209 A.3d 367
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Michael and Julie Conway married in 1991; separated in 2007; Michael was a City of Erie police officer with pension benefits subject to a municipal ordinance.
- Parties executed a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) on August 19, 2016 allocating retirement assets and specifying that Julie would receive a share of Michael’s Police Relief and Pension Association benefits as a spouse/surviving spouse, implemented by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).
- The divorce decree incorporating the MSA was entered August 22, 2016. The City amended the pension ordinance on August 23, 2016 to eliminate recognition of former spouses as spouses/surviving spouses under the Plan.
- Julie submitted a proposed QDRO to the Plan administrator on August 29, 2016; the Plan denied it based on the amended ordinance.
- Julie moved the trial court for entry of a QDRO enforcing the MSA terms; the court denied relief, reasoning the operative date was the date the Plan received the QDRO (after the ordinance change).
- On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding the controlling date is the date the parties executed the MSA (and entry of the divorce decree), which predated the ordinance amendment, and remanded for entry of a QDRO consistent with the MSA.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Association/Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which date controls whether the Plan must honor MSA/QDRO rights? | The MSA/divorce decree date (Aug 19/22, 2016) controls; rights vested before ordinance amendment. | The Plan/ordinance effective date or the QDRO submission date (Aug 29, 2016) controls; amended ordinance bars former-spouse status. | Court held the MSA/divorce decree date controls; QDRO must reflect MSA terms. |
| Does a QDRO create substantive rights or merely implement MSA rights? | QDRO is procedural — it implements rights already created by MSA. | Plan implied that QDRO must comply with current ordinance to be honored. | Court held QDRO only implements existing MSA rights; it does not create new substantive rights. |
| Can the Plan rely on a post-MSA ordinance amendment to deny benefits bargained in the MSA? | No; post-agreement ordinance cannot divest bargained-for rights incorporated into a court order. | Yes — Plan relied on the amended ordinance that eliminated former-spouse recognition. | Court held the amendment could not retroactively defeat the MSA-incorporated rights. |
| Was denial of QDRO equitable/within trial court discretion? | Denial was arbitrary and worked an unfair forfeiture of long-settled marital rights. | Denial reflected Plan’s obligation to follow the current ordinance. | Court found trial court abused discretion in denying relief and remanded for QDRO entry. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prol v. Prol, 935 A.2d 547 (Pa. Super. 2007) (reversing forfeiture of marital pension share; equitable enforcement of settlement rights)
- Bianchi v. Bianchi, 859 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. 2004) (MSAs construed as contracts; clear terms control)
- Smith v. Smith, 938 A.2d 246 (Pa. 2007) (QDROs implement but may not alter plan benefits; define QDRO requirements)
- Grieve v. Mankey, 679 A.2d 814 (Pa. Super. 1996) (QDRO as procedural mechanism to effectuate settlement-created pension rights)
- Maloney v. Maloney, 754 A.2d 36 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (distinguished; court declined to apply where survivor benefits were not previously contracted for)