Pension Protection Act Blog

Common language contained somewhere in most qualified plan documents is the definition of spouse. Within that definition can be the requirement that a participant must be married for a period of one year before the spouse is recognized by the plan as the participant’s spouse. In a recent case from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the interpretation of married for one year was central to the outcome of the claim for benefits.

In Robinson v. New Orleans Employers ILA AFL-CIO Pension Welfare Vacation & Holiday Funds, No. 07-30433 (CA5, March 13, 2008), the 5th Circuit held that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the plan, and affirmed the district court’s decision. The district court’s decision granted summary judgment to the plan, finding that the plan administrator did not abuse his discretion when he applied the plan language in determining that the plaintiff and his spouse were not legally married when the plaintiff retired, and therefore the plaintiff’s widow was not entitled to a 50% Qualified Surviving Spouse benefit after the death of the plaintiff.

The relevant plan language provided a 50% Qualified Surviving Spouse benefit after the death of the participant. To qualify, the plan stated that:

“the Employee must at the time of making the application for same, have been married to the qualified spouse for a period of at least 12 months immediately preceding the Approved Retirement Date.”

The Court also stated, in a footnote, that:

“A person also can be a ‘qualified spouse’ even if the employee and spouse are married for less than one year on the annuity starting date if the spouse is ‘legally married to the Employee on his Annuity Starting Date and for at least a one year period ending on or before the Employee’s death.”

In this case, Mrs. Robinson met neither condition. When the participant took early retirement on August 29, 1983, he was not legally married to Mrs. Robinson. Because they were not married on the Approved Retirement Date, it was not possible for her to meet either condition in the plan to qualify for the 50% Qualified Surviving Spouse benefit, so the plan administrator properly applied the plan language in denying her claim for benefits.

In an equitable world, whether Mrs. Robinson should have qualified for a 50% Qualified Surviving Spouse benefit is another story. When Mr. Robinson died in 2004, she had known him, dated him, lived with him and married him over a 49-year period. According to the 5th Circuit, the Robinsons met in 1955 and dated for many years. In 1978, they moved in together and started living together in Louisiana as husband and wife. Since Louisiana does not recognize common law marriage, they were not considered legally married during the time they were living together. On May 5, 1996, they were legally married in Louisiana. As Mr. Robinson took early retirement on August 29, 1983, they were not actually legally married on the date he retired.

The language in the plan document was derived from the Internal Revenue Code section 417(d), which states:

“(d) Survivor annuities need not be provided if participant and spouse married less than 1 year.

In denying Mrs. Robinson’s claim for benefits despite her 49-year history with Mr. Robinson, the plan administrator did what they were required to do under the language in the plan document and the Internal Revenue Code, whether they wanted to or not.

Technorati Tags: Pension Protection Act, PPA, 417(d), spouse, defined benefit, 50% annuity, marriage, ERISA