We’ve all seen it: what looks like a “clean” retirement clause comes back rejected by the plan administrator. You’re not alone and you’re not doing anything wrong. You’re just using language that used to work.
Let’s take a look:
Bad Settlement Language (Real Example): “Alex Bretley gets 50% of Alyson Bretley’s Fidelity IRA as of 1/2/24, with gains/losses until distribution.”
Why It Fails:
- IRA plan administrators do not accept historical valuation dates
- They do not calculate post-cutoff gains or losses
- This clause will get rejected, costing time, clarity, and client trust
What Works Instead: “A post-DOC analysis is needed to pin the marital share as of today (using 1/2/24 as cutoff, excluding post-DOC contributions and growth) and transfer that percentage.”
This is just one of a dozen real-world clauses I’ve added to the Settlement Language Hall of Shame – all included in the new Settlement Language Issue-Spotter I promised.
This tool was built specifically for divorce attorneys who are tired of:
- Settlement rewrites
- Delays from bounced orders
- Headaches trying to fix unclear division clauses
No fluff. Just corrected clauses, clear examples, and red flags to avoid when dividing defined contribution plans.
💡 Want to see it in action? Keep an eye out for when I announce my next masterclass.
We’re not just drafting better clauses; we’re raising the standard for retirement division.