Pensio n Benefi t Guarant y Corporatio n 

Protecting America's Pensions Street , N.W. , Washington , D.C . 20005-402 6 

Januar y 6 ,

R e : Appea l Cas e No . 213916 , Milacro n Retiremen t Pla n (th e "Plan" ) 

W e hav e reviewe d you r a ppea l o f Augus t o n behal f o f

spous e (deceased ) wa s a participan t i n th e Plan . Mrs . 

 appeals PBGC' s determinatio n o f Apri l whic h wa s followe d b y th e lette r o f 

M a y statin g tha t ther e ar e n o continuin g benefi t payment s du e t o anyon e base d o n Mr . 

 participatio n i n th e Plan . 

F o r th e reason s state d below , t h e Appea l s Boar d grants Mrs . A s a result 

o f th e Appeal s Board' s decision , receiv e a survivor' s benefi t unde r a join t an d 

5 0 % survivor' s annuity , subjec t t o recoupmen t fo r overpayment s mad e b y PBG C t o Mr . | 

durin g hi s lifetime . 

Introduction 

A . PBGC' s Trusteeship the Pla n 

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 amended ("ERISA") . I f 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 , become s statutor y truste e o f th e pla n 

a n d pay s benefits pursuan t t o th e term s o f th e plan , t o limitation s an d requirement s se t b y 

Congres s unde r

Whe n th e Pla n terminate d o n Jun e 2009 , i t di d no t hav e sufficien t assets t o provid e al l 

benefits tha t PBG C guarantee s unde r ERISA , an d PBG C subsequentl y becam e th e Plan' s 

statutor y truste e o n Marc h 23 , Th e term s o f th e Plan , th e provision s o f ERISA , an d 

PBGC' s regulation s an d policie 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 define d benefi t plan , PBG C 

collects participan t dat a an d pla n document s fro m a variet y o f sources, suc h a s th e pla n 

administrator , th e plan' s actuaries, th e plan' s payin g agen t an d an y othe r appropriat e thir d part y 
pla n administrators . the n audits th e infoimatio n i t receive s an d relie s o n th e infoimatio n 

unles s 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 indicatin g tha t th e informatio n is incorrec t o r incomplete . 

B . PBGC's Determination Letter and Mrs . 

O n Apri l 14 , 2014 , PBG C issue d a benefi t determinatio n lette r t o o n 

h i s participatio n i n th e Plan . PBG C state d tha t h e wa s entitle d t o a PBGC-payabl e monthl y 

benefi t o f $3,476.2 5 i n th e for m o f a Straig h t Lif e An nuit y N o Survivo r Benefit s ("SLA") , 

base d o n ben efi t comm encemen t dat e 2009 . Th e enclose d Benefi t Statemen t 

showe d tha t Mr . benefi t unde r th e Pla n wa s $3,908.65 , exceede d 

PBGC' s maximu m insure d monthl y benefit , resultin g i n th e reductio n o f th e benefi t t o 

 Th e lette r als o state d tha t becaus e PBG C continue d t o pa y th e unreduce d benefit , Mr . 

w a s overpai d b y T o collec t th e overpayment , PBG C woul d reduc e hi s benefi t 

t o $3,429.3 2 pe r month . 

Afte r receivin g th e determinatio n o f Apri l o n behal f o f th e estat e 

 informe d PBG C tha t deceased . PBG C replie d i n a lette r date d 

 wMc h state d that : (1 ) n o continuin g benefi t payment s ar e du e t o anyon e afte r Mr . 

 an d (2 ) an y p ayment s m a d e afte r hi s mont h o f deat h mus t b e returne d t o PBGC . 

PBG C als o requeste d tha t submi t hi s deat h certificat e a s soo n a s possible. 1 

Afte r securin g a n extensio n o f tim e i n whic h t o file a n appea l an d obtai n a cop y o f Mr . 

|fil e fro m PBGC' s Disclosur e Office , yo u submitte d a n appea l o n behal f 

o n Augus t 12 , 2014 . Wit h you r appeal , yo u provide d a cop y o f th e Plan' s benefi t electio n form , 

title d Retiremen t Plan : Applicatio n fo r Retiremen t Benefits " ("Application"). 2 Yo u 

als o provide d th e Plan' s spousa l consen t for m title d "Milacro n Retiremen t Pl a n : Spous a l Consen t 

Form " ("Spousa l Consen t Form"). 3 Th e appea l essentiall y conte n d s tha t is entitle d 

t o a s benefi t unde r th e Pla n becaus e he r consen t t o electio n t o waiv e th e 

Plan' s join t an d survivo r annuit y for m o f benefi t wa s invali d unde r sectio n o f ERISA . 

A , Statutory Background 

I n general , 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 i n th e for m o f a qualifie d join t an d survivo r annuit y ERIS A define s a 

QJS A as "a n 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 5 0 percen t . . th e amoun t o f th e annuit y whic h is payabl e durin g 

t h 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 

' I t doe s no t appea r i n PBGC' s record s tha t a deat h certificat e wa s A n obituar y publishe d i n th e 

 deat h

 Enclosur e 1 (Milacro n Retiremen t Plan : Applicatio n fo r Retiremen t Benefits) . 

 Enclosur e 2 (Milacro n Retiremen t Plan : Spousa l Consen t Form) . 

 ERIS A § 205(a) ; 2 9 §

2 
singl e annuit y fo r th e lif e o f th e participant." 5

 Th e "statutor y o f th e QJS A provisions , 

"alon g wit h th e rest o f [sectio n 20 5 o f ERISA] , is t o ensur e a strea m o f incom e t o survivin g 

ERIS A permit s participant s t o elec t t o waiv e th e QJS A durin g th e applicabl e electio n 

period . Th e electio n is no t effective , however , unles s th e participant' s spous e consents t o th e 

election . 

Sectio n o f provide s a s follows : 

Eac h pla n shal l provid e tha t a n electio n unde r paragrap h (l)(A)(i ) o f [§

shal l no t tak e effec t

(A)(i ) th e spous e o f th e participan t consents i n writin g t o suc h 

election , 

(ii ) * an d 

(iii ) th e spouse' s consen t acknowledge s th e effec t o f suc h electio n 

a n d is witnesse d b y a pla n representativ e o r a notar y publi c . . .

Sectio n o f ERIS A wa s enacte d as par t o f th e Retiremen t Equit y Ac t o f

("REA"). 8 I n Boggs v. Boggs, th e Suprem e Cour t explaine d ho w a spouse's right s change d 

unde r th e REA : 

Befor e REA , ERIS A onl y require d tha t pensio n plans, i f the y 

provide d fo r th e paymen t o f benefits i n th e for m o f a n annuity , offe r a 

qualifie d join t an d survivo r annuit y a s a n optio n entirel y withi n a 

participant's discretion . 2 9 § 1055(a) , (e ) (198 2 RE A 

modifie d t o permi t participants [t o elec t t o waiv e th e QJSA] , 

 th e spous e agrees. § Congress ' concer n fo r 

survivin g spouse s is als o eviden t th e expansiv e coverag e o f 

§[205], as amende d b y

T h e RE A amendment s wer e intende d "t o . . . provid e fo r greate r equit y unde r privat e 

pensio n plan s fo r worker s an d thei r spouse s an d dependents b y takin g int o th e statu s 

o f marriag e as a n economi c partnership , an d th e substantia l contributio n t o tha t partnershi p o f 

 ERIS A § 205(d)(1) ; 2 9 U.S.C , 1055(d)(1) . 

 v. Boggs, U.S . 833 , 84 3 (1997) . 

 2 9 U.S.C , §

 Pub . L , Stat , 142 6 (1984) . 

 U.S . 843 . 

