96 A.3d 94
Md.2014Background
- Divorcing couple's property settlement allocated Ex-Wife 50% of the marital share of Husband's retirement benefits, including death benefits.
- Plan was a government-sponsored retirement plan exempt from ERISA, though the agreement described it as ERISA-governed and called the divorce judgment a QDRO.
- Judgment entered in 1998 incorporated but did not merge the agreement; no QDRO was ever issued to MCPS.
- Husband remarried, designated Wife as beneficiary; after his death in 2009, Ex-Wife sought a share of benefits.
- Circuit Court issued a posthumous QDRO for future benefits and imposed a constructive trust on benefits already paid to Wife.
- Court of Special Appeals affirmed; Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to review authority and remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had authority to issue a posthumous QDRO for future benefits | Ex-Wife contends the order honors the agreement and state law authority. | Wife argues ERISA governs, limiting non-QDRO allocations. | Yes; circuit court had authority to issue posthumous QDRO-like order. |
| Whether the circuit court could impose a constructive trust on benefits already paid | Ex-Wife seeks equitable relief to recover unjustly enriched benefits to Wife. | Wife asserts no inequity since no wrongdoing occurred. | Yes; court could impose constructive trust where equity and contract give Ex-Wife a higher call. |
| Whether ERISA governs the allocation of government-plan benefits despite the plan's exemption | Agreement and references to ERISA/RE Act show intended ERISA governing framework. | Plan is exempt from ERISA; MD law controls and allows QDRO-type orders. | ERISA does not preempt under these circumstances; MD law applies. |
| Whether the Agreement's terms should be interpreted to require ERISA-based mechanisms or MD-law remedies | Agreement intended ERISA-based allocation via QDRO-like effect. | Agreement plainly contemplated MD-law distribution and post-divorce recognition. | Agreement supports MD-law remedies; no need to adopt ERISA-based invalidation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 (Md. 1989) (ERISA preemption and QDRO concepts for government plans)
- Wimmer v. Wimmer, 287 Md. 663 (Md. 1980) (constructive trust as equitable remedy to avoid unjust enrichment)
- Starleper v. Hamilton, 106 Md. App. 632 (Md. App. 1995) (constructive trust based on equity and agreement to maintain benefits)
- Prince George’s County Police Pension Plan v. Burke, 321 Md. 699 (Md. 1991) (authority to transfer government plan interests via court orders)
- Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115 (Md. 1982) (retirement benefits as marital property subject to division)
- Conteh v. Conteh, 392 Md. 436 (Md. 2006) (family law property distribution authority)