Boulds v. Nielsen
323 P.3d 58
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Raymond Boulds and Elena Nielsen cohabited from 1993–2009, raised children together, and never married.
- During the relationship Boulds accrued three employment benefits: an insurance death benefit, a 401(k), and a union pension governed by ERISA.
- The superior court found the insurance death benefit and 401(k) were Boulds’s separate property but held the union pension was domestic partnership property and subject to equal division.
- Boulds appealed, arguing (1) ERISA precludes dividing an ERISA-covered pension with a non-spouse, and (2) the superior court misapplied Alaska law by relying on Boulds’s unilateral intent rather than mutual intent.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed: ERISA does not bar division here because Alaska law can create “marital property rights” for cohabitants and Nielsen qualifies as an “other dependent”; the superior court properly found the parties intended to share the pension under Bishop factors.
Issues
| Issue | Boulds’s Argument | Nielsen’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ERISA preempts state domestic-partnership property division of an ERISA-covered pension to a non-spouse | ERISA forbids assignments except by QDRO and limits alternate payees to spouses, former spouses, children, or dependents—so a cohabitant cannot receive a share | State domestic-partnership property rights can create an ERISA-recognized interest; Nielsen qualifies as an "other dependent" under federal definitions | ERISA does not preclude division; Alaska law can create a QDRO-eligible right and Nielsen qualifies as an "other dependent" given facts (cohabitation, claimed as dependent) |
| Whether the superior court erred by relying on Boulds’s unilateral intent to share the pension | Court improperly focused on Boulds’s individual intent rather than a mutual meeting of minds for each asset | Bishop permits inferring a shared intent from the parties’ overall domestic-partnership conduct; specific mutual intent for each asset is not always required | No error: court reasonably inferred mutual intent to share pension under Bishop factors and Reed guidance |
| Whether Alaska law permits dividing pensions between unmarried cohabitants | Division authority limited to married couples under AS 25.24.160(a)(4) so pension cannot be divided here | Alaska jurisprudence recognizes domestic-partnership property and permits division of partnership assets, including retirement benefits | Alaska law allows property division for cohabitants; union pension may be domestic partnership property |
| Whether remand is necessary to effectuate pension division if administrator resists | ERISA plan administrator may refuse to honor order for non-spouse | Court may remand and, if needed, require equalization payment reflecting present value | Affirmed and remanded for final division; court may order equalization payment if administrator refuses |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Auto Machinists Pension Trust, 551 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2009) (ERISA can recognize state-created quasi-marital property rights and IRS "other dependent" test supports non-spouse alternate payee status)
- Bishop v. Clark, 54 P.3d 804 (Alaska 2002) (framework for determining intent to share property in cohabitation cases)
- Reed v. Parrish, 286 P.3d 1054 (Alaska 2012) (Bishop factors are illustrative, and intent to share may be inferred for broad classes of property)
- Madonna v. Tamarack Air, Ltd., 298 P.3d 875 (Alaska 2013) (statutory interpretation and de novo review standard for ERISA questions)