Term: 2008
Docket: 07-636
Kari E. Kennedy, Executrix Of The Estate Of William Patrick Kennedy, Deceased v. Plan Administrator For Dupont Savings And Investment Plan Et Al.
- Pro
07-636 KENNEDY V. PLAN ADM. FOR DUPONT SAVINGS DECISION BELOW:497 F3d 426 LIMITED TO QUESTION 3 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION ORDER OF 10/28/2008: THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS ADDRESSING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER 29 U.S.C. §1104(a)(1)(D), MANDATING ADMINISTRATION OF A PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLAN DOCUMENTS, REQUIRED THAT THE DISTRIBUTION IN QUESTION BE MADE TO LIV KENNEDY, EVEN ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT A WAIVER OF HER INTEREST WAS NOT OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO STATUTORY BAR. CERT. GRANTED 2/19/2008 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Was the Estate of the late William P. Kennedy the proper recipient of the pension funds in his DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, as opposed to Mr. Kennedy’s Ex -Wife Liv Kennedy, who entered into a 1994 divorce-decree that voluntarily waived those SIP benefits under federal common law and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. (“ERISA”)? 2. Does federal common law, as applied to Ex-Spouse Liv Kennedy’s waiver of any right to receive William P. Kennedy’s pension benefits in a 1994 divorce-decree, govern the judicial determination of whether DuPont’s Plan Administrator wrongfully paid Mr. Kennedy’s SIP benefits to his ex-spouse Liv Kennedy, as the District Court ruled, or was that court restricted to examining only DuPont’s “Plan Document,” that is, the late William P. Kennedy’s 1974 beneficiary designation of his then-wife? 3. Was the Fifth Circuit correct in concluding that ERISA’s Qualified Domestic Relations Order provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), is the only valid way a divorcing spouse can waive her right to receive her ex-husband’s pension benefits under ERISA? 4. What legal standards govern the award of fees to prevailing parties under ERISA (an issue of first impression for this Court)? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-41851
In the 2008 case of Kari E. Kennedy, Executrix of the Estate of William Patrick Kennedy, Deceased v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a plan administrator must distribute benefits according to an ERISA-governed plan's documents even if they contradict a divorce decree or state law. The dispute arose after William Patrick Kennedy named his wife Liv as beneficiary on his savings and investment plans but did not change it after their divorce despite being required by their divorce decree to relinquish her claim to these assets upon death. When he died, his daughter Kari was appointed executrix and claimed these funds should go to his estate instead due to the terms in their divorce agreement; however, since Liv was still listed as beneficiary on record with DuPont (the company administering Mr.Kennedy’s retirement accounts), she received them instead under federal ERISA laws which supersede state laws regarding such matters.
In the dissenting opinion for Kari E. Kennedy, Executrix of the Estate of William Patrick Kennedy, Deceased v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan et al., Justice Stevens argued that federal common law should be used to interpret ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) plans in a way that respects state laws regarding divorce decrees and waivers. He disagreed with the majority's view that only documents submitted directly to an ERISA plan can alter a beneficiary designation under such a plan. Instead, he believed it was reasonable to consider other legal documents like divorce decrees as valid expressions of intent about who should receive benefits after death. In his view, this approach would better align with individuals' expectations and states' family law policies without undermining ERISA’s goal of providing clear procedures for administering benefits.
