Jul y 17 ,

R e : Cas e No . 206371 ; Delph i Hourly-Rat e Employees ' Pensio n Pla n 

(th e "Delph i Hourl y Plan " o r th e "Plan" ) 

T h e Appeal s Boar d is respondin g t o you r appea l o f PBGC' s benefi t determinatio n o f 

M a y yo u ar e entitle d t o a PBGC-payabl e surviv o r annuit y 

 unde r th e Delph i Hourl y as th e survivin g spous e o f becaus e 

 wer e foun d guilt y o f murde r i n yo u ar e

beneficiar y fo r th e survivo r annuit y benefi t unde r th e Plan , PBG C determine d tha t Michiga n 

stat e la w an d th e federa l commo n rendere d yo u ineligi b l e t o receiv e th e benefit . Yo u clai m 

tha t yo u b e exonerate d murde r convictio n o f an d ar e entitle d t o 

t h e survivo r annuit y benefi t unde r th e Delph i Hourl y Plan . 

I. Summary of decision 

T h e Boar d decide s tha t ther e is n o basis fo r changin g PBGC' s determinatio n tha t 

y o u ar e no t entitle d t o a surv i vo r annuit y benefit . W e find tha t yo u we r e o f th e firstdegre e premeditate d murde r o f you r forme r spouse . a participan t unde r

Delph i Hourl y Plan , i n a Michiga n stat e court , an d th e convictio n ha s no t bee n overturned . 

Becaus e bot h Michiga n stat e la w an d th e federa l commo n la w predatin g th e Employe e 

Retiremen t Incom e Securit y Ac t o f as amended ("ERISA") , prohibi t a n individua l 

convicte d murde r fro m benefitin g his o r he r crime , PBG C correctl y determine d tha t yo u 

a r e no t el igibl e fo r a PBGC-payabl e survivo r annuit y benefi t as th e spous e o f

 Therefore , w e uphol d PBGC' s determinatio n an d den y you r appeal . 

I I. Background 

PBG C is th e Unite d State s governmen t agenc y tha t insure s pension s i n accordanc e wit h 

Titl e I V o f ERISA . I f a pla n sponso r is unabl e t o suppor t its define d benefi t pensio n pla n an d th e 

pla n terminates , PBG C become s th e statutor y truste e o f th e pla n an d pay s guarantee d pensio n 

benefits accordin g t o th e pla n provisions , t o lega l limit s se t b y Congress unde r ERISA . 
Genera l Motor s Corporatio n ("GM" ) spu n of f Delph i Automotiv e System s Corporatio n 

("Delphi" ) effectiv e Januar y 1 , A s par t o f tha t arrangement , Delph i agree d t o sponso r a 

n e w pensio n pla n fo r its hourl y employee s t o replac e thei r previou s coverag e th e Genera l 

Motor s Hourl y Rat e Employees ' Pensio n Plan . Th e Delph i Hourl y Plan' s origina l effectiv e dat e 

w a s als o Januar y 1 ,

Whe n th e Delph i Hourl y Pla n terminate d o n Jul y 2009 , i t di d no t hav e sufficien t assets 

t o provid e al l benefits provide d unde r th e Plan , an d PBG C becam e th e statutor y truste e o n 

Augus t 2009 . Th e term s o f th e Plan , th e provision s o f ERISA , an d PBGC' s regulation s 

determin e th e benefits PBG C ca n pay . 

Whe n PBG C become s statutor y truste e o f a terminate d plan , PBG C collects participan t 

informatio n an d copie s o f th e plan's governin g document s fro m th e plan' s administrato r an d 

audits tha t data . PBG C relie s o n th e informatio n i t receive s fro m a pla n administrato r unless 

PBGC' s audi t o f tha t informatio n show s tha t i t is incorrect , o r a participan t supplie s PBG C wit h 

document s showin g tha t th e informatio n is incorrect . 

PBG C record s contai n th e followin g information : 

..

Y o u wer e bor n o n | 

Befor e Ma y 28 , his employmen t transferre d fro m G M t o Delphi ; 

Y o u an d Mr . wer e marrie d | 

M r . o n | 

Whe n hi s employmen t terminated , h e wa s eligibl e fo r a retiremen t typ e unde r th e 

Delph i Hourl y Plan ; 

[bega n receivin g a benefi t unde r th e Pla n o n hi s actua l retiremen t dat e o f 

pai d i n th e for m o f a Join t an d 65 % Survivo r Pop-u p Annuit y 

 o r "J&65%S A wit h Pop-up") ; 

H i s dat e o f deat h wa s 

y o u wer e foun d guilt y first-degre e premeditate d murde r th e o f 

| and , o n sentence d t o priso n withou t fo r parole . 

Y o u subsequentl y ap peale d convictio n t o th e Michig a n Cour t o f Appeals.

 th e Michiga n Cour t o f Appeals th e Count y Circui t 

Court' s convictio n i n a writte n opinion. 1 Yo u the n applie d t o th e Michiga n Suprem e Cour t fo r 

 (Mich . Ct . App . as Enclosur e 

2 
leav e t o th e Cour t th e Michiga n 

Suprem e Cour t denie d you r applicatio n fo r leav e t o appea l th e decisio n o f th e Michiga n Cour t o f 

Appeals. 2 

o u file d a motio n fo r relie f fro m judgment , whic h th e Circui t Cour t 

T h e Michiga n Cour t o f Appeal s denie d you r appea l o f this orde r o n 

, an d th e S uprem e o f Michiga n you r fo r leav e t o fil e 

a n appea l 

Y o u hav e als o file d i n th e Unite d State s Distric t Cour t fo r th e Easter n Distric t o f Michiga n 

petition s unde r 2 8 § 225 4 fo r Writ s o f Habea s Corpu s b y a Perso n i n Stat e Custody . 

Alt houg h tw o case s involvin g petition s fo r Writ s o f Habea s Corpu s hav e bee n Cas e 

N o . is currentl y pending . t o Distric t Court , assert th e followin g 

ground s fo r relief : (1 ) Th e conclusion s an d opinion s o f th e office r i n charg e o f th e cas e 

improperl y invade d th e provinc e o f th e jury ; (2 ) Ther e wa s misrepresentatio n b y th e court -

appointe d appellat e attorne y an d misconduc t b y bot h prosecutors an d th e police ; (3 ) Ther e wa s 

misrepresentatio n b y tria l counse l an d misconduc t b y bot h prosecutors an d th e police ; an d (4 ) 

T h e shootin g wa s legall y justifie d du e t o provocation . 

