Cody v. Riecker, No. 506

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before LUMBARD, FEINBERG and MESKILL; FEINBERG
• Citation: 594 F.2d 314
• Parties: 1 Employee Benefits Ca 1895 John CODY and Herbert Schneider, as Trustees of the Local 282 Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Margaret RIECKER, Hon. Yorka C. Liniakis, Judge of the Family Court of the State of New York, County of Queens and Michael P. Seniuk, Sheriff of Nassau County, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 78-7460.
• Docket Number: No. 506,D
• Decision Date: 23 February 1979

Page 314

594 F.2d 314 1 Employee Benefits Ca 1895 John CODY and Herbert Schneider, as Trustees of the Local
282 Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Margaret RIECKER, Hon. Yorka C. Liniakis, Judge of the
Family Court of the State of New York, County of
Queens and Michael P. Seniuk, Sheriff of
Nassau County, Defendants-Appellees. No. 506, Docket 78-7460. United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit. Argued Jan. 24, 1979.
Decided Feb. 23, 1979.

J. Warren Mangan, Long Island City, N. Y. (O'Connor, Quinlan & Mangan, Long Island City, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Stanley Joseph Pryor, Maspeth, N. Y., for defendant-appellee Margaret Riecker.

Before LUMBARD, FEINBERG and MESKILL, Circuit Judges.

FEINBERG, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Eugene H. Nickerson, J., denying preliminary injunctive relief, 454 F.Supp. 22 (E.D.N.Y.1978), and dismissing the complaint in an action brought under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) by trustees of an employment benefit plan regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The trustees sought to enjoin the garnishment of pension fund benefits of Fred J. Riecker pursuant to a judgment of the

Page 315

Family Court of the State of New York, Queens County, based on arrearages of $5,280 in Mr. Riecker's obligations to support his wife and children. ¹ Judge Nickerson held that ERISA does not prohibit garnishments in aid of orders of state courts requiring family support payments. We affirm.

The pension plan involved here contains broad restrictions on transfer of benefits, including those effected by garnishment. ² Judge Nickerson correctly held (and appellants do not challenge) that New York family support law overrides all such restrictions in a pension plan, see, e. g., Hodson v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 243 App.Div. 480, 278 N.Y.S. 16 (1st Dept. 1935); Zwingmann v. Zwingmann, 150 App.Div. 358, 134 N.Y.S. 1077 (2d Dept. 1912); Michel v. Michel, 86 Misc.2d 774, 384 N.Y.S.2d 381 (Family Ct., Rensselaer County 1976), except to the extent that such state law is preempted by ERISA. That statute does contain an anti-alienation clause, section 206(d) (1), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), which states that

(e)ach pension plan (subject to ERISA) shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated.

ERISA also contains a preemption provision, which states that the statute "supersede(s) any and all State laws," including decisional law. ERISA § 514, 29 U.S.C. § 1144. The question is whether garnishments to enforce state court created family support obligations are exempt from ERISA's anti-alienation provision, and thus are not subject to preemption by ERISA.

A panel of this court has just decided that very question in American Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Merry, 592 F.2d 118, (2d Cir.1979), a case in which the court had before it the views of the Department of Justice as well as of the parties. ³ After analyzing the relevant statutory language and legislative history and discussing in detail the pertinent decisions, the panel held that

a garnishment order (on pension benefits subject to ERISA) used to satisfy court ordered family support payments is impliedly excepted from preempted state law relating "to any employee benefit plan," ERISA § 514(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) and also from the alienation and assignment proscription of ERISA § 206(d)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1).

Id. at 121. The Merry decision upheld garnishment of an ERISA regulated pension plan to enforce a post-divorce Connecticut court judgment for alimony and child support payments. We see no basis on which to distinguish this case, which involves New York spouse and child support orders prior to divorce, from Merry. Both kinds of orders are founded...