Vanderkam v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
943 F. Supp. 2d 130
D.D.C.2013Background
- John VanderKam retired in 1994 under a joint-and-100% survivor annuity designating Melissa VanderKam as survivor beneficiary.
- Texas DRO sought to substitute Gaylyn Dieringer as alternate survivor beneficiary; initial Plan approval treated DRO as a QDRO.
- PBGC, as statutory trustee (2005), determined the DRO was not a valid QDRO and that Melissa remained the survivor beneficiary.
- PBGC’s review concluded Melissa’s survivor-benefit rights vested at retirement and could not be reassigned via later DRO or waiver.
- Plaintiffs challenge PBGC’s determination under ERISA § 1132(a)(1)(B) and seek Texas common-law constructs (constructive trust) against Melissa; PBGC cross-moves for summary judgment.
- Court holds PBGC’s decision reasonable and Texas-state-law claims preempted by ERISA; grants PBGC and Melissa summary judgment while denying plaintiffs’ summary judgment on Count I.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Melissa’s survivor-benefit vested at retirement and could not be waived or reassigned | Vandercam contends vesting can be overridden by later DRO or waiver | PBGC and Plan treated vesting as nonwaivable post-retirement | Yes; benefits vest at retirement and are nonwaivable/reassignable via later DRO |
| Whether the Texas DRO qualified as a QDRO to substitute Gaylyn | DRO should be treated as a valid QDRO to substitute Gaylyn | DRO would pay survivor benefits based on Melissa’s life, not provided under plan | No; DRO not a valid QDRO under ERISA because it changes recipient and involves a form not provided by plan |
| Whether PBGC’s interpretation of ERISA § 206(d)(3)(i) is reasonable | PBGC misreads § 206(d)(3)(i) to bar any post-retirement substitution | PBGC’s interpretation is reasonable and permissible under Chevron Step Two | Yes; PBGC’s interpretation is reasonable and permissible |
| Whether state-law constructive-trust claims against Melissa are preempted by ERISA | Constructive trust is not an ERISA plan claim; not preempted | ERISA preempts state-law claims relating to plan benefits | Yes; claims preempted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopkins v. AT&T Global Info. Solutions Co., 105 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 1997) (surviving-spouse benefits vest at retirement; post-retirement substitutions not allowed)
- Rivers v. Central & S.W. Corp., 186 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 1999) (vest accrued at retirement; subsequent spouse cannot obtain interest via DRO)
- Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (QJSA surviving-spouse benefits vest at retirement; post-retirement DRO not valid)
- Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009) (antialienation rules; plan-documents rule; waivers must conform to plan terms)