Robinette v. Hunsecker
66 A.3d 1093
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- The case concerns entry of a domestic relations order and potential constructive trust over pension benefits after a death without a valid QDRO.
- Appellant Lori Robinette appeals a circuit court judgment granting constructive trust and partial pension benefits to appellee Luan Hunsecker, the deceased participant's former spouse.
- Hunsecker had a 1998 separation agreement incorporated into the divorce that designated Hunsecker as alternate payee and provided a 50% marital share, but the agreementnever enrolled as a QDRO.
- Robinette’s plan designated her as beneficiary of record in 2008; Hunsecker sought a posthumous QDRO in 2010 but the MCPS pension plan was found to be a government plan not subject to ERISA.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals ultimately held that ERISA preemption did not control due to the government-plan exemption, and affirmed the circuit court’s order for a posthumous QDRO and the imposition of a constructive trust on benefits already paid.
- The court concluded that a constructive trust on benefits already issued could be appropriate under state law given the facts and policy considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Posthumous QDRO validity | Robinette | Hunsecker; ERISA not controlling because plan is government plan | Posthumous QDRO permitted; not barred by ERISA because plan is government plan |
| Imposition of constructive trust on benefits paid | Robinette | Hunsecker; equity supports trust when unjust enrichment would occur | Constructive trust affirmed for benefits already distributed |
| ERISA preemption applicability | Robinette; ERISA preempts state-law claims relating to plan | Hunsecker; government plan exemption applies, ERISA preemption does not govern here | ERISA preemption does not control due to government-plan exemption |
| Enforceability of separation agreement via QDRO | Robinette; separation agreement not enforceable as QDRO post-death | Hunsecker; agreement supports posthumous QDRO/constructive trust | Separation agreement effectively enforceable as basis for posthumous QDRO and constructive trust under MD law |
Key Cases Cited
- Samaroo v. Samaroo, 193 F.3d 185 (3d Cir.1999) (posthumous QDRO considerations in ERISA context)
- Tr. of Directors Guild of America-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415 (9th Cir.2000) (posthumous QDROs and 18-month allocation period under REA standards)
- Eller v. Bolton, 168 Md.App. 96 (Md. 2006) (MD rule on QDROs and survival under ERISA interplay)
- Rose v. Long Island R.R. Pension Plan, 828 F.2d 910 (2d Cir.1987) (governmental plan exemption framework and NLRB Hawkins County test influence)
- Pettit v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 164 F.3d 857 (4th Cir.1998) (constructive trust within ERISA context; QDRO exception preemption analysis)
- Hopkins v. AT&T Global Info. Solutions Co., 105 F.3d 153 (4th Cir.1997) (QDRO as remedy for former spouse under ERISA)
- Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997) (REA amendments; former spouse treated via QDRO under ERISA)