Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Protectin g America' s Pension s K Street , N.W. , Washington , D.C . 20005-402 6 

Januar y 202 0 

[Attorne y fo r Spous e #1 ] 

R e : Appea l ...J Estat e o f [Participant] ; Cas e No . 202057 ; Horizo n NR , LL C 

Employe e Pensio n Pla n (th e "Horizo n Plan" ) 

Dea r Attorne y fo r Spous e

W e ar e respondin g t o you r appea l o n behal f o f you r client , Spous e #1 , o f th e lat e 

Participant . Yo u appeale d PBGC' s Augus t 8, 201 8 determinatio n tha t a n | j 

Divorc e Decre e (als o referre d t o a s th e "Domesti c Relation s Order " o r "DRO" ) submitte d t o PBG C 

f o r qualificatio n is no t a Qualifie d Domesti c Relation s Orde r ("QDRO") . Fo r th e reason s state d 

below , th e Appeal s Boar d is denyin g you r appeal . 

Backgroun d 

PBG C provide s pensio n insuranc e i n accordanc e wit h th e Employe e Retiremen t Incom e 

Securit y Ac t o f 1974 , as I f a pla n sponso r o f a tax-qualifie d define d benefi t 

pensio n pla n is unabl e t o suppor t its plan , PBG C become s truste e o f th e pla n an d pay s benefits 

pursuan t t o th e term s o f th e plan , subjec t t o limitation s se t b y Congress unde r ERISA . 

T h e Horizo n Pla n terminate d o n Marc h 2004 , withou t sufficien t assets t o provid e al l 

benefits PBG C guarantee s unde r ERISA . PBG C subsequentl y becam e truste e o f th e Horizo n Pla n 

o n Jun e 24 , 2004 . Th e term s o f th e pla n i n effec t whe n Participan t terminate d employment 2, th e 

 2 9 Unite d State s Cod e ("U.S.C." ) § 1301-1461 ; ERIS A § 4001-4402 . 

 Th e Decre e o f Lega l Separatio n reference s sectio n 3. 8 o f th e Pete r Cav e Coa l Retiremen t Plan . Followin g severa l 

mergers, Participan t wa s a participan t i n th e Mini n g Companie s Employees ' Pensio n Pla n whe n h e an d Spous e # 1 

divorced . Participan t terminate d employmen t o n | | . Th e applicabl e pla n document , wit h regar d t o thi s 

appeal , is th e pla n documen t i n effec t whe n Participan t terminate d employment , i.e., th e Wol f Cree k Collierie s 

Compan y Employees ' Pensio n Plan , a s amende d an d restate d effectiv e Januar y 1 , 1985 . Th e Minin g Companie s 

Employees ' Pensio n Pla n wa s adopte d a s a n amendmen t an d a complet e restatemen t o f th e Wol f Cree k Collierie s 

Employees ' Compan y Pensio n Plan , effectiv e Decembe r 31 , 1991 . Januar y 1 , 1999 , th e Minin g Companie s 

Employees ' Pensio n Pla n wa s amende d an d restate d an d rename d th e AE 1 Resources, Inc . Employe e Pensio n Plan . 

Effectiv e Januar y 1 , 2002 , th e Resources , Inc . Employe e Pensio n Pla n wa s rename d th e Horizo n NR , LL C 

Employe e Pensio n Plan , whic h is th e pla n trustee d b y PBGC . Reference s t o th e "Plan " herei n ar e t o th e Wol f Cree k 

Collierie s Compan y Employees ' Pensio n Plan , a s amende d an d restate d effectiv e Januar y 1 ,
provision s o f ERISA , an d PBGC' s regulation s determin e th e benefits PBG C ca n pay. 3 

Whe n PBG C become s truste e o f a terminate d plan , PBG C collects participan t dat a an d pla n 

document s fro m th e forme r pla n administrator . PBG C the n audits tha t information . PBG C relie s 

o n th e informatio n i t receive s fro m a forme r pla n administrato r unless PBGC' s audi t o f tha t 

informatio n show s tha t i t is wrong , o r a participan t o r alternat e paye e supplie s wit h 

document s indicatin g tha t th e informatio n is wron g o r incomplete . 

PBGC' s records, includin g thos e submitte d wit h you r appeal , provid e th e followin g relevan t 

informatio n an d timeline : 

• Participan t wa s bor n i n

• Spous e # 1 wa s bor n i n

• Spous e # 2 wa s bor n i n

• Participan t an d Spous e # 1 marrie d i n Feb r uar y

• I n Jul y Judg e 

Kentucky , issue d Finding s o f Fact , Conclusion s o f Law , an d Decre e o f Lega l 

Separatio n (th e "Decre e o f Lega l Separation" ) relatin g t o Participan t an d Spous e 

#1. 4 Paragrap h 6 o f th e Decre e o f Lega l Separatio n provides: 

T h e Respondent , [Participant] , agree s t o irrevocabl y designat e th e 

Petitioner , [Spous e #1] , as th e survivin g beneficiar y pursuan t t o Sectio n 

3 .8 o f th e Pete r Cav e Coa l Retiremen t Pla n an d upo n retiremen t unde r 

t h e pla n t o selec t th e Join t & Survivorship " benefi t optio n wit h 

t h e Petitioner , [Spous e #1] , as th e beneficiary . 

• I n Octobe r Judg e | | signe d th e Fina l Judgmen t (th e "Divorc e Decree" ) 

dissolvin g Participan t an d Spous e #l' s marriage. 5 Paragrap h 2 o f th e Divorc e 

Decre e provides : 

. . . th e Agreemen t [Decre e o f Lega l Separation ] reache d b y th e partie s settlin g 

a l l propert y rights o r controvers y is fai r an d equitabl e an d is hereb y adopte d an d 

approve d b y th e Cour t an d incorporate d int o an d mad e a par t o f this Decre e o f 

Dissolutio n [Divorc e Decree] . 

• Ther e is n o recor d tha t eithe r Participan t o r Spous e # 1 o r thei r representative s eve r 

submitte d th e Divorc e Decre e (th e "DRO" ) t o th e prio r Pla n administrator . 

• Participan t an d Spous e # 2 marrie d i n

• Effectiv e Jul y 1 , Participan t bega n receivin g a monthl y benefi t unde r th e 

Plan , i n th e for m o f a Join t an d Survivo r Annuit y A") ; Participan t 

electe d Spous e # 2 as his beneficiar y fo r th e

 Followin g th e Plan' s termination , PBG C becam e responsibl e fo r determinin g whethe r a domesti c relation s orde r is 

qualified . 

