Marriage of Mantor, In re
Citation | 164 Cal.Rptr. 121,104 Cal.App.3d 981 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Decision Date | 23 April 1980 |
Parties | In re the MARRIAGE of Roger L. and Dorothy Mae MANTOR. Roger L. MANTOR, Petitioner, v. Dorothy Mae MANTOR, Respondent, Operating Engineers Trust Fund, Claimant and Appellant. Civ. 56395. |
Wayne Jett, and Robert Scot Clifford, Los Angeles, for claimant and appellant.
Joseph A. Hackett, North Hollywood, for respondent.
No appearance for petitioner.
Petitioner ("Husband") and respondent ("Wife") were married on September 6, 1939. On April 28, 1977, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Thereafter, at the request of Wife, the court joined as a party the Operating Engineers Pension Trust ("Trust").
The Trust is an express joint labor management trust established pursuant to collective bargaining agreements between various employees and employers groups. The Trust is governed by and complies with the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
Under the rules of the Trust, payment of benefits may be made only to a participant in the pension plan or, upon the participant's death, to his surviving spouse or his designated beneficiary, heirs or estate.
After trial, but before a decision was rendered by the court, Husband and Wife entered into a written stipulation as follows:
Pursuant to the stipulation, the court in its interlocutory judgment provided in part as follows:
Thereafter, the Trust filed a motion to set aside the above provisions of the interlocutory judgment, which the court denied. The trust has appealed from the order denying its motion.
The following issues are raised by this appeal:
1. Does a state court have jurisdiction, in a family law matter, to order a private pension plan, governed by the provisions of ERISA, to disburse funds to a non-participant spouse?
2. Does ERISA preempt California community property law insofar as the law provides a non-participant spouse an interest in an employee benefit plan?
3. Does ERISA prohibit the trial court's order that the Trust pay benefits directly to the Wife?
4. Do ERISA and California law prohibit the trial court's order granting the Wife the right to receive benefits from the Trust after the Husband's death?
The first three issues raised by this appeal have been recently decided in the following three cases: Johns v. Retirement Fund Trust (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 511, 149 Cal.Rptr. 551; In re Marriage of Johnston (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 900, 149 Cal.Rptr. 798; and In re Marriage of Campa (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 113, 152 Cal.Rptr. 362.
These three cases specifically hold that state courts do have jurisdiction, in family law matters, to order a private pension plan, governed by the provisions of ERISA, to disburse funds to a non-participant spouse. In Johnston, the court, in discussing the impact of ERISA on state law, stated: "We have concluded that Congress did not intend to interfere with a state court's jurisdiction over distribution of marital property." (In re Marriage of Johnston, supra, 85 Cal.App.3d at p. 906, 149 Cal.Rptr. at p. 802.)
These cases also establish that ERISA does not preempt California community property law insofar as the law provides a non-participant spouse an interest in an employee benefit plan, nor does it prohibit a California court from ordering a pension trust to pay benefits directly to a non-participant spouse. In this regard, the court in In re Marriage of Campa, supra, 89 Cal.App.3d at page 124, 152 Cal.Rptr. at page 368, stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Baker, In re, A038122
...63, 157 Cal.Rptr. 594; In re Marriage of Lionberger (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 56, 64-66, 158 Cal.Rptr. 535; In re Marriage of Mantor (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 981, 985, 164 Cal.Rptr. 121; In re Marriage of Williams (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 753, 761-762, 209 Cal.Rptr. As noted in Kronschnabel, the Unite......
-
Marriage of Sullivan, In re
...(In re Marriage of Forrest (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 850, 852, 159 Cal.Rptr. 229); (2) ERISA retirement benefits (In re Marriage of Mantor (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 981, 164 Cal.Rptr. 121); (3) G. I. educational benefits (In re Marriage of Shea (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 713, 169 Cal.Rptr. 490); and (4) ......
-
Marriage of Williams, In re
...and sensible aim in their domestic relations proceedings." 3 (Id., at p. 124, 152 Cal.Rptr. 362; see also In re Marriage of Mantor (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 981, 985, 164 Cal.Rptr. 121.) In In re Marriage of Johnston, supra, 85 Cal.App.3d 900, 149 Cal.Rptr. 798, the court, quoting from In re Ma......
-
Marriage of Gonzalez, In re
...nonvested pension rights; In re Marriage of Forest (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 850, 852 : contingent retirement benefits; In re Marriage of Mantor (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 981 : ERISA retirement benefits.) However, each of those assets, although intangible, was acknowledged to have economical [sic ] ......