3 
spouse s wh o wor k hot h i n an d outsid e th e home." 1 0

 Th e Senat e Repor t accompanyin g th e bil l 

furthe r explain s th e statutor y requirement s a s follows : 

T h e bil l provide s tha t th e consen t o f a participant' s spous e is 

require d fo r a n electio n t o declin e th e qualifie d join t an d survivo r 

annuity . Thi s consen t is t o b e give n i n writin g a t th e tim e o f th e 

participant' s election , an d th e consen t is t o acknowledg e th e effec t 

o f th e election . A consen t is no t vali d unles s i t is witnesse d b y a 

pla n representativ e o r a notar y

Unde r Sectio n o f ERISA , i f a plan' s administrato r acts i n accordanc e th e 

fiduciaiy standard s unde r sectio n 40 4 o f ERIS A i n relyin g o n a spouse' s consent, th e consen t is 

treate d a s vali d fo r purpose s o f dischargin g th e pla n from liabilit y t o th e exten t o f payment s 

made. 1 2 ERIS A doe s not , however , reliev e th e administrato r fro m a dut y o f inquiry : 

I f th e pla n administrato r acts i n accordanc e wit h th e fiduciar y 

standard s o f i n securin g spousa l the n th e pla n 

wil l no t b e liabl e fo r payment s t o th e survivin g spouse , Fo r 

example , i f th e pla n administrato r receive s a notarize d spousa l 

consent, vali d o n it s face , whic h th e administrato r ha s n o reaso n t o 

believ e is invalid , th e pla n woul d certainl y b e allowe d t o rel y o n 

t h e consen t eve n i f i t is , i n fact,

B . Factua l Background 

PBG C record s contai n th e followin g informatio n relate d t o th e benefi t earne d b y Mr . 

1 unde r th e Plan : 

 bor n o n 

H e bega n employmen t wi t h Milacro n o n 

 wer e marrie d o: 

 termin ate d emp loymen t o: 

H e retire d an d 

 S . Rep , No . 98-575 , 98 * 2 d Sess. 1 (1984) , 198 4 U.S.C.C.A.N . (98 * Congress , Secon d 

Sessio n 1984 ) 2547 . 

 S , Rep . No . 98-575 , 98 * 2 d Sess. 1 (1984) , reprinted in 198 4 U.S.C.C.A.N . (98 * Congress , Secon d 

Sessio n 1984 ) a t

 2 9 U.S.C . § 2 9 U.S.C . § 1104 . 

 S , Rep . No . 2 d Sess. 1 reprinted in 198 4 U.S.C.C.A.N . (98 * Congress , Secon d 

Sessio n 1984 ) a t

4 
1 . Th e Pla n and lis prescribed election forms 

T h e Pla n i n effec t whe n terminate d employmen t wa s th e Milacro n 

Retiremen t Plan , a s Amende d an d Restated . Th e Plan' s norma l for m o f benefi t fo r marrie d 

participants is th e qualifie d join t an d (50% ) survivo r annuit y Unde r sectio n 7. 5 

o f th e Plan , a participan t ma y elec t t o waiv e th e J&50%S A withi n th e 90-da y perio d precedin g 

t h e Benefi t Commencemen t

Consisten t wit h sectio n o f ERISA , th e participant' s spous e mus t consen t t o th e 

waive r o f th e J&50%SA , a s follows : 

A n y suc h electio n t o waiv e th e qualifie d join t an d survivo r annuit y 

 th e Spouse' s deat h benefi t shal l no t h e effectiv e unles s th e 

Participant' s Spous e consents t o th e electio n i n a documen t filed 

wit h th e Committe e tha t acknowledge s th e effec t o f suc h electio n 

a n d tha t i s witnesse d b y a representativ e o f th e Pla n o r a notar y 

T h e Milacro n Applicatio n (reference d above) , date d Marc h 2009 , wa s apparentl y a 

standar d for m fo r Pla n participant s wishin g t o appl y fo r thei r pensio n benefit s unde r th e Plan, 1 6 

I t show s th e date s relevan t t o th e calculatio n o f th e participant' s benefi t (e.g. , dat e o f hire , 

termination , retirement , an d expecte d benefit commencemen t date) , an d s pous e o r b eneficiar y 

information . Th e Applicatio n identifie s Mrs , t o "Wife. " 

T h e Applicatio n provide s a descriptio n o f availabl e form s o f benefi t (e.g. , Lif e Annuity , 50 % 

Join t an d Survivo r Annuity) , an d a customize d compariso n o f differen t optiona l form s o f benefit 

availabl e unde r th e Plan , base d o n th e participant' s accrue d benefit. 

T h e Applicatio n provide s a separat e Not e fo r marrie d participant s an d thei r spouses: 

I f yo u ar e marrie d whe n you r pensio n commences , yo u wil l 

automaticall y receiv e th e 50 % JOIN T AN D SURVIVO R 

ANNUIT Y optio n unles s yo u indicat e o n thi s for m tha t yo u prefe r 

anothe r option , B y initialin g for m o f benefi t othe r tha n th e 50 % 

Join t an d Survivo r Annuit y an d b y signin g you r nam e a t th e en d o f 

this application , yo u wil l automaticall y th e Join t an d 

Survivo r Annuity , However , i f yo u elec t optio n 1 , 2 o r 3 ,

spous e mus t sig n th e Spousa l Consen t For m an d you r spouse's 

signatur e b e notarize d o r witnesse d b y a representativ e o f th e 

 Excerpt s from Pla n ar e provide d i n Enclosur e

 See Sectio n o f th e Plan , Enclosur e 3 , 

 See Enclosur e 1 (Applicatio n fo r Retiremen t Benefits) . 

 Emphasi s i n original , T o th e exten t tha t th e Applicatio n is inconsisten t wit h th e Plan , th e Appeal s Boar d give s 

effec t t o th e Plan' s term s an d th e provision s o f ERISA , 
Optio n 1 is th e Lif e Annuity . Th e spac e opp osit e Optio n 1 i s initialed , an d th e Appeal s 

Boar d presume s tha t thes e initial s ar e Mr . initials . Th e Applicatio n wa s no t signed . 

T h e Spousa l Consen t For m (reference d above ) provide s thre e certifications , tw o fo r th e 

participan t an d on e fo r th e participant' s Th e firs t certificatio n i s a certificatio n tha t th e 

participan t is no t married . I t wa s no t checked . Th e thir d certificatio n is a certificatio n tha t ther e 

a r e n o outstandin g qualifie d domesti c relation s orders tha t assig n a o f th e benefi t a 

forme r spouse . apparentl y checke d an d signe d thi s certification . Th e secon d 

certificatio n is complete d b y th e spous e t o certif y th e spouse's consen t t o th e participant' s 

electio n o f a for m o f benefi t withou t survivo r rights , I t state s a s follows : 

I hav e rea d th e enclose d "Applicatio n fo r Retiremen t Benefits " 

form , an d I consen t t o th e Benefi t For m m y spous e [has] elected[. ] 

I acknowledg e tha t th e effec t o f m y consen t ma y b e t o forfei t 

benefits I woul d h e entitle d t o receiv e upo n m y spouse' s death , tha t 

m y spouse' s electio n is no t vali d unles s I consen t t o it , an d tha t m y 

consen t is irrevocabl e unles s m y spous e revoke s th e action[. ] 

(NOTARY SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED) 1 9 

_Th e secon d certificatio n i s checked , date d a n d signe d b y M r s . 

I n th e bloc k entitle d "Witnesse d by, " ther e i s a signatur e an d a 

notary' s stamp . 2009 . 