 See Enclosur e

 See Enclosur e 2 . 

 A cop y o f Participant' s benefi t electio n for m signe d b y hi m o n Jun e is provide d a t Enclosur e 3 . Spous e # 2 

is describe d as "Spouse " o n th e "Relationshi p t o Participant " lin e o f th e form . 
o Participan t die d i n Marc h

PBG C ha s bee n payin g Spous e # 2 a J&100%S A sinc e Participant's death . 

Correspondence Regarding Spouse #1 's Claim to a Benefit 

O n Apri l 8, 2018 , Spous e # 1 submitte d t o PBG C th e Decre e o f Lega l Separatio n an d Divorc e 

Decree . Spous e # 1 asserted , "accordin g t o thes e record s [and ] finding s I , [Spous e #1 ] shoul d b e 

awarde d this Pensio n Benefit. " Soo n thereafter, i n you r Apri l 25 , lette r t o PBGC , yo u state d 

t h e following : 

I represen t [Spous e #1 ] wh o is th e beneficiar y o n he r forme r husband's policy . 

Accordin g t o th e Judgmen t o f th e Marti n Circui t . . [Spous e #1 ] wa s t o 

b e designate d as beneficiar y o n he r forme r husband's retiremen t plan . I woul d 

cal l you r attentio n t o Paragrap h Si x [6 ] o f th e Finding s o f Fact . [Spous e #1 ] 

w a s unawar e tha t he r forme r husban d ha d faile d t o designat e he r as beneficiar y 

i n accordanc e wit h th e Court' s Judgmen t unti l afte r he r forme r husband's death . 

Y o u enclose d th e Decre e o f Lega l Separatio n an d Divorc e Decre e wit h you r appea l letter. 

 Determination 

O n Augus t 8, PBG C determine d tha t th e Divorc e Decre e is no t a QDR O pursuan t t o 

sectio n 206(d)(3)(B ) o f ERISA . PBG C state d th e following , i n relevan t part : 

. . . [0]nc e benefi t payment s hav e commenced , PBG C ma y no t qualif y a DR O 

tha t woul d requir e a chang e i n th e benefi t for m payabl e o r th e designate d 

contingen t annuitan t (beneficiary) . Suc h a chang e require s PBG C t o 

reannuitiz e a benefit , whic h is prohibite d b y PBG C an d Departmen t o f Labo r 

regulation s and , therefore , is a disqualifyin g defec t i n an y DR O submitte d afte r 

a participant's benefi t commencement . 

PBG C ha s determine d tha t th e Orde r is NO T a qualifie d domesti c relation s 

orde r ( a "QDRO" ) unde r 206(d)(3)(B ) o f ERISA , 2 9 U.S.C . 

 1056(d)(3)(B ) fo r th e followin g reasons: 

• Sectio n 6 o f th e Orde r woul d requir e a o f th e participant's 

benefit , i n violatio n o f ERIS A § 206(d)(3)(D)(i) . A t th e tim e th e participan t 

commence d benefits, th e participan t electe d a for m tha t di d no t provid e 

survivo r benefits t o th e alternat e payee . No r ha d eithe r part y provide d a 

cop y o f th e Orde r t o th e pla n administrator , fo r revie w fo r qualification . A 

chang e i n for m o r beneficiar y no w - tha t is, afte r benefi t commencemen t -

woul d requir e PBG C t o reannuitiz e th e participant's benefi t afte r th e 

participant's death . PBG C regulation s prohibi t this typ e o f postcommencemen t change . 2 9 [Cod e o f Federa l Regulations ] C.F.R . § 

4022.8(d) . Th e Order , whic h provide s tha t [Spous e #1 ] shoul d b e treate d 

3 
as th e contingen t beneficiary , is clearl y contrar y t o this limitatio n o n 

change s i n benefi t form . 

• Departmen t o f Labo r regulation s provid e tha t a domesti c relation s orde r tha t 

require s a pla n t o "provid e an y typ e o r for m o f benefit , o r an y option , no t 

otherwis e provide d unde r th e plan " is no t a QDR O becaus e suc h a chang e 

woul d violat e ERIS A § 206(d)(3)(D)(i) . Se e C.F.R . § 2530.206(c ) Ex . 3 

a n d § 2530.206(d)(2 ) Ex . 4 . 

Becaus e PBG C ha s determine d tha t th e Orde r is no t a qualifie d domesti c 

relation s order, PBG C is no t boun d b y th e Order . Moreover , becaus e th e 

participan t is no w deceased , n o benefits payabl e t o th e participan t remai n 

t o b e awarde d t o a n alternat e paye e o f th e participant . Becaus e th e lifetim e 

valu e o f th e benefi t is exhauste d upo n th e deat h o f th e participan t an d th e 

for m o f benefi t canno t b e change d afte r th e benefi t commenced , PBG C 

woul d b e unabl e t o qualif y an y DR O submitte d a t this time , pursuan t t o its 

writte n procedures. Se e p . 3 o f PBGC' s writte n QDR O procedures, 

Qualified Domestic Relations Orders & PBGC .... 

Your Appeal on Behalf of Spouse #1 

O n Augus t 30 , 2018 , yo u appeale d PBGC' s determinatio n o n behal f o f Spous e #1 . I n th e 

appeal , yo u state d tha t Participan t violate d th e Divorc e Decre e b y no t namin g Spous e # 1 as hi s 

designate d beneficiary . Th e appea l asserted , i n part , th e following : 

T h e essentia l facts ar e no t i n dispute . [Spous e #1 ] an d [Participant ] wer e 

divorce d i n Octobe r an d th e propert y wa s divide d pursuan t t o a propert y 

settlemen t agreemen t date d Jul y 1992 , whic h wa s incorporate d i n th e Divorc e 

Judgment . A s se t fort h i n Paragrap h Si x [6 ] o f th e Finding s o f Fact , 

[Participant ] wa s ordere d b y th e Cour t t o designat e [Spous e #1 ] as th e 

beneficiar y unde r his employe r plan . 

I n direc t violatio n o f th e Court' s Judgment , [Participant ] faile d t o mak e th e 

necessar y designation . Subsequently , [Participant ] electe d t o commenc e 

benefits o n Jul y bu t agai n i n direc t violatio n o f th e Court' s Orde r faile d 

t o elec t a for m consisten t wit h th e requirements o f th e Cour t Judgmen t no r di d 

h e mak e th e Pensio n Pla n awar e o f an y Orde r requirin g [Spouse#l ] t o b e treate d 

as his spous e wit h respec t t o th e benefit . 