III. Issue presented by your appeal of PBGC's determination 

O n Ma y PBG C issue d a benefi t determinatio n letter, informin g yo u tha t yo u ar e 

n o t entitle d t o a PBGC-payabl e benefit. 3 Th e lette r state s i n relevan t par t th e following : 

 wa s a participan t i n th e plan . H e wa s receivin g 

benefits as a Join t an d 65 % Survivo r Annuit y wit h Pop-up . Yo u 

wer e name d as th e benefits his death . 

o f murde r i n hi s death . Becaus e Michiga n stat e la w provide s tha t 

a n individua l convicte d o f homicid e canno t receiv e benefits wit h 

respec t t o th e decedent's estate , an d federa l commo n la w provide s 

f o r simila r treatment , w e canno t pa y yo u a survivo r benefit . 

Y o u file d a timel y appea l o n Ma y 29 , You r appea l state s i n par t th e following : 

Pleas e reconside r you r unknowin g judgmen t unti l m y last appea l t o 

decide , o r BAC K PA Y M E whe n I' m EXONERATE D ver y soo n 

now ! 

(Emphasi s i n original. ) 

 PBG C benefi t determinatio n lette r date d Ma y provide d as Enclosur e 3 . 

 Excerpt s from you r appea l ar e provide d a s Enclosur e 4 . 

3 
T h e primar y issu e presente d b y you r appea l is whethe r y o u ar e t o receiv e a PBGC -

 benefi t as survivin g spous e A s explaine d below , th e Appeal s 

Boar d find s tha t unde r eithe r stat e o r federa l law , includin g ERISA , yo u ar e no t entitle d t o a 

 benefit . Accordingly , PBG C correctl y determine d tha t yo u ar e no t entitle d t o a 

survivo r annuit y benefi t payabl e b y PBGC . 

 Discussion 

A. Relevant Plan provisions 

T h e Hourl y Pla n documen t Mr . H terminate d employmen t wa s 

t h e Delph i Hourly-Rat e Employees ' Pensio n Plan , effectiv e Octobe r 1 , Al l define d 

benefi t pensio n plan s lik e th e Delph i Hourl y Pla n mus t provid e th e pensio n benefits o f 

participants i n th e for m o f a qualifie d join t an d survivo r annuit y ("QJSA"). 6 A QJS A is a n 

annuit y fo r th e lif e o f th e participan t an d a survivo r annuit y fo r "th e lif e o f [th e participant's] 

spouse " tha t is a t least percen t o f th e amoun t o f th e annuit y payabl e fo r th e join t live s o f th e 

participan t an d spouse. 7 

T h e Plan' s QJS A is th e for m o f benefi t as describe d i n Articl e II , Sectio n 5 o f th e 

Plan . I t is a n annuit y fo r th e lif e o f a participan t an d a survivo r annuit y fo r th e "designate d 

spouse " tha t is a t least 5 0 percen t o f th e amoun t o f th e annuit y payabl e fo r th e join t live s o f th e 

participan t an d spouse. 8 I f a participan t predecease s his designate d spouse , th e designate d 

spous e receive s th e survivor' s benefi t (i.e. , 65 % o f th e join t benefit ) fo r th e spouse's remainin g 

lifetime . I f a spous e predecease s th e participant , th e participant's benefi t increase s t o a n amoun t 

equa l t o wha t th e participan t woul d hav e receive d absen t th e survivo r election . Becaus e th e 

participant's benefi t "pop s up " automaticall y o n th e deat h o f a spouse , th e retiremen t typ e is 

sometime s referre d t o as th e J&65%S A wit h Pop-up . 

T h e J&65%S A wit h Pop-u p wa s th e defaul t for m o f benefi t fo r marrie d participants. Articl e 

I I , Sectio n 5(a ) o f th e Pla n provide s that , upo n retirement , a marrie d participan t "shal l b e deeme d 

t o hav e electe d automaticall y a reduce d amoun t o f monthl y basi c benefit " t o provid e " a survivo r 

benefit " fo r hi s "designate d spouse." 9 PBG C document s includ e Pensio n Electio n 

 Statemen t indicatin g tha t electe d th e survivo r benefi t optio n fo r 

you , his designate d spouse . 

 See Enclosur e 5 fo r a cop y o f th e relevan t Delph i Hourl y Pla n provisions . 

 ERIS A § 205(a)(1) ; 2 9 Unite d State s ("USC" ) § 1055(a)(1) . Th e provision s o f ERIS A ar e se t fort h i n 2 9 

U S C § 1001 - 1461 , bu t th e Boar d wil l hereinafte r cit e t o th e ERIS A statut e i n this decision . 

 ERIS A § 205(d)(1) . 

 See Enclosur e 5, Articl e II , Sectio n 5(a) . Althoug h th e 200 3 Pla n doe s no t defin e "designate d spouse, " i t state s i n 

Articl e II , Sectio n "Th e beneficiar y o f a survivo r benefi t electio n shal l b e onl y th e perso n wh o is th e 

employee' s spous e a t suc h tim e an d wh o ha s bee n suc h spous e fo r a t least on e yea r immediatel y prio r t o th e 

effectiv e dat e o f suc h election. " 

 See Enclosur e 5, Articl e II , Sectio n 5(a) . 

4 
Paymen t o f th e Plan' s survivo r annuit y benefi t doe s no t depen d upo n th e caus e o f th e 

participant's death . Th e Plan' s provision s d o not , i n othe r words , expressl y den y benefits t o a 

survivin g spous e wh o is convicte d o f murderin g a participant . Afte r a participan t dies, th e 

survivo r annuit y benefi t electio n ma y no t b e changed. 1 0 

B. Relevant state and federal law 

1. Michigan state law and federal common law 

I n general , "slaye r " a statut e tha t prohibit s a person's kille r fro m takin g an y 

par t o f th e decedent's codification s o f th e equitabl e principl e tha t a perso n 

shoul d no t benefi t fro m his o r he r crimina l act. Mos t state s hav e enacte d slaye r statute s i n thei r 

respectiv e statutor y codes, 1 2 an d th e principl e underlyin g slaye r statute s is long-standin g unde r 

bot h stat e an d federa l commo n law. 1 3 A s th e Suprem e Cour t declare d i n New Life Inc. 

