Biondo v. Biondo
809 N.W.2d 397
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- James Biondo and Mary Biondo divorced in July 2007; consent judgment divided marital estate and required equalization of social security benefits.
- A QDRO was entered allocating 50% of James’s accrued retirement to Mary; both parties intended an equal division of the marital estate.
- In July 2009 Mary sought circuit court enforcement of the social security equalization provision; James argued the provision violated federal law preemption.
- The circuit court ordered enforcement of the social security provision; James appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The issue presented is whether federal law preempts enforcement of the consent judgment’s social security equalization formula.
- The court holds that federal law preempts the social security equalization provision and remands for modification of the judgment’s property settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 42 USC 407(a) preempt enforcement of the social security equalization provision? | Biondo contends federal law preempts enforcing the provision. | Biondo argues the provision is invalid under federal preemption. | Yes; §407(a) preempts enforcement of the provision. |
| Does the Social Security Act affect the circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to enter or enforce the judgment? | Biondo maintains preemption deprives state courts of enforcement power. | Biondo argues lack of jurisdiction under federal law. | No; preemption does not strip jurisdiction; court may modify under remand. |
| May anticipated Social Security benefits be considered in a modified equitable distribution? | Biondo suggests benefits must be treated as marital property to inform equalization. | Biondo contends benefits may inform Sparks factors without treating them as a marital asset. | Yes; court may consider anticipated benefits as a factor, not as an asset. |
| What is the proper remedy on remand after federal preemption is established? | Biondo seeks modification consistent with prior agreement if permissible. | Biondo seeks removal of the social security provision and possible reallocation of assets. | Remand for modification of the property-settlement provisions consistent with preemption and relevant factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1979) (preemption of state laws by federal social security-like scheme; benefits not subject to execution)
- Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141 (Mich 1992) (factors for dividing marital property; consider social security in equity analysis)
- Depot v Depot, 2006 ME 25 (Me 2006) (state courts may consider social security to inform equitable distribution)
- In re Marriage of Boyer, 538 NW2d 293 (Iowa 1995) (recognizes consideration of anticipated benefits in property division)
- In re Marriage of Morehouse, 121 P.3d 264 (Colo. App. 2005) (unequal distribution possible based on anticipated retirement security)
- Keyser v Keyser, 182 Mich App 268 (Mich App 1990) (mutual mistake and settlements in absence of fraud; enforceability principles)