[Participant ] passe d awa y [i n Marc h [Spous e #1 ] submitte d th e 

Court' s Judgmen t t o th e PBG C o n 8, Th e PBG C denie d th e clai m 

as show n b y th e denia l letters date d Augus t 8, 201 8 .. . . 

4 
Counsel' s understandin g th e basis o f th e denia l is threefold . First , th e 

clai m tha t th e necessar y informatio n wa s no t containe d i n th e Divorc e Judgmen t 

sufficien t t o satisf y th e requirements fo r a QDRO . Second , tha t th e Divorc e 

Judgmen t wa s no t timel y submitte d sinc e [Participant ] ha d passe d awa y [i n 

Marc h bu t th e Cour t Judgmen t wa s no t submitte d t o PBG C unti l Apri l 8, 

 Third , tha t th e Divorc e Judgmen t woul d requir e a recalculatio n o f 

benefits whic h is no t permitte d unde r 2 9 CF R 2530.206 . 

Amon g othe r things, yo u contende d i n you r appea l tha t th e Sixt h Circuit' s decisio n i n Sun 

Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Jackson supports th e conclusio n tha t th e DR O meets th e 

condition s o f sectio n 206(d)(3 ) o f ERIS A an d tha t th e DR O "coul d b e pursue d posthumously." 7 

Y o u als o contende d tha t th e Thir d Circuit' s decisio n i n Files v. ExxonMobil Pension Plan supports 

you r positio n tha t paymen t t o Spous e # 1 woul d no t violat e sectio n 206(d)(3 ) b y changin g th e Pla n 

benefi t otherwis e payable. 8 Finally , yo u asserte d tha t PBGC' s relianc e o n Departmen t o f Labo r 

regulatio n 2 9 C.F.R . sectio n 2530.20 6 doe s no t suppor t th e denia l o f benefi t payment s t o Spous e 

# 1 . 

A s par t o f you r clai m fo r relief , yo u asserte d tha t th e Appeal s Boar d mus t revers e PBGC' s 

determinatio n an d "pu t [Spous e #1 ] i n 'pa y

The Appeals Board's Letter to Spouse #2 

Pursuan t t o PBGC' s regulatio n 2 9 C.F.R . sectio n th e Appeal s Boar d notifie d Spous e 

# 2 , b y lette r date d Jul y 24 , 2019 , tha t i t ha d receive d a n appea l fro m yo u o n Spous e #l' s behalf. 9 

W e explaine d tha t th e appea l asserts tha t Spous e # 1 is th e rightfu l beneficiar y o f th e $564.5 6 

monthl y benefi t Spous e # 2 ha s receive d fro m PBG C sinc e th e deat h o f Participant . W e explaine d 

tha t yo u dispute d PBGC' s Augus t 8, determinatio n tha t th e Divorc e Decre e is no t a QDR O 

pursuan t t o sectio n 206(d)(3)(B ) o f ERISA . 

T h e Boar d note d tha t th e Jul y 24 , lette r make s Spous e # 2 a part y t o th e I n 

accordanc e wit h th e provision s o f 2 9 C.F.R . sectio n 4003.57(b) , Spous e # 2 wa s grante d 4 5 day s 

fro m th e dat e o f th e lette r t o submi t writte n comment s o r t o request t o appea r befor e th e Board . 

O n Augus t 7 , 2019 , Spous e # 2 responde d t o th e Board' s Jul y 24 , 201 9 letter. 1 0 Sh e state d th e 

following , i n

. . . W e wer e marrie d fo r a yea r o r s o an d wante d t o bu y a home . [Participant ] 

decide d t o g o ahea d an d tak e his pensio n earl y s o tha t w e coul d bu y ou r home . 

 87 7 F.3 d 69 8 (6 t h Cir . a t Enclosur e 4 . 

 42 8 F.3 d 47 8 Cir . 2005) , a t Enclosur e 5 . 

 See Enclosur e 6. 

 See Enclosur e 7 . 

5 
[Participant ] an d I wen t an d w e signe d th e papers so tha t I woul d receiv e th e 

sam e amoun t tha t h e [drew ] ever y mont h ... . 

[Participant ] alway s sai d h e wa s so gla d w e ha d fixe d hi s pensio n fo r m e t o 

receiv e th e sam e amount . . . . 

Lega l Background 

The Terms of the Plan 

T h e Pla n documen t relevan t t o you r appea l is th e Wol f Cree k Collierie s Compan y Employees ' 

Pensio n Plan , as amende d an d restate d effectiv e Januar y 1 , 1985 . Sectio n o f th e Pla n define s 

a "Beneficiary " as th e perso n o r entit y designate d b y a participan t t o receiv e benefits unde r Articl e 

I V o r Sectio n B o f Articl e V I afte r th e deat h o f th e

Sectio n 1.8 o f th e Pla n define s a "Contingen t Annuitant " as a perso n designate d b y th e 

participan t t o receiv e a benefi t payabl e unde r Optio n 2 o f Sectio n A o f Articl e V o r Sectio n B o f 

Articl e V afte r th e participant's death . 

Articl e V , Sectio n A o f th e Pla n provide s th e form s o f retiremen t benefits payabl e unde r th e 

Pla n an d ho w thes e form s ca n b e elected . Optio n 1 is th e Straigh t Lif e Optio n wit h n o survivo r 

benefits ("SLA") , whic h is th e norma l for m o f benefi t fo r a n unmarrie d participant . Optio n 2 is 

t h e Join t an d Las t Survivo r Option , whic h allow s a participan t t o elec t a 6 6 2/3 % o r 50 % 

join t an d survivo r benefit , payabl e afte r th e participant's deat h t o th e designate d contingen t 

annuitant . I n addition , Articl e V , Sectio n A provide s tha t n o electio n o r revocatio n o f a for m o f 

benefi t ma y b e mad e onc e th e participan t ha s commence d retiremen t payments . 

Articl e V , Sectio n B o f th e Pla n state s tha t unless a marrie d participan t ha s electe d a n optio n 

unde r Articl e V an d ha s no t revoke d it , h e is automaticall y assume d t o hav e electe d a 50 % join t 

a n d survivo r benefi t ("J&50%SA") . Articl e V , Sectio n B als o contain s provision s fo r electin g o r 

revokin g a n electio n o f a for m o f benefi t an d th e require d perio d fo r th e same , a s wel l as th e spousa l 

consen t requiremen t t o waive r o f th e J&50%SA . 

