Tag: QDRO

401k Withdrawal

Sample MSA Language When There is a Retirement Plan Loan from Marriage

 

How Do You Handle A Retirement Plan Loan in a Marital Settlement?

Retirement plan loans are one of the most complicated aspect of QDROs to understand and handle correctly. A retirement plan loan is not actually “debt” as most attorneys understand that term. Instead, retirement plan loans can be thought of as a distribution, and generally should not be equalized with other types of debt (like credit card debt) in a family law divorce case. Here’s why.

When a participant from a retirement plan applies for a loan, the participant’s investments are sold in order to pay out the loan proceeds to the participant. Conversely, when the participant repays the loan balance, the participant retains their own loan payments and interest. Thus, in general, the account balance of a retirement plan already reflects a reduction for the loan.

It’s Important to Ensure One Party Is Not Hit Twice Financially

This can be a complicated analysis and not every plan is the same, but it is important to remember if there is a retirement plan loan, special attention should be given to make sure that one party is not hit twice with the financial aspect of the loan. Below is some common Marital Settlement Agreement language that may be helpful with regard to handling a retirement plan loan (see bolded sentence).

The parties agree that there is a community property interest in Husband’s [PLAN NAME]. The community property interest shall be determined by taking the account balance as of the Date of Separation, plus any contributions made after the Date of Separation that were earned during marriage, and adjusting that balance by investment earnings or losses in the Plan assets from the Date of Separation until the final date of distribution to Wife. Wife shall receive a 50 percent (50%) assignment of the community property interest using a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”). Any loans taken out during the marriage shall reduce the community property interest. The parties agree to jointly retain [QDRO ATTORNEY NAME] to be the neutral attorney to prepare the QDRO. The parties shall each pay half of [QDRO ATTORNEY NAME] fees and agree to cooperate with the QDRO process including providing all documents and information necessary for the preparation of the QDRO.

As always, different language may be appropriate on a case by case basis if there are unique facts.

Elderly Hands Holding Wedding Ring

SDCERS and the Disappearing Survivor Benefit

Do not assume that a Domestic Relations Order can award an SDCERS survivor benefit

Most people think of government benefits as “better” than the employee benefits received from private employers. However, there are traps for the unwary when dividing government retirement benefits in divorce. Government retirement benefits such as benefits earned with the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, and State of California are not governed by ERISA.

Therefore, the rules and regulations that pertain to government benefits are not necessarily consistent with ERISA, or consistent with common sense. The rules governing the division of government benefits are established by government code and the government’s interpretation of their own code – which can change from year to year.

San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS) is governed by a 13 member Board of Administration and it is possible for a new Board to make the decision to interpret the San Diego Municipal Code differently than its predecessor Board.

In 2008, the SDCERS Board passed Board Rule 5.20 which eliminates the ability of a former spouse to receive the 50 percent Surviving Spouse Continuance unless the employee retired and a Domestic Relations Order was served on SDCERS prior to September 19, 2008.

In other words, even if both parties agree to give the former spouse a survivor benefit, SDCERS will not permit a current Domestic Relations Order to award the 50 percent survivor benefit continuance to the non-employee former spouse. This benefit simply disappears.

Board Rule 5.20 subpart (e) states: “The Former Spouse of a Member is not eligible for a Surviving Spouse Continuance if the Member retired or entered DROP on or after September 19, 2008.”

Although the language of the Rule is relatively simple to read, it is nevertheless difficult to conceptualize because of the following fact pattern: the parties marry, Husband retired while married, Wife was eligible for the 50 percent Surviving Spouse Continuance while married, and then the parties divorce in 2009.

The mere fact that the parties divorce after September 19, 2008, eliminates all entitlement to the continuance benefit. Wife would have received 50 percent of the monthly benefit after Husband’s death if they had stayed married, but instead Wife will receive zero dollars upon Husband’s death.

The SDCERS Board Rule has in essence divested Wife of this benefit simply because the divorce occurred.

SDCERS’ Board Rule 5.20 is Inconsistent with Carmona

Many family law attorneys are familiar with the Ninth Circuit case Carmona v. Carmona which held that a QDRO entered after retirement cannot eliminate the surviving spouse benefit that was elected at retirement.

The Court explained: “Because the retirement of a plan participant ordinarily crates a vested interest in the surviving spouse at the time of the participant’s retirement, we conclude that a DRO issued after the participant’s retirement may not alter or assign the surviving spouse’s interest to a subsequent spouse.”

Carmona guarantees the benefits elected at retirement for the surviving spouse, which is in direct conflict with the Board Rule 5.20 which eliminates the Surviving Spouse Continuance upon divorce.

The only way to explain the difference in logic between these two results is the plan in Carmona was a private plan governed by ERISA while SDCERS is a government plan governed by Code and open to Board interpretation.

