Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Stoll, Civ. A. No. 91-0513.

• Decision Date: 28 August 1991
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 91-0513.
• Citation: 771 F. Supp. 781
• Parties: IRON WORKERS MID-SOUTH PENSION FUND v. Alice Jo STOLL, Julia F. Short, Sherry Collins and Krystle Short Neal.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

771 F. Supp. 781

IRON WORKERS MID-SOUTH PENSION FUND v. Alice Jo STOLL, Julia F. Short, Sherry Collins and Krystle Short Neal.

Civ. A. No. 91-0513.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

August 28, 1991.

Marie Healey, Jeanne Theresa Cresson, Sarah Hall Voigt, Sean Renee Dawson and Maria C. Cangemi, Marie Healey & Associates, APLC, New Orleans, La., for Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund.

Rhett Wilburn and Ray Wilburn, Wilburn, Masterson & Smiling, Tulsa, Okl., for Alice Jo Stoll.

William J. Oberhelman, Jr., New Orleans, La., Randall G. Vaughan and Rita J. Gould, Pray, Walker, Jackman, Williamson & Marlar, Tulsa, Okl., for Julia F. Short.

John R. Carle, Carle, Higgins, Mosier & Taylor, Claremore, Okl., for Sherry Collins and Lois Dotson.

Bill E. Ladd, Tulsa, Okl., for Linda Smith.

ORDER AND REASONS

CHARLES SCHWARTZ, Jr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed on behalf of the plaintiff, IRON WORKERS MID-SOUTH PENSION FUND "Fund", seeking a declaration as a matter of law determining the proper recipient(s) to the Death Benefit due under the terms of the PLAN. The matter was set for oral hearing on August 21st, 1991, but was submitted on the briefs.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.

Plaintiff Fund bought this declaratory judgment action to determine entitlement to benefits under the terms of the Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Plan and under § 502(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereinafter "ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3)(B). Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201, plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court determining the proper party(ies) to whom the death benefit is payable as a result of the death of Plan participant, Jim Freeland Short.

Claimant, Julia F. Short, Jim Short's ex-wife, filed a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment requesting the Court to enter summary judgment to the effect that claimant Alice Jo Stoll Mr. Short's alleged common law wife is not the "qualified spouse" within the meaning of the Plan and that as named beneficiary she should be awarded benefits. Both Sherry Collins and Krystal Neal Mr. Short's daughters filed a Joint Response admitting there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the Court grant summary judgment declaring that Collins as personal representative of the decedent's estate should receive death benefits under the Plan.

Finally, claimant Alice Jo Stoll has responded, urging summary judgment declaring Julie Short not be considered that designated beneficiary, and rather recognizing her right, as common law wife of Mr. Short at the time of his death, to benefits payable under the plan.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

Mr. Short died on December 9, 1989, while a resident of Oklahoma, and was survived by his two daughter's, Sherry Collins¹ "Collins" and Krystal Short Neal "Neal", his alleged common law spouse, Alice Jo Stoll "Stoll" and ex-wife, Julia F. Short "J. Short". All of the aforementioned claimants are citizens and residents of the State of Oklahoma.

The basis of Stoll's claim for death benefits stem from her allegations to the effect that she was his common law wife. Both daughters, Collins and Neal, claim entitlement to the Plans § 3.13 Lump Sum Death Benefit. Collins claims both in her capacity as the representative of Jim Short's estate and as heir at law. J. Short, the deceased's ex-wife, has asserted a claim against the Fund, as the Designated Beneficiary of Jim Short, for payment of the Plan's § 3.13 Lump Sum Death Benefit.

Mr. Short was prior to his death a participant in the Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, which provides retirement benefits for employees of iron worker employers who are signatory to collective bargaining agreements with the Fund's sponsoring Unions. At the time of his death, he was living with Stoll in Oklahoma, and had accumulated 7 years of Past Service Credit and 19-5/10ths years of Future Service Credit in the Fund at issue. He had not yet retired at the time of his death, but was fully vested with his retirement benefit, in accordance with the Plans provisions.

Section 5.03(d) of the Plan Plaintiff's Exh. "A" provides that the decedent's pre-retirement surviving "qualified spouse", if any, is eligible to elect the greater of the following optional death benefits, to wit: (1) A Lump Sum Surviving Benefit i.e. the Actuarial Present Value of the Surviving Spouse Pension alternatively payable under subsection (i) of the Plan; or (2) A Lump Sum Death Benefit payable under Article 3 of the Plan.