Articl e V I o f th e Pla n provide s tha t th e Pla n administrato r mus t compl y wit h th e term s o f a 

QDRO , whic h is define d i n th e sam e manne r as se t ou t i n sectio n 206(d)(3 ) o f ERISA . Consisten t 

wit h sectio n 206(d)(3)(K ) o f ERISA , th e Pla n define s a n alternat e paye e as a

spouse , forme r spouse , child , o r othe r dependen t wh o is recognize d b y a domesti c relation s orde r 

as havin g a righ t t o receiv e al l o r a portio n o f th e benefits payabl e unde r th e Pla n wit h respec t t o 

suc h Participant. " 

Sections 205 206 of ERISA 

Sectio n 205(a ) o f ERIS A require s tha t pensio n plan s pa y th e accrue d benefi t o f a marrie d 

participan t wh o doe s no t di e befor e th e annuit y startin g dat e i n th e for m o f a qualifie d an d 

survivo r annuit y ("QJSA") . Sectio n 205(d)(1 ) o f ERIS A define s QJS A as: 

 See Enclosur e 8. 

6 
a n annuit y - (A ) fo r th e lif e o f th e participan t wit h a survivo r annuit y fo r th e lif e 

o f th e spous e whic h is no t less tha n percen t . . th e amoun t o f th e annuit y 

whic h is payabl e durin g th e join t live s o f th e participan t an d th e spouse , an d (B ) 

whic h is th e actuaria l equivalen t o f a singl e annuit y fo r th e lif e o f th e participant . 

ERIS A permit s participants t o waiv e th e durin g th e applicabl e electio n period . Suc h waive r 

is no t effective , however , unless th e participant's spous e consents t o th e waiver . 

Unde r th e "anti-alienatio n rule " o f sectio n 206(d)(1 ) o f ERISA , pensio n pla n shal l 

provid e tha t benefits provide d unde r th e pla n ma y no t b e assigne d o r alienated." 1 2 ERIS A sectio n 

206(d)(3)(A ) provide s a n exceptio n t o th e anti-alienatio n rule , whic h state s tha t sectio n 206(d)(1 ) 

doe s no t appl y t o a domesti c relation s orde r determine d t o b e a qualifie d domesti c relation s order , 

o r QDRO. 1 3 Unde r ERISA , a QDR O is a domesti c relation s orde r tha t "create s o r recognize s th e 

existenc e o f a n alternat e payee's righ t to , o r assign s t o a n alternat e paye e th e righ t to , receiv e al l 

o r a portio n o f th e benefits payabl e wit h respec t t o a participan t unde r a plan, " an d whic h meet s 

t h e requirement s o f ERIS A section s an d 206(d)(3)(D)." 1 4 

Sectio n 206(d)(3)(C ) o f ERIS A specifie s th e informationa l requirement s fo r a domesti c 

relation s order: 

( C ) A domesti c relation s orde r meets th e requirements o f this subparagrap h onl y 

i f suc h orde r clearl y

( i ) th e nam e an d last know n mailin g address (i f any ) o f th e participan t an d 

t h e nam e an d mailin g address o f eac h alternat e paye e covere d b y th e 

order, 

(ii ) th e amoun t o r percentag e o f th e benefits t o b e pai d b y th e 

pla n t o eac h suc h alternat e payee , o r th e manne r i n whic h suc h amoun t 

o r percentag e is t o b e determined , 

(iii ) th e numbe r o f payment s o r th e perio d t o whic h eac h orde r applies; an d 

(iv ) eac h pla n t o whic h suc h orde r applies. 

Unde r Sectio n 206(d)(3)(D ) o f ERISA , a domesti c relation s order , o r DRO , ma y b e a QDR O 

unless i t fails th e mee t on e o r mor e o f th e requirements i n th e followin g subparagraph : 

( D ) A domesti c relation s orde r meets th e requirements o f this subparagrap h onl y 

i f suc h

( i ) doe s no t requir e a pla n t o provid e an y typ e o r for m o f benefit , o r an y 

option , no t otherwis e provide d unde r th e plan , 

(ii ) doe s no t requir e th e pla n t o provid e increase d benefits (determine d o n 

t h e basis o f actuaria l value) , an d 

 Sectio n 206(d ) o f ERIS A is applicabl e t o define d benefi t plans, as wel l as t o individua l accoun t 

plan s (e.g., define d contributio n plans) ove r whic h PBG C ha s n o jurisdiction . 

 Paralle l provision s regardin g QDRO s als o appea r a t § 414(p ) o f th e Interna l Revenu e Code . 

 See ERIS A § 206(d)(3)(B)(i ) (definitio n o f a QDRO) . 

7 
(iii ) doe s no t requir e th e paymen t o f benefits t o a n alternat e paye e whic h 

a r e require d t o b e pai d t o anothe r alternat e paye e unde r orde r 

previousl y determine d t o b e a qualifie d domesti c relation s order. 

Unde r ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3)(F) , a former spous e o f a participan t is treate d as a survivin g 

spous e o f th e participan t unde r sectio n 20 5 regardin g th e entitlemen t t o a survivo r annuit y benefi t 

and , i f marrie d fo r a t least 1 year , is treate d as meetin g th e marriag e requirements unde r sectio n 

2 0 5 "t o the extent provided in any QDRO." 

Sectio n 206(d)(3)(J ) o f ERIS A provide s tha t "[a ] perso n wh o is a n alternat e paye e unde r a 

qualifie d domesti c relation s orde r shal l b e considere d fo r purpose s o f an y provisio n o f this chapte r 

[ o f ERISA ] a beneficiar y unde r th e plan. " 

Pursuan t t o sectio n 206(d)(3)(K ) o f ERISA , "th e ter m 'alternat e payee ' mean s an y spouse , 

forme r spouse , child , o r othe r dependen t o f a participan t wh o is recognize d b y a domesti c relation s 

orde r as havin g a righ t t o receiv e all , o r a portio n of , th e benefits payabl e unde r a pla n wit h respec t 

t o suc h participant. " 

Regulation Issued by the U.S. Department of Labor 

I n sectio n o f th e Pensio n Protectio n Ac t o f 2006 , Congress directe d th e o f 

Labo r t o d o th e following: 1 5 

. . . [I]ssu e regulation s unde r sectio n 206(d)(3 ) o f th e Employe e Retiremen t 

[Income ] Securit y Ac t o f an d sectio n o f th e Interna l Revenu e 

Cod e o f 198 6 whic h clarif y that — 

( 1 ) a domesti c relation s orde r otherwis e meetin g th e requirement s t o b e a 

qualifie d domesti c relation s order, includin g th e requirement s o f sectio n 

206(d)(3)(D ) o f suc h Ac t [ERISA ] an d 414(p)(3 ) o f suc h Code , shal l 

n o t fai l t o b e treate d as a qualifie d domesti c relation s orde r solel y

( A ) th e orde r is issue d after, o r revises, anothe r domesti c relation s orde r o r 

qualifie d domesti c relation s order; o r 

( B ) o f th e tim e a t whic h i t is issued ; an d 

( 2 ) an y orde r describe d i n paragrap h (1 ) shal l b e subjec t t o th e sam e 

requirements an d protection s whic h appl y t o qualifie d domesti c relation s 

orders, includin g th e provision s o f sectio n 206(d)(3)(H ) o f suc h Ac t an d 

sectio n o f suc h Code . 

O n Jun e 10 , 2010 , th e U.S . Departmen t o f Labor' s Employe e Benefits Securit y 

Administratio n issue d a final rul e (th e "DO L regulation" ) relate d t o domesti c relation s 

orders unde r ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3). 1 6 Amon g othe r things, th e DO L regulatio n addresse s 

subsequen t domesti c relation s orders, th e timin g o f domesti c relation s orders, an d requirements 

a n d protection s unde r sectio n 206(d)(3 ) o f ERISA . 

 Pub . L . No . 109-280 . 

 See 7 5 Fed . Reg . 3284 6 (Jun e 10 , 2010) , a t Enclosur e 9 . 
Discussion 

Introduction 

A DR O issue d b y a stat e cour t give s th e alternat e paye e rights wit h respec t t o th e participant's 

pensio n benefit . Unde r ERISA , however , thes e rights d o no t becom e enforceabl e unti l th e DR O 

is submitte d t o th e pla n an d th e pla n administrato r determine s tha t i t is a QDRO. 1 7 

 sectio n 206(d)(3)(B ) provide s that , t o b e qualified , a DR O mus t mee t th e requirements 

o f bot h ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3)(C ) an d sectio n 206(d)(3)(D) . I n you r appea l o n behal f o f Spous e 

# 1 , yo u asserte d tha t on e o f th e reason s fo r PBGC' s determinatio n tha t th e DR O wa s no t a QDR O 

w a s tha t i t di d no t mee t th e requirements o f ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3)(C). 1 8 

PBG C di d no t determin e tha t th e DR O coul d no t b e qualifie d du e t o lac k o f complianc e wit h 

ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3)(C). 1 9 Rather , PBG C determine d th e DR O coul d no t b e qualifie d base d 

o n ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3)(D)(i) , Departmen t o f Labo r regulatio n sectio n 2530.206 , an d PBG C 

regulatio n sectio n 4022.8(d) . 

T h e Appeals Boar d assume s fo r purpose s o f this decisio n tha t th e DR O satisfie s th e 

requirements o f sectio n 206(d)(3)(C ) o f ERISA . Specifically , th e DRO : 

• is a n orde r tha t wa s issue d b y a stat e cour t tha t ha d th e powe r t o d o so [th e 

' | , Kentuck y Circui t Court] , 

• relate d t o th e marita l propert y rights t o a forme r spous e [Spous e #1] , 

• name d th e alternat e paye e [Spous e #1 ] an d th e affecte d pla n participan t [Participant] , 

a n d PBG C ha s th e mailin g addresse s o f each , 

• specifie d th e percentag e o f th e participant's [Participant's] benefi t [th e

survivo r annuity ] t o b e pai d t o Spous e #1 , 

• state d th e tim e perio d t o whic h th e DR O applie s [th e remainde r o f Spous e # 1 's lifetim e 

afte r Participan t died] , an d 

• state d th e nam e o f th e affecte d pla n as th e "Pete r Cav e Coa l Retiremen t Plan, " whic h 

w a s a predecesso r plan . 

However , an d as discusse d i n mor e detai l below , th e Appeal s Boar d PBGC' s 

determinatio n tha t th e DR O canno t b e qualifie d as a QDR O pursuan t t o ERIS A sectio n 

206(d)(3)(D)(i ) becaus e th e DR O require s PBG C t o provid e a typ e o r for m o f benefit , o r a n option , 

 I n Files v . ExxonMobile Pension Plan, on e o f th e case s yo u cite , th e cour t state d tha t th e QDR O provision s o f 

ERIS A d o no t "suggest tha t a n alternat e paye e ha s n o interest i n pla n benefits unti l sh e obtain s a QDRO " bu t the y 

"preven t enforcemen t o f tha t already-existin g interest unti l th e QDR O is obtained. " 42 8 F.3 d a t 489 . (citin g Of 

Directors Guild Am. Producer Pension Benefits v. Tise, 23 4 F.3 d 415 , 42 1 (9 t h Cir . 2000) . 

 2 9 § 1056(d)(1)(C) . 

 I n PBGC' s Augus t 8 , 201 8 letter , PBG C note d tha t apart from th e DRO' s namin g Spous e # 1 as th e survivin g 

beneficiar y pursuan t t o th e Plan , an d tha t upo n his rethement , Participan t wa s t o selec t th e Join t & Survivorshi p 

option , wit h Spous e # 1 a s th e beneficiary , n o DR O providin g a fulle r treatmen t o f th e divisio n o f pensio n assets wa s 

obtained . W e suppos e tha t this statemen t ma y b e rea d as suggestin g tha t PBG C mad e a determinatio n tha t th e DR O 

w a s no t i n complianc e wit h ERIS A § 206(d)(3)(C) . However , PBGC' s determinatio n tha t th e DR O wa s no t qualifie d 

w a s base d o n ERIS A §206(d)(3)(D)(i). 
tha t is no t otherwis e provide d unde r th e Plan . I n addition , th e Boar d find s tha t PBG C correctl y 

determine d tha t qualificatio n o f th e DR O woul d b e inconsisten t wit h PBG C regulatio n sectio n 

4022.8(d) . Th e Boar d als o find s tha t well-establishe d casela w ca n b e applie d t o preserv e Spous e 

#2's survivo r annuit y benefi t fro m bein g assigne d t o Spous e #1 . 