2. Mrs . affidavits and Ms . declaration 

I n suppor t o f he r appeal, yo u provide d affidav i t date d A ugus t

concernin g th e Applicatio n an d Consen t Form . I n he r affidavit , a numbe r o f 

statements, includin g th e following : 

• I firs t becam e awar e o f m y husband' s election s o n th e [Application ] o n o r 

abou t Ma y 22 , whe n m y attorne y an d I spok e o n th e phon e wit h a 

PBG C representative . 

• I hav e n o recollectio n o f seein g th e firs t pag e o f th e [Application] . 

• Th e signatur e o n th e [Spousa l Consen t Form ] appears t o b e mine , 

• I di d no t sig n th e [Spousa l Consen t Form ] i n th e presenc e o f a Notar y 

Public . 

• I f I ha d see n th e [Application ] an d understoo d th e option s available , I 

woul d no t hav e signe d th e [Spousa l Consen t Form ] o r forfeite d an y 

benefits I ma y hav e bee n entitle d t o upo n hi s death . 

• I f I ba d t o sig n a documen t i n th e presenc e o f a Notar y Publi c o r a Pla n 

Representative , I woul d hav e know n t o revie w th e documen t mor e 

 Enclosur e 2 (Spousa l Consen t

 Enclosur e 2 (Spousa l Consen t Form ) (Emphasi s i n original) . 

6 
carefull y an d as k question s t o understan d wha t I wa s signin g an d wha t 

right s I ma y hav e bee n forfeiting . 

• I wa s misle d an d di d no t understan d th e [Spousa l Consent ] For m I wa s 

signing . I neve r sa w th e firs t pag e o f th e [Applicati o n ] whic h outline d th e 

specifi c option s availabl e upo n m y spouse's death .

mad e th e electio n fo r a Lif e Annuit y withou t m y knowledg e an d consent . 

I ha d n o knowledg e o f wha t th e form s containe d o r wha t election s h e 

mad e unti l Ma y

A s par t o f its review , th e Appeal s 

t h e notar y publi c wh o notarize d th e Consen t For m i n 2009 , t o obtai n informatio n regardin g th e 

circumstan c e s o f th e exe cutio n o f th e form . I n 2009 , Ms . a Relationshi p Manage r a t 

 Ohio . A t th e Board' s request , sh e provide d a writte n declaratio n tha t 

include d th e followin g statements : 

Whil e employe d at | |, i n th e cours e o f m y duties, I

I n th e cours e o f m y empl oymen t wit h 

f o r Mr , an d a s customer s

 document s 

o n severa l occasions. 

• I d o no t recal l th e circumstance s unde r whic h I notarize d th e

Consen t Form] , 

• Althoug h I d o no t recal l notarizin g th e [Spousa l Consen t Form ] o r 

 m y routin e practic e wa s t o notariz e a person' s signatur e onl y i f h e 

o r sh e appeare d befor e me . 

• I f a ha d alread y signe d a documen t t o b e notarized , I woul d requir e 

identificatio n o f th e perso n an d verificatio n o f th e person' s signature . 

• Becaus e woul d no t hav e require d he r t o sho w 

identificatio n o r neede d t o verif y he r signature . 

B y lette r date d Jul y th e Appeal s Boar d provide d yo u wit h Ms . 

declaratio n an d a opportunit y t o resp ond , Yo u provide d additiona l point s an d authoritie s 

i n suppor t o f Mrs , an d Mrs.RRRprovide d he r Supplementa l Affidavi t date d 

Augus t whic h include d th e followin g

I di d no t sig n th e [Spousa l C onsen t Form ] i n th e presenc e o f 

 an y othe r Notar y Public ; no r di d I 

acknowledg e m y signatur e o n tha t documen t he r presence ; 

I d o no t personall y wh o signe d th e botto m o f th e 

[Spousa l Consen t Form ] a s a Notar y an d wh o submitte d th e Declaratio n 

attache d t o PBGC' s recen t correspondence . 

7 
The Appeals Board's Findings of Fact 

Base d o n th e availabl e evidence , th e Appeal s Boar d make s th e followin g findings o f fact . 

 Th e Boar d finds tha t signe d th e Spousa l Consen t For m on | 

2009 . state s o n th e Spousa l Consen t For m appears t o b e 

hers. a custome r wit h 

h e r signatur e becaus e sh e ha d notarize d othe r

2 . Th e Boar d finds tha t tha t befo r e

wit h th e signe d Spousa l Consen t Form , Ms.RRRstate s tha t i t wa s he r regula r practic e 

t o notari z e document s fo r a custome r onl y i f th e pers o n appea r e d befor e her , Mrs , 

 no t den y tha t sh e wa s presen t whe n th e Spousa l 

Consen t Form , statin g onl y tha t sh e di d no t acknowledg e he r signatur e o n th e Spousa l 

Consen t Form . 

 Th e Boar d finds tha t Ms . 

Consen t For m o: 

a n d Ms . 

signe d an d applie d he r n otaria l sta m p t o th e Spousa l 

2009 , withou t ceremony , customer s o f 

h a d notarize d document s fo r the m i n th e past , 

 Th e Boar d finds tha t di d no t tak e a n acknowledgmen t fro m Mrs .

base d o n he r supplementa l affidavi t notaria l certificate , 

5 . Becaus e th e Boar d finds tha t Mrs.RRRsigne d th e Spousa l Consen t Form , w e find tha t 

s h e rea d th e statement s i n th e writte n acknowledgment , i.e. , " I hav e rea d th e enclose d 

 fo r Retiremen t Benefits ' form , an d I consen t t o th e Benefi t For m m y spous e 

[h]a s electe d ... " 

Discussion 

A . Issues presented by Mrs . I appeal an d the Board's decision 

Unde r Sectio n o f ERISA , a spouse's waive r o f th e QJS A i s no t vali d unless th e 

spous e consents i n writin g t o th e electio n an d th e consen t is witnesse d b y a pla n repre sentativ e o r 

notar y Unde r th e Board' s findings, th e Consen t For m o n | 

R |2009 , an d appeare d befor e notar y public , whe n

notarize d th e for m unde r a certificat e statin g "Witnesse d by, " Th e Boar d conclude s tha t Mrs . 

 consen t wa s invali d becaus e i t wa s no t "witnesse d by " a notar y publi c unde r sectio n 

205(c)(2 ) o f ERISA . 

Give n its conclusio n tha t wa s invalid , th e Boar d mus t determin e 

t h e for m o f survivo r benefi t t o whic h is entitled . Th e Boar d conclude s tha t i n th e 

absenc e o f vali d consen t unde r sectio n 205(c ) o f ERISA , th e Plan' s norm a l for m o f benefi t fo r a 

marr i e d th e for m o f benefi t t o whic h entitled . 

Mrs . ma y als o b e subjec t t o recoupmen t becaus e o f overpayment s t o Mr . 

 th e for m o f a SLA , 

8 
B . Was Mrs . written consent witnessed by a notary public withi n the meaning of 

section of ERISA ? 

A s discusse d above , a participan t ma y elec t t o waiv e th e QJS A for m o f benefit, bu t th e 

electio n is effectiv e unles s th e requirement s o f sectio n 205(c)(2 ) o f ERIS A ar e satisfied . 

