921 F.3d 493
5th Cir.2019Background
- Gerald Miletello participated in an RMR Mechanical, Inc. 401(k) plan and originally named his then-wife Sandra as beneficiary.
- Gerald and Sandra divorced; their Divorce Settlement (executed May 4, 2015) awarded Sandra $500,000 of the 401(k) (or the account balance if less).
- Gerald remarried Pam in May 2014 and died on October 26, 2015; the state court entered a judgment of partition on October 28, 2015 incorporating the Divorce Settlement.
- Sandra sought and obtained a state-court QDRO on January 18, 2017 awarding her $500,000; an Amended QDRO (Aug. 1, 2017) declared the QDRO nunc pro tunc to May 4, 2015.
- Pam sued in federal court claiming the 401(k) as surviving spouse; the plan administrator deposited funds into the court registry and cross-motions for summary judgment followed.
- The district court awarded Sandra $500,000; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Sandra timely received a QDRO and is entitled to the funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pam) | Defendant's Argument (Sandra) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sandra timely obtained a QDRO under ERISA’s 18‑month rule | The 18‑month period began on Oct. 28, 2015 (judgment of partition); Sandra did not have a QDRO within 18 months, so she forfeits segregated amounts | Even if the clock began on Oct. 28, 2015, Sandra obtained a QDRO within the applicable period; the partition judgment contemplated a later QDRO | Court held Sandra timely received a QDRO and is entitled to $500,000 of the 401(k) |
| Whether a QDRO issued after the participant’s death can be effective | Post‑death QDROs are invalid per Rivers; January 18, 2017 QDRO post‑dates Gerald’s death and thus cannot vest rights | Statutory/regulatory changes and precedent show a QDRO does not fail solely because issued after death; post‑death QDRO can recognize preexisting rights | Court rejected Pam’s Rivers argument and held the post‑death QDRO here is effective to recognize Sandra’s interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1997) (distinguishes DROs and QDROs and addresses ERISA’s treatment of domestic relations orders)
- LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S. 248 (U.S. 2008) (ERISA covers defined contribution plans like 401(k)s)
- Rivers v. Central & South West Corp., 186 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 1999) (pre‑Pension Protection Act decision denying late QDRO where ex‑spouse failed to obtain order before retirement)
- Yale‑New Haven Hosp. v. Nicholls, 788 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2015) (Congressional changes allow QDROs issued after participant’s death to be effective for recognizing rights)
- In re Gendreau, 122 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1997) (QDRO provisions prevent enforcement until order is obtained but do not extinguish underlying interest)