APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 364-634, DIVISION
"A" HONORABLE RAYMOND S. STEIB, JR., JUDGE
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, MARK KNOBLES R. Lee Eddy,
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, KAY CHAUVIN William H. Cook,
composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Marc E. Johnson, and
Hans J. Liljeberg
E. JOHNSON, JUDGE.
Mark Knobles, appeals a judgment from the 24th
Judicial District Court, Division "A," in favor of
Defendant/Appellee, Kay G. Knobles, that classified a portion
of his restoration retirement plan as a community asset. For
the following reasons, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
relevant facts of this appeal are as follows.
parties, Mark Knobles and Kay G. Knobles, were married on
November 25, 1977. On December 12, 1979, Mark began his
employment with the Chevron Corporation (hereinafter referred
to as "Chevron") and became eligible to participate
in the Chevron Retirement Plan (hereinafter referred to as
"CRP") on October 29, 1980. Mark filed a petition
for separation from room and board on June 15, 1988, and a
petition for divorce was subsequently filed on January 13,
1989. A judgment of divorce dissolving the marriage between
Mark and Kay was rendered on March 4, 1992.
August 29, 1996, Mark filed a petition for judicial partition
of the community property. While the judicial partition was
pending, Mark voluntarily terminated his employment with
Chevron on May 14, 1998; however, his CRP remained intact.
The parties agreed to a settlement of the community property.
The parties decided that the CRP would be divided pursuant to
the formula set forth in Sims v. Sims, 358 So.2d
919, 922 (La. 1978), rehearing granted on other
grounds, (La. 1978). A Consent Judgment confirming the
settlement was rendered on April 26, 1999. The Consent
Judgment specifically stated, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
ADJUDGE AND DECREED,
that in the event that any undisclosed assets are discovered
by either party, that said asset will be divided in
accordance with the Louisiana Community Property laws.
Undiscovered asset means anything that is not covered or is
not within the description of those things which have already
been described and listed in this Consent Judgment. If any
other asset is discovered, that is not included within the
definition or descriptions of those which have already been
recited heretofore today, that asset would be referred to as
an undiscovered asset.
judgment was later considered by Chevron to be a Qualified
Domestic Relations Order (hereinafter referred to as
was rehired by Chevron on January 22, 2007. On that date,
Mark was placed in the CRP again and began to accrue
additional time of credited service. In a petition to modify
the QDRO filed on February 2, 2009, Mark argued that the QDRO
needed to be amended, partially due to his reemployment with
Chevron. In April of 2009, Mark's compensation exceeded
the applicable annual compensation limit for his CRP
benefits, and he became eligible to participate in
Chevron's Retirement Restoration Plan (hereinafter
referred to as "Restoration Plan")-an unqualified
benefit plan that was separate from the CRP.
response to Mark's petition, Kay filed a reconventional
demand on March 23, 2009 and asserted an entitlement to a
newly discovered supplemental benefit (the Restoration Plan)
to Mark's CRP as a community property asset. After
numerous motions and exceptions, the merits of the