Co. v. Armstrong: 

I t woul d b e a reproac h th e jurisprudenc e o f th e country , i f on e 

coul d recove r insuranc e mone y payabl e o n th e deat h o f a part y 

whos e lif e h e ha d feloniousl y taken . A s wel l migh t h e recove r 

insuranc e mone y upo n a buildin g tha t h e ha d willfull y fired. 1 4 

Slaye r statute s promot e "criminal-la w value s o f deterrenc e an d retaliation, " bu t the y ar e no t 

criminal-la w Slaye r statute s ar e statute s o f genera l applicabilit y dealin g wit h aspects 

o f famil y law , a traditiona l are a o f stat e regulation. 1 6 A s such , federa l courts ar e loath e t o 

overrid e th e stat e interests represente d therein : 

Whe n th e stat e substantiv e la w i n questio n regulate s famil y an d 

family-propert y arrangements - matters tha t traditionall y hav e 

bee n lef t t o loca l la w .. . - stat e interests 'shoul d b e overridde n b y 

t h e federa l courts onl y wher e clea r an d substantia l interests o f th e 

 See Enclosur e 5 , Articl e II , Sectio n 5(i) . 

 Black' s La w ed .

 v. 53 2 U.S . 141 , 15 2 (2001) . On e commentato r ha s counte d 4 7 state s wit h slaye r statutes, an d 

t h e one s tha t d o no t reac h th e sam e o r simila r resul t throug h th e commo n la w precedent . Jennife r Piel , Expanding 

Slayer Statutes to Elder Abuse, 4 3 J. Am . Acad . Psychiatr y La w 36 9 (2015) . 

 See Restatemen t (Third ) o f Restitutio n an d Unjus t Enrichmen t § 45(2 ) Unifor m Probat e Cod e § 2-80 3 

(2006) ; Restatemen t (Third ) o f Property : Will s an d Othe r Donativ e Transfer s § 8. 4 Slaye r Rule ) 

(2003) ; Bogert' s Trust s an d Trustees, Th e La w o f Trust s an d Trustee s § 47 8 (Propert y Acquire d b y killin g another ) 

(2018) ; see also, Riggs v. Palmer, 11 5 N.Y . 50 6 (1889) . 

 U.S . 591 , 60 0 (1886 ) (rulin g tha t a slaye r coul d no t profi t from insuranc e proceed s ( a non-probat e asset) a t 

t h e expens e o f th e insured) . 

 N . Cohen , The Slayer Rule, 9 2 B.U.L . Rev . 793 , 79 8 (2012) . 

 v. 88 0 F.3 d 927 , 93 3 (7 t h Cir . 2018 ) v. Egelhoff, 53 2 U.S . 141 , 

1 5 2 (2001)) ; Manning v. Hayes, 21 2 F.3 d 886 , 87 2 (5 t h Cir . 2000) . 

5 
Nationa l Government , whic h cannot b e serve d consistentl y wit h 

respec t fo r suc h stat e interests, wil l suffe r majo r damag e i f th e stat e 

l a w is applied. ' . . . Th e ful l forc e o f this rul e applie s n o less whe n 

t h e propert y i n questio n consists o f federall y create d benefits. 1 7 

Michigan , lik e fiftee n othe r states, ha s adopte d th e Unifor m Probat e Code' s versio n o f th e 

slaye r statute . Michigan' s slaye r statut e specificall y provide s tha t "[t]h e feloniou s an d 

intentiona l killin g o r th e convictio n o f th e fo r th e abuse , neglect , o r exploitatio n o f th e 

deceden t doe s al l th e following, " t o include : "Th e feloniou s an d intentiona l killin g .. . o f th e 

 . .. o r appointmen t o f propert y mad e b y th e deceden t t o th e 

kille r i n a governin g I t furthe r mandate s generall y tha t "[a ] killer' s o r felon' s 

wrongfu l acquisitio n o f propert y o r interest no t covere d b y this sectio n mus t b e treate d i n 

accordanc e wit h th e principl e tha t a kille r o r felo n canno t profi t fro m hi s o r he r wrong." 1 9 

T h e statut e "is derive d fro m th e common-la w rule s tha t on e wh o commit s a murde r canno t 

benefi t b y his o r he r crimina l act." 2 0 Th e provision s o f a victim' s "donative " instrument s ar e 

give n effec t as i f th e slaye r predecease d th e

2. Federal statutory law (ERISA) 

T h e provision s o f ERISA , a federa l law , preemp t th e provision s o f stat e law s tha t "relat e t o 

a n y employe e benefi t plan, " suc h as th e Delph i Hourl y Plan. 2 2 I n othe r words , stat e law s relatin g 

t o employe e benefi t plan s ar e generall y subordinat e t o ERISA , a federa l law , unless a n exceptio n 

applies. 

Sectio n o f ERIS A provide s as follows : 

Excep t a s provid e i n subsectio n (b ) o f this section , th e provision s 

o f this titl e an d titl e I V [o f ERISA ] shal l supersed e an y an d al l 

Stat e law s insofa r as the y ma y no w o r hereafte r relat e t o an y 

employe e benefi t pla n describe d i n sectio n 4(a ) an d no t exemp t 

unde r sectio n 4(b) . Thi s sectio n shal l tak e effec t o n Januar y 1 , 

1975 . 

Subsectio n (b ) o f Sectio n govern s th e constructio n an d applicatio n o f th e doctrin e o f 

preemptio n embodie d i n ERISA . Fo r example , subsectio n (b ) sets fort h severa l exception s t o 

ERISA' s preemptio n o f Stat e law , thoug h non e ar e applicabl e i n this case . Fo r instance , ERIS A 

 Hisquierdo v. 43 9 U.S . 572 , 594-59 5 (1979 ) (interna l citation s omitted) . 

 Michiga n Compile d Law s ("MCL" ) Sectio n 700.2803(2)(a)(i ) (Jun e 27 , 2016) . 

 MC L Sectio n 700.2803(5 ) (Forfeiture , revocation , o r severance) . 

 In re Estate, 29 0 Mich . App . 704 , 707-708 , 80 3 N.W.2 d 90 7 (2010) . 

 MC L Sectio n 700.2803(4) . 

 ERIS A § 514(a) . 

6 
doe s no t preemp t a State's crimina l la w o r Stat e law s regulatin g insurance , banking , o r securities. 

B y contrast , Slaye r statute s ar e generall y understoo d t o fal l withi n th e categor y o f Stat e famil y o r 

probat e law . 

