Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-2034

Patricia Ann Langston, Respondent, vs. Wilson McShane Corporation, as Administrator for the Twin Cities Carpenters and Joiners Pension Fund, et al., Appellants.

Filed December 9, 2008 Reversed Toussaint, Chief Judge Anoka County District Court File No. 02-CX-07-001888

Thomas F. DeVincke, Bonner & Borhart LLP, 1950 US Bank Plaza, 220 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent) Carl S. Wosmek, Amy L. Court, McGrann Shea Anderson Carnival Straughn & Lamb, Chartered, 800 Nicollet Mall, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402-7035 (for appellants)

Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Kalitowski, Judge . SYLLABUS Whether a domestic relations order can be deemed a "qualified" domestic relations order for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act is a federal question over which state courts do not have concurrent subject-matter jurisdiction.

OPINION TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge On appeal from the district courts order entering default judgment against them and order denying their motion to vacate the default judgment, appellants Wilson McShane Corporation, as Administrator for the Twin Cities Carpenters and Joiners Pension Fund, and the Twin Cities Carpenters and Joiners Pension Fund argue (1) the district court, as a state court, did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to decide whether a domestic relations order (DRO) is a "qualified" domestic relations order (QDRO) for the purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); (2) the district court abused its discretion in denying appellants motion to vacate the default judgment; and (3) vacation of the default judgment is appropriate because the district court issued two conflicting orders and both require appellants to violate ERISA. Because the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to decide whether the DRO is a QDRO for the purposes of ERISA, we reverse. FACTS Respondent Patricia Ann Langston married Gary Langston (husband) in September. Their marriage was later dissolved pursuant to a judgment entered by the Anoka County District Court in 1993. The judgment awarded respondent a one-half interest in the marital share of future pension payments to be received by husband from Twin Cities Carpenters and Joiners Pension Fund, a multi-employer, defined-benefit plan established and administered by Wilson McShane in accordance with the provisions of ERISA. The judgment also ordered husband to name respondent as his surviving

2

beneficiary in the event that appellants allowed him to elect survivor benefits. Respondents attorney at the time of the dissolution was apparently responsible for drafting a proposed DRO for the district courts review, which was to be deemed "qualified" by appellants. This was a crucial step in establishing respondents right to receive pension payments because benefits provided under an ERISA plan "may not be assigned or alienated" by a DRO unless it "is determined to be a" QDRO. 29 U.S.C.

Download A07-2034, Patricia Ann Langston, Respondent, vs. Wilson McShane Corporation, as

Minnesota Law