Title: Estate of M/J Benyo v. Breidenbach, S. - No. (Granted) (petitions for allowance of appeal)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT ESTATE OF MICHAEL A. BENYO AND JEFFREY BENYO, INDIVIDUALLY, Respondents v. SCOTT F. BREIDENBACH, ESQ., REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARSHA BENYO, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 334 MAL 2019 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner (and modified to update Petitioner’s citation to In re: Estate of Easterday, 209 A.3d 331 (Pa. 2019), in view of our intervening decision), is: (1) Whether, similar to In re: Estate of Easterday, 171 A.3d 91 (Pa. Super. 2017), affirmed 209 A.3d 331 (Pa. 2019), a Superior Court affirmed order requiring a beneficiary to “transfer” ERISA-exempt pension payments received from the plan administrator of the Pa. Municipal Police Pension Law (hereafter MPPL) to the estate of the late spouse violates the MPPL’s anti-alienation provisions, when the MPPL specifically prohibits “transfer” of its payments and further prohibits the payments from being subject to “legal process” thereby being a case of first impression and of such public (and governmental) importance as to require Supreme Court action?