T h e Suprem e Cour t ha s formulate d a two-par t test fo r evaluatin g a stat e la w "relate s 

t o " a n employe e benefi t pla n an d is thu s preempted : (1 ) Doe s th e la w refe r t o a n employe e 

benefi t plan ; an d (2 ) Doe s th e la w hav e a n impermissibl e connectio n wit h a n employe e benefi t 

plan. 2 3 Unde r th e first test, th e Cour t ha s hel d tha t ERIS A preempte d a stat e la w tha t expressl y 

referre d t o an d exempte d ERIS A welfar e benefi t plan s fro m stat e garnishmen t procedures. 2 4 I t 

similarl y hel d tha t ERIS A preempte d a la w i n th e Distric t o f Columbi a tha t impose d 

requirement s o n ERIS A healt h plan s t o provid e healt h insuranc e coverag e equivalen t unde r a 

standar d require d b y D.C . law. 2 5 

Unde r th e secon d test, relatin g t o stat e law s wit h impermissibl e connection s t o employe e 

benefi t plans, no t ever y stat e la w tha t affects a n ERIS A pla n wil l b e preempted . T o determin e 

whethe r suc h a connectio n exists, courts "loo k bot h t o 'th e objective s o f th e ERIS A statut e as a 

guid e t o th e scop e o f th e stat e la w tha t Congress understoo d woul d survive, ' as wel l as t o th e 

natur e o f th e stat e law' s effec t o n ERIS A plans." 2 6 I f a stat e la w ha s onl y a n indirec t effec t o n a n 

ERIS A plan , th e likel y resul t is tha t th e la w is no t preempted. 2 7 I f a stat e la w interfere s wit h 

Congress's objectiv e unde r Sectio n o f ERIS A throug h regulatio n o f "employe e benefi t 

structure s o r thei r administration, " th e likel y resul t is preemptio n

F o r example , i n Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, a Washingto n stat e la w wa s enacte d t o revok e 

beneficiar y designation s fo r decedents' interests i n non-probat e assets upo n divorce. 2 9 Applyin g 

t h e secon d test, i.e. , whethe r stat e la w ha d a n impermissibl e connectio n wit h a n

plan , th e Cour t foun d tha t th e la w interfere d "wit h nationall y unifor m pla n administration " an d 

 Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Const., N.A., Inc., 519U.S . 316 , 324-32 5 (1997) . 

 Lanier Collection Agency Services, 48 6 U.S . 825 , 83 0 (1988) . 

 District Columbia v. Greater Washington Bd. Trade, 50 6 U.S . 125 , 132-13 3 (1992) . 

 v. Egelhoff, 53 2 U.S . 141 , 14 7 (2001 ) (quotin g Dillingham, 51 9 U.S . a t 325) . 

 New York State Conference Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v . Travelers Co., 51 4 U.S . 645 , 66 0 (1995 ) 

(stat e la w whic h impose d surcharg e o n hospita l patients insure d b y carriers othe r tha n BC/B S ha d onl y a n "indhec t 

economi c effec t o n choice s mad e b y insuranc e buyers , includin g ERIS A plans.") . 

 Travelers, U.S . 658 . 

 Th e Washingto n Stat e statut e provide d as follows : 

I f a marriag e is dissolve d o r invalidated , a provisio n mad e prio r t o tha t even t 

tha t relate s t o th e paymen t o r transfe r a t deat h o f th e decedent's interest i n a 

nonprobat e asse t i n favo r o f o r grantin g a n interest o r powe r t o th e decedent's 

forme r spous e is revoked . A provisio n affecte d b y this sectio n mus t b e 

interpreted , an d th e nonprobat e asse t affecte d as i f th e forme r spous e 

faile d t o surviv e th e decedent , havin g die d a t th e tim e o f entr y o f th e decre e o f 

dissolutio n o r declaratio n o f invalidity . 

Wash . Rev . Cod e § (1994) . 

7 
w a s therefor e preempted. 3 0

 Th e Cour t reasone d tha t a "unifor m administrativ e scheme " woul d 

b e impossibl e i f pensio n plan s wer e t o differen t obligation s i n differen t Th e 

Cour t als o conclude d tha t th e Washingto n stat e statut e conflicte d wit h ERISA' s pla n documents 

rule , requirin g tha t "benefits b e pai d i n accordanc e wit h pla n documents." 3 2 

C. Interpreting statutes enacted against a background of pre-existing common law 

Unde r a well-know n cano n o f statutor y construction , "[a ] statut e wil l b e construe d t o alte r 

t h e commo n la w onl y whe n tha t dispositio n is clear." 3 3 Thoug h som e courts hav e

this cano n t o mea n tha t "statute s i n derogatio n o f th e commo n la w ar e t o b e strictl y construed, " 

t h e bette r vie w tha t "statute s wil l no t b e inteiprete d as changin g th e commo n la w unless the y 

effec t th e chang e wit h clarity." 3 4 

T h e Suprem e Cour t ha s applie d this cano n o f statutor y constructio n i n a variet y o f cases. 

Unde r well-establishe d Cour t precedent , "Congress is understoo d t o legislat e against 

backgroun d o f commo n la w adjudicator y "Whe n a statut e covers a n issu e 

previousl y governe d b y th e commo n law , [th e Court ] interpret[s] th e statut e wit h th e 

presumptio n tha t Congress intende d t o retai n th e substanc e o f th e commo n law." 3 6 Accordingly , 

"wher e a common-la w principl e is well-established,.. . th e courts ma y tak e i t as a give n tha t 

Congress ha s legislate d wit h th e expectatio n tha t th e principl e wil l apply , excep t 'whe n a 

statutor y purpos e t o th e contrar y is

Thi s cano n o f statutor y interpretatio n is similarl y applie d i n stat e courts. Fo r instance , i n a 

Michiga n cas e o f first impression , th e cour t addresse d th e followin g issue : "Ca n [a] child , wh o 

murdere d hi s mothe r fo r th e purpos e o f securin g hi s inheritance , b e le t int o th e inheritanc e unde r 

t h e statute s o f descent?" 3 8 Th e tria l cour t applie d th e statut e o f descen t strictly , an d becaus e 

ther e wa s n o exceptio n fo r murder , hel d tha t i t di d no t hav e th e discretio n t o alte r th e legislativ e 

rules. Th e Michiga n Suprem e Cour t rejecte d th e lowe r court's interpretation , stating : 

 Egelhoff, U.S. a t 148 . 

 Id. 

 150 . 

 A . Garner , Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (1 s t editio n 2012) , a t 318-319 , Sectio n 5 2 

(Presumptio n Agains t Chang e i n Commo n Law) .

 Id. 

 Astoria Federal v. 50 1 U.S . 104 , 10 8 (1991) ; U.S . 305 , 

320 , not e 13 (2010) ; see also Gottlieb v. Carnival Corp., 43 6 F.3 d 335 , 33 9 (2 d Cir . 2005) . 

 v. 56 0 U.S . a t 320 , not e 13 ; Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 34 3 U.S . 779 , 78 3 (1952) ; United 

States v. Tex., 50 7 U.S . 529 , 53 4 (1993) . 

 Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass 'n, 50 1 U.S . a t 10 8 (citin g Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 34 3 U.S . a t 783) ; 

United States v. 50 7 U.S . a t 534 ; see also Kennedy v. DuPont Savings Plan, 55 5 U.S . 285 , 295 , footnot e 6 

(2009 ) (Cour t suggeste d tha t readin g th e anti-alienatio n rul e unde r sectio n 205(d)(1 ) o f ERIS A t o ba r al l waiver s o f 

benefi t "unsoun d i n ligh t backgroun d commo n la w

 Garwols v. Co., Mich . 420 , 42 2 (1930) . 

8 
T h e statut e is i n genera l terms , an d controls th e descen t an d 

distributio n o f propert y unde r norma l conditions . I t doe s no t 

provid e tha t a so n wh o murder s his mothe r shal l inheri t he r 

property . I t canno t b e conceive d tha t th e legislatur e ha d i n min d s o 

shockin g a resul t i n its enactment . I n ou r opinion , i t mus t b e 

assume d tha t i t intende d t o leav e suc h a n exceptiona l cas e t o b e 

determine d b y th e rales o f th e commo n la w whic h hav e s o lon g 

h a d plac e i n ou r jurisprudence. 3 9 

Notwithstandin g th e absenc e o f express statutor y language , th e Michiga n Suprem e Cour t 

construe d th e statut e t o b e a ba r t o th e son's inheritanc e o f hi s mother' s property. 4 0 

D . Analysis of your appeal 

T h e Appeal s Boar d is confronte d b y th e preliminar y issu e o f whic h la w shoul d gover n you r 

appeal : stat e law , federa l commo n law , o r ERISA . T o determin e whic h la w applies, th e Boar d 

generall y woul d nee d t o determin e whethe r ERISA , a federa l law , preempts stat e law , o r whethe r 

t h e stat e slaye r statute s represen t a n are a o f traditiona l stat e la w tha t doe s no t preempt . 

T h e Suprem e Cour t ha s no t ye t decide d whethe r preempts slaye r statutes, an d ther e is 

onl y on e federa l circui t cour t o f appeals decisio n o n th e preemptio n o f slaye r statutes, discusse d 

below , an d tha t court's jurisdictio n doe s no t includ e Michigan . 

A s explaine d below , th e Appeal s Boar d decide s tha t i t nee d no t resolv e th e preemptio n issu e 

t o resolv e you r appeal . Becaus e th e Boar d find s tha t yo u ar e preclude d fro m receivin g a survivo r 

annuit y benefi t unde r bot h th e Michiga n slaye r statut e an d th e equitabl e principl e embodie d i n 

t h e federa l commo n la w i n existenc e whe n ERIS A wa s enacted , w e nee d no t decid e whic h la w 

applie s t o you r I n eithe r case , PBG C woul d no t pa y yo u a survivo r annuit y benefit . 

L If ERIS A does not preempt Michiga n law, you ar e not entitled to a PBGC-payabl e 

benefit under the Delph i Hourl y Pla n 

T h e Suprem e Cour t ha s no t decide d whethe r Sectio n preempts stat e

statutes, includin g Michigan's . I t ha s decide d a preemptio n cas e unde r ERIS A sectio n

involvin g a stat e statut e wit h certai n characteristic s analogou s t o slaye r statute s usin g th e secon d 

 Id. a t 432-433 . 

 Fo r purpose s o f this appeal , w e assume , withou t deciding , tha t th e Michiga n slaye r statut e woul d appl y i f i t wer e 

n o t preempte d b y ERIS A unde r th e circumstance s o f you r appeal . Fo r example , i f yo u appeale d th e Board' s 

decisio n t o th e appropriat e cour t unde r ERISA' s venu e provision , see ERIS A § an d th e cour t decide d 

tha t stat e la w shoul d b e applied , w e expec t tha t th e cour t woul d engag e i n a choic e o f la w analysis t o determin e 

whethe r Michiga n furnishe d th e basis fo r you r murde r convictio n i n th e stat e o f b e 

t h e applicabl e stat e law . 

9 
test whethe r th e la w presente d a n impermissibl e connectio n wit h a n employe e 

benefi t plan. 4 2 

I n Egelhoff v. Egelhoff reference d above , th e Cour t decide d tha t th e Washingto n stat e 

statut e tha t automaticall y revoke d th e designatio n o f a spous e as a beneficiar y o f a nonprobat e 

asse t o n divorc e create d " a prohibite d connectio n wit h ERIS A plans" ; "implicate[d ] a n are a o f 

cor e ERIS A concern; " an d "interfere[d ] wit h nationall y unifor m pla n administration." 4 3 Th e 

Cour t consequentl y hel d tha t th e Washingto n stat e la w wa s b y ERISA . 

Althoug h th e Cour t i n Egelhoff decline d t o sa y whethe r ERIS A woul d als o preemp t slayer 

statutes, i t suggeste d i n dicta tha t slaye r statute s migh t no t b e preempted : 

I n th e ERIS A context , thes e 'slayer ' statute s coul d revok e th e 

beneficiar y statu s o f someon e wh o murdere d a pla n participant . 

Thos e statute s ar e no t befor e us, so w e d o no t decid e th e issue . W e 

note , however , tha t th e principl e unde r th e statute s - whic h hav e 

bee n adopte d b y nearl y ever y Stat e - is wel l establishe d i n th e la w 

a n d ha s a lon g historica l pedigre e predatin g ERISA . See , e.g., 

Riggs v. Palmer, N.Y . 50 6 .. . An d becaus e th e 

statute s ar e mor e o r less unifor m nationwide , thei r interferenc e 

wit h th e aim s o f ERIS A is a t least debatabl e

Som e courts hav e interprete d this languag e t o suggest tha t slaye r statute s ar e not preempte d 

b y ERISA. 4 5 An d whil e numerou s federa l distric t courts hav e considere d th e preemptio n issue, 4 6 

ther e ha s bee n onl y on e decisio n i n th e federa l circui t courts o f appeal . I n Pension 

Fund v. th e Sevent h Circui t uphel d a lowe r court's rulin g tha t th e Illinoi s slaye r 

statut e wa s no t preempte d b y ERISA . 

