fmsinc

WHO CAN SUE UNDER ERISA A plaintiff has standing to bring a claim under ERISA if he/she is a plan participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary. Caples v. U.S. Foodservice, Inc., 444 F. App'x 49, 52 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)); Cobb, 461 F.3d at 634; Coleman v. Champion Int'l Corp., 992 F.2d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1993). A "participant" under ERISA is an "employee or former employee" of an employer offering an employee benefit plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7). A "fiduciary" is someone who (1) exercises "discretionary authority . . . respecting management of such plan or . . . disposition of its assets," (2) "renders investment advice for . . . compensation . . . with respect to any moneys or other property of such plan," or (3) "has any discretionary authority or . . . responsibility in the administration of such plan," Id. § 1002(21)(A). A "beneficiary" is defined as "a person designated by a participant, or by the terms of an employee benefit plan, who is or may become entitled to a benefit thereunder." Id. § 1002(8). In order to qualify as a beneficiary, an individual must have "a reasonable or colorable claim to benefits." Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 754 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Cobb, 461 F.3d at 635-36 (holding that to have standing as a beneficiary under ERISA, a plaintiff must show both that he or she was designated as such by the participant or terms of the plan, and that he or she has a colorable entitlement to benefits under the plan). In Parsons v. Board of Trustees of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00132, USDC (S.D. WV 2020) that you can find at - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12166270204191846086&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=20006&as_vis=1&oi=scholaralrt&hist=bY5nDLcAAAAJ:14880692104701005079:AAGBfm2qi1_JaXLJvydb4f3quYTnTlLkbA, the Court set forth a good summary of the rights of potential Alternate Payees to sue a pension plan for benefits claimed to be payable by reason of a QDRO. At issue in this case was whether or not the language of the QDRO was broad enough to include survivor annuity benefits. Said the Court - “ERISA was enacted to protect employees and their beneficiaries by ensuring the proper administration of employee benefit plans. Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 839 (1997). The Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (REA) amended ERISA with respect to surviving spouses in two important ways. REA requires pension plans to provide automatic benefits to surviving spouses. Id. at 843; 29 U.S.C. § 1055(a). Additionally, while ERISA generally prohibits assignment or alienation of benefits under a pension plan, REA provides for a Qualified Domestic Relation Order (QDRO) exception wherein a former spouse or children of a previous marriage may be designated as an alternate payee and thereby "receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under the plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(l). “A domestic relations order is any judgment, decree, or property settlement that "relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant" and "is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law." Id. at § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii). However, in order for a domestic relations order to qualify as a QDRO, it must meet the following requirements: (1) the order must specify the name and mailing address of the alternate payee and the affected plan participant, (2) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid or the means by which that amount will be determined, (3) the number of payments or time period to which the order applies, and (4) each plan to which the order applies. Id. at § 1056(d)(3)(C). Moreover, a QDRO cannot (1) require the plan to provide any type of benefit not otherwise provided, (2) require the plan to provide increased benefits, or (3) require benefits to be paid to an alternate payee which must be paid to another alternate payee under the QDRO. Id. at § 1056(d)(3)(D). “A plan administrator generally has discretion to determine whether a domestic relations order constitutes a QDRO, but such determinations are reviewable by courts. Dorn v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 211 F.3d 938, 946 (5th Cir. 2000). In determining whether a domestic relations order is a QDRO, courts have required substantial compliance with the drafting requirements. Hamilton v. Washington State Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. Pension Plan, 433 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2006). The "pivotal question is whether the dissolution order `clearly contains the information specified in the statute that a plan administrator would need to make an informed decision.'" Id. (quoting Stewart v. Thorpe Holding Co. Profit Sharing Plan, 207 F.3d 1143, 1154 (9th Cir. 2000)). “If a domestic relations order qualifies as a QDRO, then "any spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant" that is designated as an alternate payee shall be considered a "beneficiary under the plan." Id. at §§ 1056(d)(3)(J)-(K). Thereby, a former spouse can obtain a secured interest in benefits merely by obtaining a QDRO. Id. at 1056(d)(3)(A); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Pettit, 164 F.3d 857, 864 (4th Cir. 1998); Hopkins v. AT&T Global Info. Solutions Co., 105 F.3d 153, 157 (4th Cir. 1997). “As