In the Marriage of:

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A25-1411

In the Marriage of:

Todd Charles Sherette, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Melissa Ann Sherette,
Appellant.

Filed March 30, 2026
Affirmed
Ede, Judge

Scott County District Court
File No. 70-FA-23-3258

Kathryn M. Lammers, Courtney Latcham, Heimerl & Lammers, LLC, Minnetonka,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Melissa Ann Sherette, Jordan, Minnesota (self-represented appellant)

Considered and decided by Frisch, Chief Judge; Ede, Judge; and Bentley, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
EDE, Judge
This is an appeal in a marital-dissolution proceeding from the district court’s
qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which divided between respondent husband
and appellant wife a 401(k) retirement account that was in husband’s name. Wife argues
that the district court abused its discretion in approving the QDRO because: (1) the court
2
filed the QDRO while a motion by wife challenging the judgment and decree (J&D)
dissolving the parties’ marriage was pending; (2) the QDRO is inconsistent with the J&D,
which wife claims omitted language as to (a) the 401(k) retirement account, (b) the division
of other retirement assets, and (c) the valuation date; and (3) that the QDRO does not satisfy
the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 1001–1461 (2018 & Supp. 2023).1 We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Melissa Ann Sherette (wife) and respondent Todd Charles Sherette
(husband) were married for nearly 26 years. Husband petitioned for dissolution of the
parties’ marriage in March 2023. Based on the parties’ agreement and stipulation, the
district court ordered that the presumptive valuation date for determination of the parties’
marital assets and liabilities under Minnesota Statutes section 518.58, subdivision 1 (2024),
is March 31, 2023.2 The matter proceeded to a three-day trial, after which the district court
entered the J&D.

1 ERISA is a comprehensive federal statute that regulates employee benefit plans. See
Boggs v. Boggs , 520 U.S. 833, 841 (1997); see also Engfer v. Gen. Dynamics Advanced
Info. Sys., Inc., 869 N.W.2d 295, 301 (Minn. 2015) (explaining that “ERISA is a
comprehensive federal law designed to promote the interests of employees and their
beneficiaries in employee benefit plans” and that ERISA “imposes participation, funding,
and vesting requirements on employee benefit plans” and “sets various uniform standards,
including rules concerning reporting, disclosure, and fiduciary responsibility, for covered
plans” (quotation and citations omitted)). The employee benefit plans covered by ERISA
include defined contribution plans like a 401(k) retirement account. See LaRue v. DeWolff,
Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S. 248, 250 (2008).

2 We cite the most recent version of Minnesota Statutes section 518.58, subdivision 1,
because it has not been amended in relevant part. See Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles Cnty.
Bd. of Comm’rs, 617 N.W.2d 566, 575 (Minn. 2000) (stating that, generally, “appellate
3
The J&D reflects the parties’ agreed-to and stipulated valuation date of March 31,
2023. Among other things, the J&D expressly divides the parties’ retirement accounts,
including 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and defined-benefit pension accounts. In particular, the
J&D awards a 401(k) retirement account that was in husband’s name to husband, “except
for [an] $88,298 pre-tax asset equalizer owed to wife” under a QDRO. In connection with
this award, the J&D stated that “wife shall submit a proposed QDRO to the court” within
60 days of the J&D. The J&D also awards a “Health Savings account” (HSA) that was in
husband’s name by “split[ting] [the account] equally between the parties.”3
Consistent with a conclusion of law by the district court that “[t]he parties shall
divide the marital property as referenced in Appendix B,” that appendix to the J&D
includes a spreadsheet providing specifics as to the division of post-tax and pre-tax
retirement assets. The spreadsheet details that, of the $22,150 in HSA funds, husband and
wife are each awarded $11,075. And a “pre-tax retirement” section of the appendix
spreadsheet provides that husband is awarded $39,280 of the 401(k) retirement account,
while wife is awarded $88,298 via QDRO.
In June 2025, after the district court entered the J&D, wife filed a notice of motion
and motion listing 21 issues that she requested that the court address (the June 2025
motion), including the valuation date. Before the district court conducted a hearing on

courts apply the law as it exists at the time they rule on a case”). For the same reason, we
also cite the current versions of other statutes referenced in this opinion.