I n Miscevic, th e federa l appellat e cour t deeme d slaye r law s t o b e "a n aspec t o f famil y law, " 

a n d rule d that , t o sho w preemption , th e spous e convicte d o f first-degre e murde r ha d t o overcom e 

t h e presumptio n tha t Congress di d no t inten d "t o supplan t this 'traditiona l are a o f stat e 

 Th e Miscevic cour t distinguishe d th e Washingto n stat e statut e i n

t h e Illinoi s slaye r statute , whic h th e cour t foun d embodie d a "well-establishe d lega l principl e 

 Egelhoff, 53 2 U.S . 141 . 

 Egelhoff, 53 2 U.S . a t 147-149 . 

 Egelhoff, U.S. a t 152 . 

 See, e.g., Admin. Comm. for the H.E.B. Inv. & Ret. Plan v. Harris, 21 7 F . Supp . 2 d 75 9 (E.D . Tex . 2002) ; Mack v. 

Estate Mack, P.3 d 9 8 (Nev . 2009) . 

 Th e lowe r courts hav e no t bee n consistent , bu t th e majorit y hav e hel d tha t ERIS A doe s no t preemp t stat e slaye r 

statutes. 

 Cir . 2018) . 

 Miscevic, 88 0 F.3 d a t 933-934 . 

1 0 
whic h predate[d ] Th e cour t foun d tha t th e spous e coul d no t overcom e th e 

presumption , relie d o n th e Suprem e Court' s dict a i n Egelhoff, an d hel d tha t th e Illinoi s slaye r 

statut e wa s no t preempted . Accordingly , th e Illinoi s slaye r la w applied , preventin g th e spous e 

fro m recoverin g a survivo r annuit y benefi t unde r th e pensio n

Ther e is n o simila r preceden t o n preemptio n i n th e federa l cour t o f appeals fo r th e 

Sixt h Circuit , wher e Michiga n is situated , o r withi n th e D.C . Circuit , i f unde r ERISA' s venu e 

provision , th e U.S . Distric t Cour t fo r th e Distric t o f Columbi a woul d b e th e "appropriat e court " 

i n whic h t o appea l this decision; 5 1 an d i t is unclea r whethe r courts i n eithe r jurisdictio n woul d 

follo w th e Sevent h Circuit' s decisio n i n Miscevic. 

W e not e tha t a U.S . Distric t Cour t i n Michiga n ha s a pensio n plan's determinatio n 

tha t a spouse's convictio n o f voluntar y manslaughte r wa s ground s fo r denyin g th e plan' s 

survivo r annuit y benefit. 5 2 I n v. Ford Motor Co., th e cour t foun d that , unde r th e pensio n 

plan , benefi t rights an d eligibilit y wer e administere d i n accordanc e wit h federa l law , bu t i f 

federa l la w di d no t control , stat e la w governed , whic h include d Michigan' s slaye r statute . Th e 

cour t note d tha t bot h stat e an d federa l commo n la w prevente d a n individua l fro m profitin g fro m 

t h e killin g o f another . 

Acknowledgin g th e preemptio n issue , th e Nale cour t reasone d tha t ERIS A 

preempts stat e law , bu t is silen t o r ambiguou s o n a particula r question , th e Cour t turn s t o federa l 

commo n law." 5 3 Althoug h th e Nale cour t cite d Egelhoff an d inferre d fro m th e quote d languag e 

abov e tha t woul d likel y not preemp t slaye r statutes, th e Michiga n federa l cour t conclude d 

tha t becaus e bot h federa l commo n la w an d stat e la w adop t th e equitabl e principl e o f denyin g a 

kille r th e benefi t o f his o r he r crime , i t di d no t nee d t o decid e th e preemptio n

resolutio n woul d b e th e sam e unde r eithe r federa l o r stat e law . I t therefor e uphel d th e plan' s 

denia l o f benefits. 

Assumin g withou t decidin g tha t ERIS A doe s no t preemp t stat e la w an d tha t you r clai m 

woul d b e governe d b y Michiga n stat e la w unde r applicabl e choic e o f la w principles, regardless 

o f th e venu e o f th e "appropriat e court " unde r sectio n 4003(f)(2 ) o f ERISA , w e conclud e th e 

Michiga n slaye r statut e woul d ba r you r clai m fo r th e survivo r annuit y benefi t unde r th e Delph i 

Hourl y Plan . 

 Id. 

 Id. a t 937 . 

 ERIS A § 4003(f)(2) . 

 Nale Ford Motor Co. Ret. Plan, 70 3 F . Supp . 2 d 71 4 (E.D . Mich . 2010) . 

 70 3 F . Supp . 2 d 72 2 (citin g Muse International Business Machines Corp., 10 3 F.2 d 490 , 49 5 (6 t h Cir . 1996)) . 

1 1 
2. If ERIS A preempts Michiga n law, you ar e not entitled to a PBGC-payabl e benefit 

under the Delph i Hourl y Plan . 

A s note d above , unde r ERIS A § ERISA' s provision s "supersed e an y an d al l Stat e 

laws " t o th e exten t tha t suc h law s "relat e t o an y employe e benefi t plan. " Congress intende d 

ERIS A t o provid e pensio n pla n administrator s wit h a unifor m bod y o f rule s t o minimiz e th e 

expens e an d burde n o f complyin g wit h a n arra y o f stat e laws. 5 4 I n rulin g tha t th e Washingto n 

stat e revocation-on-divorc e statut e i n Egelhoff wa s preempted , th e Cour t explained : 

T h e statut e bind s ERIS A pla n administrators t o a particula r choic e 

o f rule s fo r determinin g beneficiar y status. Th e administrators 

mus t pa y benefits t o th e beneficiarie s chose n b y stat e law , rathe r 

tha n t o thos e identifie d i n th e pla n documents. Th e statut e thu s 

implicate s a n are a o f cor e ERIS A concern . I n particular , i t run s 

counte r t o ERISA' s command s tha t a pla n shal l 'specif y th e basis 

o n whic h payment s ar e mad e t o an d fro m th e plan, ' .. ., an d tha t 

t h e fiduciar y shal l administe r th e pla n 'i n accordanc e wit h th e 

documents an d instrument s governin g th e plan, ' . . ., makin g 

payment s t o a 'beneficiary ' wh o is 'designate d b y a participant , o r 

b y th e term s o f [the ] plan. ' I n othe r words , unlik e generall y 

applicabl e law s regulatin g 'area s wher e ERIS A ha s nothin g t o 

say, ' .. . whic h w e hav e uphel d notwithstandin g thei r incidenta l 

effec t o n ERIS A plans, . . ., thi s statut e govern s th e paymen t o f 

benefits, a centra l matte r o f pla n administration. 5 5 

Thus , becaus e slaye r statute s affec t a pla n administrator' s decisio n o n payin g pensio n pla n 

benefits, som e o f th e Court' s reason s fo r findin g tha t ERIS A preempte d th e Washingto n stat e 

statut e arguabl y appl y i n connectio n wit h slaye r statutes. 