noted above, ERISA requires pension plans to provide automatic survivor benefits to retiring participants. Dorn, 211 F.3d at 943. A Qualified Q Annuity (QJ&SA) is the principal mechanism for providing such survivor benefits. Id. "[A] QJ&SA comprises two separate and distinct benefits: (1) An annuity for the life of the participant, and (2) a succeeding annuity for the life of the surviving spouse (if there is one) of not less than 50% of the participant annuity." Id. Generally, in order for one to qualify as a surviving spouse in the context of a QJ&SA they must be married to the participant "(1) during the applicable election period, (2) on the annuity starting date, or (3) at [the participant's] death." Id. at 947 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Former spouses, however, can also receive surviving spouse benefits under certain circumstances. "To the extent provided in any qualified domestic relations order ... the former spouse of a participant shall be treated as a surviving spouse of such participant." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(F)(i) (emphasis added). Federal courts have held that, in order for a former spouse to be entitled to surviving spouse rights, "any assignment of surviving spouse rights in a QDRO must be explicit, rather than implicit." Hamilton, 433 F.3d at 1099; Hopkins, 105 F.3d at 155; Dorn, 211 F.3d at 947. Moreover, where a QDRO is silent as to surviving spouse rights, a designation of alternate payee or beneficiary does not elevate one to the status of a surviving spouse entitled to a survivor annuity under a QJ&SA. Dorn, 211 F.3d at 947. “The detailed requirements for drafting a QDRO have been characterized as a "drafting morass for the lawyer." Hamilton, 433 F.3d at 1096. The Court recognizes "the concern expressed by courts and commentators that the failure of domestic relations lawyers to `navigate the treacherous shoals' of ERISA may harm potential beneficiaries." Id. (quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Wheaton, 42 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 1994)). Nevertheless, "Congress required that QDROs be specific and clear because it was concerned with reducing the expense to plan providers and protecting them from suits for making improper payments." Id. at 1096-97 (quoting In re Gendreau, 122 F.3d 815, 817-18 (9th Cir. 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). As an initial matter, the Plaintiff argues that the Court should not consider the QDRO or the Plan Document, because review of such documents is premature at the motion to dismiss stage and would instead convert this motion into one for summary judgment. This argument is without merit. For purposes of a motion to dismiss, "a court may consider official public records, documents central to the plaintiff's claim, and documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint so long as the authenticity of these documents is not disputed." Witthohn v. Fed. Ins. Co., 164 Fed. Appx. 395, 396 (4th Cir. 2006). A court may also consider pension plan documents for a motion to dismiss when a plaintiff relies on such documents in the complaint. Stewart v. Pension Trust of Bethlehem Steel Corp., 12 Fed. Appx. 174, 176 (4th Cir. 2001). Both the QDRO and the Plan Document fall under this umbrella and may be considered in light of the motion to dismiss.” ERISA § 404(a)(1) sets forth the primary duties of an ERISA fiduciary, providing that a fiduciary must: (1) act solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; (2) act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims; (3) diversify the investments of a plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses; and (4) act in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of Titles I and IV of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1104. A fiduciary may be personally liable for, and removed as a fiduciary as a result of, any breaches of the responsibilities, obligations, and duties imposed by the statute while acting as a fiduciary under ERISA. ERISA § 409. 29 U.S.C. § 1109. Generally, to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant was a fiduciary of an ERISA plan who, (2) acting within his capacity as a fiduciary, (3) engaged in conduct constituting a breach of his fiduciary duty. A good case discussing breach of fiduciary duty is Volz v. General Motors, Civil Action No. 22-cv-3471, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (October 5, 2023)- https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10217039916663686201&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=20006&as_vis=1&oi=scholaralrt&hist=bY5nDLcAAAAJ:17102308171145443235:AFWwaea94w7XgMVkZLP-Q4RdIOLK&html=&pos=1&folt=kw See also, 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1) (duty of loyalty) and 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B) (duty of prudence). See Barker v. Am. Mobil Power Corp., 64 F.3d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir. 1995) (ERISA's duty to act in the best interests of the plan participants and beneficiaries includes a duty to investigate suspicions that one has concerning the plan); see also Patterson v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 986 F. Supp. 2d 1140, 1150 (C.D. Cal. 2013). See cases citing Barker at - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=20000006&q="Barker+v.+Am.+Mobil+Power+Corp."+"64+F.3d+1397"+"duty"+"investigate"+'"fiduciary"&btnG= AND THREATEN TO SUE AND ASK FOR LEGAL FEES

@Bri Fantastic. How easy was that. Many thanks.