Sections 5.01(c) and (d)(3), and § 5.03(b) of the plan define "qualified spouse" to include: a participant's spouse i.e. a person to whom a Participant is considered married under the applicable law and a Participant's former spouse, if and to the extent provided in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order "QDRO". In said sections aforementioned the plan further defines term "qualified spouse" to include a spouse who was married to a Participant on the date of Participant's death and having been so married for at least one year ending with the date of death.

III. THE LAW.

A. Qualified Spouse.

It is undisputed that Ms. Stoll has not sought to have her status as Mr. Short's alleged common law spouse established by the Oklahoma courts. In any event, in ERISA claims, the claimant has the burden of proving entitlement to the benefits and that the denial of benefits by the Trustees is arbitrary and capricious.² Moreover, there is no "clear and convincing" proof of a contract of common law marriage as between Stoll and Mr. Short prior to his decease, as required under Oklahoma law.³

Stoll previously has denied the existence of her alleged common law marriage relationship with Mr. Short in a formal document.⁴ From the day Stoll moved into Mr. Short's residence until the day he died she paid rent. Stoll never used Mr. Short's name until after he died. Mr. Short's sister Linda handled all of his hospitalization arrangements and bills, as well as the funeral arrangements upon his death.

Stoll bears the burden of proof on this dispositive issue of her "marital status" and the burden is indeed a heavy one, "clear and convincing proof." Stoll, on the contrary, has made no showing whatsoever of a general reputation both among relatives and acquaintances of their marriage. Linda Smith, Jim Short's sister, was originally appointed administratrix of his estate, not Stoll, who if qualified as his spouse under Oklahoma law would have been appointed administratrix.

B. Waiver.

In any event, Stoll and the representative of Mr. Short's estate, jointly executed a Compromise Release waiving all rights as the alleged common-law wife of Jim Short, to wit:

Alice Jo Stoll hereby withdraws all her claims to any real or personal property of the Estate of Jim Freeland Short, save and except those items set out herein. Alice Jo Stoll waives any and all claims she may have in the past and future as the alleged common law wife of Jim Freeland Short.

That in consideration for giving up any and all claim she may have had against said estate Alice Jo Stoll is to receive those items of personal property listed on an Exhibit submitted to and approved by the Court on the 23rd day of July, 1990. Short Exh. "I"⁵

It is hard to imagine language more indicative or probative of an intent to relinquish the rights at issue in the instant case.

The specific holding of the Seventh Circuit in Fox Valley and Vicinity Construction Workers Pension Fund v. Brown, 897 F.2d 275, 280 (7th Cir.1990)⁶. In Fox Valley, the Court considered the effect of a spouse's waiver of interest in the former spouses ERISA qualified pension benefits in regard to ERISA's anti-alienation clause. Following the participant's death, his former spouse claimed a death benefit under the plan. The Court concluded that the "Qualified Domestic Relations Order" QDRO procedure does not apply where a non-plan participant waives an interest in a benefit plan.

In Stobnicki v. Textron, Inc., 868 F.2d 1460 (5th Cir.1989), the Fifth Circuit held the anti-alienation provisions of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code did not preclude a pension plan beneficiary, who was both the common law wife and the designated beneficiary, from assigning her benefits as part of a final legal settlement of a dispute. The Stobnicki court based its decision on the general purpose of the anti-alienation provisions of ERISA, that is so that "American workers may look forward with anticipation to retirement with financial security and dignity." Id. at 1464. The Court resolved not to blindly follow the edict of the alienation provision, which would have resulted in unjust and unintended consequences.

While this Court is of the opinion that Stoll is not the "qualified spouse" of Mr. Short, even if that were so, she validly waived her right to receive any death benefits she may have been entitled by executing the Compromise Release. Stoll neither being a participant, the judicially recognized common-law wife of the participant, nor the designated beneficiary cannot reap unjustly the benefits of the anti-alienation provisions.⁷ The Fifth Circuit's decision in Stobnicki controls the disposition of this issue. As the court concluded in Stobnicki, the

Statutory bar against alienation of pension benefits must yield to reason and to the purposes for which the Act was written ... it should not override the law's settled preference for settlement and composition of differences where that is possible, rather than litigation of them to the bitter end.

Id. at 1465.

Having decided that "qualified spouse" or not, Stoll waived⁸ any right she had to death benefits under the Plan, the Court turns its attention to the arguments as to whether the participant's ex-wife, Julia Short, or his two daughters, the legal heirs are entitled to benefits.

C. Designated Beneficiary vs. Legal Heirs.

There is no doubt,...