Operating Engineers Local 428 Pension Trust Fund v. ZamborskyOperating Engineers Local 428 Pension Trust Fund v. Zamborsky
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Muecke
OPINION and ORDER
This case involves the interpretation of the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the sections which prevent the assignment or alienation of the employees’ pension benefits.
1
The act provides that the benefits will not be assigned or alienated. The jurisdiction of this Court is pursuant to
Defendant Zamborsky brought an action against her ex-husband for arrearages on his alimony payments in state court. The court found that the defendant was in arrears and ordered that pursuant to state statute,
The plaintiffs contend that there should be no allowance of the assignment since it would possibly affect the tax status of the trust and also is in violation of the literal language of the Act.
Defendants argue that the case law has determined that an implied exception exists for the enforcement of support obligations which are made pursuant to a valid court order.
Ernest Zamborsky and Defendant Elizabeth Zamborsky were divorced pursuant to a Maricopa County Superior Court decree issued on April 1, 1971, wherein Ernest Zamborsky was ordered to pay as and for spousal maintenance, the sum of $200.00 per month. Ernest Zamborsky has failed to do so and thus the defendant wife brought an action in the same court to enforce the prior order of the court. On December 5, 1977, the same court ordered that the Trust pay the defendant wife $200.00 a month from the sums due the husband, beginning on January 1, 1978. The Trust refused to make these payments as ordered, but did hold the sum ordered by the court until it filed this suit. In response to the nonpayment by the Trust, Defendant Zamborsky filed an order to show cause in Superior Court, said order being heard on April 18, 1978, wherein the court ordered that a judgment be entered in the amount of $1000.00. The Plaintiff Trust then appealed to this Court.
The threshold issue in this case is whether or not the anti-assignment or alienation section of the ERISA Act prevents the enforcement of the Superior Court order granting Defendant Zamborsky payments from the pension fund.
Plaintiffs’ contention is based upon a literal interpretation of the section to exempt pensions from any and every levy, garnishment, or attachment. If the Court so follows that theory, it would appear that the plaintiffs may have a valid point. However, the court in
Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp.,
It seems apparent that the cases have established the fact that the courts in a question of statutory interpretation have presumed that the basic police powers of the states, particularly the regulation of domestic relations, are not superseded by federal legislation unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. In
Cartledge v. Miller,
The courts have noted that family obligations are generally not the type of obligations that can be avoided under federal statutes. See The Social Security Act, the Veterans’ Benefits Act, and the Railway Retirement Act. In
Schlaefer v. Schlaefer,
This Court notes that there is a great split of opinion on this matter including this circuit. The leading cases which have held
*1176
that a literal approach should be taken and thus denied the money for the family obligations are
Marshall v. Chase Manhattan Bank,
This Court finds that the better reasoned cases hold that due to the basic premise of the Act — that it will provide protection for the funds from outside creditors — it would now be ludicrous to hold that it will also insulate a husband from his valid and legal familial obligations that have been determined by a valid court order.
Based upon the foregoing reasoning, this Court hereby denies the request for a permanent injunction on the basis that there exists an implied exception to the anti-assignment or alienation clause of the ERISA Act, and it is so ordered. The Court finds the reasoning of the courts in
Stone v. Stone,
Notes
.