Okay. How do you make those nice blue stickers with, for example, @artie m? Thanks, David

I assume the participant had a 401(k) plan. To what type of plan did the alternate payee transfer his/her interest? To his/her exiting eligible retirement account that happened to be a 401(k)? Why not suggest to the alternate payee that he/she move his/her account to an IRA so he/she will be happy. On top of the foregoing, I am pretty sure the Fidelity table is a single life annuity. https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/UniformLifetimeTable.pdf Table I (Single Life Expectancy) is used for beneficiaries who are not the spouse of the IRA owner - whatever that means, and your client is not the spouse. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-required-minimum-distributions-rmds So it may be that one time in the history of the universe Fidelity is right. David

I had Fidelity pull that on me with respect to an ERISA qualified defined benefit plan. Their model order (that they consider sacrosanct) required that the Alternate Payee's share be ___________% or $______________. No option for what we call in Maryland, the Bangs formula: 50% of the gross annuity multiplied by a fraction where the numerator is the number of months during the marriage that the Participant accrued creditable service toward retirement, and the demoninator of which is the total number of month of creditable service at the time of retirement = equals the amount due to the Alternate Payee. I wrote to them and patiently explained that 26 USC 414(p)(1)(B)(2) [IRS equivalent of 1056(d)(C)(ii)] provided --- “(2) Order must clearly specify certain facts - A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this paragraph only if such order clearly specifies— “(A) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order, “(B) the amount or percentage of the participant’s benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, “(C) the number of payments or period to which such order applies, and “(D) each plan to which such order applies." ...and suggested that neither they nor the Plan Sponsor nor the in house Plan Administrator had to right reject a simple formula that has been adopted almost universally in the USA. They went through a few layers and it finally got to their attorneys you approved my language. But it took almost a year and my pointed out to them that they have a fiduciary duty to the Participant and the Alternate Payee and BTW who is your resident agent for service of process. On the other hand I can see where a Plan would not accept a coverture fraction QDRO if the allocation was in the form of a separate interest and was already in pay status. I am pretty sure that you can only use a coverture fraction with a shared interest allocation. There may be another wrinkle since ERISA plans don't require a divorce in order to transfer pension and retirement plan benefits so long as the parties a "legally separated" pursuant to a Court Order. In the absence of a divorce how do you compute the numerator of the coverture fraction or do they use the date of the legal separation. In South Carolina they use the date the Court approved the Marital Settlement Agreement even though it may another period of time that they have to wait until the divorce becomes final. Go to: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/publications/division-of-retirement-benefits-through-qualified-domestic-relations-orders.pdf and find Q 1-8: Must a domestic relations order be issued as part of a divorce proceeding to be a QDRO? "No. A domestic relations order that provides for child support or recognizes marital property rights may be a QDRO, without regard to the existence of a divorce proceeding. Such an order, however, must be issued pursuant to state domestic relations law and create or recognize the rights of an individual who is an “alternate payee” (spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant). And see - https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/publications/qdros.pdf [Reference: ERISA § 206(d)(3)(B); IRC § 414(p)(1); Advisory Opinion 90-46A*; see Egelhoff v. Egelhoff 121 S. Ct. 1322, 149 L. Ed. 2d 264 (2001); see Boggs v. Boggs, No. 97-79 (S. Ct. June 2, 1997), see Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 117 S. Ct. 1754 (1997)] *You can find this at - https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/advisory-opinions/1990-46a.pdf David Goldberg 301-947-0500