Eve n i f th e Boar d decided , however , tha t ERIS A preempte d th e Michiga n slaye r statute , tha t 

woul d no t necessaril y resul t i n th e paymen t o f a survivo r annuit y benefi t t o you . A s discusse d 

above , Congress enacte d ERIS A i n against a backdro p o f long-standin g stat e an d federa l 

commo n la w tha t embodie d th e equitabl e principl e tha t "n o perso n shoul d b e permitte d t o profi t 

fro m his ow n wrong." 5 6 Accordingly , becaus e th e common-la w principl e wa s well-establishe d 

whe n ERIS A wa s enacted , th e Appeal s Boar d is guide d b y th e "presumptio n tha t Congress 

intende d t o retai n th e substanc e o f th e commo n law, " whic h shoul d b e applie d "unless a statutor y 

purpos e t o th e contrar y is evident." 5 7 Th e Cour t ha s als o state d tha t "t o abrogat e a common-la w 

 See Co., v. McClendon, 49 8 U.S . 133 , 13 7 (1990) . 

 Egelhoff, 53 2 U.S . a t 147-14 8 (citation s an d footnot e omitted) . 

 Prudential Life Inc. Co. v. 69 0 F.2 d 848 , 84 9 (4 t h Cir . (citin g Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, 26 3 F.2 d

9 3 2 (6 t h Cir . 1959) ; United States v. Kwasnieski, 9 1 F . Supp . 847 , 85 1 (E.D . Mich . 1950)) . 

 Samantar v. 56 0 U.S . a t 320 , not e 13 ; Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 34 3 U.S . a t 783 ; United States v. Tex., 

5 0 7 U.S . 534 . 

1 2 
principle , th e statut e mus t 'spea k directly ' t o th e questio n addresse d b y th e commo n

Henc e th e Boar d wil l no t infe r tha t Congress intende d t o eliminat e th e slaye r principl e i n 

enactin g ERISA . 

ERIS A is th e federa l la w tha t establishe s standard s fo r th e paymen t o f survivo r annuit y 

benefits unde r a pensio n plan , bu t ERIS A is silen t o n th e treatmen t o f a beneficiar y whos e 

murde r o f a participan t bring s abou t suc h payment. 5 9 I f a participan t is receivin g a join t for m o f 

benefi t unde r a pensio n plan , lik e th e J&65%S A for m o f benefi t unde r th e Delph i Hourl y Plan , 

a n d th e beneficiar y designate d t o receiv e th e survivo r annuit y benefi t is convicte d o f murderin g 

t h e participant , neithe r ERIS A no r th e Delph i Hourl y Pla n expressl y provide s eithe r fo r payin g a 

beneficiar y th e Plan' s survivo r annuit y benefi t o r fo r prohibitin g th e beneficiar y fro m receivin g 

t h e benefit . Th e Appeal s Boar d thu s conclude s tha t Congress di d no t spea k directl y t o th e 

questio n addresse d b y th e commo n law . 

T h e Boar d als o conclude s tha t Congress di d no t inten d t o negat e th e slaye r principl e unde r 

ERISA' s provisions . T o b e sure , on e o f Congress's purpose s i n enactin g ERIS A wa s t o "enabl e 

employer s 't o establis h a unifor m administrativ e scheme , whic h provide s a se t o f standar d 

procedure s t o guid e o f claim s an d disbursemen t o f benefits." 6 0 Bu t unlik e th e post-

 statute s o f th e typ e i n Egelhoff, th e Suprem e Cour t ha s recognize d 

tha t th e slaye r statute s ar e "mor e o r less " unifor m an d ha s deeme d thei r presume d 

interferenc e wit h ERISA' s goa l o f uniformit y Consequently , th e Boar d decide s 

tha t applicatio n o f th e long-standin g equitabl e principl e unde r th e federa l commo n la w t o den y a 

survivo r benefi t t o a spous e convicte d o f murde r is no t contrar y t o Congress's statutor y purpos e 

i n ERIS A o f a unifor m administrativ e scheme. 6 2 

N o r is th e slaye r principl e contrar y t o Congress's purpos e behin d sectio n 404(a)(1)(D ) o f 

ERISA , i.e. , th e so-calle d "pla n documents rale" unde r ERISA' s fiduciar y provisions , whic h 

require s a pla n administrato r t o follo w th e pla n documents i n payin g benefits. Unde r Sectio n 

404(a)(1 ) o f ERISA , " a fiduciar y shal l discharg e his dutie s wit h respec t t o a pla n solel y i n th e 

interest o f th e participants an d beneficiarie s * * (D ) i n accordanc e wit h th e documents 

 United States v. Tex., 50 7 U.S . 529 , 53 4 (1993 ) (citin g Mobil Oil Corp. v. 43 6 U.S . 618 , 62 5 

(1978) ; Milwaukee Illinois, 45 1 U.S . 304 , 31 5 (1981)) . 

 See, e.g., Nale, 70 3 F . Supp . 2 d a t 72 2 (ERIS A silen t o n benefits payabl e t o slayers) . 

 Egelhoff, 53 2 U.S . a t 14 8 (citin g Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 48 2 U.S . 1 , 9 (1987)) . 

 Egelhoff, U.S. a t 152 . 

 See Connecticut Gen. Co. v. Riner, 35 1 F . Supp . 492 , 49 7 (W.D . Va . 2005 ) ("Congress coul d no t 

hav e intende d ERIS A t o allo w on e spous e t o recove r benefits afte r intentionall y killin g th e othe r IR S 

Privat e Lette r Rulin g (PLR ) 8908063 , 198 9 W L 59450 9 (Feb . 24 , 1989 ) ("W e believ e th e applicatio n o f a 

'killer ' la w override s th e norma l spousa l rule s unde r sectio n 401(a)(ll ) an d 41 7 [o f th e Interna l Revenu e Cod e 

regardin g th e requiremen t an d specia l rule s fo r join t an d survivo r annuities] . T o find otherwis e woul d b e t o pu t a 

spous e wh o kille d a participan t spous e i n a bette r postur e tha n a spous e wh o abandone d o r divorce d a participan t 

spouse . We do not believe Congress could have intended such a result.") (emphasi s added) . 

