Leaderboard

You might want to re-word your request.

I would agree with this approach.

While I defer to the ERISA attorneys, I'd just observe that it is the participant who wants the distribution that is saying there will be a divorce - what ulterior motive would a participant have for making a statement that serves to delay or prohibit a distribution to himself? So I think it is pretty reasonable for the plan to put a hold on the account based on that, pending whatever additional written confirmation/statements whatever an attorney would tell the plan is appropriate. I think the "may" is fairly standard language, to allow some Plan Administrator flexibility. And, good luck getting a statement indicating marital bliss.

Yea, well, maybe if they hadn't ALREADY adopted a procedure that specifies a verbal notice is sufficient, then they'd have the luxury of not accepting them - but I'd take the case of hte potentially soon to be ex-spouse/alternate payee on the facts given by the OP. Bad planning provides bad options and even worse outcomes.

1) The procedure indicates that a verbal notification is sufficient. Telephone calls are "verbal." 2) I don't think any distribution is appropriate. No one know what percentage of the balance the DRO will ultimately award to the alternate payee. It may be more than half. Indeed, it could be all of the account (and he gets the house or other assets). Too many unknowns to make assumptions. 3) The procedure indicates a method for removing the hold. It needs to be written (and IMHO should be a "warranty" on the part of the participant that no DRO is forthcoming - so that there may be recourse if in fact a DRO is later issued.) I'm not enamored by "participant" statements as justification for a release of the hold. Participants lie - especially when trying to grab or hide assets from a soon to be ex. Not sure what the plan requires - but .... 4) I'd still get the "written" document required by the procedure - and if the spouse signs it - so much the better (and notarized is even better to prove that it was the spouse). Finally, ask counsel. The plan or it's fiduciaries - or the sponsor - don't want to end up paying "twice."