Griffin v. Cowser-Griffin
2012 WL 9737556
Surry Cir. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Gloria and James Griffin III claim a constructive trust on decedent David Griffin’s ERISA plans (life policy and 401(k)) based on a 1996 separation agreement with Sandra Griffin.
- Benefits at issue: MetLife policy worth $392,422.43 and Dominion Salaried Savings Plan worth $354,126.73, both ERISA-governed.
- Plan beneficiaries name Kimberly Cowser-Griffin (the decedent’s widow); plaintiffs seek enforcement of the separation agreement’s provisions.
- Plan documents require benefits be paid per ERISA plan instruments and restrict assignments/alienation absent a QDRO.
- Plaintiffs concede the plan administrator cannot pay to them directly; they seek a constructive trust over benefits as preemption-avoidance strategy.
- Court granted summary judgment for defendant, holding ERISA preempts the constructive trust claim and no genuine factual dispute remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ERISA preempt the state-law constructive trust claim? | Griffin argues preemption should not bar state-law relief. | Cowser-Griffin argues the claim relates to ERISA plans and is preempted. | Yes; preempted. |
| Does the QDRO exception permit enforcement of a property settlement against ERISA benefits? | Griffin argues misfit of QDRO requirement should not bar relief. | Cowser-Griffin contends no QDRO was filed; exception does not apply. | No; QDRO exception does not apply. |
| Can post-distribution constructive trusts survive ERISA preemption? | Griffins contend post-distribution claim could be viable under state law. | Cowser-Griffin asserts preemption bars any constructive trust claim. | Preemption bars the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2001) (ERISA preemption breadth; relates to plan objectives and uniform administration)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Pettit, 164 F.3d 857 (4th Cir. 1998) (QDRO exception to preemption; proper method to protect a divorced spouse's interest)
- Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1981) (SGLIA preemption; anti-attachment/beneficiary designation considerations)
- Maretta v. Hillman, 283 Va. 34 (Va. 2012) (FEGLIA preemption; reliance on anti-attachment and special precedence arguments)
- Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1997) (ERISA protects plan participants/beneficiaries; prevents insecure dispositions of funds)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Pettit, 164 F.3d 857 (4th Cir. 1998) (constructive trust where preemption applies; reaffirmed QDRO approach)
- Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041 (5th Cir. 2010) (constructive trust claims preempted when they subvert ERISA plan)
- Barnett v. Barnett, 67 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. 2001) (ERISA preempts constructive trust on life insurance benefits)