Unde r sectio n th e consen t is no t vali d unles s (1 ) th e spous e consents i n writin g t o th e 

election , (2 ) th e spouse's consen t acknowledge s th e effec t o f th e election , an d (3 ) a pla n 

representativ e o r notar y publi c witnesse s th e spouse's consent. Onl y th e thir d requiremen t is a t 

T h e rule s o f statutor y interpretatio n ar e well-established , I n interpretin g statutes, courts 

begi n wit h th e statutor y language . "I f th e statutor y languag e is unambiguous , i n th e absenc e o f 

 clearl y expresse d legislativ e inten t t o th e contrary , tha t languag e mus t ordinaril y b e regarde d 

as Unde r th e "plai n meanin g rule, " courts "mus t presum e tha t a legislatur e say s 

i n a statut e wha t i t mean s an d mean s i n a statut e wha t i t say s there," 2 1 Th e Appeal s Boar d 

conclude s tha t th e statutor y languag e is unambiguous . Th e statut e require s a pla n representativ e 

o r notar y publi c t o witnes s a spouse' s writte n consen t t o a participant' s electio n t o waiv e th e 

qualifie d join t an d survivo r annuity , 

ERIS A doe s not , however , defin e th e term s "consent " an d "witness, " an d th e ERIS A 

agencie s (PBGC , Dept . o f Labor , an d Interna l Revenu e Service ) hav e no t publishe d regulation s 

specificall y interpretin g thes e terms . I n th e absenc e o f a statutor y definition , courts "constru e a 

statutor y ter m i n accordanc e wit h its ordinar y o r natura l meaning," 2 2 Th e ordinar y meanin g o f 

t h e wor d "witness, " whe n use d a s a verb , is "t o se e (something ) happen ; t o h e presen t a t (a n 

event ) i n orde r t o b e abl e t o sa y tha t i t happened ; [law ] t o ac t a s a lega l witnes s o f (something) ; 

t o b e [at] th e tim e o r plac e whe n (something ) happens," 2 3 Th e ordinar y meanin g o f th e ver b 

"consent " is "t o agre e t o d o o r allo w something : t o giv e fo r somethin g t o happe n o r 

b e done." 2 4 

Base d o n th e ordinar y meanin g o f th e term s "consent " an d witness, " a s use d i n sectio n 

 o f ERISA , th e Appeal s Boar d conclude s tha t th e statut e require s pla n representativ e 

o r notar y publi c t o witnes s a spouse's writte n consent, i.e., to be present when a spouse gives 

permission to a participant's election by signing a consent form. Unde r th e plai n languag e o f th e 

statute , th e spous e mus t sig n th e consen t for m i n th e presenc e o f a pla n representativ e o r notar y 

public . PBGC , th e governmen t agenc y responsibl e fo r administerin g th e benefits o f th e 

terminate d plan s fo r whic h i t is th e statutor y trustee , ha s incorporate d suc h a physica l presenc e 

 Russello v. United States, 46 4 U.S . (1983 ) {citing United States v . 45 2 U.S . 58 0 (1981 ) 

 Consumer Product Safety 'n v . GTE Sylvania, Inc., 44 7 U.S .

 See e.g., Bank v. Germain, 50 3 U.S . (1992 ) omitted. ) 

 v. Meyer, 51 0 U.S . 471 , 47 6 (1994) ; see also Russello, 46 4 U.S . a t 2 1 (absen t a statutor y definition , court s 

assum e tha t "th e legislativ e purpos e is expresse d b y th e ordinar y meanin g o f th e word s used" ) {citing Richards v. 

United States, 36 9 U.S . 1 , 9 (1962)) . 

 See (las t visite d o n Decembe r 2015) . 

 See (las t visite d o n Decembe r

9 
requiremen t int o its ow n applicatio n fo r benefits . PBG C For m 70 0 state s "Your spouse must sign 

and date this section in the presence of a Notary Public witnessing his/her

T h e Appeal s Board' s interpretatio n is consisten t wit h th e interpretatio n o f th e Interna l 

Revenu e Servic e ("IRS") , th e governmen t agenc y wit h interpretiv e jurisdictio n ove r sectio n 

 o f ERISA. 2 6 I n promulgatin g regulation s i n th e analogou s contex t o f standard s fo r 

transmittin g notice s an d consent s throug h electroni c media , th e IR S initiall y determine d i n 200 0 

tha t electroni c medi a wa s no t suitabl e fo r spousa l consents unde r sectio n o f th e Code , 

concludin g tha t th e witnessin g requiremen t presuppose d tha t a spous e woul d nee d t o b e i n th e 

"physica l presence " o f a notar y o r pla n representativ e whe n consen t wa s Subsequently , 

t h e IR S propose d an d issue d ne w regulation s extendin g th e us e o f electroni c medi a t o th e 

electio n rule s fo r plan s t o th e QJS A requirement s unde r sectio n o f th e Cod e whil e 

maintainin g th e "physica l presence " requiremen t fo r spousa l Sectio n 1.401(a) -

21(d)(6 ) o f th e final regulation s require s th e signatur e o f a spous e t o b e "witnesse d i n th e 

physica l presenc e o f a pla n representativ e o r Th e Boar d ha s n o reaso n t o 

believ e tha t th e interpretatio n is limite d t o spousa l consents solel y i n th e contex t o f 

electroni c media . 

T h e Appeal s Boar d reviewe d a numbe r o f case s involvin g th e val idit y o f spousa l consen t 

unde r sectio n 205(c)(2 ) o f ERISA , includin g thos e cite d b y Mrs , mos t analogou s 

cases, th e courts applie d a litera l o r stric t o f sectio n See, e.g., Lasche v . 

George W. Lasche Basic Profit Sharing Butler v. Encyclopedia 

v. Guild Times Pension I n eac h o f thes e cases, th e non-participan t spous e ha d signe d a 

consen t for m effectivel y waivin g benefits , an d th e authenticit y o f th e spouse' s signatur e wa s no t 

t h e ultimat e issue . Rather , eac h cas e dealt primaril y wit h whethe r th e spouse' s consen t ha d bee n 

"witnesse d by " eithe r a pla n representativ e o r a notar y public . I n eac h case , cour t strictl y 

 See PBG C For m 70 0 ("Participan t Applicatio n fo r Pensio n Benefit" ) a t 3 , Enclosur e 4 . PBG C For m 70 0 i s use d 

b y participant s o f a PBGC-trustee d pla n t o appl y fo r thei r pensio n benefit s afte r PBG C become s th e statutor y truste e 

o f th e plan . Th e for m applie s onl y t o notarie s publi c becaus e pla n representative s n o longe r ma y witnes s spousa l 

consent s afte r PBG C become s th e statutor y truste e o f a pensio n plan . 

 See Sectio n 101(a ) o f th e Reorganizatio n No . 4 o f U.S.C . § 100 1

 See New Technologies in Retirement Plans, 6 5 Fed , Reg . 6001 , 600 4 (Feb . Sectio n 417(e ) o f th e Cod e 

is th e paralle l provisio n t o sectio n 205(c ) o f ERISA . 

 See Use of Electronic Technologies for Providing Employee Benefit Notices and Transmitting Employee Benefit 

Elections and Consents, 7 0 Fed . Reg . (Jul y ("[T]h e propose d regulation s woul d requir e tha t 

t h e signatur e o f th e individua l b e witnesse d i n th e presenc e o f th e pla n representativ e o r notar y publi c regardles s o f 

whethe r th e signatur e is provide d o n pape r o r throug h a n electroni c medium") ; Use of Electronic Media for 

Providing Employee Benefit Notices and Making Employee Benefit Elections and Consents, 7 1 Fed . Reg , 61876 , 

6188 1 (Oct . ("Thes e regulation s retai n th e requiremen t from th e 200 5 propose d regulation s tha t th e 

signatur e o f a spous e b e witnesse d i n th e physica l presenc e o f th e pla n representativ e o r notar y public") , 

 2 6 C.F.R , § 1.401(a)-21(d)(6 ) an d Exampl e 3 ; § (definitio n o f "Participan t 

election " t o includ e consent s b y beneficiaries) . 

 1997) . 

 (7 * 1994) . 

 44 6 F . 9 9 2006) . 

1 0 
construe d th e statut e t o hol d tha t th e statutor y requirement s unde r sectio n o f ERIS A 

h a d no t bee n met . 

