With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". IRS imposed its lien, Jacqueline Compagnoni had a possessory interest in the pension benefits and they were no longer Luciano Compagnoni’s to turn over to the IRS. See In re Gendreau, 122 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir.1997) (finding that the state court order in divorce created the wife’s interest in the husband’s pension plan and correspondingly limited the husband’s interest). The QDRO provisions of ERISA do not suggest that the alternate payee has no interest in the plan until a QDRO is entered, “ ‘they merely prevent her from enforcing that interest until the QDRO is obtained.’” Trs. of Dirs. Guild of Am. Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 421 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Gendreau, 122 F.3d at 819). See also Stewart v. Thorpe Holding Co., 207 F.3d 1143, 1156 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In Tise, the Ninth Circuit enforced an

A: holding that erisa preempted a state court order awarding spousal interest in an employees pension proceeds
B: holding that securing a dro that creates an interest in the proceeds of a pension plan gives the bearer the right to obtain a proper qdro
C: holding that the defendant withheld pension benefits in breach of the plan
D: holding that due to inadvertent drafting mistakes the original qdro failed to secure wifes interest in husbands pension as intended by the parties
B.