This basic formula, which has been approved by the Delaware Supreme Court and is often used in Delaware QDROs, is known as the Cooper Formula. See Simms v. Greene-Simms, 22 A.3d 727, 732 (Del. Fam. Ct. 2009). DuPont altered the basic arithmetic of the Cooper Formula on the heels of its 2007 Plan amendment, which reduced Matthews' accrual of future benefits by two-thirds.

The net result of this exercise is that I am convinced that DuPont's method of implementing the QDRO is truer to what Delaware law intends and requires. The QDRO was entered about twenty years ago. I doubt that the parties to the divorce or the Family Court had any inkling that DuPont's pension system would change as it did eight years ago. Family Court seems to have some discretion how to implement the Cooper formula. See, e.g., Simms v. Greene-Simms, 22 A.3d 727, 732 (Del. Fam. Ct. 2009). I imagine if Family Court had jurisdiction to revise the order (and I express no opinion whether it does or does not), it might easily do so. I am not, however, Family Court, and I cannot modify its Order.

(citing Wife P. v. Husband P., 287 A.2d 409 (Del. Ch. 1972))). See, e.g., Simms v. Greene-Simms, 22 A.3d 727 (Del. Fam. 2009); DCSE-Jennings v. Debussy, 707 A.2d 44 (Del. Fam. 1997); Tarburton v. Tarburton, 1997 WL 878411 (Del. Fam. July 8, 1997); Boyson, Inc. v. Archer & Greiner, P.C., 705 A.2d 1252 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1998); Bary v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 617 A.2d 681 (N.J. Super. 1992). I therefore conclude that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to address Requested Instructions Two and Three, and that amending the Answer to add those requests would be futile.

The resulting fraction is then multiplied by a percentage or "multiplier".Simms v. Greene-Simms, 22 A.3d 727, 732 (Del. Fam. Ct. 2009). The Delaware courts allow the multiplier to be flexible.