Drexler v. Bruce
Decision Date | 28 March 2013 |
Docket Number | No.12CA0192,No.11CA2202,12CA0192,11CA2202 |
Citation | 2013 COA 43 |
Parties | In re the Marriage of Regina T. Drexler, Appellee, v. Charles B. Bruce, Jr., Appellant. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
City and County of Denver District Court No. 09DR2227
ORDERS AFFIRMED
Opinion by JUDGE TAUBMAN
McClain Drexler Matthews, LLC, Michael P. Matthews, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee
¶ 1 This appeal is one of several brought by Charles B. Bruce, Jr. (husband) arising out of the dissolution of his marriage to Regina T. Drexler (wife). The present dispute raises the issue whether an obligor spouse’s retirement funds in a plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (2010), are exempt from assignment under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to satisfy domestic support arrearages. Husband argues that his retirement funds are exempt under both Colorado and federal law. We hold that the funds are not exempt, and we affirm the trial court’s orders for a QDRO assigning the funds to wife, and sanctioning husband for noncompliance with the transfer.
¶ 2 The parties’ marriage ended in 2010 and husband was ordered to pay wife $5000 per month in child support and maintenance of $12,000 per month for four years, followed by $8000 per month for two years. Thereafter, husband, who was a tax attorney and partner at a large law firm, did not comply with his obligations, resulting in the accumulation of $101,486 in support arrearages and the suspension of his law license. Wife then moved for a QDRO to collect the arrearages from the funds held in husband’s ERISA retirement plan at the law firm.
¶ 3 Husband objected, contending that Colorado and federal law prohibited assigning his retirement funds to wife to pay the arrearages. The trial court disagreed and ordered him to transfer the funds to wife using a QDRO. After husband did not comply, the court ordered that the QDRO transfer be completed without his signature, that he reimburse wife for her attorney fees incurred because of his noncompliance, and that the suspension of his previous contempt sentence for violating other court orders be lifted. This appeal followed.
¶ 4 We review de novo the legal issue whether Colorado and federal statutes prohibit assignment of husband’s retirement funds to pay wife’s arrearages. See Wolf Ranch, LLC v. City of Colorado Springs, 220 P.3d 559, 563 (Colo. 2009) ( ).
¶ 5 ERISA was enacted to protect private retirement plan participants and their beneficiaries. See 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(b) (2006); Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 845 (1997). To this end, the act generally prohibits assignment or alienation of retirement plan funds. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1) (2006); see People v. Stephenson, 12 P.3d 266, 268 (Colo. App. 1999) ( ); see also 26 U.S.C. § 401(a)(13)(A) (2006) ( ).
¶ 6 Both ERISA and IRC further provide, however, that the anti?alienation provisions do not apply to retirement funds that are assigned to a former spouse under a QDRO. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3) (2006); 26 U.S.C. § 401(a)(13)(B) (2006); Boggs, 520 U.S. at 846; Hawkins v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 86 F.3d 982, 988 (10th Cir. 1996); In re Marriage of LeBlanc, 944 P.2d 686, 688 (Colo. App. 1997).
¶ 7A QDRO is a mechanism created under ERISA to allow a former spouse to receive all or a portion of the benefits owed to a participant under a retirement plan. See Boggs, 520 U.S. at 846- 47; see also Rafferty-Plunkett v. Plunkett, 910 N.E.2d 670, 672 n.1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) ( ); Barnes v. Barnes, 956 A.2d 770, 789-90 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008) (same). A QDRO is defined as a “domestic relations order” that assigns to an alternate payee the right to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i) (2006); Boggs, 520 U.S. at 846; see also 26 U.S.C. § 414(p)(1)(A) (2006). A “domestic relations order” in turn is defined as an order made pursuant to state domestic relations law that concerns the provision of child or spousal support, or marital property rights of a former spouse of a plan participant. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii) (2006); Boggs, 520 U.S. at 846; see also 26 U.S.C. § 414(p)(1)(B) (2006).
¶ 8 Here, the QDRO was entered expressly as a means to satisfy husband’s unpaid obligations relating to the dissolution, including those for child support, maintenance, and attorney fees under section 14-10-119, C.R.S. 2012. Thus, the QDRO originated under Colorado domestic relations law, as required by ERISA, and not, as husband contends, under Colorado collections law.1
¶ 9 A QDRO is not only a mechanism to divide retirement benefits between spouses under the marital property provisions of a dissolution decree; it may also be used, under ERISA, to enforce maintenance and child support obligations imposed under the decree. See LeBlanc, 944 P.2d at 688-89. A QDRO issued for this purpose does not result in an improper modification of the property division provisions of the decree. See Hogle v. Hogle, 732 N.E.2d 1278, 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000); In re Marriage of Bruns, 535 N.W.2d 157, 161-62 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995); Baird v. Baird, 843 S.W.2d 388, 391-92 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992); Nichols v. Nichols, 891 P.2d 1303, 1306 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995).
¶ 10Further, the decree need not expressly provide that support payments will be paid from retirement funds. See In re Marriage of Thomas, 789 N.E.2d 821, 831-32 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) ( ); Baird, 843 S.W.2d at 391-92 ( ).
