Mantor v. Mantor

California Court of Appeal Apr 23, 1980 No. Civ. No. 56395Published

Before: Wong

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that state courts have jurisdiction in family law matters to order an ERISA-governed pension plan to disburse funds to a nonparticipant spouse, and that such orders do not violate ERISA or preempt state community property law.

Issues

Does a state court have jurisdiction, in a family law matter, to order a private pension plan, governed by the provisions of ERISA, to disburse funds to a nonparticipant spouse?
Does ERISA preempt California community property law insofar as the law provides a nonparticipant spouse an interest in an employee benefit plan?
Does ERISA prohibit the trial court’s order that the Trust pay benefits directly to the Wife?
Do ERISA and California law prohibit the trial court’s order granting the Wife the right to receive benefits from the Trust after the Husband’s death?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“state courts do have jurisdiction, in family law matters, to order a private pension plan, governed by the provisions of ERISA, to disburse funds to a nonparticipant spouse.”

“ERISA does not preempt California community property law insofar as the law provides a nonparticipant spouse an interest in an employee benefit plan”

“The said provisions do not in any way affect the integrity of the Trust.”

Opinion

WONG, J.* Petitioner (Husband) and respondent (Wife) were married on September 6, 1939. On April 28, 1977, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Thereafter, at the request of Wife, the court joined as a party the Operating Engineers Trust (Trust).

The Trust is an express joint labor management trust established pursuant to collective bargaining agreements between various employees and employers groups. The Trust is governed by and complies with the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

[984]Under the rules of the Trust, payment of benefits may be made only to a participant in the pension plan or, upon the participant’s death, to his surviving spouse or his designated beneficiary, heirs or estate.

After trial, but before a decision was rendered by the court, Husband and Wife entered into a written stipulation as follows: “Respondent shall receive for and on account of her community interest in the Petitioner’s pension plan with The Operating Engineers Trust Fund, a monthly sum of $65.76 to be paid to Respondent directly from said trust fund. During his life, Petitioner shall receive the balance of such monthly payments as his sole and separate property. In the event of Petitioner’s death, Respondent shall receive, as her sole and separate property, any and all sums remaining in said Trust Fund.”

Pursuant to the stipulation, the court in its interlocutory judgment provided in part as follows: “Operating Engineers Trust Fund is hereby ordered to pay Respondent, the monthly sum of $65.76 commencing Sept. 1, 1978, and payable within each and every month thereafter until said Trust Fund is depleted, or upon the death of Petitioner. During his life, Petitioner shall receive the balance of each such monthly payment from his pension plan as his sole and separate property.

“In the event of Petitioner’s death, Respondent shall receive as her sole and separate property, the remainder of any sums of money left in said Operating Engineers Trust Fund.”

Thereafter, the Trust filed a motion to set aside the above provisions of the interlocutory judgment, which the court denied. The Trust has appealed from the order denying its motion.

The following issues are raised by this appeal:

Mantor v. Mantor

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief