Boulds v. Nielsen
58 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1292, 2014 Alas. LEXIS 72, 323 P.3d 58 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not prohibit a state court from dividing a pension between unmarried cohabitants if state law provides marital-like property rights to domestic partners and the non-employee partner qualifies as an "other dependent." A court may find that cohabitants intended to share property as a domestic partnership based on their overall conduct, without requiring specific evidence of intent for each individual asset.
Facts:
- Raymond Boulds and Elena Nielsen cohabited for 16 years, from 1998 to 2009, but never married.
- They had three children together, and Boulds also raised Nielsen's son from a previous relationship.
- During their relationship, Boulds worked on the North Slope, while Nielsen was a stay-at-home mother who also contributed her disability income to the household.
- Boulds claimed Nielsen as a dependent on his taxes for at least some of the years they lived together.
- During their cohabitation, Boulds accumulated a union pension governed by ERISA.
- When Boulds was first hired, he listed Nielsen as the pre-retirement death beneficiary for his union pension.
- Approximately one year later, Boulds's employer informed him he could not list a cohabitant, so he changed the beneficiary designation to his children.
Procedural Posture:
- After their relationship ended, Raymond Boulds and Elena Nielsen engaged in property division proceedings in the Alaska superior court, which is the state's trial court of general jurisdiction.
- The superior court held a trial and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The superior court determined that Boulds's insurance death benefit and 401(k) were his separate property but that his union pension was a domestic partnership asset subject to equal division.
- Boulds (appellant) appealed the superior court's decision regarding the union pension to the Alaska Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
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 federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) prohibit a state court from ordering the division of a union pension between unmarried cohabitants when state law recognizes the asset as domestic partnership property based on the parties' implied intent to share property as if married?
Opinions:
Majority - Winfree, J.
No. Federal law (ERISA) does not prohibit a state court from dividing a pension between unmarried cohabitants where state law recognizes quasi-marital property rights and the non-employee partner qualifies as an "alternate payee." The court adopts the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in Owens v. Auto. Machinists Pension Trust, which established a two-part inquiry. First, for a state court order to be a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) under ERISA, it must relate to "marital property rights." Because Alaska law, like Washington law in Owens, provides for the distribution of property accumulated during a cohabitative relationship based on the parties' intent, it confers a marital-like property right. Second, the recipient must be an "alternate payee," which includes a spouse, former spouse, child, or "other dependent." Because Boulds claimed Nielsen as a dependent on his taxes and they shared a home, she qualifies as an "other dependent" under the Internal Revenue Code's definition, thus satisfying ERISA's requirements. On the state law question, the court rejected Boulds's argument that a specific "meeting of the minds" was required for each asset. Instead, when parties have demonstrated through their actions—such as raising children, cohabiting long-term, and having a provider/homemaker arrangement—that they intend to share property in a marriage-like relationship, a court does not need to find specific intent for each piece of property to classify it as a partnership asset.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the property rights of unmarried cohabitants in Alaska, particularly regarding federally regulated retirement assets. By adopting the Ninth Circuit's Owens framework, the court provides a clear path for domestic partners to receive a share of an ERISA-governed pension, harmonizing state domestic partnership law with federal requirements. The ruling strengthens the legal recognition of quasi-marital relationships by holding that a general intent to share property, inferred from the overall nature of the relationship, is sufficient to create partnership assets. This precedent moves away from a strict asset-by-asset analysis and toward a more holistic view of the cohabitants' partnership, impacting future property divisions for unmarried couples.