The DRO Cannot Require PBGC to Provide a Type or 

Form of Benefit, or an Option, Not Provided Under the Plan 

A s cite d above , ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3)(D)(i ) provide s tha t a domesti c relation s orde r ca n 

b e qualifie d onl y i f suc h domesti c relation s orde r "doe s no t requir e a pla n t o provid e a typ e o r for m 

o f benefit , o r an y option , no t otherwis e provide d unde r th e plan. " 

Form s o f benefi t paymen t an d option s relate d t o benefi t payment s ar e specificall y addresse d 

i n th e Pla n terms. Th e Pla n provide s a n automati c for m o f benefit , i.e., Join t an d 50 % Survivo r 

Annuit y ("J&50%SA") , availabl e t o a marrie d participant. 2 0 Th e Pla n provide s th e Straigh t Lif e 

Option , i. e., a Singl e Lif e Annuit y withou t a survivo r benefi t ("SLA") , whic h is a n unmarrie d 

participant's automati c for m o f Th e Pla n als o provide s th e Join t an d Las t Survivo r 

Option , whic h include s th e optiona l form s o f benefit , i.e., whic h ar e 

availabl e onl y t o marrie d participants A participan t ma y waiv e th e J&50%S A wit h spousa l 

consent , whic h wha t Spous e # 2 di d t o receiv e th e

T h e Pla n expressl y prohibits an y change s i n th e for m o f benefi t o r change s o f beneficiar y o f 

a join t an d survivo r for m o f benefi t a participan t electe d a t retiremen t b y stating , retiremen t 

allowanc e payment s hav e commenced , n o futur e election s o r revocation s o f a n optio n wil l b e 

permitte d unde r an y circumstances." 2 4 Notabl y absen t fro m th e Plan' s lis t o f optiona l benefits is 

a benefi t payabl e t o a n alternat e paye e fo r th e lif e o f anothe r beneficiary . 

I n th e preambl e t o th e DO L regulation , EBS A state s "... an y domesti c relation s orde r receive d 

b y a pla n afte r th e origina l annuit y startin g dat e o f th e participan t tha t woul d requir e reannuitizatio n 

wit h a ne w annuit y startin g dat e woul d violat e sectio n 206(d)(3)(D)(i) , unless th e pla n specificall y 

provide s fo r suc h a n option. " Nowher e doe s th e Pla n provid e fo r "an y typ e o r for m o f benefi t 

o r an y option " tha t permit s th e benefi t o f a participan t o r beneficiar y t o b e terminate d o r revoke d 

onc e paymen t ha s commenced . Further , th e Pla n doe s no t provid e fo r th e reannuitizatio n o f a 

participant's o r beneficiary's benefi t afte r th e annuit y stallin g date . 

T h e Appeal s Boar d finds tha t th e situatio n i n this case is addresse d i n Exampl e 4 o f sectio n 

2530.206(d)(2 ) o f th e DO L Exampl e 4 i n DO L regulatio n sectio n 2530.206(d)(2 ) 

provide s th e following , i n relevan t part : 

 See Enclosur e 8, Articl e V , Sectio n B . 

 See Enclosur e 8, Articl e V , Sectio n A , Optio n 1 . 

 See Enclosur e 8, Articl e V , Sectio n A , Optio n 2 . 

 See Enclosur e 8, Articl e V , Sectio n B . 

 See Enclosur e 8, Articl e V , Sectio n A . 

 See Reg . a t 32848 . 

 I n you r appea l yo u asserte d tha t PBG C shoul d rel y o n Exampl e 1 o f DO L Regulatio n sectio n 2530.206(c)(2 ) i n 

Spous e #l' s case . Exampl e 1 o f DO L regulatio n 2530.206(c)(2 ) states, i n relevan t part , "orde r doe s no t fai l t o b e 

1 0 
. . . Th e pla n doe s no t allo w reannuitizatio n wit h a ne w annuit y startin g date , as 

define d i n sectio n 205(h)(2 ) o f ERIS A (an d as furthe r explaine d i n 2 6 CF R 

 Pursuan t t o paragrap h (c)(1 ) o f this sectio n [regardin g 

t h e timin g o f domesti c relation s orders] , th e orde r doe s no t fai l t o b e a QDR O solel y 

becaus e i t is issue d afte r th e annuit y startin g date , bu t th e orde r woul d fai l t o b e a 

QDR O unde r sectio n 206(d)(3)(D)(i ) an d paragrap h (d)(1 ) o f this sectio n becaus e 

t h e orde r require s th e pla n t o provid e a typ e o r for m o f benefit , o r an y option , no t 

otherwis e provide d unde r th e plan . . . . 

Whil e th e facts i n Exampl e 4 diffe r fro m th e facts o f this appea l i n tha t Exampl e 4 reference s 

a scenari o whereb y th e divorc e occurs afte r th e annuit y startin g date , th e abov e quote d tex t is 

applicabl e i n th e contex t o f this appeal . Specifically , lik e th e pla n i n Exampl e 4 , above , th e Pla n 

doe s no t permi t th e reannuitizatio n o f a participant's o r beneficiary's benefi t afte r th e origina l 

annuit y startin g date . Just as reannuitization s ar e describe d i n th e preambl e t o th e DO L 

regulation, 2 7 this appea l propose s "t o substitut e on e measurin g lif e fo r another, " b y substitutin g 

Spous e # 1 's lif e fo r Spous e #2' s life . Th e Appeals Boar d conclude s tha t suc h a resul t woul d requir e 

t h e benefi t t o b e reannuitized . Th e DR O therefor e canno t b e qualifie d pursuan t t o 

ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3)(D)(i ) becaus e i t require s PBG C t o provid e a typ e o r for m o f benefit , o r 

a n option , no t otherwis e provide d unde r th e Plan . 

Therefore , as state d above , th e Appeal s Boar d conclude s tha t th e DR O canno t b e qualifie d 

unde r ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3)(D)(i ) becaus e i t require s PBG C t o provid e a typ e o r for m o f 

benefit , o r a n option , no t otherwis e provide d unde r th e Plan . Accordingly , becaus e th e DR O is 

n o t a QDRO , Spous e # 1 canno t b e treate d as Participant's survivin g spous e unde r sectio n 20 5 o f 

ERIS A fo r purpose s o f entitlemen t t o th e survivo r annuit y benefi t unde r Participant's

Further , th e Boar d note s tha t PBG C regulatio n sectio n 4022.8(d ) prohibits a chang e i n th e 

for m o f benefi t followin g commencemen t o f benefi t payments. 2 8 PBG C regulatio n sectio n 

4022.8(d) , Change in benefit form, provide s tha t "[o]nc e paymen t o f a benefi t starts, th e benefi t 

for m canno t b e changed. " Th e Boar d conclude s tha t an y chang e i n th e benefi t for m currentl y 

bein g pai d t o Spous e # 2 woul d b e inconsisten t wit h PBG C regulatio n sectio n 4022.8(d) . 