13 
a n d instrument s governin g th e pla n insofa r as suc h documents an d instrument s ar e consisten t 

wit h th e provision s o f this titl e [I] an d titl e IV." 6 3 

I n enactin g ERISA' s fiduciar y provisions , Congress wa s guide d b y th e commo n la w o f 

trusts: "ERISA' s legislativ e histor y confirm s tha t th e Act' s fiduciar y responsibilit y provision s 

. . . an d mak[e ] applicabl e t o [ERISA ] fiduciarie s certai n principle s develope d i n th e 

evolutio n o f th e la w o f A s th e Suprem e Cour t explaine d i n Central States, Southeast 

& Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc., "[r]athe r tha n explicitl y 

enumeratin g all o f th e power s an d dutie s o f trustee s an d othe r fiduciaries, Congress invoke d th e 

commo n la w o f trusts t o defin e th e genera l scop e o f [fiduciaries' ] authorit y an d responsibility." 6 

ERIS A therefor e "mus t b e construe d against th e backgroun d o f th e commo n la w o f

Unde r commo n la w trust principles, th e cour t i n Atwater v. Nortel Networks conclude d tha t a 

pla n fiduciar y wit h knowledg e o f a beneficiary' s indictmen t fo r th e murde r o f a pla n participan t 

h a d a dut y t o dela y benefi t payment s t o th e beneficiar y unti l th e "beneficiary's ability to receive 

plan benefits has been made."61 I n othe r words , a beneficiar y wh o murder s a pla n participan t is 

n o t eligibl e fo r benefits unde r a n ERIS A pensio n plan , eve n thoug h th e slaye r is th e name d 

beneficiar y unde r th e plan's documents. 6 8 Hence , i n th e exceptiona l circumstance s presente d i n 

slaye r cases, th e Boar d finds tha t th e statutor y purpos e underlyin g th e pla n documents rale, 

construe d against th e commo n la w trusts, is no t contrar y t o th e equitabl e principl e embodie d 

i n slaye r statute s an d th e commo n law . 

3. Conclusion 

T h e Appeal s Boar d nee d no t decid e whethe r preempts Michiga n la w becaus e w e 

find tha t PBG C canno t pa y yo u a survivor' s annuit y benefi t i n an y case . I f ERIS A doe s no t 

preemp t stat e la w o r stat e slaye r statutes, particularl y th e slaye r statut e unde r Michiga n law , w e 

 PBG C is th e statutor y truste e o f th e Delph i Hourl y Plan , responsibl e fo r payin g benefits unde r section s 402 2 an d 

406 1 o f Titl e I V o f ERISA . PBG C is no t th e Plan' s administrato r o r a fiduciar y unde r sectio n 404(a ) o f ERIS A 

whe n i t pay s benefits t o participants an d thei r beneficiaries. Th e discussio n o f th e pla n document s rul e unde r sectio n 

404(a)(1)(D ) is include d i n this decisio n onl y t o sho w tha t ther e is n o statutor y purpos e unde r sectio n 404(a)(1 ) 

contrar y t o th e slaye r principle . 

 See Tire & Rubber Co. v. 48 9 U.S . 101 , (1989 ) (citin g H.R . Rep . No . 93-533 , pg .

(1973)) . 

 47 2 U.S . 559 , 57 0 (1985 ) (citin g S. Rep . No . 93-127 , p . 2 9 (1973) , reprinted in 197 4 4639 , 4865 ) 

(Th e fiduciar y responsibilit y section , i n essence , codifie s an d make s applicabl e t o thes e fiduciarie s certai n principle s 

develope d i n th e evolutio n o f th e la w o f trusts.") ; H.R . Rep . No . 93-533 , p . 1 1 (1973 ) (same)) ; Peg-am v. Herdrich, 

5 3 0 U.S . 22 4 (2000) ; Faircloth v. Packing Co., 9 1 F.3 d 648 , 65 6 (4 t h Cir . 1996) . 

 Firestone Tire, 48 9 U.S . a t see also Beck v. 55 1 U.S . 96 , 10 1 (2007 ) (th e commo n la w o f 

trusts "serve s a s ERISA' s backdrop." ) 

 Atwater, 38 8 F . Supp . 2 d 610 , 61 6 (M.D . N.C . 2005 ) (emphasis added) . 

 Id. Estate by Curtis v. Prudential F . Supp . 491,49 5 (E.D.Mich . 1993 ) (findin g tha t 

" i f defendants had , o r shoul d hav e had , notic e tha t [husban d o f pla n participant ] wa s suspecte d i n his wife' s murder , 

the n .. . a pruden t man , as define d b y sectio n [404(a)(1)(B)] , woul d hav e delaye d payin g ove r th e insuranc e 

proceed s . . . unti l th e clou d surroundin g th e circumstance s o f th e murde r ha d cleared.")) ; also IR S Privat e Lette r 

Rulin g (PLR ) 8908063 , 198 9 W L 59450 , supra, not e 62 . 

1 4 
 tha t la w woul d preven t PB G C pay i n g th e survivo r annuit y benefi t unde r 

t h e Hourl y resultin g Mr . i f preempts 

Michiga n la w unde r Sectio n o f ERISA , w e find tha t PBG C canno t pa y yo u th e survivor' s 

annuit y benefi t becaus e o f th e backgroun d principl e embodie d i n th e federa l commo n la w i n 

 whe n ERIS A wa s enacted , denyin g murderer s th e benefi t o f thei r crime . 

Althoug h you r petitio n fo r a wri t o f habea s corpu s is pendin g i n th e Easter n Distric t o f 

Michigan , th e Appeals Boar d wil l uphol d PBGC' s determinatio n an d den y you r appeal . I n th e 

even t you r convictio n is overturne d an d yo u ar e exonerated , yo u ma y reappl y fo r you r survivo r 

annuit y benefi t unde r th e Delph i Hourl y Plan . 

Decision 

F o r th e reas o n s explaine d a bove , th e Appeal s n o basis fo r changin g PBGC' s 

 o f Therefore , w e ar e denyin g you r appeal . Thi s is th e agency's 

final decisio n o n this matter , an d yo u may , i f yo u wish , see k revie w o f this decisio n i n a n 

appropriat e Unite d State s Distric t Court . 

I f hav e questions, pleas e cal l PBGC' s Custome r Contac t Cente r a t 1-800-400-7242 . 

Sincerely , 

Jame s L . Eggema n 

Member , Boar d 

Enclosure s (5) : 

1 . 

2 . 

3 . 

4 . 

5. 

a

 v. 

 ( 4 pages) 

People v. | L 

(Mich . Ct . App . 

 | (Mich . 1) ( 1

 date d Ma y ( 2 pages) 

Excerpts o f th e Delph i Hourl y Pla n ( 6 pages) 

1 5