Rich v. Southern California Ibew-Neca Pension Plan
Before: Gilbert
Opinion
GILBERT, Acting P. J . Husband has a pension plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The plan entitles him to a monthly sum for the rest of his life. Pursuant to a qualified domestic [421]relations order (QDRO), wife receives her community portion of the monthly payment for her life. Here we hold that upon wife’s death, husband receives the full amount of the pension payments.
The trial court erred when it denied husband’s motion to clarify the QDRO to reflect his entitlement to the full payment.
Facts
Walter Raymond Rich, a union member, worked as an electrician for 25 years. During this time he became a vested participant in the union’s pension plan. The plan was governed by ERISA. (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.)1
Walter chose the “Normal Pension Form” offered by the plan.2 The summary plan description describes the normal pension form as follows: “Your benefit amount as calculated in Answer 4 is paid to you for your lifetime, with 60 months guaranteed. If you die before 60 months are paid, the balance of the 60 months are paid to your designated beneficiary, and then stop. If you designate someone other than your spouse as beneficiary, your spouse must provide written consent. If you receive at least 60 months of benefits, the pension will stop with your death.”
Answer 4, referred to in the plan summary, describes the method for calculating a participant’s monthly payout. It is undisputed that under the calculation described in answer 4, Walter was entitled to $962 per month.
For 20 of the 25 years that Walter worked, he was married to Patricia. In April of 1987, the couple joined the pension plan trust fund in the action to dissolve their marriage. The parties entered into a QDRO for the distribution of the pension benefits. The order provided in part:
“1. The ‘Claimant’ [trust fund] shall, at such time as Retirement Benefits are properly vested and payable under its Plan, and are properly subject to division, forward such Retirement Benefits payable as follows:
“(a) First, ‘Claimant’ shall reduce the total Retirement Benefits otherwise available by the sum of five dollars ($5.00) per month to be retained by ‘Claimant’ to recompense it for the additional expenses of administration occasioned by its division of Retirement Benefits between the parties;
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)