Caselaw from Several Federal Courts of Appeal Supports the Determination 

Severa l federa l courts o f appea l hav e hel d tha t th e spous e wh o is marrie d t o th e participan t o n 

t h e annuit y startin g dat e ha s a n irrevocabl e righ t t o a survivo r benefit . Accordingly , thes e courts 

hav e hel d tha t whe n a participan t is marrie d t o a subsequen t spous e o n th e annuit y startin g date , a 

D R O submitte d afte r tha t dat e canno t b e qualifie d i f i t assign s th e survivo r benefi t a forme r 

treate d as a QDR O solel y becaus e i t wa s issue d afte r th e deat h o f Participant. " Ou r findin g tha t th e DR O canno t b e 

qualifie d is no t base d o n th e DRO' s dat e o f issuance , th e dat e PBG C wa s notifie d o f th e DRO' s existence , no r th e 

dat e PBG C receive d th e DRO . Th e DR O therefor e canno t b e qualifie d pursuan t t o ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3)(D)(i ) 

becaus e i t require s PBG C t o provid e a typ e o r for m o f benefit , o r a n option , no t otherwis e provide d unde r th e Plan . 

 Id. 

 2 9 C.F.R . § 4022.8(d) . 

1 1 
 I n suc h a case , becaus e th e subsequen t spous e ha d a n irrevocabl e righ t t o th e survivo r 

benefi t o n th e annuit y startin g date , th e survivo r benefi t is no t "payabl e wit h respec t t o a participan t 

unde r a plan " an d thu s doe s no t satisf y th e definitio n o f a QDR O i n sectio n 206(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). 3 0 

I n this case , Spous e # 2 wa s marrie d t o Participan t whe n h e starte d his annuit y o n Jul y

Accordingly , Spous e # 2 ha d a n irrevocabl e righ t t o th e survivo r benefi t o n tha t date . Whe n Spous e 

# 1 submitte d th e DR O o n Apri l 8, 2018 , th e survivo r benefi t wa s payabl e t o th e beneficiar y 

(Spous e #2 ) an d thu s "no t payabl e wit h respec t t o [the ] participant " (Participant) . Consequently , 

t h e DR O tha t assigne d th e survivo r benefi t t o Spous e # 1 is no t a QDRO . 

The Arguments in the Appeal Are Not Persuasive 

T h e appea l ha s offere d arguments fo r wh y PBG C shoul d regar d th e DR O as a QDRO . First , 

y o u hav e claime d tha t th e informatio n provide d i n th e DR O wa s sufficien t t o satisf y th e 

requirements fo r a QDRO . A s discusse d o n pag e nin e o f th e decision , w e hav e accepted , fo r 

purpose s o f decidin g th e appeal , tha t th e DR O doe s provid e th e informatio n require d fo r a QDR O 

unde r ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3)(C) . 

You r secon d argumen t is tha t th e DR O wa s submitte d i n a timel y manner . However , ther e is 

n o evidenc e tha t i t wa s eve r submitte d t o th e Pla n administrator . Instead , i t wa s submitte d t o 

PBG C afte r Participan t ha d passe d awa y o n Marc h 27 , W e agre e wit h yo u tha t th e mer e 

timin g o f th e submissio n canno t b e th e sol e basis fo r refusin g t o qualif y th e DRO 3 1. 

Y o u cit e th e Sixt h Circuit' s decisio n i n Sun Life [Assurance] Company v. an d th e 

Thir d Circuit' s decisio n i n Files v. ExxonMobile Pension Plan33 i n suppor t o f you r argumen t tha t 

t h e DR O wa s timel y submitte d t o Thes e cases, however , ar e distinguishable . 

T h e issu e i n th e Sun Life cas e wa s whethe r th e daughte r o f th e decease d participan t i n a n 

employer-sponsore d lif e insuranc e pla n wa s th e beneficiar y pursuan t t o a DR O entere d afte r th e 

divorc e o f th e daughter's parents bu t submitte d afte r he r fathe r died . Th e participan t ha d 

previousl y name d his brothe r as th e sol e beneficiar y o f th e pla n benefi t an d neve r revise d his 

beneficiar y designatio n wit h th e pla n t o reflec t th e term s o f th e DRO . Th e cour t hel d tha t th e 

daughter, no t he r uncle , wa s entitle d t o th e o f th e lif e insuranc e eve n thoug h th e DR O 

w a s submitte d afte r he r fathe r died . 

T h e DR O a t issu e i n Sun Life wa s significantl y differen t fro m th e on e involve d here . Th e 

D R O i n Sun Life relate d t o lif e insuranc e proceeds, no t a pensio n annuity . ERISA' s requiremen t 

 See Vanderkam v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 94 3 F . Supp . 2 d 130 , 13 7 (D . D.C . 2013) , 77 3 F.3 d 

883 , 88 6 (D.C . Cir . 2015) ; v. 60 3 F.3 d 1041 , 1059-106 0 (9 t h Cir . 2010) ; Rivers v. Cent. & S.W. 

Corp., 18 6 F.3 d 681 , 683-68 4 (5 t h Cir . 1999) ; Hopkins v. AT&T Global Info. Solutions. Co., 10 5 F.3 d 153 , 15 7

Cir . 1997) ; PBG C Appeal s Boar d decisio n (Huff y Corp.) , page s 16-1 7 (Nov . 24 , 2010) ; ( a cop y ma y b e 

accesse d a t See ~ 

relevan t casela w a t Enclosure s 10-14 . 

 See e.g., Hopkins, 10 5 F.3 d a t

 See sectio n o f th e Pensio n Protectio n Ac t discusse d o n pag e 8 above . 

 87 7 F.3 d 69 8 Cir . 2017) . See Enclosur e 4 . 

 42 8 F.3 d 47 8 (3 d Cir . 2005) , denied, 54 7 U.S . See Enclosur e 5 . 

1 2 
tha t a participant's benefi t b e i n th e for m o f a n annuit y tha t provide s a survivo r benefi t t o his 

spous e doe s no t appl y t o lif e insuranc e proceeds. Further , i n Sun Life ther e wa s n o issu e o f whethe r 

a forme r spous e ha d a n irrevocabl e righ t t o a survivo r benefit . Finally , th e Sun Life DR O di d no t 

requir e th e insuranc e pla n t o provid e a typ e o r for m o f benefit , o r an y option , no t otherwis e 

provide d unde r th e plan . Ther e wa s a specifie d amoun t payabl e unde r th e lif e insuranc e policy . 

