# Alfred Branco Edward Branco Steven Branco v. Ufcw-Northern California Employers Joint Pension Plan

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 11, 2002 · 279 F.3d 1154

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494758

## Case

- **Full name:** Alfred BRANCO; Edward Branco; Steven Branco, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UFCW-NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS JOINT PENSION PLAN, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 11, 2002
- **Citations:** 279 F.3d 1154; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 1687; 27 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1648; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1361; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 2186; 2002 WL 200910
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pregerson
- **Judges:** Pregerson, Rawlinson, Weiner
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494758

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that a domestic relations order providing for payment to a deceased former spouse was not qualifiable because a “deceased spouse” was not included within the term “former spouse”
- holding that the language of the court order that was before it “conflicts with ERISA’s anti-alienation provision and is therefore pre-empt-ed”
- holding that ERISA preempted a state court order awarding spousal interest in an employee's pension proceeds
- holding that ERISA’s surviving spouse annuity preempts a testamentary transfer

## Opinion text

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting.
The majority reaches its holding by relying on our decision in Ablamis v. Roper, 937 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir.1991), and two recent Supreme Court decisions, Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 , 117 S.Ct. 1754 , 138 L.Ed.2d 45 (1997) and Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 , 121 S.Ct. 1322 , 149 L.Ed.2d 264 (2001). The District Court, however, already properly distinguished Ablamis and Boggs , and Egelhoff is likewise distinguishable.
In each of these three cases, a plan participant or beneficiary, upon the death of their spouse, suddenly saw their interest in benefits they expected at that time divested and defeated by state law. Ablamis, 937 F.2d at 1452 ; Boggs, 520 U.S. at 836-37 , 117 S.Ct. 1754 ; Egelhoff, 121 S.Ct. at 1325-26 . The circumstances in the present case are different. Neither when Anna died nor at any later point in time did California state law suddenly divest Alfred of any benefits he expected at that time. On the contrary, Alfred had long ago given up any expectation in these benefits when he stipulated to the divorce settlement order explicitly granting Anna 47.07% of the benefits “for as long as they are payable to or on behalf of’ Alfred. Under these circumstances, the majority’s holding not only does not advance the purpose of ERISA’s anti-alienation clause to “guarantee that retirement funds are there when a plan’s participants and beneficiaries expect them.” Boggs, 520 U.S. at 852 , 117 S.Ct. 1754 . The majority’s holding also undermines community property law’s “commitment to the equality of husband and wife and ... the real partnership inherent in the marital relationship.” Id. at 840 , 117 S.Ct. 1754 .
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494758. Public record. Not legal advice.