Revocation of Death Benefits by Divorce or Annulment and Federal Preemption - May 2014

by 杰西卡·米. Booth

根据弗吉尼亚州的法律. 法典第20-111条.1), upon the entry of a decree of annulment or divorce from the bond of matrimony on and after July 1, 1993, any revocable beneficiary designation contained in a then existing written contract owned by one party that provides for the payment of any death benefit to the other party generally is revoked. This general rule does not apply to the extent the decree of annulment or divorce or a written agreement between the parties provides for a contrary result. 除了, this general rule does not apply to any trust or any death benefit payable to or under any trust.

就弗吉尼亚法律而言, "死亡抚恤金"包括根据人寿保险合同支付的任何款项, annuity, 退休的安排, compensation agreement or other contract designating a beneficiary of any right, 死亡抚恤金形式的财产或金钱. A death benefit prevented from passing to a former spouse is paid as if the former spouse had predeceased the decedent.

Virginia law further provides that if it is preempted by federal law with respect to the payment of any death benefit, 前任配偶, 不是为了价值, receives the payment of any death benefit that the former spouse is not entitled to is personally liable for the amount of the payment to the person who would have been entitled to it but for the preemption.

关于这个问题的一个主要案例是Eglehoff v. Egelhoff,532 U.S. 141, 121 S. Ct. 1322, 149 L. Ed. 2d 264, 2001 U.S. Lexis 2458, 69 u.S.L.W. 4206, 25员工福利法. (生物工程学报)，2001年第1期. J. C.A.R. 1477, 14佛罗里达州. L. 每周喂. S 147 (U.S. 2001). 在Eglehoff, decedent husband died two months after his divorce from petitioner wife, 没有遗嘱的, and without having removed his wife as the designated beneficiary on a life insurance policy and a pension plan provided by his employer and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). 受访者, 丈夫与前妻所生的孩子, sued wife to recover the life insurance and pension plan proceeds under a Washington state statute which provided that a spousal beneficiary designation of a non-probate asset was revoked automatically upon divorce. 州最高法院做出了有利于被告的裁决, 认为华盛顿法令, 虽然适用于员工福利计划, did not refer to or have a connection with ERISA plans to an extent that required ERISA to preempt the state statute. ERISA, 按其明示条款, provided that ERISA shall supersede state laws insofar as they relate to any ERISA covered employee benefit plan. 美国最高法院, 推翻了州最高法院的判决, determined that because the state statute directly conflicted with the ERISA requirements that plans be administered, 支付的福利, 按照计划文件, ERISA expressly preempted the state statute to the extent such statute applied to ERISA plans. 美国最高法院 based its holding on the premise that the Washington state statute applied to ERISA plans as such statute (1) governed the payment of benefits, which was a central matter of plan administration and (2) interfered with nationally uniform plan administration, ERISA的主要目标之一是什么.

美国最高法院 recently addressed this issue in the context of Virginia law in 希尔曼v. Maretta, 133 S. Ct. 1943, 186 L. Ed. 2d 43, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4167,81 u.S.L.W. 4357, 24佛罗里达州. L. 每周喂. 科学通报，2013 (2).S. 2013). 在希尔曼, decedent husband designated and did not change respondent former wife as beneficiary of his Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance policy established under the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act of 1954 (“FEGLIA”). 已故丈夫后来娶了请愿人的妻子. 丈夫去世后, the Office of Personnel Management paid the policy proceeds to the respondent former wife. Petitioner wife sued respondent former wife in a Virginia court and sought an order under Section D of Va. 法典第20-111条.1 which renders a former spouse liable for insurance proceeds to whoever would have received such proceeds but for the beneficiary designation (in this case, 请愿者的妻子). 州初审法院发布了这一命令, finding respondent former wife liable to petitioner wife; however, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Virginia Supreme Court’s judgment. 双方同意《亚洲博彩平台排名》第A条. 法典第20-111条.1, which revokes a beneficiary designation in any contract that provides a death benefit to a former spouse where there has been a change in decedent’s marital status, 被FEGLIA先发制人. 美国最高法院 affirmed the Virginia Supreme Court’s judgment based on its finding that Section D of Va. 法典第20-111条.我被FEGLIA先发制人, holding that Virginia law displaced the beneficiary (respondent former wife) selected by the insured decedent husband in accordance with FEGLIA and placed someone else (请愿者的妻子) in her stead, thereby frustrating the deliberate purpose of Congress which is to ensure that a federal employee’s named beneficiary receives the life insurance proceeds.