withdrawal.” The trial court fails to specify what kind of “legal or other action” Mary Blomdahl could have taken to enforce her interest in the retirement benefits. She clearly could not have sent a certified copy of the divorce judgment to Piper Jaffray or Aid Association Lutherans demanding payment of ninety percent of Russell Blomdahl’s retirement benefits. See, e.g., Jordan, 147 S.W.3d at 261 (stating the divorce judgment created wife’s right to receive benefits under the plan, but explaining wife could not receive benefits under the plan until the plan administrator approves a proposed QDRO). Neither could she bring an action to receive her share of Russell Blomdahl’s retirement benefits before he actually retired and those benefits became due. See, e.g., Weber, 95 P.3d at 698 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, nothing in the record indicates
holding that military retirement benefits are current pay and thus significantly different than other retirement benefits holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa holding in postamendment case that offsetting social security retirement benefits against permanent total disability payments rationally related to reducing wagereplacement benefits for retired workers holding wife could not have moved to enforce payment of husbands retirement benefits before husband actually retired and began receiving benefits holding that federal law does not prohibit a marital settlement agreement which provides for indemnification if husband takes voluntary action to reduce wifes share of military retirement benefits as along as the disability benefits are not specified as the source of the payments to wife