Court Says Spouse Trumps Beneficiary Designation of Children
A federal court has granted retirement plan benefits of a deceased
participant to his spouse, even though he had listed his children as
beneficiaries on the plan’s designation form.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana said the plan language is clear that the beneficiary will be a
participant’s spouse unless a waiver is signed, and Leonard Kidder had not executed a waiver at the time of his death. The court
rejected the children’s argument that the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) does not require the consent of a spouse married less than
one year in order for a participant to distribute proceeds of a plan to a
non-spouse.
The court noted that because the statute uses the term
“may” and not “shall,” it is permissive rather than mandatory, so ERISA
allows that some plans may vest rights of spouses immediately upon
marriage.
According to the court opinion, when Leonard Kidder’s
first wife passed away, he changed his 401(k) beneficiary designation to
his three children. However, he later remarried and passed away six
weeks following that marriage.
The children had also brought state law claims of
malpractice and/or negligent misrepresentation against Cajun, accusing
the company through Faulk & Winkler, a law firm that provided plan
documents and forms to Cajun Industries, of failing to provide accurate
and thorough information to participants, specifically about how a
subsequent marriage would affect their beneficiary designations. The
court ruled these claims were preempted by ERISA.
The case is Cajun Industries LLC 401(k) Plan v. Kidder, M.D. La., No. 09-267-BAJ-SCR.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
ERIC Outlines Suggestions for Reducing Regulatory Burdens
The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) urged the Treasury Department
to be more responsive to easing the regulatory burden on sponsors of
benefit plans in order to ensure that companies continue to provide
health and retirement benefits.
ERIC also offered the ongoing experience
of ERIC members who sponsor cash balance and other hybrid pensions plans
as an example of the adverse consequences that misguided regulations
can have.
“The Pension Protection Act of 2006
reflected a clear policy in favor of establishing and maintaining hybrid
plans that provide meaningful and secure retirement benefits.However,
almost five years have passed, and Treasury and the IRS still have not
issued definitive guidance on fundamental issues; and proposed
regulations have introduced new stumbling blocks that are inconsistent
with Congress’s intent,” said ERIC President Mark Ugoretz.
ERIC provided the suggestion as part of
comments it submitted to the Department of Treasury in response to a
Request for Information (RFI) as part of President Obama’s January 18
Executive Order on ways the Department could reduce the burden
associated with its regulations.
ERIC’s letter adds that “[t]he current
regulatory climate, particularly with regard to hybrid plans, offers
very little incentive to maintain a defined benefit plan in any form,
and actually imposes significant disincentives.”
In addition, ERIC said that overly
burdensome regulations under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (ACA) and other laws affecting employee benefit plans can have
similar adverse consequences and that it is critical to “choose the
least burdensome path,” as outlined in the Executive Order.
ERIC recommends creating one or more
stakeholder advisory groups such as the Information Reporting Program
Advisory Committee (IRPAC) to review regulations affecting employee
benefit plans, and to discuss issues and proposed solutions with
Treasury and IRS officials.
Specifically, in
the areas of electronic disclosure, qualified plans, group health
benefits, and executive compensation, ERIC offered the following
recommendations:
Permit
electronic disclosure without affirmative consent since it is not
practical for large employers to obtain, store, and administer
electronic consents from tens of thousands of workers, retirees,
alternate payees, and others.ERIC adds that Treasury
should jointly work with the Department of Labor (DOL) to ensure that
the requirements are no less burdensome that the updated requirements
under DOL’s electronic disclosure initiative.
Allow
employers to provide the required notice of benefit restrictions under
Internal Revenue Code section 436 a reasonable time before the
restrictions become applicable.ERIC argues that many
employers know in advance that the restrictions will apply, and wish to
provide notice in advance when the information is most useful to
affected participants, such as at any time during a window that opens a
reasonable time (e.g., 90 days) before the restrictions become
applicable and closes 30 days after the restrictions become applicable.
Revise the
regulations under Internal Revenue Code section 401(a)(9) to allow
acceleration of payment after the payment start date.ERIC
understands that certain restrictions might be necessary to prevent the
use of increasing payments to circumvent the minimum distribution
requirements, but argues that circumvention is not a concern when the
initial form of payment complies with the requirements of the Code
section.
Reduce the burden required to comply with the “relative value” regulations under Internal Revenue Code section 417(a)(3).ERIC
argues that the level of detail required under the regulation is a trap
for the unwary and is of limited utility to participants, particularly
where the plan offers a large number of option forms of payment.
Reduce
the level of detail required for notices under Internal Revenue Code
section 4980F and ERISA section 204(h), and allow use of interactive
modeling tools.ERIC argues that the regulations should be
revisited to allow more simple disclosure, with a simplified form for
amendments that allow participants to choose between the old benefit
formula and the new formula, and allow shorter notices that describe in
simple terms the provisions that are changing.
Coordinate
regulations affecting workplace wellness programs under Title I and II
of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), noting that
employers are reluctant to invest additional time and money in
developing wellness programs until the applicable law is clarified, and
gives effect to the intent of Congress and the Administration to support
workplace wellness programs.
Coordinate
the ACA preventive services regulation with the Mental Health Parity
and Addiction Equity Act regulations, so that a plan does not become
subject to the MHPAEA merely because it provides benefits required by
the preventive service regulation.
Revise
the regulations under Internal Revenue Code section 409A to address
practical concerns, particularly with respect to benefits payable upon
death, disability, or an involuntary separation from service.
ERIC’s comment letter can be accessed at eric.org.