913 F.3d 777
8th Cir.2019Background
- Schwartz and Bogen divorced in New Jersey; their 1983 marital settlement (incorporated into the divorce judgment) required Schwartz to pay Bogen 20% of his Bell System pension if she remarried between 1986–1990.
- Schwartz retired in 1985; Bogen remarried in 1989; no QDRO was obtained. From 1989–2016 Schwartz paid Bogen directly by check; Bogen never received pension plan distributions.
- In 2016 Schwartz stopped payments and claimed the payments violated ERISA’s anti-alienation rules and sought a refund. Bogen replied the payments were an equitable distribution of the pension.
- Bogen sued in New Jersey state court to enforce the Agreement; the state court held the payments were equitable distribution (not alimony), denied Schwartz a refund (laches), and addressed ERISA issues, finding assignment to a former spouse not barred in that context. Schwartz did not appeal.
- Schwartz then filed in federal court seeking refund and a declaration of federal preemption under ERISA/REA; Bogen moved to dismiss on res judicata grounds, and the district court dismissed with prejudice. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata precludes Schwartz’s federal ERISA claims | State court lacked jurisdiction over ERISA/REA claims; federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, so prior state judgment cannot preclude federal claim | State court had jurisdiction to adjudicate enforcement of the divorce judgment and ERISA arguments were raised there; final unappealed judgment has preclusive effect | Affirmed: res judicata bars relitigation; New Jersey law governs and prior state judgment precludes Schwartz’s federal action |
| Whether ERISA violations "ripened" only after state judgment | ERISA claims arose only when state court entered its order dividing the pension | ERISA-related arguments were asserted in state court; claims ripened before judgment and were litigated | Held against Schwartz: he raised ERISA issues in state court and did not appeal, so cannot relitigate federally |
| Whether Bogen’s state suit was actually an ERISA civil-enforcement action requiring federal forum | Bogen was not a plan participant/beneficiary so couldn’t bring §1132(a) claims in state court; thus federal court exclusive | Bogen sought enforcement of the divorce Agreement; state court treated it as contract/enforcement matter, not an ERISA civil-enforcement suit | Held: State court adjudicated enforcement; if Schwartz thought it was an ERISA action he could have removed or appealed but did not; res judicata applies |
| Whether Rooker–Feldman or preclusion governs | (raised later) Rooker–Feldman might bar federal review of state judgment | Preclusion (res judicata) is dispositive; court may decide preclusion without reaching Rooker–Feldman | Court declined to reach Rooker–Feldman and resolved case on res judicata grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (clarifies Rooker–Feldman bars lower federal review of state-court judgments)
- Laase v. County of Isanti, 638 F.3d 853 (standard for de novo review of dismissal based on res judicata)
- Velasquez v. Franz, 589 A.2d 143 (New Jersey articulation of res judicata barring relitigation of adjudicated claims)
- Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66 (preclusion bars relitigation of jurisdictional issues where party had opportunity to litigate)
- Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (party cannot reopen subject-matter jurisdiction question collaterally after opportunity to litigate)
- Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (final unappealed judgments have res judicata consequences)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (ERISA complete preemption permits removal when state action is in substance an ERISA civil-enforcement claim)