Whil e eac h o f thes e case s wa s decide d base d o n a stric t constructio n o f th e statute , th e 

Butler cour t suggeste d tha t th e statutor y requiremen t fo r witnessin g consen t coul d b e satisfie d b y 

simpl y verifyin g th e authenticit y o f th e spouse's signature , a t least i n case s i n whic h a notar y 

publi c serve s a s th e witness. 3 3 Bu t give n th e statutor y languag e an d th e statutor y purpos e o f 

protectin g a spouse's interes t i n th e QJSA , th e Appeal s Boar d decline s t o follo w th e reasonin g i n 

t h e Butler court' s dicta. Whil e verifyin g a spouse's signatur e migh t demonstrat e tha t th e spous e 

signe d th e consen t form , th e statutor y languag e require s a pla n representativ e o r notar y publi c t o 

actuall y witnes s th e spouse' s writte n th e intentiona l ac t o f agreein g t o th e 

participant' s waive r o f th e QJS A b y signin g a consen t form , 

T h e Butler cour t als o suggeste d tha t complianc e wit h ERISA' s litera l languag e migh t 

lea d t o th e absur d resul t o f invalidatin g a spousa l consen t for m tha t th e spous e admit s signin g 

"bu t attempt s t o disavo w o n th e technicalit y tha t h e di d no t sig n i t i n th e physica l presenc e o f th e 

notary," 3 4 citin g th e followin g principl e o f statutor y construction : 

Nevertheless , i n rar e case s th e litera l applicatio n o f th e statut e wil l 

produc e a resul t demonstrabl y a t odd s wit h th e intentio n o f its 

drafters, an d thos e intention s mus t b e controlling , W e hav e 

reserve d "som e fo r adoptin g a restricte d rathe r tha n a litera l 

o r usua l meanin g o f its word s wher e acceptanc e o f tha t meanin g 

woul d lea d t o absur d results ,, . o r woul d thwar t th e obviou s 

purpos e o f th e

T h e Appeal s Boar d ha s foun d nothin g i n th e statute , legislativ e history , cas e precedent, o r 

underlyin g polic y t o indicat e tha t a stric t applicatio n o f sectio n o f ERIS A woul d produc e 

a result "demonstrabl y a t odds " wit h Congress' s inten t o r thwar t th e statutor y purpos e o f 

protectin g spouses' interest s i n retiremen t benefits . T o avoi d th e resul t contemplate d b y th e 

Butler court, a pla n administrato r nee d onl y desig n an d implemen t a consen t for m tha t require s a 

spous e t o giv e writte n consen t i n th e presenc e o f a pla n representativ e o r notar y public . A s note d 

above , PBGC' s applicatio n fo r benefit s require s spousa l consen t i n th e presenc e o f a notar y 

public , a s d o th e regulation s i n a n analogou s context. Th e Appeal s Boar d conclude s tha t 

t h e weigh t o f cas e preceden t i s consisten t wit h its interpretatio n o f sectio n o f ERIS A 

unde r th e plai n meanin g

 4 1

 4 1

 See Griffin v . Oceanic Contractors, 45 8 57 0 (quotin g Commissioner v. Brown, 38 0 U.S .

(1965 ) 31 1 U.S . 504 , 510-51 1 (1941 ) (omissio n i n

 See also Sher, 98 2 F.2 d (2 d Cir . 1992 ) ("Th e [REA ] say s wha t i t an d s o doe s th e 

pla n document") ; McMillan v. Parrott, F.2 d Cir . Rice v. Rochester Annuity Fund, 

8 8 8 F . 494 , 49 8 (W.D.N . Y . 1995 ) ('"ERIS A contain s stric t rule s fo r protectin g th e spouse' s interes t i n

participant' s benefits'" ) (quoting Lester v . Reagan Equip. Co. Profit Sharing Plan & Plan,

 LEXI S 12872 , (E.D . La . 1992 ) an d v. Caron, 199 0 US . Dist . LEXI S 16498 , * 5 ("Court s hav e 

uniforml y hel d tha t th e clea r inten t o f Congres s i n passin g th e RE A wa s t o preserv e th e benefit s o f spouses.")) . But 

1 1 
I n thi s ca s e , th e Ap peal s Bo a r d find s tha t si gne d th e Spousa l Consen t For m 

 2009 . th e for m an d a pplie d he r no taria l 

stamp . I t is clea r tha t Ms . no t actuall y "witness " Mrs .

w a s no t presen t whe n signe d th e Spousa l Consen t For m givin g he r consen t t o Mr . 

 Th e Appeal s Boar d believe s tha t a notar y public' s witnessin g a spouse's 

consent unde r sectio n o f ERIS A an d attestin g o r he r signature afte r th e fac t unde r 

stat e la w ar e differen t acts. Consequently , th e Boar d canno t trea t

certificat e as satisfyin g th e witnessin g requiremen t unde r sectio n 205(c)(2)(iii ) o f ERISA. 3 7 W e 

therefor e mus t gran t

T h e Boar d turn s nex t t o determinin g th e for m o f benefi t t o whic h Mrs. | is entitled . 

[benefit entitlement and recoupment of overpayments 

Articl e VI I o f th e Pla n list s th e differen t form s o f benefi t provide d b y th e Plan . Sectio n 

7 . 1 th e Pla n provide s a s follows : 

Standard Form of Benefit. Unles s a Participan t elects a differen t 

for m o f paymen t a s provide d i n

( a ) a Participan t wh o ha s a spous e o n hi s Benefi t Commencemen t 

Dat e shal l receiv e hi s benefit i n th e for m o f a qualifie d join t 

a n d survivo r annuity , which , fo r th e purpose s o f thi s Plan , shall 

mea n a n annuity , beginnin g o n suc h Dat e an d endin g o n th e 

first da y o f th e mont h i n whic h h e dies, wit h equa l monthl y 

payment s fo r th e lif e o f th e Participant, wit h a survivo r benefi t 

f o r th e lif e o f hi s spous e beginnin g o n th e firs t da y o f th e 

mont h afte r th e Participant' s deat h equa l t o one-hal f o f th e 

amoun t payabl e t o th e Participan t durin g thei r oin t lives , 

whic h annuit y is th e Actuaria l Equivalen t o f th e benefi t 

compute d unde r sectio n 4.1 . 

Becaus e th e Appeal s Boar d ha s determine d tha t consen t t o Mr . 

benefit electio n wa s invalid , PBG C mus t pa y Mrs . survivor' s benefit . I n th e absenc e o f 

 vali d consent, th e Pla n woul d hav e pai d Mr . i n th e for m o f a 

J&50%SA , th e Plan' s norma l for m o f benefit, 

I n he r appeal, Mrs . •••seek s t o elec t Join t an d 100 % Survivo r Annuit y 

 claimin g th e statu s a s executo r o f Mr . estate . Nevertheless , eve n i f 

see Burns v. Orthotek, Inc., 65 7 F.3 d 571 , 575-57 7 Cir , (adoptin g Butler cour t dicta , cour t hel d tha t th e 

statutor y requirement s wer e satisfie d b y husband-participant-pla n representative' s verificatio n o f spouse' s signatur e 

unde r th e "uniqu e circumstances " presented) , 

 Th e notaria l ac t o f "witnessin g o r attestin g a signature " require s th e notaria l office r t o "determin e eithe r from 

persona l knowledg e o r from satisfactor y evidence , tha t th e signature is tha t o f th e perso n appearin g befor e th e 

office r an d name d therein. " See, e.g., Unifor m La w o n Notaria l Act s ("ULNA" ) § (Notaria l ac t o f witnessin g 

o r attestin g a signature ) (1982 ) a t (las t visite d Dec , 15 , 

2015) . 

