a plenary 

hearing. Plaintiff also argues, for the first time, that she 

should not have to pay taxes on her share of the pension 

distribution despite the existence of tax law to the contrary.
5 A-0224-17T1

Our standard of review requires us to give considerable 

deference to the discretionary decisions of Family Part judges. 

Donnelly v. Donnelly, 405 N.J. Super. 117, 127 (App. Div. 2009)

(citing Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 21 (App. Div. 2006)). 

That is so "[b]ecause of the family courts' special jurisdiction 

and expertise in family matters." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 

413 (1998). Unlike a trial judge's fact and credibility findings, 

the judge's "interpretation of the law and the legal consequences 

that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special 

deference." Crespo v. Crespo, 395 N.J. Super. 190, 194 (App. Div. 

2007) (quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 

140 N.J. 366, 378, (1995)). 

Consistent with New Jersey's "'strong public policy favoring 

stability of arrangements' in matrimonial matters," where matters 

in dispute in a post-judgment matrimonial motion are addressed in 

a PSA, courts will not "unnecessarily or lightly disturb[]" the 

agreement so long as it is fair and equitable. Quinn v. Quinn, 

225 N.J. 34, 44 (2016) (quoting Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J.

185, 193-94 (1999)); see also Pacifico v. Pacifico, 190 N.J. 258, 

266 (2007) (a matrimonial agreement is enforceable so long as it 

is not inequitable); Dolce v. Dolce, 383 N.J. Super. 11, 20 (App. 

Div. 2006) (quoting Petersen v. Petersen, 85 N.J. 638, 642 (1981))

(PSAs are entitled to "'considerable weight with respect to their 
6 A-0224-17T1

validity and enforceability' in equity, provided they are fair and 

just").

Plaintiff asserts that she has relied on receiving $2800 

gross as her share of defendant's pension for more than seven 

years and, therefore, the doctrine of laches requires the

perpetuation of this arrangement. We disagree.

As the judge stated, the PSA permitted plaintiff to withdraw 

$2800 monthly from a joint bank account. This arrangement was to 

continue until a QDRO was executed to divide the pension monies.

Although paragraph 3.5 did not address the tax consequences to 

either party following the execution of the QDRO, paragraph 4.4 

informed that all transactions under Article III were to be nontaxable events, referring to IRC 1041. Pursuant to those 

provisions, plaintiff has received $2800 monthly, free of taxes, 

as her share of the pension distribution for more than seven years. 

Although the PSA requires the preparation of a QDRO to divide 

the pension account, it is silent as to the tax consequences of 

the division of the account under the QDRO. Plaintiff does not 

dispute that a tax liability is incurred on a pension distribution, 

instead, she argues that since defendant paid the taxes on the 

full distribution for so many years, she has become reliant on 

that arrangement.
7 A-0224-17T1

We agree, as did the trial judge, that defendant failed to 

comply with his responsibility for drafting and submitting a QDRO 

for the division of the account. However, defendant's neglect was 

to his detriment and resulted in a windfall for plaintiff. She 

has not paid any taxes on her share of the pension distribution

from June 2011 to the present time. 

The PSA does not address the tax consequences to the parties 

following the entry of a QDRO. The IRC imposes a tax liability 

on pension distributions. Under the circumstances present here,

we are satisfied the trial judge's determination that each party 

be responsible, going forward, for the tax owed on their respective 

shares of the pension distribution is a fair and just reading of 

the PSA. 

Although defendant was dilatory in the preparation of the 

QDRO, plaintiff did not pursue the division of the account either.

Instead, she collected a tax-free share of the pension for more 

than seven years. The equities favor the conclusion that the 

gross distribution paid to plaintiff of $2800 is subject to the 

requisite imposition of taxes.

We discern no abuse of discretion in the judge's denial of a 

plenary hearing, and we decline to address plaintiff's argument 

that the trial court could have entered an order contrary to 
8 A-0224-17T1

existing tax laws as it was not raised to the trial court. See

Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Rothman, 208 N.J. 580, 586 (2012).

Affirmed.