3 After describing this “split” award of the HSA, the J&D reiterates that “wife is receiving
one-half of husband’s HSA in the property distribution.”
4
wife’s motion, wife appealed the J&D, which we assigned case number A25-1232. The
district court later held a hearing on wife’s motion. After the hearing, husband filed a
proposed QDRO in the district court to “allow[] the [retirement] funds to be transferred as
required by the [J&D]” because “the retirement funds [had] not been transferred
to . . . [wife] due to her lack of cooperation.” On August 6, 2025, the district court approved
and filed the QDRO, which states that the valuation date is March 31, 2023, and that wife’s
interest in the 401(k) retirement account is $88,298 of husband’s total vested account
balance as of the valuation date.
On August 28, 2025, wife filed another notice of motion and motion (the August
2025 motion) in the district court, this time asking that “personal property items . . . remain
intact and in place until [her earlier] . . . motion is decided [by the district court] and/or
[the] appellate court decides” A25-1232 and that, as to the QDRO, the district court
conduct a “re-evaluation of all retirement accounts to the trial valuation date.” As to the
valuation date, wife elaborated in a supporting affidavit filed in the district court that “the
value of the retirement accounts have increased significantly since the original valuation
date of March 2023 due to the market value” and that she wanted the valuation date “to be
changed to the valuation date of the trial.”
Wife filed a second notice of appeal—the notice initiating this matter—challenging
the QDRO.
4 She also moved this court to consolidate this appeal with A25-1232 and to

4 After wife filed the notice of appeal underlying the present matter, the district court denied
the June 2025 motion. The district court’s written order also noted that the August 2025
motion concerned the QDRO, that wife had appealed the QDRO, and that, under Minnesota
5
stay the proceedings. Reasoning that this matter and A25-1232 present different questions
and have different records, we denied wife’s motion to consolidate the appeals but allowed
the separate appeals to be decided by the same panel. And because it was unclear that
wife’s pending requests for relief in the district court required delay of the appeals, we
denied her motion to stay the proceedings.
DECISION
Wife contends that the district court abused its discretion in approving the QDRO
because: (1) the court filed the QDRO while the June 2025 motion was pending; (2) the
QDRO is inconsistent with the J&D, which wife claims omitted language as to (a) the
401(k) retirement account, (b) the division of other retirement assets, and (c) the valuation
date; and (3) based on the foregoing alleged omissions in the J&D, the QDRO does not
satisfy the requirements of ERISA. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that wife
has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in approving the QDRO.
A district court has broad discretion in dividing property and setting reasonable
valuation dates. Gottsacker v. Gottsacker, 664 N.W.2d 848, 852 (Minn. 2003.
A QDRO is a type of domestic relations order, which “is any judgment, decree, or
order that concerns ‘the provision of . . . marital property rights to a spouse[] [or] former
spouse . . . of a participant’ and is ‘made pursuant to a State domestic relations law
(including a community property law).’” Boggs, 520 U.S. at 846 (quoting 29 U.S.C.
§ 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii)). More specifically, a QDRO “is a type of domestic relations order that