¶ 11On this issue, we decline to follow Hoy v. Hoy, 510 S.E.2d 253, 254-55 (Va. Ct. App. 1999), which held that using a QDRO to collect unpaid spousal support from the obligor spouse’s retirement funds constituted an improper modification of the dissolution decree. See Thomas, 789 N.E.2d at 831 ( ); Hogle, 732 N.E.2d at 1283-84 ( ); see also Michael P. Boulette, Collecting Child Support and Maintenance: A New Role for QDROs, 69 Bench & Bar of Minn. 20, 22 (Oct. 2012) ( ); Laura W. Morgan, Using QDROs to Enforce Spousal and Child Support, 13 No. 1 Divorce Litig. 7 (Jan. 2001) () .
¶ 12Accordingly, the trial court did not violate the anti-alienation provisions of ERISA and IRC by issuing the QDRO here to enforce husband’s unpaid support obligations.
¶ 13Husband also argues that regardless of the QDRO exception to ERISA’s anti-alienation clause, his retirement benefits are exempt under Colorado law because section 13-54-102(1)(s), C.R.S. 2012, exempts pension or retirement plan funds, including those subject to ERISA, “from levy and sale under writ of attachment or writ of execution.” See LeBlanc, 944 P.2d at 687. Wife contends that the ERISA exception for QDRO transfers applies here, which we construe as an argument that section 13-54-102(1)(s) is preempted by ERISA. We address this issue and hold that the statute is preempted by ERISA because it imposes limitations not imposed by ERISA.
¶ 14Three types of preemption may apply when federal law preempts a particular state statute: (1) direct or conflict preemption, which occurs when a state statute directly conflicts with a federal statute; (2) statutory or express preemption, which occurs when a federal statute expressly states that it preempts state laws; and (3) field preemption, which occurs when federal law occupies a legislative field such that no room is left for state law to supplement it. See In re Estate of MacAnally, 20 P.3d 1197, 1201 (Colo. App. 2000).
¶ 15ERISA contains an express preemption provision as to “any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan” covered by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (2006); see also MacAnally, 20 P.3d at 1201. ERISA further provides an exception to preemption specifically for QDROs. See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(7) (2006). Under this provision, state courts are not preempted from issuing QDROs to transfer retirement benefits that are held in plans governed by ERISA. See Boggs, 520 U.S. at 846-48. State laws may not conflict with ERISA provisions governing such QDROs, however. See United States v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 947, 951 (8th Cir. 2003) ().
¶ 16Under conflict preemption, a state law directly conflicts with ERISA, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hickman v. Catholic Health Initiatives
...application of the current statute. However, we do not address arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. SeeIn re Marriage of Drexler, 2013 COA 43, ¶24. 8. Similarly, the hospital relies on dicta in City of Colorado Springs v. Neville, 42 Colo. 219, 223–24, 93 P. 1096, 1097–98 (......
-
In re S.Z.S.
...address the child's best interests. While we generally decline to review an issue not raised until the reply brief, see In re Marriage of Drexler , 2013 COA 43, ¶ 24, 315 P.3d 179, we are not convinced that such a two-step inquiry is demanded by section 14-10-129(2)(b). Indeed, nothing in s......
-
In re Herold
...(Colo. App. 1981). But husband did not present this argument until his reply brief; therefore, we will not address it. See In re Marriage of Drexler , 2013 COA 43, ¶ 24, 315 P.3d 179 (declining to address an argument not raised in a party's opening brief).¶ 15 Nothing in the reenactment of ......
-
In re Dean
...for the first time in her reply brief or those that seek to expand upon the contentions she raised in her opening brief. See In re Marriage of Drexler , 2013 COA 43, ¶ 24, 315 P.3d 179.X. Appellate Attorney Fees ¶ 32 We decline to award mother her requested "[a]ttorney's fees, fines and dam......
-
ARTICLE 54 PROPERTY AND EARNINGS EXEMPT
...QDRO issued for this purpose does not result in an improper modification of the property division provisions of the decree. In re Drexler, 2013 COA 43, 315 P.3d 179. Funds in a savings account that were the balance remaining from a lump-sum distribution from a retirement account are not exe......
-
ARTICLE 54
...QDRO issued for this purpose does not result in an improper modification of the property division provisions of the decree. In re Drexler, 2013 COA 43, 315 P.3d 179. Funds in a savings account that were the balance remaining from a lump-sum distribution from a retirement account are not exe......
-
ARTICLE 54 PROPERTY AND EARNINGS EXEMPT
...QDRO issued for this purpose does not result in an improper modification of the property division provisions of the decree. Inre Drexler, 2013 COA 43, 315 P.3d 179. Funds in a savings account that were the balance remaining from a lump-sum distribution from a retirement account are not exem......
-
PROPERTY AND EARNINGS EXEMPT
...QDRO issued for this purpose does not result in an improper modification of the property division provisions of the decree. Inre Drexler, 2013 COA 43, 315 P.3d 179. Funds in a savings account that were the balance remaining from a lump-sum distribution from a retirement account are not exem......