TO: Peter Gulia PC Fiduciary Guidance Counsel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 215-732-1552 Peter@FiduciaryGuidanceCounsel.com Peter: Thanks for your comments. Let me tell you what I have learned from various sources: 1. You and one of my Maryland colleagues, using simple logic (whatever that is) suggested that the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), if there is one, is always incorporated into the Judgment of Absolute Divorce (JAD) that you must send to OPM so they will have complete JAD. My grandkids would say something like "DUH?" 2. You and I both discovered 5 C.F.R. § 838.123(a) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/838.123 and realized that "other required supporting information" could easily deemed to include the MSA. 3. Everybody said that they had NEVER been contacted by OPM about the MSA and none of us believed they actually read it. 4. Everybody was aware of 5 CFR 838.101(a)(2): "(2) In executing court orders under this part, OPM must honor the clear instructions of the court. Instructions must be specific and unambiguous. OPM will not supply missing provisions, interpret ambiguous language, or clarify the court's intent by researching individual State laws. In carrying out the court's instructions, OPM performs purely ministerial actions in accordance with these regulations. Disagreement between the parties concerning the validity or the provisions of any court order must be resolved by the court." (Emphasis supplied.) 5. My client was concerned about giving so much information to OPM, even if it was heavily redacted, given that in 2015 OPM suffered a data breach that compromised sensitive, personal, and background investigation files of approximately 21.5 to 22.1 million people. 6. One of my colleagues pointed out the DFAS also requires a copy of the MSA in connection a Military Retired Pay Division Order. 7 . Nobody could remember any other ERISA Plan Administrator every asking for a copy of the MSA. See ESBA Advisory Opinion 1999-13A and Blue v. UAL Corp., 160 F.3d 383, 385 (7th Cir. 1998) - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10750404539478630173&q=blue+v.+ual&hl=en&as_sdt=20000003 . 8. You alone led me to SF-3119 - Application for Court-Ordered Benefits for Former Spouse, with the following language: "Supporting documentation must be submitted with this application. This includes an original or certified copy of the court order with the judge's signature that meets all requirements for state certification of court orders. Additionally, all documents referenced in the court orders must be included as well as marriage certificates, divorce decrees, and/or death certificates for additional marriages (see Section C). Divorce decrees include, but are not limited to, the Property/Marital Settlement Agreement, Divorce Decree, or Qualified Domestic Relations Order, etc. If you have already submitted a certified copy of the court order, you do not need to submit it again." (Emphasis supplied). I will update is I receive any other information. Thanks. David Goldberg

For decades OPM has required that when a Former Spouse submits a certified copy of a FERS Court Order Acceptable for Processing ("COAP") for approval, they must also submit a certified copy of the Judgment of Absolute Divorce ("JAD") and a copy of the Marital Settlement Agreement ("MSA") by whatever name it may be called, if there is one. I have a client pushing back on providing the MSA, even a redacted one, for privacy reasons. So I opened my CFR website and have spent HOURS looking for the regulation that required that the MSA be provided. I cannot find it. I contacted a few other COAP preparers that send in the MSA like me, but they don't know the source of that mandate, or any other Plan Administrators that want a certified copy of the JAD, let alone the MSA. Yes, I know that many Plans permit the transfer of pension and/or retirement benefits that are based on a "legal separation" where there is no JAD and will not be until the expiration of some period of time in the future (ex: South Carolina), so the Plan must base its decision on the MSA. But that's not my situation. Ideas? Thanks, David

Notice of Adverse Interest - Claim - Cover Letter 02-12-2026.docxNotice of Adverse Claim-Interest - DSG edits 12-08-2025.docxResponse to blguest. I am not sure that you are not conflating the rights of a beneficiary who is named, vel non, to receive the balance in a defined contribution account and the rights of an Alternate Payee whose benefit is defined by a QDRO and may equal all or a portion of the funds in the account. In the case of an ERISA qualified Plan the Pension Protection Act of 2006 permits a post mortem (posthumous) QDRO to be entered and implemented. See paragraph "(c)"- https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XXV/subchapter-D/part-2530/subpart-C/section-2530.206#p-2530.206(a) This is also true of some state plans including the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System. So you would think that you would have a conflict between the beneficiary (however identified) and the prospective Alternate Payee, but I have never found that to be the case. The Alternate Payee seems to win in all PPA of 2006 cases, even if the QDRO is pending (not signed by the Court, not submitted to the Plan Administrator, not qualified by the Plan Administrator). Maybe I didn't get the Memo. If there is authority addressing such a conflict I would love to see it. Note to the attorney for a prospective Alternate Payee to send a Notice of Adverse Claim/Interest to the Plan Administrators of every Plan in play with copies filed with the Court. Will it do any good? I don't know. It makes them nervous. See attached. See Thomas v. Sutherland at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1601430218420084129&q=Thomas+v.+Sutherland+&hl=en&as_sdt=20006 Yale-New Haven Hospital v. Nicholls, 788 F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 2015) Miletello v. R M R Mechanical Inc., 921 F.3d 493 (USCA 5th Cir. 2019) cited Yale-New Haven Hospital v. Nicholls, supra. Griffin v. Griffin, 62 Va. App. 736, 753 S.E.2d 574 (2014) - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5601932368354380870&q=griffin+v.+griffin&hl=en&as_sdt=4,47. Rivera v. Lew, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, On Certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 14-SP-117, 99 A.3d 269 (2014), AND Crosby v. Crosby, 986 F. 2d 79 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1993 David