Rule of Appellate Procedure 108.01, subdivision 2, “the court’s authority to address the
QDRO [was] not permitted.”
6
creates or recognizes an alternate payee’s right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right
to, a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under [an employee
benefit] plan.” Id. (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i) (defining a QDRO)). Under a
QDRO, the alternate payee is considered a beneficiary of the relevant employee benefit
plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(J). The “alternate payee” may be a “spouse[] [or] former
spouse . . . of a participant who is recognized by a domestic relations order as having a
right to receive all, or a portion of, the benefits payable under a plan with respect to such
participant.” Id. (d)(3)(K). While ERISA generally prohibits the assignment or alienation
of employee benefits under covered plans, see id. (d)(1), and preempts state laws that
“relate to” employee benefit plans, see 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), those prohibitions do not apply
to a QDRO, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 1056(d)(3)(A), 1144(b)(7).
A QDRO must be consistent with the terms of a J&D to maintain the parties’
substantive rights. Potter v. Potter, 471 N.W.2d 113, 114 (Minn. App. 1991). Moreover, a
QDRO must include: the name and address of the participant and alternate payee; the
amount to be paid to the alternate payee; the number of payments or period to which the
QDRO applies; and each plan to which the QDRO applies. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C). And
a QDRO cannot: require a plan to “provide any type or form of benefit” or option; require
the plan to “provide increased benefit”; or “require the payment of benefits to an alternate
payee which are required to be paid to another alternate payee under another order
previously determined to be a [QDRO].” Id. (d)(3)(D).
As a self-represented appellant, wife has not cited caselaw, has provided only
passing references to relevant statutes and the record, and has not adequately briefed her
7
arguments. “Although some accommodations may be made for [self-represented] litigants,
this court has repeatedly emphasized that . . . [such] litigants are generally held to the same
standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629
N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn. App. 2001). Appellate courts generally “decline to reach [an]
issue in the absence of adequate briefing.” State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus. by the Special
Comp. Fund v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997). And
“[s]ummary arguments made without citation to legal support are waived.” Christie v. Est.
of Christie, 911 N.W.2d 833, 838 n.4 (Minn. 2018) (quotation and citation omitted).
With these principles in mind, despite the inadequacy of wife’s briefing and the
waiver of her summary arguments based on her failure to cite legal support, we address
each of wife’s contentions in turn.
I. The district court acted within its discretion when it approved the QDRO while
the June 2025 motion was pending.

Wife asserts that the district court abused its discretion by approving the QDRO
while the June 2025 motion was pending.
We discern no error in the district court’s approval of the QDRO while the June
2025 motion was pending. The J&D required that wife submit a proposed QDRO to
distribute a $88,298 pre-tax asset equalizer from the 401(k) retirement account to wife
within 60 days of the J&D. As husband points out, although the district court had the
discretion to stay execution of the J&D or any proceedings to enforce it pending resolution
of the June 2025 motion, wife did not expressly seek that relief, and the court was not
required to grant it. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 62.01 (providing in relevant part that, “[i]n its
8
discretion . . . , the court may stay the execution of or any proceedings to enforce a
judgment pending the disposition . . . of a motion for amendment to the findings or for
additional findings made pursuant to Rule 52.02”) . Wife cites no authority to support her
position that the district court needed to resolve the June 2025 motion before approving the
QDRO, and we aware of none.
For two other reasons, wife cannot show that any prejudice resulted from the district
court’s approval of the QDRO while the June 2025 motion was pending. See Minn. R. Civ.
P. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the
proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”). First, the June 2025
motion did not include the arguments that wife raises in this appeal about the J&D omitting
language as to the 401(k) retirement account and the division of other retirement assets.
And second, while the June 2025 motion did raise an issue as to the valuation date—which
a generous reading of wife’s app ellate briefing might suggest relates to the issue now
before us—wife did not ask the district court to stay enforcement of the J&D by forbearing
from approving the QDRO before the district court did so,
5 and wife in any event agreed
and stipulated to the valuation date before trial.
Thus, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion when it approved
the QDRO while the June 2025 motion was pending.

5 We acknowledge that, in the August 2025 motion that she filed in the district court after
the district court approved and filed the QDRO, wife asked that “personal property
items . . . remain intact and in place until [her earlier] . . . motion is decided [by the district
court] and/or [the] appellate court decides” A25-1232.
9
II. The district court acted within its discretion in approving the QDRO, which
is consistent with the J&D.

Wife maintains that the district court abused its discretion in approving the QDRO
because it is inconsistent with the J&D, which she contends omitted language relating to
(a) the 401(k) retirement account, (b) the division of other retirement assets, and (c) the
valuation date.
A. 401(k) Retirement Account

Contrary to wife’s contention, the J&D includes language dividing the 401(k)
retirement account. 6 The J&D awards that account to husband, “except for [an] $88,298
pre-tax asset equalizer owed to wife” under the QDRO. And a “pre-tax retirement” section
of the appendix spreadsheet provides that husband is awarded $39,280 of the account while
wife is awarded $88,298 via QDRO. The QDRO tracks this aspect of the J&D because it
states that wife’s interest in the account is $88,298 of husband’s total vested account
balance as of the valuation date.

