Hoult v. Hoult

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that once benefits have been distributed to a beneficiary, a creditor’s rights are enforceable against that beneficiary
• holding that court order requiring judgment debtor to disgorge pension benefits already received did not violate anti-alienation provision
• holding that the anti-alienation provision under ERISA applies to pension funds \only while held by the plan administrator and not after they reach the hands of the beneficiary\
• noting that appellant cannot raise argument for first time in reply brief
• noting that appellant cannot raise argument for first time in reply brief
• explaining that \the propriety of the original [preliminary injunction] order\ was \beyond the scope of our review\ of a motion to modify that injunction (quoting 16 Wright & Miller's Federal Practice & Procedure § 3924.2 (3d ed. 2025))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).