Do judges have the right to ignore the laws of: The Retirement Equity Act of 1984; a couple's finalized MSA and QDRO; the rules of an established Pension Code; and the unanimous decision of a Pension Board?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Do judges have the right to ignore the laws of: The Retirement Equity Act of 1984; a couple’s finalized MSA and QDRO; the rules of an established Pension Code; and the unanimous decision _ of a Pension Board? How is it right, that after failing to include current laws and final divorce documentation, judges then order the current wife of a deceased firefighter to turn over his workman’s compensation disability benefits to the ex-wife even though the ex-wife had no legal tights to these benefits? How was it right for the Judgment/Opinion of an appellate court to publicize this document rulings when this Judgement/Opinion terribly misconstrues the facts of the case, omitting all supporting and lawful evidence defending one's entitlement as the rightful recipient to 100% of their late husband’s workman’s compensation disability benefits? ; With this court case being so unique, actually the first of its kind, how can we leave the past unlawful judgments as they now stand, when they defy our written laws and will negatively affect millions of divorce cases across our nation past, present and future? Will not ex-wives across America take advantage of these wrongful rulings, further belittling the importance of our laws and final MSAs/QDROs as they are written? : A "constructive trust" is put into place if someone has possession of property (money, real estate, or other assets) that they should not have because they obtained it unfairly through fraud or breach of a fiduciary duty or signed contract (“unjust enrichment”). Therefore, how is it right for a judge to order a constructive trust when the current spouse lawfully obtained her late-husband's benefits? How can we leave these past unjust rulings as they now stand, when they will negatively impact the once clearly defined recipient of survivor benefits belonging to a remarried decedent, creating tremendous confusion for all pension boards across our great nation?