1 2 
t h e assume s tha t th e executo r o f Mr . estate , sh e canno t no w elec t 

a Unde r ERISA , plan s mus t provid e a participant' s accrue d benefi t i n th e for m o f a 

QJSA. 3 8 Unde r sectio n o f th e Plan , a participant' s benefi t is a J&50%S A unless th e 

participan t "elects a differen t for m o f paymen t a s provide d i n Sectio n Unde r sectio n 7.3 , 

t h e Pla n provide s optiona l benefi t form s tha t ma y b e electe d i n accordanc e wit h Sectio n 7. 5 o f 

t h e Plan . Sectio n 7. 5 allow s a marrie d participan t t o elec t t o waiv e th e QJS A withi n th e 90-da y 

perio d immediatel y befor e commencin g a benefit, Consisten t wit h sectio n o f ERISA , th e 

Pla n provide s tha t a participant' s electio n t o waiv e th e QJS A is no t effectiv e unless, amon g othe r 

things , th e spouse's consen t acknowledge s th e effec t o f th e waive r an d is witnesse d b y a pla n 

representativ e o r notar y

T h e Appeal s Boar d denie s Mrs . o f a Th e Pla n define s 

"Participant " a s "[a] n individua l wh o is participatin g i n th e Pla n a s provide d i n Articl e II." 4 1 

 is no t a participan t unde r th e Plan , no r is sh e a participan t i n he r presume d capacit y 

as executo r o f estate . Th e Pla n allowe d participant s t o mak e election s regardin g 

thei r benefits withi n 90-day s o f benefi t commencement . Tha t perio d ha s lon g sinc e passed . A s 

t h e survivin g spous e o f a Pla n participant , ma y no t no w elec t th e Plan' s 

J&100%SA , no r coul d sh e hav e durin g Whi l e hav e . 

electe d th e Plan' s J&100%SA , th e evidenc e show s tha t no t hav e s o elected , 

a n d th e Boar d wil l no t speculat e as t o th e electio n h e woul d hav e mad e i n th e absenc e o f Mrs . 

 consen t t o th e SL A durin g th e electio n period , 

I n th e absenc e o f a vali d spousa l consen t unde r sectio n o f ERISA , Mr . | 

woul d hav e receive d bi s benefi t unde r a J&50%S A i n th e amoun t o f pe r

commencin g 2009 . Afte r th e Pla n terminated , PBG C woul d hav e reduce d hi s monthl y 

benefit t o (estimated) , becaus e o f ERISA' s maximu m guarantee d benefit limit . Mrs . 

 survivo r benefi t unde r th e J&50%S A woul d hav e commence d 2014 , i n th e 

estimate d amoun t o f $1,564.3 2 pe r mont h (50 % o f $3,128.6 3 pe r month) . Consequently , Mrs , 

 bee n underpaid . 

Becaus e th e invalidit y o f consen t wa s no t recognized , however , Mr . 

 hi s m onthl y benefi t i n th e for m o f a SL A i n th e amoun t o f $3,908.65 , 

 Afte r th e Pla n terminated , PBG C reduce d hi s monthl y benefit t o 

$3,476.2 5 beginnin g Novembe r 1 , 2010 , becaus e o f E RISA' s maxim u m guarantee d benefit limit . 

H e wa s receivin g monthl y whe n h e die d Th e last paymen t o f 

$3,476.2 5 wa s mad e Consequently , overpai d durin g hi s 

lifetime , 

 ther e wer e overpayment s t o Mr . an d underpayment s t o Mrs . 

PBG C ma y b e require d t o recou p al l o r a portio n o f th e ne t overpayment s fro m th e survivor' s 

ERIS A § 205(a)(1) ; 2 9 U.S.C . § 1055(a)(1) . 

See Sectio n 7. 1 o f th e Plan , Enclosur e 3 . 

See Sectio n o f th e Plan , Enclosur e

See Sectio n o f th e Pla n (definitio n "Participant") , Enclosur e 3 . 

1 3 
benefit o r otherwis e recove r th e overpayment s b y method s othe r tha n PBGC' s 

Offic e o f Benefit s Administratio n ("OBA") , th e offic e responsibl e fo r calculatin g an d payin g 

benefits, wil l determin e th e amoun t o f ne t overpaymen t o r underpaymen t an d wil l notif y yo u o f 

i ts findings . 

Dissent 

T h e Dissen t o f Willia m F . Condron , Jr. , Appeal s Boar d Member , is enclose d wit h thi s 

decision . 

Decision 

Havin g applie d th e term s o f th e Plan , th e provision s o f ERI S A , an d PB G C regulation s 

a n d policie s t o th e facts i n thi s case , th e Appeal s Boar d grants Mrs . appea l t o th e exten t 

o f determinin g tha t he r consen t unde r sectio n o f ERIS A wa s invali d an d tha t sh e is 

entitle d t o a PBGC-payabl e survivor' s benefit unde r a J&50%SA . Th e Boar d denie s he r appea l 

t o th e exten t o f he r electio n o f a A . 

PBGC' s OB A wil l issu e ne w benefi t determinatio n wit h a 45-da y appea l 

period , bu t he r appea l right s wil l no t includ e an y matter s decide d i n thi s decision . Th e ne w 

benefit determinatio n wil l includ e PBGC' s finding s regardin g unde r o r overpayments . 

Thi s is no t th e Agency' s fina l decisio n o n thi s matter , an d see k cour t 

revie w o f thi s decisio n i n a n appropriat e U . S. Distric t Cour t onl y fo r th e matter s decide d i n this 

decision . I f yo u o r Mrs . hav e an y questions , pleas e cal l th e Custome r Contac t Cente r a t 

1-800-400-7242 . 

 L , j 

Appeal s

( 4 ) Enclosure s an d Dissent : 

( 1 ) Milacro n Retiremen t Plan : Applicatio n fo r Retiremen t Benefit s ( 1 page ) 

( 2 ) Milacro n Retiremen t Plan : Spousa l Consen t ( 1 page ) 

 See 2 9 C.F.R . § ("I f an y tim e th e PBG C determine s tha t ne t benefit s pai d wit h respec t t o an y 

participan t i n a pla n excee d th e tota l amoun t t o whic h th e participan t (an d an y beneficiary ) entitle d 

u p t o tha t tim e unde r titl e I V o f ERISA , an d th e participan t (o r beneficiary ) is , a s o f th e terminatio n date , entitle d t o 

receiv e futur e benefi t payments , th e PBG C wil l recou p th e ne t overpaymen t i n accordanc e wit h paragrap h (c ) o f thi s 

sectio n an d § 4022.82.") . 

1 4 
( 3 ) Exceipt s from th e Milacro n Retiremen t pages) -- 

( 4 ) PBG C For m 70 0 (Participan t Applicatio n fo r Pensio n Benefit ) pages) 

Dissen t b y Willia m F . Condron , Jr. , Appeal s Boar d Membe r ( 5 pages ) 

1 5 
 . RETIREMENT PLAN 

APPLICATION FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS 

Spouse Information ] 

Name 

Address 

 

Relationship to Applicant

Applicant Informatio n 

Address 

 of

Dale

Normal Retirement Dale 

Date Pension Commences 

 lo help you compare the optional forms of payment available to yon, the "relative value" of the single annuity 

to each of other options available to you has been determined relative comparison the optional 

forms to the annuity form, using 5 0% interest and average expectancy assumptions 

As a result of comparison, has been determined that all of the optional forms are approximately equal value to the 

single annuity Your actual expectancy differ from assumed, so the actual relative economic value of the 

options depend on how long you and any beneficiary The of an optional form an important decision 

and the best choice for you depend on many factors other than relative value You should discuss your choice

your family and your financial advisor 

Benefit Payment Options 

1 Annuity - You receive a monthly benefit for your lifetime 

2 5 or Years Certain You receive a monthly benefit for your lifetime If you should within 60 or 

