Subscribe (Free) to
Daily or Weekly Newsletters
Post a Job

Featured Jobs

Implementation Specialist

Nova 401(k) Associates
(Remote)

Nova 401(k) Associates logo

Census Coordinator

BPAS
(Utica NY / Hybrid)

BPAS logo

Plan Installation Manager

July Business Services
(Remote / Waco TX)

July Business Services logo

Distributions Processor - Qualified Retirement Plans

Anchor 3(16) Fiduciary Solutions, LLC
(Remote / Wexford PA)

Anchor 3(16) Fiduciary Solutions, LLC logo

Defined Benefit Specialist II or III

Nova 401(k) Associates
(Remote)

Nova 401(k) Associates logo

Senior Plan Administrator

Merkley Retirement Consultants
(Remote)

Merkley Retirement Consultants logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Compensation Strategies Group, Ltd.
(Remote)

Compensation Strategies Group, Ltd. logo

Retirement Combo Plan Administrator

Heritage Pension Advisors, Inc.
(Remote / Commack NY)

Heritage Pension Advisors, Inc. logo

Regional Sales Consultant

The Pension Source
(AL / AR / GA / KY / MS / TN / TX)

The Pension Source logo

Client Service Specialist

EPIC RPS
(Remote / Norwich NY)

EPIC RPS logo

Plan Administrator

DWC ERISA Consultants LLC
(Remote)

DWC ERISA Consultants LLC logo

Omni Operator

BPAS
(Utica NY)

BPAS logo

View More Employee Benefits Jobs

Free Newsletters

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”

-- An attorney subscriber

Mobile app icon
LinkedIn icon     Twitter icon     Facebook icon

Creditors Can Reach Benefits under Top Hat Plan, District Court Rules
Womble Carlyle Link to more items from this source
Apr. 11, 2013
"After recognizing that the Plan was exempt from ERISA's anti-alienation provision mandate, the [federal district court in Maryland] went on to address whether the terms of the Plan controlled over Maryland's garnishment laws by virtue of ERISA's preemption section 514. In holding in favor of the creditor, the Court ... [ruled] that ERISA did not preempt state garnishment laws that simply provided a procedural device for enforcing a judgment. As to the Participant's argument that garnishment would violate the terms of the Plan, the Court held that the creditor's rights were not subject to the terms of the Plan[.]" [Sposato v. First Mariner Bank, 2013 WL 1308582 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2013)]

MORE >>

Please click here to report this link if it is broken (for example, if you see a "404 File Not Found" error message after you click on the linked news item's title).
An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® created this link to the news item, but we are not the news item's author (unless expressly shown above).