T h e cour t ha d t o loo k onl y a t whethe r th e DR O me t al l o f th e requirement s o f ERIS A sectio n 

206(d)(3) . Becaus e th e cour t foun d tha t al l o f thos e requirements wer e met , i t qualifie d th e DR O 

a n d directe d Su n Lif e t o pa y th e proceed s t o th e daughter. 

W e agre e tha t th e mer e timin g o f th e submissio n canno t b e th e basis fo r refusin g t o qualif y 

t h e DRO . Th e DR O wa s no t submitte d fo r qualificatio n unti l afte r Participan t ha d name d Spous e 

# 2 as his survivo r beneficiary , retired , an d died . Th e Pla n di d no t allo w fo r an y furthe r election s 

followin g a participant's retirement , whic h include d a n electio n changin g th e beneficiar y o f th e 

 benefit . Consequently , th e DR O woul d requir e PBG C t o provid e a n optio n tha t is no t 

availabl e unde r th e Plan , violatin g ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3)(D)(i) . 

You r thir d argumen t is tha t th e DR O doe s no t ru n afou l o f ERIS A sectio n 206(d)(3)(D)(ii ) 

becaus e i t doe s no t requir e a reallocatio n o f benefits. I n support , yo u relie d o n th e Thir d Circuit' s 

decisio n i n Files v. ExxonMobile Pension Plan34 as th e basis fo r you r clai m tha t th e paymen t o f 

benefits t o Spous e # 1 woul d no t chang e th e benefits otherwis e payable . 

I n Files, th e cour t foun d tha t a propert y settlemen t agreemen t gav e th e alternat e paye e a 50 % 

separat e interest i n th e participant's benefit . Th e cour t hel d tha t th e alternat e paye e coul d enforc e 

tha t interest eve n afte r th e participan t die d b y submittin g th e agreemen t t o th e pla n fo r 

qualification . 

T h e relevan t facts i n Files, however , ar e differen t tha n thos e i n th e presen t case . First , th e 

participan t i n Files die d befor e his annuit y startin g date . Second , th e pla n administrato r wa s pu t 

o n notic e tha t ther e wa s a DR O befor e th e participan t died . Third , whe n th e participan t died , ther e 

w a s n o subsequen t spous e wit h a clai m fo r a survivo r annuit y benefi t unde r th e pla n an d sectio n 

205(a)(2 ) o f ERISA . 

I n addition , unlik e th e Divorc e Decre e i n this case , th e propert y settlemen t agreemen t i n Files 

gav e th e forme r spous e he r ow n interest i n a percentag e o f th e participant's benefit . Here , th e 

Divorc e Decre e gav e Spous e # 1 th e righ t t o b e name d as th e beneficiar y o f Participant's join t an d 

survivo r benefit . Tha t distinctio n doe s not , b y itself, preven t Spous e # 1 fro m havin g th e Divorc e 

Decre e qualifie d afte r Participant's death . But , th e circumstance s i n this cas e preclud e PBG C fro m 

qualifyin g th e DRO . 

A s discussed , becaus e Spous e # 1 di d no t hav e a n enforceabl e righ t t o th e survivo r benefi t 

throug h a QDRO , Spous e # 2 becam e irrevocabl y entitle d t o th e survivo r benefi t whe n Participan t 

retired . An d becaus e Spous e # 2 wa s alread y name d as th e survivo r beneficiary , changin g th e 

beneficiar y fro m Spous e # 2 t o Spous e # 1 woul d requir e t o provid e a n optio n no t otherwis e 

provide d unde r th e plan . Accordingly , th e Divorc e Decre e canno t b e qualified . 

4 2 8 F.3 d 47 8 (3 d Cir . 2005) , denied, 54 7 U.S . See Enclosur e 5 . 

13 
Decision 

Havin g applie d th e term s o f th e Plan , th e provision s o f ERISA , an d PBGC' s regulation s t o 

t h e facts o f Spous e #l' s case , w e hav e decide d tha t PBG C correctl y determine d tha t th e Octobe r 

2 3 , 199 2 Divorc e Decre e is no t a QDRO . Therefore , w e ar e denyin g you r appea l mad e o n behal f 

o f Spous e #1 . 

Thi s decisio n is PBGC' s fina l actio n regardin g you r appeal . Spous e # 1 may , i f sh e wishes , 

see k revie w o f this decisio n i n a n appropriat e federa l distric t court . 

Sincerely , 

Grac e H . Kraeme r 

Chair , Appeal s Boar d 

c c : Spous e # 1 

Spous e # 2 

 Enclosure s (redacte d as neede d t o protec t th e privac y o f th e parties) 

 | Finding s o f Fact , Conclusion s o f Law , an d Decre e o f Lega l Separatio n ( 4 

2 . | Divorc e Decre e ( 2 pages) 

3 . Participant's benefi t electio n for m signe d o n Jun e 22 , ( 6 pages) 

4 . Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Jackson, 87 7 F.3 d 69 8 (6 t h Cir . ( 7 pages) 

5. Files Pension Plan, 42 8 F.3 d 47 8 (3 d Cir . 2005) . pages) 

6 . Appeal s Board' s Jul y 24 , lette r t o Spous e # 2 ( 8 pages) 

7. Spous e #2' s Augus t 7 , 201 9 lette r t o th e Appeal s Boar d ( 2 pages) 

8. Excerp t fro m th e Wol f Cree k Collierie s Compan y Employees ' Pensio n Plan , A s Amende d 

a n d Restate d effectiv e Januar y 1 , 198 5 (2 5 pages) 

9 . 7 5 Fed . Reg . 3284 6 (1 0 pages) 

1 0 . v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 94 3 F.Supp.2 d 13 0 (D.D.C . 2013) . (1 8 pages) 

 v. VanderKam, 116 F.3 d 88 3 (D.C . Cir . 2015) . ( 9 pages) 

1 2 . Carmona Carmona, 60 3 F.3 d 104 1 (9 t h Cir . 2010) . (1 9 pages) 

1 3 . Rivers Cent. & S. W. Corp., 18 6 F.3 d 68 1 (5 t h Cir . 1991) . ( 3 pages) 

1 4 . Hopkins AT&T Global Info. Solutions Co., 10 5 F.3 d 15 3 (4 t h Cir . 1997) . ( 5 pages) 

14