120 following the first benefit payment to you, the monthly benefit be continued to your 

beneficiary for the balance of the 60, or 120 month period 

3 66-2/3%, 75% or Joint and Survivor Annuity - You receive a monthly for your lifetime 

 you 50%, 66-2/3%, 75% or of your monthly benefit amount lo your

for lifetime 

Selection of Payment Option Based on the preceding description of the benefit options the plan provides, please select and 

initial ONE benofit option 

Note you are married whon your pension commonccs, you automatically the 50% JOINT AND 

SURVIVOR ANNUITY option unless you indicate on form you prefer another option By initialing 

form of benefit other than the 50% Joint and Survivor Annuity and by signing your name at the end of fins 

application, you automatically reject the 50% Joint and Survivor Annuity However, you elect option 1, 2 

or your spouse must the Spousal Consent Form and your spouse's signature must be notarized or witnessed 

by a representative of the plan 

Options 

Your 

Monthly Benefit 

Beneficiary's 

Monthly Benefit (Select One) 

1 Annuity $3,908 65 N/A 

2 5 Years Certain $3,838 29 29 

3 10 Years Certain 13 $3,674

(initials) 

4 50% Joint and Annuity $3,408 34 17 

(initials) 

5 66-2/3% Joint and Survivor Annuity $3,263 72 $2,175

(initials) 

75% Joint and Survivor Annuity $3,197 28 96 

(initials) 

7 Joint and Survivor Annuity $3,033 11 

(initials) 

(initials) 

Signature Dale 

Enclosur e 1 
 RETIREMENT PLAN 

SPOUSAL CONSENT FORM 

 single, complete #1 and married, complete Items #2 and #3) 

 D I certify that I am not The spousal consent does not apply to me 1 also certify that 

there arc no outstanding Qualified Domestic Relations Orders that award a portion of my retirement 

benefit to a former spouse (Notary signature not required) 

Date .. 

Participant's Signature 

( 2 ) I have read the enclosed "Application for Retirement Benefits" form, and I consent to the Benefit Form 

my spouse as elected I acknowledge that the effect of my consent may be to forfeit I would be 

entitled to receive upon my spouse's death, that my spouse's election not valid unless I consent to

and that my consent irrevocable unless my spouse revokes the action (NOTARY SIGNATURE IS 

REQUIRED) 

Spouse's Address 

( 3 ) As the Participant entitled to benefits under Milacron Retirement Plan, I certify that there arc no 

outstanding Qualified Domestic Relations Orders that award a portion of my benefit to a former spouse 

Witnessed by 
Dissenting Opinion 

Re: Appeal Mrs. | 

Summary of Dissent: 

T h e issu e i n thi s cas e involve s th e o f ERIS A § 205(c)(2)(a)(iii) , whic h 

require s tha t i n orde r fo r a participan t an d hi s o r he r spous e t o elec t t o waiv e a survivo r benefi t 

unde r a qualifie d join t an d survivo r annuity , "th e spouse's [written ] consen t acioiowledge s th e 

effec t o f suc h electio n an d i s b y a pla n representativ e o r a notar y public. " I n thi s 

appeal , th e evidenc e clearl y establishe s tha t th e spous e signe d th e Consen t Form ; th e disput e 

concern s whethe r th e notar y wh o signe d an d applie d he r notaria l stam p t o th e Consen t For m ha d 

witnesse d th e spouse's consent . 

I disagre e wit h th e majorit y decisio n b y th e Appeal s Boar d tha t ERIS A § 205(c)(2)(a)(iii ) 

require s th e spous e t o sig n a consen t i n th e presenc e o f a pla n representativ e o r notaiy , 

Instead , I woul d find tha t a consen t for m tha t acicnowiedge s th e effec t o f th e electio n an d is 

signe d outsid e th e presenc e o f a pla n representativ e is vali d i f th e representativ e o r notar y 

verifie d th e authenticit y o f th e spousa l signatur e th e spouse's presence . 

I n thi s appeal , th e administrativ e recor d supports a findin g tha t a notai y publi c witnesse d 

Mrs . consen t t o waiv e he r righ t t o a survivo r benefit , whic h occurre d whe n th e notai y 

authenticate d signatur e o n th e Consen t i n Mrs . Thus , I 

woul d find Mr . electio n o f a Straigh t Lif e Annuit y ("SLA" ) is valid , an d

is no t entitle d t o receiv e a survivo r annuit y unde r th e Plan . 

Factual Background and Findings 

T h e administrativ e recor d supports th e followin g facts: 

• appellan t i s a caree r t o he r spous e fo r ove r 

• Th e appellan t kne w tha t he r husban d wa s retirin g fro m hi s employer ,

 afte r a nearl y 40-yea r caree r wit h hi s employer . 

• Th e Pla n use d a benefi t electio n an d spousa l consen t an d waive r for m simila r t o thos e 

use d hundred s o f othe r define d benefi t pensio n plan s trustee d b y PBGC , Th e 

participant' s electio n o f a SL A o f benefi t wa s lawful , provide d hi s spous e 

properl y consente d an d waive d he r righ t t o a Qualifie d Join t an d Survivo r Annuit y 

("QJSA" ) i n accordanc e wit h ERIS A § 205(c)(2)(a)(iii) . 
• Th e Plan' s spousa l consen t stated : 

I hav e rea d th e enclose d "Applicatio n fo r Retiremen t Benefits " Form , an d 

I consen t t o th e Benefi t m y spous e [h]a s elected[. ] I acknowledg e 

tha t th e effec t o f m y consen t ma y b e t o forfei t benefit s I woul d b e entitle d 

t o receiv e upo n m y spouse's death , tha t m y spouse's electio n i s no t vali d 

unles s I consen t t o it , an d tha t m y consen t i s unles s m y spous e 

revoke s th e (NOTARY SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED ) 

[Emphasi s i n original. ] 

• Th e appellant , a s spouse , signe d th e consen t 2009 . 

• Th e spouse's signatur e wa s voluntar y an d no t coerced . 

• T h e appellan t physic all y appeare d i n th e presenc e o f a license d notar y pub lic , Ms . 

 Stat e o f Ohi o

• Th e notai y publi c worke d a t Ohi o an d ha d 

previousl y notarize d document s fo r bot h th e appellan t an d he r husband . 

• Th e notai y publi c affixe d he r sea l a t th e bot t o m o f th e consen t i n th e portio n o f 

t h e for m title d "Witnesse d by " 2009 . 

• Althoug h th e notai y publi c doe s no t recal l no r possess record s (suc h as a notar y log ) 

o f th e circumstance s o f th e notarizatio n 2009 , th e notary' s routin e 

practic e wa s t o notariz e a person' s signatur e onl y i f h e o r sh e appeare d befor e th e 

notai y an d th e notar y coul d verif y th e authenticit y o f th e person' s signature . 

• Pla n official s relie d o n th e electio n for m an d spousa l consen t t o star t a retiremen t 

benefi t fo r th e appellant' s husban d 2009 , i n th e amoun t o f 

 i n th e o f a SLA , almos t exactl y $50 0 mor e a mont h tha n a QJS A 

 o f benefit . 