If the primary beneficiary predeceased the Participant, the first question is who is the next in line to inherit. I most (?) Plans there is a order of precedence that will look something like this: Designated Beneficiary: As stated in a signed, witnessed writing. Widow/Widower: Spouse. Children: Children and descendants of deceased children. Parents: Surviving parents. Executor/Administrator: Executor or administrator of the estate. Next of Kin: Under state law It appears that ERISA does not set forth a statutory order of precedence, but TSP does: 1. To your spouse; 2. If none, to your child or children equally, and to descendants of deceased children by representation; 3. If none, to your parents equally or to the surviving parent; 4. If none, to the appointed executor or administrator of your estate; or 5. If none, to your next of kin who would be entitled to your estate under the laws of the state in which you resided at the time of your death. and your state law will have a similar statute for intestate succession. In Maryland this is set forth in the following sections of the Estates and Trust Volume of the Maryland Code. § 3–101. Property of estate not allocated by will § 3–102. Share of surviving spouse or domestic partner § 3–103. Division of net estate among surviving issue § 3–104. Absence of surviving issue § 3–105. Absence of heirs § 3–106. Advancements against shares § 3–107. After-born children of decedent § 3–108. Inheritance by parent or parent's relations § 3–109. Relation to decedent through two lines § 3–110. Survival requirements § 3–111. Surviving parents not entitled to distribution from child's estate § 3–112. Parents not entitled to distribution from abandoned child's estate Once you figure out who the beneficiary(ies) will be, then you need to determine how to get the money to them. Usually a family member will have opened an estate and you will deal with the Executor or Personal Representative of the estate. If you know the identity of the beneficiary(ies) and they know they have money coming their way, they will quickly open the estate. If that doesn't work our you need to talk to the Register of Will or the Orphan's Court, whatever they call it, and ask them what to do. And of course you need to contact a local estates and trust lawyer. Of course you cannot keep the money. And of course you need to monitor your Participants and make sure they have designated a beneficiary so this problem does not occur in the future. And of course you should add an order of precedence to the Plan. .

EBP - can you give me a citation to the sourced of you safe harbor hardship reasons. Thanks. David

In the days before computers we lawyers would have two stacks of deposit slips in the desk drawer, one for the office account (earned fees) and one for client/escrow funds. Normally the banking would be handled by an office manager or a secretary and on occasion the wrong deposit slip would wind up putting money into the wrong account. As soon as we realized what happened we moved the money to the correct account, not stealing a dime, and life went on. Then we and the bank got computers. If we put escrow money into the office account and a check drawn on the escrow account overdrew that account, the bank was required to instantly notify the Grievance Commission and we would be investigated. We could not correct the problem quickly enough. What procedures did we follow? How could this have happened? What training did the secretary have? (One firm was forced to fire it's computer illiterate secretary.) What policies had we adopted and how would they be amended? What was out motivation? Were we stealing client money? Let's examine your records for the past three (3) years. If it happened more than once we might be sanctioned, from a slap on the wrist to a brief suspension (unless you really were stealing), and those sanctions would result in an increase in our malpractice insurance coverage. So I feel your pain. By all means call your lawyer who will tell you exactly what you colleagues have suggested in this post. Go to Confession. Say the Al Chet.

