Not Married By Definition
A recent decision by a
Background
In 1984, the election year when Congressional Representative
The definition of “spouse” has evolved dramatically since then—first among the states, then in federal legislation and, finally, in the
In 2008, the
DOMA’s Section 3 marriage definition was ultimately found unconstitutional in
Denial of Benefits
In
Long-term relationship. Stacey and Lesly were in a committed relationship for 27 years and raised two children together. In
Pension plan. Lesly worked for
On learning that Lesly had metastatic cancer, Stacey and Lesly began reviewing Lesly’s employee benefits in an effort to learn what would be available to Stacey after Lesly’s death.
Marriage. Finally realizing that they had to get married for Stacey to be financially secure after Lesly passed, the couple focused on when and where to get that done. They considered flying to another state, such as
Lesly’s health began to deteriorate rapidly, and the couple knew they shouldn’t wait to marry. Stacey and Lesly were wed at their home on
Lesly died the next day.
Post-Death Developments
The
Having established the legality of her marriage under
Stacey’s Causes of Action
To enforce her claim to benefits as a surviving spouse, Stacey sued
In the first two causes of action, Stacey sought payment of surviving spouse benefits under the plan or in the alternative, equitable relief; in the third cause of action, Stacey sought an equitable remedy in the form of the payment of non-spousal survivor benefits (which Stacey could have qualified for as a non-spouse beneficiary if Lesly had retired prior to her death and named Stacey as a beneficiary). The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on all three claims, asserting that, even if all of Stacey’s pleaded facts were accurate, they were still entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law.
Court’s Ruling
In connection with the first claim, the court confronted the threshold question raised by the defendants regarding whether the case could go forward based on the standing of the putative spouse. The court reviewed the requirements under
After finding that Stacey had plausibly alleged that she and Lesly were married at the time of Lesly’s death, the court went on to consider whether
Article 3 of DOMA was in effect, and this was the definition of “spouse” that the plan incorporated. The court granted FedEx’s motion and dismissed the first cause of action, finding that Stacey hadn’t alleged facts sufficient to show that
The court also disposed of Stacey’s third cause of action on the grounds that Stacey had no standing to bring it. Here, Stacey alleged that
But, the court reached a different conclusion with respect to Stacey’s second cause of action, which was that
In her second claim, Stacey asserted that
Similarly, in Cozen O’Connor P.C. v. Tobits,9 a case cited by Stacey in her claims against
But, the court rejected these arguments, and Stacey prevailed. The court found that Stacey had adequately alleged that
Next Phase
The court will presumably now go forward and hear Stacey’s action to compel payment of joint and survivor pension benefits under the plan.
There’s well-established authority for the proposition that when the
Endnotes
1 Retirement Equity Act of 1984 Section 103, P.L. 98-397.
2. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, P.L. 104-199.
3. Hollingsworth, et al. v. Perry, et al., 704 F. Supp.2d 921 (2010).
4.
5.
6. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).
7. See supra note 4.
8.
9. Cozen O’Connor P.C. v. Tobits, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105507, 2013 WL 3878688 (E.D. Pa.
10. Schuett, supra note 5 at p. 16.
Fixing the Imploding Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust
Protect Accumulated Assets and Inheritances From the Costs of Long-Term Care
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News