Boggs v. Boggs
520 U.S. 833 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) pre-empts state community property laws that allow a non-participant, predeceasing spouse to make a testamentary transfer of an interest in undistributed pension plan benefits. ERISA's detailed statutory scheme, including its anti-alienation provision and its specific protections for surviving spouses, conflicts with and supersedes such state laws.
Facts:
- Isaac Boggs worked for South Central Bell from 1949 to 1985 and participated in its ERISA-governed retirement plans.
- Isaac was married to his first wife, Dorothy, from 1949 until her death in 1979; they had three sons.
- In her will, Dorothy bequeathed to her sons her community property interest in Isaac's pension plans, subject to a lifetime usufruct (similar to a life estate) for Isaac.
- In 1980, Isaac married his second wife, Sandra.
- Upon his retirement in 1985, Isaac received benefits including a lump-sum payment which he rolled into an IRA, shares of stock from an ESOP, and a monthly annuity.
- Isaac died in 1989, at which point the monthly annuity payments began to be paid to Sandra as the surviving spouse.
- The sons, as heirs of Dorothy's will, claimed an ownership interest in the IRA, the stock, and the annuity payments being made to Sandra.
Procedural Posture:
- After Isaac Boggs' death, his sons from his first marriage filed an action in Louisiana state court to claim a portion of his retirement benefits based on their mother's will.
- Sandra Boggs, Isaac's surviving spouse, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking a declaratory judgment that ERISA pre-empted the sons' claims.
- The District Court granted summary judgment against Sandra Boggs, ruling that ERISA did not pre-empt Louisiana's community property law.
- Sandra Boggs, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the state law was not pre-empted.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict between the Circuits on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) pre-empt a state community property law that allows a non-participant spouse to transfer her interest in undistributed pension plan benefits through a testamentary instrument?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes, ERISA pre-empts state law that allows such a testamentary transfer. State law conflicts directly with ERISA's specific provisions and frustrates its core objectives. The court's reasoning focused on two main areas of conflict. First, allowing Dorothy's will to transfer an interest in the survivor annuity to her sons would undermine ERISA's specific mandate in § 1055 to provide a secure income stream exclusively to the surviving spouse, Sandra. Second, the testamentary transfer of any interest in the pension benefits constitutes a prohibited 'assignment or alienation' under ERISA's anti-alienation provision, § 1056(d)(1). Congress created a comprehensive and exclusive scheme for determining pension beneficiaries, with limited, specific exceptions like Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) for divorce, and Dorothy's will does not qualify. The sons are not participants or beneficiaries under ERISA, and creating a new class of claimants through state succession law would disrupt the national uniformity and participant protection that ERISA was designed to ensure.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
No, ERISA should not pre-empt state community property law in these circumstances. The dissent argued that the state law at issue involves family, property, and probate—areas of traditional state concern where courts should assume no pre-emption without a clear congressional purpose. Dorothy's interest arose from the operation of community property law itself, not from a prohibited 'assignment or alienation.' The case does not involve a lawsuit against the pension fund itself but is an action for an accounting from the benefit recipient after distribution. The dissent distinguished the survivor annuity from the other assets, conceding that the sons could not claim a portion of Sandra's annuity payments directly. However, it argued that Louisiana law could provide an accounting to allow Dorothy's heirs to recover the value of her community property share from other, non-pension assets in Isaac's estate, thereby protecting Sandra's ERISA-guaranteed annuity while still honoring Dorothy's property rights.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the broad preemptive scope of ERISA, establishing that its specific provisions for benefit distribution trump even deeply entrenched state community property and probate laws. The ruling clarifies that the only recognized non-participant interests in pension plans are those explicitly created by ERISA, such as through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in a divorce. By rejecting the testamentary transfer, the Court prioritized national uniformity in pension administration and the protection of living participants and their surviving spouses over state-law property rights of a predeceasing spouse's heirs. This creates a clear federal rule that pension benefits cannot be passed down through the will of a non-employee spouse, affecting estate planning for millions of couples in community property states.
Unlock the full brief for Boggs v. Boggs