6 Although wife’s appellate brief calls this account “the HSA investment retirement
account,” she appears to be referring to the 401(k) retirement account that was subject to
the QDRO. Indeed, a QDRO “creates or recognizes an alternate payee’s right to, or assigns
to an alternate payee the right to, a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a
participant under [an employee benefit] plan,” not an HSA. Boggs, 520 U.S. at 846 (citing
29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)). That said, as much as wife may be intending to refer to the
HSA, her argument that the J&D omitted references to the HSA is still unavailing because
it is factually incorrect: the J&D explicitly addressed the HSA by “split[ting] [the account]
equally between the parties” and detailing in the appendix referenced in the district court’s
conclusions of law that, of the $22,150 in HSA funds, husband and wife are each awarded
$11,075.
10
B. Division of Other Retirement Assets
Wife erroneously argues that “[t]he district court’s conclusions of law of the
[J&D] . . . omitted language as to the division of retirement assets.” The J&D expressly
divides the parties’ retirement accounts, including 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and defined-
benefit pension accounts. Consistent with a conclusion of law by the district court that
“[t]he parties shall divide the marital property as referenced in Appendix B,” that appendix
to the J&D includes a spreadsheet providing specifics as to the division of post-tax and pre-
tax retirement assets. Although the QDRO does not discuss these other retirement accounts,
the QDRO is not inconsistent with the aspect of the J&D that does mention those accounts
because the only asset for which the J&D required a QDRO for distribution was the 401(k)
retirement account, as discussed above.
C. Valuation Date
Wife incorrectly contends that “[t]he district court’s conclusions of law of the
[J&D] . . . omitted the valuation date which significantly affects the market value of the
distribution of the retirement accounts.” The J&D reflects the parties’ agreed-to and
stipulated valuation date of March 31, 2023.
7 And the QDRO aligns with the J&D in stating

7 Minnesota Statutes Section 518.58, subdivision 1, provides in relevant part that the
district court “shall value marital assets for purposes of division between the parties as of
the day of the initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference, unless a different date
is agreed upon by the parties, or unless the court makes specific findings that another date
of valuation is fair and equitable.” While the statute affords district courts the discretion to
modify valuation, such modifications are not mandatory. See Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1
(“If there is a substantial change in value of an asset between the date of valuation and the
final distribution, the court may adjust the valuation of that asset as necessary to effect an
equitable distribution.”). And although wife argues that the district court should have
changed the valuation date “because of a significant increase in market value change”
11
that the valuation date is March 31, 2023. While wife is right that the valuation date is
listed in a section of the J&D under the heading, “Findings of Fact,” to the extent that an
agreed-to and stipulated valuation date is a conclusion of law, “the labeling of a conclusion
of law as a ‘finding of fact’ is not determinative of its true nature, and it need not be
considered a finding by the appellate court.” Graphic Arts Educ. Found. v. State, 59
N.W.2d 841, 844 (Minn. 1953) (footnote omitted); see also Gill v. Gill, 919 N.W.2d 297,
307 (Minn. 2018) (quoting this aspect of Graphic Arts in a marital-dissolution appeal).
We therefore conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in approving
the QDRO, which is consistent with the J&D. Potter, 471 N.W.2d at 114.
III. Wife has not shown that the district court abused its discretion based on her
claim that the QDRO violates ERISA.

Wife asserts that the district court abused its discretion in approving the QDRO
because “the QDRO is not qualified under federal law” and does not “meet specific
requirements under ERISA.”
Wife has not shown that the QDRO fails to satisfy ERISA. The first and second
page of the QDRO contains: the participant and alternate payee’s names and addresses; the
amount awarded to wife; and the period and plan to which the order applies. See 29 U.S.C.
§ 1056(d)(3)(C). Paragraph 17 of the QDRO also states that the QDRO does not require
that the plan or plan administrator undertake any of the actions prohibited by 29 U.S.C.

concerning “the bulk of retirement savings,” we discern no abuse of discretion in the
district court’s decision to decline to make such an adjustment after the parties agreed and
stipulated to the March 31, 2023 valuation date.
12
§ 1056(d)(3)(D). Thus, wife has not established that the district court abused its discretion
based on her claim that the QDRO violates ERISA.8
Affirmed.

8 As much as wife suggests that the QDRO does not satisfy the requirements of ERISA
because it is inconsistent with the J&D based on the alleged omissions discussed above,
because we have rejected wife’s omission claims, her argument in this regard does not
merit reversal of the QDRO.