Lawyer Did Not Commit Wrongdoing on Benefits
Dispute
January 14, 2008 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Even though a
divorce decree reflected a bad address for a life insurance
plan participant's ex-wife, the document still represented a
qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), a federal
appellate court ruled.
Circuit Judge Richard Allen Griffin, who wrote the
opinion for the 6
th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, asserted that because the
divorce decree qualified as a QDRO under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Patricia E.
Mattingly, the ex-wife, deserved the money on behalf of
the couple's son. The fact that the divorce document
included Patricia E. Mattingly's mailing address and
not what she said was her actual residence did not run
afoul of ERISA dictates, the court said.
The 6
th
Circuit determined the ex-wife's attorney was not
guilty of legal malpractice for failing to obtain a QDRO as
part of her divorce from Joseph Mattingly.
Griffin
's decision upheld a lower court ruling clearing lawyer
William Lacy Hoge III of wrongdoing in the case.
According to the ruling, there had been a
settlement of a dispute over the $116,258 in insurance
benefits between Patricia Mattingly and Joseph
Mattingly's widow, Anita Mattingly. The key issue before
the trial court and before the 6
th
Circuit was Hoge's conduct on behalf of Patricia
Mattingly.
In rejecting Patricia Mattingly's argument that the
document did not represent a QDRO and therefore, Hoge was
guilty of legal wrongdoing in representing her, the
appellate judges noted she had not argued that she lived
anywhere else during the 18-month period.
"[A] tribunal can only provide the most
accurate address it is given. It cannot be asked to
definitively guarantee that the beneficiary will reside
at the same address and receive any and all mailings sent
to the location in the decree. To require such is to
demand clairvoyance on the part of the state court,"
the appeals court said.
The 6th Circuit ruling is
here
.
Fred Schneyer
editors@plansponsor.com