Hayes v. Hayes
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-01806-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-01806-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-04-2008 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Interest in pension plan - Property settlement agreement Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-07-2007 Appealed from: NEWTON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: H. David Clark Disposition: CHANCELLOR FOUND NO AMBIGUITY IN THE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDERED FORMER WIFE TO RELEASE ANY INTEREST IN FORMER HUSBAND’S PENSION ACCOUNT Case Number: 2005-N003 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | WALTERINE HAYES |
ROBERT M. LOGAN,
TANYA L. PHILLIPS |
||
| Appellee: | ANDREW P. HAYES | ANDREW P. HAYES (PRO SE) |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contempt - Interest in pension plan - Property settlement agreement |
| Summary of the Facts: | Walterine and Andrew Hayes were granted an irreconcilable differences divorce in 2005. The parties entered into a property settlement agreement that was incorporated into the judgment of divorce. Subsequent to the divorce, Walterine refused to execute a waiver releasing any interest she had in Andrew’s pension account. Walterine claimed that the option was vested in her prior to the divorce and that she retained an ownership in this interest as her separate property. Andrew then filed a contempt action. After a hearing on the matter, the chancellor ruled in favor of Andrew. Walterine appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The issue is whether Walterine had an interest in Andrew’s pension plan through the surviving spouse option at the time the parties entered into the property settlement agreement and whether Walterine effectively relinquished her interest in the pension plan. Andrew’s pension plan is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Retirement Equity Act created the Qualified Domestic Relations Order which recognizes an alternate payee’s rights to a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a pension plan. In the absence of a QDRO, benefits provided through a pension plan may not be assigned or alienated. Federal case law holds that surviving spouse benefits vested in the plan participant’s current spouse on the date the participant retires. Walterine had a vested interest in Andrew’s pension benefits at the time of his retirement, which was prior to the parties’ separation and divorce. Thus, at the time the property settlement agreement was entered into, Walterine was entitled to retain her surviving spouse benefits because they were personal property in her possession at the time of the execution of the agreement. To qualify as a QDRO a divorce decree must clearly specify the identity of any beneficiary, the particular plans affected, and the exact manner of calculating benefits. The property settlement agreement in this case fails to meet these specifications. Thus, Walterine never waived her interest in the surviving spouse benefits, and the chancellor erred in finding so. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