Let me alter the facts just a little. Let's say that the Participant's surviving wife had signed a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) intended to resolve all issues in connection with their impending divorce. Let's assume that the MSA provided that the surviving wife waived any claim against the Participant's PSP account. Have you explored that? It is a scenario that comes up frequently. Do the Plan Documents provide that the Order of Precedence cannot be superseded by another document. See, e.g. page 1 of the attached TSP Death Benefits pamphlet "You cannot rely on your will, prenuptial agreement, separation agreement, property settlement agreement, or court order to specify who will inherit your TSP account because we do not use any of these documents to distribute death benefit payments." and at page 8: "A will, prenuptial agreement, separation agreement, property settlement agreement, or court order will not override either a beneficiary designation or the order of precedence." Or perhaps the now deceased Participant removed all of the funds in his account to prevent his soon to be ex-wife from having them sequestered by the court or subjected to an attachment or an injunction. Or maybe he planned to secrete them in his brother-in-law's corporate account in Toronto, or in a bank in Tierra del Fuego. At what point in time did the Plan issue a 1099-R? Did the Plan send withholding to the IRS and/or to the State? I don't think it matters that "ownership" of the PSP was transferred on the books of the Plan by virtue of handing the check to the Participant. It's a chose in action and if the Participant didn't cash it I don't think he actually owns it. In most states a check is a chose in action, a legal concept representing an intangible right to claim or possess personal property that can only be enforced through a lawsuit rather than by physical possession. It's a recognized form of property, contrasting with a chose in possession - that is, something you have in your hands - a car, a TV, cash in your pocket. So perhaps the check was nothing more that a piece of paper that had a potential value once it was cashed or deposited into an account. There was a recent case in Maryland where the a husband executed a deed to land that that he owned in his sole name to his wife. He put the signed and notarized deed in the drawer of his desk and proceeded to die. He never handed/delivered the deed to his wife and never recorded it in the local Land Records. Our appellate court held that although a gift to his wife may have been intended, it was not finalized by delivery of the deed to the wife or recordation in the Land Records. It's not exactly the same in this case. The check was delivered but not deposited. Whatever you decide to do may be the wrong thing, and you will not know it until it is too late, and you may be sued by somebody and have to pay the money a 2nd time to whoever the judge says was be right person, and you will have to pay your own legal and expert witness fees, and the legal and expert fees of whoever sued you, and you will get fired and wind up living in trailer park. Think about an interpleader and leave the decision to a court. They can't be sued if they are wrong. David G. TSP Death Benefits - March 2024.pdf

The DoL - EBSA keeps track of 163,000 defined benefit and defined contribution plans. Your client never did anything to consumate the deal between a Plan Sponsor and a Participant or an Alternate Payee. I bet your guy cannot even find the plan documents after the fire. If I set up a C Corportation and never issue stock, open a bank account, apply for an EIN or do any business at all, then I am the tree that fell in the forest and there was nobody there to hear it, so and it didn't make a sound. If my fiancee and I obtain a marriage license from the clerk but never marry, do I sill have to pay her alimony? The client should have a meeting of the Board. Void, vacate, annul, rescind, abrogate, invalidate and declare the Plan Documents null and void nunc pro tunc (now for then). Pax vobiscum

I think that the SPD might be available from the DoL EBSA Public Disclosure Room, at - https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/publications/how-to-obtain-employee-benefit-documents.pdf and see attached. This problem comes up frequently when the parties were divorced 20 or so years ago and realized that no QDRO was ever submitted, and where the in-hours Plan Administrator doesn't have a copy, let alone the TPA. David how-to-obtain-employee-benefit-documents (1).pdf

You have early retirement, usually age 55; normal retirement, usually age 65; and the actual date that the employee retires. Unless you want to terminate the employee at a certain age he/she will continue accrue pension benefits until he actually retires and enters pay status. In your case you need to toss your age 62 analysis and compute the lump sum when the employee actually retired in March, 2025, and then add interest equal to gains and losses at an interest rate you would have computed on a distribution from a defined contribution plan from the March, 2025, Valuation Date to the December, 2025 Distribution Date. How does actuarial equivalence apply to your situation. Presumable the lump sum is the present value of the employee's future stream of income had he elected an annuitized payout. The concept of actuarila equivalence applies to payment to a spouse or former spouse in the form of a QJSA or a QPSA. DSG