through inadvertence or mistake.” Eller, 168 Md.App. at 129, 895 A.2d 382 (citing Short v. Short, 136 Md.App. 570, 578, 766 A.2d 651 (2001)). In Patton, the court found that the parties intended a fifty percent division of his pension. Although the second plan was part of his pension, he had inadvertently neglected to disclose it. By contrast, appellant and appellee agreed to split appellant’s “retirement account with the World Bank” and appellee’s “[tjhrift savings account ... so that each party has 50 percent.” Thus, the court in Patton supplied “an omission in record of action really had but omitted through inadvertence,” compared to the case sub judice where the court correctly ruled that it would not supply the omitted action. See also Eller, 168 Md.App. at 132, 895 A.2d 382 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, at the September 15, 2005 hearing,
holding that due to inadvertent drafting mistakes the original qdro failed to secure wifes interest in husbands pension as intended by the parties holding that a wifes minimal involvement in her husbands business coupled with the lack of evidence that she knew of or intended to further her husbands fraudulent schemes was insufficient evidence of conspiracy holding that an employees protected interest in a pension vested before he or she became eligible to collect the pension holding that securing a dro that creates an interest in the proceeds of a pension plan gives the bearer the right to obtain a proper qdro holding that pennsylvania law permits retention of the purchasemoney security interest in goods that also secure later payments to extent the original items secure the unpaid part of their own price