Opinion · District Court, E.D. Michigan

Central States v. Parr

480 F. Supp. 924

Type
Opinion
Court
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Jurisdiction
Michigan
Date
1979-12-13
Topic
general

OPINION ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT COHN, District Judge. Before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment. The question is whether 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), prohibiting assignment or alienation of benefits under a pension plan, extends to a state court award of temporary alimony. The award here in dispute directs that such benefits be paid to the Jackson County, Michigan Friend of the Court who is to divide them between the husband, the beneficiary of the plan, and his wife. Plaintiff trustees rely on General Motors Corporation v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Central States v. Parr. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
CENTRAL STATES v. PARR, (E.D.Mich. 1979)
480 F. Supp. 924
CENTRAL STATES, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, and Loran W.
Robbins, Robert E. Schlieve, Marion M. Winstead, Harold J. Yates, Earl J.
Jennings, Jr., Robert J. Baker, Howard McDougall, Thomas F. O'Malley, and
R.V. Pullian, Sr., as Trustees of the Central States, Southeast and
Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Plaintiffs, v. Sherman PARR, Bernadine Parr
and Charles J. Falahee, Jackson County Circuit Judge, Defendants.
No. 79-70184.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan.
December 13, 1979.
West Page 925
Russell N. Luplow, Charles J. Taunt, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., Frank J. Carey, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Thomas K. Ellis, Jackson, Mich., for defendants.
OPINION ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COHN, District Judge.
Before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment. The question is whether29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), prohibiting assignment or alienation of benefits under a pension plan, extends to a state court award of temporary alimony. The award here in dispute directs that such benefits be paid to the Jackson County, Michigan Friend of the Court who is to divide them between the husband, the beneficiary of the plan, and his wife. Plaintiff trustees rely onGeneral Motors Corporation v.Townsend,468 F. Supp. 466(E.D.Mich. 1976) andFrancis v. UnitedTechnologies, Corp.,458 F. Supp. 84(N.D.Calif. 1978), which said "no", essentially on the grounds that the language of the statute clearly evinces a Congressional intent against such kinds of orders.

There are a number of decisions to the contrary, includingAmerican Telephone Telegraph Company v. Merry,592 F.2d 118(2d Cir. 1979),Operating Engineers Local # 428 Pension Trust Fund v.Zamborsky,470 F. Supp. 1174(D.Ariz. 1979) andSenco of Florida,Inc. v. Clark,473 F. Supp. 902(M.D.Fla. 1979). Each of these cases found a Congressional intent to exclude such kinds of orders from the prohibition of § 1056(d)(1). This Court is satisfied the precedent established by these cases should be followed.29 U.S.C. § 1001(a) reads in part: "The Congress finds that the growth in size, scope and numbers of employee benefit plans in recent years has been rapid and substantial; . . . that the continued well-being and security of millions of employeesand their dependentsare directly affected by these plans . . ." (emphasis added). To hold with plaintiffs would exclude dependents from benefits Congress was clearly trying to protect for them in enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.