Lawyers for the Orlando Marriage Agreement at Greater Orlando Family Law can not only help you design, negotiate and finalize your marriage pact, but also ensure that everything else is needed to ensure that this marriage agreement is valid and achieves what you imagine. Contact us today to learn more about our services. In its opinion, the Alabama Supreme Court considered a decision of the 8th Court of Appeals, MidAmerican Pension -Emp. Benefits administration plan. Commr V. Cox (720 F.3d 715 (8. Cir. 2013), which considered that a promise made in a marital agreement to waive the spouse`s rights to a death benefit is not in accordance with the legal requirements of ERISA and is therefore not binding on the plan to determine who is the beneficiary. The wife attempted to use this reasoning to assert her right to retain the distributions received, arguing that the matrimonial agreement had not allowed her to waive the benefits, since she had not signed a consent or waiver in accordance with the ERISA.
The Alabama Supreme Court rejected this assertion and stated that its position “assumes that the waiver provisions provided by ERISA exceed the contractual obligations of the marriage contract.” The Alabama State Supreme Court upheld the court`s summary ruling in Billy`s favor. The Tribunal found that, although the provisions of ERISA provide for what a plan manager must do and to whom the plans must pay a benefit, ERISA does not object to a public action in violation of contract theory. The Tribunal accepted that Beulah had violated the marital agreement, which states that she would not claim all pension rights and that she would execute all necessary waiver declarations. (Moore v. Moore, 2019 WL 62421932019) The marriage agreement stated that both parties waived any rights to the retirement of the others and each party agreed to carry out all necessary “joint consents or waivers”. The Court of Appeal agreed and found that the marriage agreement did not clearly inform the woman that she both had a matrimonial right to her husband`s account of 401 (k) and that she was waiving that right. On the contrary, the language of the agreement seemed to envisage the future implementation of a waiver. Since the matrimonial agreement did not specify that the performance of the waiver would not allow the woman to obtain in the document the means to which she would normally be entitled, the Tribunal found that the matrimonial agreement did not meet the consent requirements of ERISA.
As a result, the wife`s right as a surviving spouse outweighed the designation of the parents as beneficiaries. (MidAmerican Pension and Employee Benefits Plans Administrative Committee v. Cox, 8 cir. 2013) Many people may not recognize that, but the law also applies when it comes to providing pension benefits, such as a pension, in a marriage contract.