Marriage of Mantor, In re

Citation164 Cal.Rptr. 121,104 Cal.App.3d 981
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Decision Date23 April 1980
PartiesIn 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.

WONG, ** Associate Justice.

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:

"Respondent shall receive for and on account of her community interest in the Petitioner's pension plan with The Operating Engineers Trust Fund, a monthly sum of $65.76 to be paid to Respondent directly from said trust fund. During his life, Petitioner shall receive the balance of such monthly payments as his sole and separate property. In the event of Petitioner's death, Respondent shall receive, as her sole and separate property, any and all sums remaining in said Trust Fund."

Pursuant to the stipulation, the court in its interlocutory judgment provided in part as follows:

"Operating Engineers Trust Fund is hereby ordered to pay Respondent, the monthly sum of $65.76 commencing Sept. 1, 1978, and payable within each and every month thereafter until said Trust Fund is depleted, or upon the death of Petitioner. During his life, Petitioner shall receive the balance of each such monthly payment from his pension plan as his sole and separate property.

"In the event of Petitioner's death, Respondent shall receive as her sole and separate property, the remainder of any sums of money left in said Operating Engineers Trust Fund."

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:

"Thus, California law as applicable to the cases before us is concerned with effectuating a fair division of the monthly pension check between the former spouses. This concern plainly has no bearing on the effort of Congress, embodied in ERISA, to assure genuine pension rights. To ask a pension plan to send two monthly checks instead of one does not interfere with any of the Congressional objectives. It is, in fact, consonant with the objective of assuring that the members of the family receive the pension which they anticipated. We cannot find in ERISA or its extensive legislative history an unmistakable ordaining or 'clear and manifest purpose' to prevent states from achieving this simple and sensible aim in their domestic relations proceedings. (Jones v. Rath Packing Co., supra, 430 U.S. 519, (97 S.Ct. 1305, 51 L.Ed.2d 604); Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1978) 435 U.S. 151, 98 S.Ct. 988, 994, 55 L.Ed.2d 179; Stone v. Stone, supra, (D.C.) 450 F.Supp....

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Marriage of Baker, In re, A038122
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 30, 1988
    ...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
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 2, 1982
    ...(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
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 17, 1985
    ...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
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 31, 1985
    ...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 ] ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT