Georgia A Wilder

Ms. Wilder was engaged on my behalf by my Divorce Attorneys, a large Phx Firm, the beginning of April, 2021. Mine is a relatively small Pension Plan and we agreed to split it 50:50. Neither my Attorneys or I could seem to make "contact" with Ms. Wilder, but all the Documents were sent to her... office. Finally in November, apparently one of my attorneys did make contact, telling Ms. Wilder we would likely reach a settlement in December, 2021. I finally spoke with Ms. Wilder on December 2, 2021. I offered to answer any questions she might have, and told her I would gladly participate in this resolution of a 50:50 "SPLIT." I impressed on Ms. Wilder I needed the "split" amount for the Pension Administrator before December, 30, 2019 or, "I was obligated to take a Required Minimum Distribution ("RMD") on the entire amount and PAY TAXES ON THAT AMOUNT." Ms. Wilder stated, "that is between you and your Plan Administrator", but I'll get to work on this. I spoke again with Ms. Wilder on December 6, 2019 expressing my concerns and my willingness to assist her with any questions or concerns she might have. I tried to contact her throughout the remainder of December, but she did not respond. She also did not respond to my Attorney's queries. December 30 passed with no communication from Ms. Wilder, and, yes, I was forced to take the full RMD and I am responsible for considerable tax obligations that should have been avoided. The Divorce Agreement was signed by the Judge in mid-December, 2021. As of mid-February we had no definite communications from Ms. Wilder. When I complained of this to my Attorneys, I was told "perhaps you should handle this yourself" (Strange, but true). Then "suddenly", Ms. Wilder requested all the documentations we had already supplied. We supplied them again. We were rewarded with no additional communications from Ms. Wilder. In mid-March we learned Ms. Wilder had consulted the opposition's Forensic Accountant for reasons unknown. This accountant had been excluded from the Court Proceedings by the Trial Judge. Ms. Wilder did NOT inform my attorneys of these inquiries as is customary in these issues...everything is suppose to be done OPENLY. This smacked of obvious apparent partisan actions on Ms. Wilder's part I then wrote an Email to Ms. Wilder detailing her seemingly non-standard behavior and asking her to complete the task for which she had been contracted and PAID IN ADVANCE. Ms. Wilder attacked me claiming my "tone was condescending, and she did not wish to defend herself". She could not, however, refute anything I said concerning her behavior. She unilateral "withdrew". We must now incur more expense re-educating a new QDRO person. We have "lost" months in this process. Forewarned is Forearmed!

The Court appointed this attorney to complete a QDRO to resolve defined contribution retirement assets in my divorce. A draft report was reviewed by both parties and some modifications were made. When asked about her methodology and verification of the process she indignantly referred the parties t...o Rule 72 and stated that we could file any objections with the Court – what a cop out. Legal advice was not being expected, but merely substantiation of her findings and clarification of the process. To put forth objections to the court would incur further expenses and exacerbate the process, something neither side would prefer. While I understand and appreciate that she works for the Court and is paid by the litigants, it would be more than appropriate that a worksheet be provided to the parties so that her calculations could be verified prior to filing her findings to the Court. Doing so could, perhaps, increase her credibility to those involved. In her report to the Court, she did not, in my opinion, provide adequate explanation as to the treatment of various legal issues which were questioned by the parties (e.g. vesting and premarital asset growth). While her fee for a simple QDRO was stated up front, there was no disclosure as to minimum billing for emails and phone conferences if contingencies arose (which did in this instance). In the end, the total cost was nearly twice the quoted flat rate fee to complete the process. This is not what one would expect of a professional attorney. I wonder how many of her clients are given an up-front quotes and subsequently find an escalation of fees at the conclusion of the process. On the upside, she did, however, remediate opposing counsel who demonstrated deficiency in their understanding of QDROs and other issues regarding the division retirement assets. If you are anticipating a QDRO as a result of your divorce do your due diligence by researching your options – you DO have choices.