720 F.3d 715
8th Cir.2013Background
- Michael G. Cox, II designated his Parents as beneficiaries of his MEC 401(k) plan before remarriage to Kathy.
- Michael and Kathy executed an antenuptial agreement on Feb. 19, 2010 and re-executed on Mar. 26, 2010, signed before and after marriage, with notarization.
- The antenuptial agreement contains provisions attempting to waive spousal rights to property and to retirement benefits, including a section stating retirement benefits will be the separate property of the participant.
- Exhibit A lists the MEC 401(k) Plan as a separate asset, and the agreement contemplates waivers or consents to change in beneficiary under Section B(8).
- Michael died on May 21, 2011, after which MEC interpleaded Kathy and the Parents to determine who receives the MEC 401(k) funds.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Kathy, concluding the antenuptial agreement did not satisfy ERISA § 1055(c)(2)(A)(iii) acknowledgment, so Kathy retained the funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the antenuptial agreement satisfied ERISA § 1055(c)(2)(A)(iii) acknowledgment. | Parents contend Kathy waived rights effectively. | Kathy did not knowingly acknowledge the waiver; agreement equivocal. | Agreement failed to provide proper acknowledgment. |
| Whether Kathy waived her survivor rights to the MEC 401(k) Plan under § 1055(c). | Kathy waived under the agreement. | Waiver not properly acknowledged; not clearly informing rights being waived. | Waiver not valid under § 1055(c). |
| Whether the antenuptial agreement, read as a whole, clearly informed Kathy of her spousal rights and waiver effect. | Agreement included broad waivers and future consent provisions. | Inclusion of future-consent provisions shows lack of clear waiver. | Agreement did not clearly inform or effectuate waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1997) (ERISA survivor benefits protection and intent)
- Lasche v. George W. Lasche Basic Ret. Plan, 111 F.3d 863 (11th Cir. 1997) (strict compliance needed for waivers of retirement benefits)
- Hurwitz v. Sher, 982 F.2d 778 (2d Cir. 1992) (waivers must be explicit about giving up rights)
- Hagwood v. Newton, 282 F.3d 285 (4th Cir. 2002) (strict ERISA consent requirements; protect spousal rights)
- Pedro Enters., Inc. v. Perdue, 998 F.2d 491 (7th Cir. 1993) (ERISA acknowledgment concerns and knowing waiver)