Suggestion When Parties Have SDCERS Benefits

This article addresses the availability of the SDCERS Surviving Spouse Continuance upon divorce. There may be other benefits available to the Former Spouse depending the facts of each case such as whether the employee elected an Optional Settlement rather than relying only on the Surviving Spouse Continuance and whether the employee is retired.

One suggestion to parties who have SDCERS benefits or to family law attorneys assisting clients with dividing SDCERS benefits in divorce, is to have the Domestic Relations Order for SDCERS prepared and approved by SDCERS before a Marital Settlement Agreement is signed or before trial on this issue.

Furthermore, because the act of retiring is trigger event that sets limitations on survivor benefits, another suggestion is to wait until after the Domestic Relations Order is served before the employee retires. If retirement must occur before the Domestic Relations Order is filed, both parties should consider coming to an agreement in writing as to what election should be made by the employee at retirement.

Retirement Benefits Feature

The Good and the Bad of Gillmore Elections

Counseling a client on whether to elect Gillmore rights can be complicated, but using a framework in the form of “pros and cons” can help simplify the issue.

In re Marriage of Gillmore is a 1981 California Supreme Court decision which provides an additional “right” to a nonemployee spouse that is otherwise thwarted by a retirement plan from receiving their community property retirement benefits immediately. (In re Marriage of Gillmore (1981) 29 Cal.3d 418.) The fact pattern in Gillmore is surprisingly common. Gillmore is applicable when: (1) an employee is eligible to retire and commence retirement benefits from a defined benefit plan, (2) the employee is choosing to not retire, and (3) the retirement plan is refusing to pay any benefits to the nonemployee spouse pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”) until the employee actually retires.

In the above situation, Gillmore allows the nonemployee spouse to collect the retirement benefits directly from the employee.

Many family law attorneys have the mistaken belief that a successful Gillmore motion must be accompanied by proof of “ill will” on the part of the employee spouse by showing that the employee is intentionally not retiring for the purpose of preventing the nonemployee spouse from receiving any portion of the community retirement benefits. However, there is nothing in the Gillmore decision that discusses motivation or intent, rather, it is a mathematical determination.

The Court in Gillmore explained, “It is a ‘settled principle that one spouse cannot, but invoking a condition wholly within his control, defeat the community interest of the other spouse.’” (Gillmore, citing to (1978) 21 Cal.3d 779, 786.)

Therefore, if the employee is making the decision to not retire, then the employee should be required to pay the nonemployee spouse the amount of retirement benefits that the nonemployee spouse would have received under the QDRO if employee spouse had elected to commence benefits.

This payment is made directly from the employee spouse by check every month; the payment is not made from the retirement plan.

Tips for Counseling a Client

With this framework in mind, the following practice tips can assist with counseling a client whether to move the court for an order for the employee to make payments to nonemployee spouse under Gillmore.

  1. Review the Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) and QDRO for any reference to Gillmore Sometimes the parties have anticipated this issue and the MSA or QDRO already contains a waiver of Gillmore rights, an award of Gillmore rights, or an expedited procedure for enforcing or determining the amount of Gillmore rights.
  2. Explore whether the employee spouse will stipulate to make payments under Gillmore which would allow the parties to avoid the cost of a motion on the issue.
  3. Perform a mathematical analysis of the trade-off for the nonemployee spouse if the non employee spouse elects Gillmore. Answer these questions:
    1. What is the monthly dollar amount of the Gillmore payments (apply the time rule to the amount of payments the employee would receive if they retired immediately)? If the nonemployee spouse commences payments until Gillmore immediately, their monthly benefit amount for life is frozen (with the exception of cost of living adjustments) which means nonemployee spouse would miss out on any salary increases or overall benefit increases as a result of additional years of service. This is the complexity of the Gillmore election: the nonemployee spouse will receive benefits immediately but that monthly benefit amount is less than what the nonemployee spouse would receive if the nonemployee spouse waits for the employee to actually retire.
    2. What is the monthly dollar amount that the nonemployee would receive if they waited until the employee actually retired and commenced benefits? As discussed above, compare this figure to what the Gillmore payment would be and consider that payments are starting earlier under Gillmore, but the monthly payment is likely less.
    3. Consider the effect of receiving Gillmore payments on the nonemployee spouse’s eligibility and the amount of spousal support. If the nonemployee spouse is receiving spousal support and then commences receiving Gillmore payments from the employee, is the employee going to then reduce spousal support so that the nonemployee spouse is not any better off when receiving the Gillmore payments and the lowered spousal support.
    4. Finally, consider the cost of filing the Gillmore motion when deciding whether to move for Gillmore In many circumstances, Gillmore rights are not automatically awarded in the Marital Settlement Agreement and thus the employee is not breaching the Judgment by requiring the nonemployee spouse to file a formal motion for the court to award Gillmore payments.

In re Marriage of Gillmore provides a powerful tool for allowing a nonemployee spouse to receive their fair share of retirement benefits upon the employee becoming eligible to retire, but the nonemployee spouse must consider the mathematical tradeoffs in order to make the best decision.