Bonfiglio v. Fitzgerald
13 A.3d 812
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2011Background
- Divorce occurred Oct 2007; NADART 401(k) transferred to wife via Agreement and QDRO, with 100% of participant’s balance assigned to Alternate Payee.
- 2007 RMD paid to Fitzgerald on Dec 7, 2007; estate later seeks reimbursement per QDRO Paragraph 12.
- QDRO defined Alternate Payee’s interest as the entire plan balance as of Oct 12, 2007; remaining NADART funds to Fitzgerald.
- Estate argues 2007 RMD was part of Fitzgerald’s NADART interest and thus reimburseable; Fitzgerald argues it was payable only to him.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for Fitzgerald; estate appeals asserting misapplication of IRC/ERISA and misreliance on certain affidavits.
- Question presented: whether the 2007 RMD was part of Fitzgerald’s NADART interest as of Oct 12, 2007 under the Agreement and QDRO; and whether the estate is entitled to attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 2007 RMD part of Fitzgerald’s NADART interest transferred to the Decedent? | Estate: RMD included in transferred interest by Agreement/QDRO. | Fitzgerald: RMD belonged to him, not to NADART as of Oct 12, 2007. | No; 2007 RMD was not part of Fitzgerald’s interest as of Oct 12, 2007. |
| Did the circuit court err in denying attorneys’ fees to the Estate? | Estate seeks fees under the petition. | Fitzgerald: no entitlement to fees. | No error; fees denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crickenberger v. Hyundai Motor America, 404 Md. 37 (Md. 2008) (two-step summary judgment standard; de novo review follows)
- Hill v. Cross Country Settlements, LLC, 402 Md. 281 (Md. 2007) (material facts and de novo review criteria)
- Miller v. Bay City Property Owners Ass'n, 393 Md. 620 (Md. 2006) (material fact definition and summary judgment analysis)
- Zitterbart v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 182 Md.App. 495 (Md. 2008) (appeal standards and evidentiary considerations on summary judgment)