Leaderboard

What does the document actually say? Most say something like "as soon as administratively feasible" following termination of employment. So if it's not administratively feasible to pay her until the 2020 is done, then tell the employer to tell her to wait. Someone has to be willing to take a little heat here and not cave.

I agree with Kevin C, contact the DOL. But recognize the odds of recovery are slim to none - the plan was terminated in 2016 so there are no plan funds to get money from. The only chance of recovery is to find a company or individual with responsbiliy and recover from that entity. It's a long time ago and your money could have been gone long before 2016. Some things still don't make sense, at least to me: I find it unusual that someone would volunteer that information. Plus it's one thing to divert money that isn't already in a plan but diverting it when it's already in is difficult, unless it went to another participant (possibly the diverter). Actually it's rare if not unheard of in my world to allow a withdrawal of 401k money at termination and not matching money.

I agree with Bill Presson. Not only should there be some "administratively feasible" language but point the participant (and the client) to the claims procedure in the SPD...it should say something about 90 days, and then another 90 days if the plan says so. A shrug of the shoulders and a "so sue me (the sponsor)" is all you/they can do really. We deal with participants directly a lot but of course there's a point where you explain that the plan sponsor is the Plan Administrator and you're cutting off direct communication because you don't get paid enough for the agg. If the client is the one badgering you then you explain it to them as you did to us and offer to pay out a reduced amount and then the balance, for two fees.

This guy gets me.

Luke Bailey gives us good practical guidance. In my experience, too many employers and administrators unwisely reach out to decide or do something before there is a claim to respond to. (So far, Kansas401k avoided that trap.) And too many neglect opportunities to channel “concerns” into the plan’s claims procedure. Following a careful claims procedure gets predictably stronger results. Luke Bailey suggests one way an administrator might help protect the administrator’s decision-making. (Showing an estate-planning or family lawyer how to turn her client’s wish into something the plan can deal with often is effective.) Another way, perhaps depending on the ambiguous facts and circumstances, might be to inform the “concerned” telephoner that anyone can submit a written claim. (It even could be a claim that recognizes the surviving spouse is the beneficiary, but asserts that she ought not to be the payee and that the plan ought to delay payment for a reasonable time so a conservator can be appointed.) Following the administrator’s claims procedure, including forming written explanations for each denied claim, makes it much easier to defend the administrator’s decision. That’s so even for situations in which people are embarrassed, defensive, or hostile. And it can avoid unnecessary expenses. Why burden participants’ accounts with an expense for attorneys’ fees to show a court the plan’s primacy if that unpleasant exercise could have been avoided? My observation is more than anecdotal. It’s grounded on my experience as counsel to a big recordkeeper (with many thousands of plans and millions of participants), advising a work unit that handled big volumes of death claims. We used business-process measurements to discover ways to make claims-handling more effective, and to manage our and plans’ expenses. Sometimes, there is a healthy balance between asserting or defending a plan’s primacy and avoiding unnecessarily deciding a claim in ways that might offend others’ sensibilities. Also, giving interested persons a way to be heard strengthens the decision-making. Even unlearned judges can understand the idea of deference to a process. If the “concerned” telephoner was invited to, but didn’t, use a procedure to slow down payment to the potential conservatee, a judge looking into the situation might have more empathy for an administrator’s decision to pay the named beneficiary absent any reason not to.

How much is the difference? IS this a small plan filer? If an SF, and if the amount is small, I'd just adjust the earnings for 2020 (or 2021 if '20 has already been filed), make a note in the file an move on.

So do plans that cover nothing but NHCEs. So does that make this doubly fine?

No need to add auto enrollment.

Kansas401k, if it were me I would follow up and identify the lawyer who is working on establishing the new conservatorship and talk to him/her and then determine what to do. Per your post, the widow hasn't come back to you with the death certificate yet. Until you reach the point where the widow is demanding payment and has fulfilled her requirements, you've got time to see what the "concerned" parties come up with. You don't want to get on the wrong side of a probate court judge and have to explain ERISA preemption to him/her.

First payroll won't process until mid October - so its tight on time but doable Thank you both!

Not an OE unless the plan document specifies the dates by which the deferrals must be made (which it is not required to do).