• N o recor d exist s tha t th e appellan t o r participan t eve r claime d t o th e Pla n o r PBG C 

t h e for m o f benefi t electe d wa s incorrec t unti l afte r th e participan t died , 

Discussion 

I strongl y disagre e wit h th e majority' s insistenc e tha t unde r ERIS A § 205(c)(2)(a)(iii ) a pla n 

representativ e o r notar y ha s no t "witnessed " th e spouse's "consent " unles s th e representativ e o r 

notar y actuall y observe s th e spouse's signin g o f th e form , Th e majority' s interpretatio n o f th e 

"witnessing " o f th e spouse' s "consent " unde r ERIS A § 205(c)(2)(a)(iii ) is unjustifiabl y

I agre e wit h th e vie w tha t a spous e mus t physicall y appea r i n th e presenc e o f a 

pla n representativ e o r notar y i n orde r fo r th e spouse's consen t t o b e validl y witnessed . And , 

2 
obviously , a representativ e o r notar y ha s "witnessed " th e spouse's "consent " i f th e 

representativ e o r notar y actuall y observe s th e spous e voluntaril y signin g th e form . I d o no t 

believe , however , tha t witnessing the signing is th e onl y mean s b y whic h a spouse's "consent " 

m a y b e "witnessed " unde r ERISA . Instead , i n m y view , ERIS A als o contemplate s tha t th e 

spouse's "consent " ma y b e "witnessed " b y a pla n representativ e o r notar y verifyin g wit h th e 

spous e i n perso n th e signatur e alread y th e waive r is indee d th e spouse's signature , 

ERIS A § 205(c)(2)(a)(iii ) require s onl y tha t th e spouse's "consent " h e witnessed , no t tha t th e 

signin g o f th e for m b e witnessed . A s th e majorit y explain s o n pag e 9 o f its decision , "th e 

ordinar y meanin g o f ver b 'consent ' i s 't o agre e t o d o o r allo w something ; t o giv e permissio n 

f o r somethin g t o happe n o r b e Thus , i t is consisten t wit h th e statutor y languag e t o

tha t a notai y ha s witnesse d a spouse's writte n consen t i f th e notar y ha s verifie d i n th e presenc e o f 

t h e spous e tha t th e signatur e o n a signe d waive r for m is th e spouse's signature . Th e majorit y 

provide s n o explanatio n o r authorit y fo r why , i n its view , ERISA' s usag e o f th e wor d "consent " 

is differen t tha n th e ordinar y meanin g o f th e wor d "consent " an d instead , require s a for m t o b e 

signe d i n th e presenc e o f a pla n representativ e o r notary . 

Accordingly , I woul d fin d tha t a consen t for m tha t acicnowiedge s th e effec t o f th e electio n 

a n d is signe d b y a spous e outsid e th e presenc e o f a pla n representativ e o r notai y meet s th e 

requirement s o f ERIS A § 205(c)(2)(a)(iii ) i f th e representativ e o r notar y verifie d th e authenticit y 

o f th e spousa l signatur e i n th e spouse's presence . 

 hav e reviewe d th e thre e cases, Lasche George W. Lasche Basic Profit Sharing

Butler v. Guilt Times Pension Plan3, cite d b y th e 

majorit y decisio n fo r th e propositio n tha t "[i] n eac h case , th e cour t strictl y construe d th e statut e 

t o hol d tha t th e statutor y requirement s unde r sectio n o f ERIS A ha d no t bee n met. " I 

agre e tha t th e ERISA' s statutor y requirements , properl y construed , mus t b e met . Bu t thes e case s 

d o no t suppor t th e interpretatio n o f ERIS A § 205(c)(2)(a)(iii ) a s requhin g witnessin g th e writin g 

o f a signatur e a s oppose d t o th e witnessin g o f consent. Rather , thes e case s sho w onl y tha t 

ERISA' s requirement s fo r th e "witnessing " o f "consent " mus t b e met , whic h I agre e wit h an d 

whic h I believ e ar e satisfie d whe n a spous e appears befor e a pla n representativ e o r notai y an d 

verifie s th e authenticit y o f hi s o r he r signatur e o n a consen t

T h e impac t o f th e majority' s readin g o f ERIS A § 205(c)(2)(a)(iii ) is tha t a spous e is entitle d 

t o a survivo r benefi t whe n th e majority' s requiremen t is no t met , eve n whe n th e factua l recor d 

establishe s tha t th e spouse' s signin g o f th e benefi t electio n wa s voluntary , consensual, an d 

wit h knowledg e o f th e benefi t waiver' s effect. Unde r th e majority' s decision , eve n i f a spous e 

appeare d befor e a notai y an d th e notai y confirme d tha t th e signatur e o n a waive r for m is th e 

spouse's signature , an d eve n i f th e spous e acknowledge d tha t h e o r sh e ha d rea d th e consen t 

 1997) . 

 (7*Cir . 1994) . 

 4.4 6 F . 2 d 9 9 2006) . 

3 
 an d full y understoo d th e significanc e o f th e waiver , th e consen t woul d b e invali d i f no t 

signe d ( a secon d time ) i n th e presence . 

I n othe r words , th e focu s o f th e majority' s decisio n is no t o n consen t i n a meaningfu l sense , 

b u t o n imposin g a muc h narrowe r requiremen t tha t consen t is onl y manifeste d i f th e spous e sign s 

t h e consen t for m i n th e presenc e o f th e pla n representativ e o r notaiy . Thi s rul e woul d lea d t o th e 

absur d result o f invalidatin g a spousa l consen t for m tha t th e spous e admit s understandin g an d 

signin g bu t attempts t o disavo w o n th e technicalit y tha t h e o r sh e di d no t sig n i t i n th e physica l 

presenc e o f th e I find nothin g i n ERIS A o r i n Treasur y regulation s tha t supports thi s 

Unde r th e interpretatio n o f ERIS A § 205(c)(2)(a)(iii) , ever y spousa l consen t 

woul d b e invali d o n its fac e i f th e date s o f th e spouse's signatur e an d notary' s (o r pla n 

representative's ) signatur e d o no t match . Eve n i f th e signatur e date s match , a wido w o r

coul d clai m hi s o r he r signatur e occurre d a t a n earlie r tim e o f da y tha n whe n h e o r sh e me t wit h 

t h e pla n representativ e o r notaiy . An d a s thi s appea l illustrates , i t is ver y difficul t t o recal l an d 

revie w th e factua l circumstance s relate d t o th e completio n o f a consen t for m tha t ma y hav e bee n 

signe d man y years ago . Thus , i n m y view , th e majority' s overl y narro w readin g o f th e statut e is 

neithe r practica l no r require d b y th e languag e i n ERIS A § 205(c)(2)(a)(iii) . 

 I n Butler v. Encyclopedia Brittanlca, th e Sevent h Circui t expressl y rejecte d th e propositio n tha t "th e manifes t 

purpos e o f th e spousa l consen t requirement. , , . is serve d onl y b y requhin g tha t th e spous e sig n th e documen t i n th e 

presenc e o f a notar y publi c o r pla n representative, " 4 1 F.3 d 285 , Moreover , th e Butler cour t state d tha t 

 complianc e wit h ERISA' s litera l languag e thi s cas e woul d t o th e absur d resul t o f invalidin g a 

spousa l consen t for m tha t [th e spouse ] admit s h e signe d an d no w attempt s t o disavo w o n th e technicalit y tha t h e di d 

n o t sig n i t i n th e physica l presenc e o f th e notary. " Id. a t 294 , Likewise , th e cour t i n v. Orthotek, Inc. 

Employees' Pension Plan and Tnist agree d wit h th e analysi s i n Butler tha t sectio n 20 5 "doe s no t necessarily requh e 

a witnes s (whethe r a notai y o r pla n representative ) t o b e physicall y presen t whe n a spousa l consen t for m is signed. " 

6 5 7 F.3 d 571 , 57 6 (7 * Cir . 2007 ) (emphasi s i n original) . I agre e wit h thi s interpretatio n o f ERISA , 

 Th e majorit y finds i t significan t tha t Treasur y rule s relatin g t o th e us e o f a n electroni c mediu m t o mak e participan t 

election s requhe , i n part , tha t "[i] n th e cas e a spousa l th e signatur e o f th e individua l makin g th e 

participan t electio n [mus t be ] witnesse d i n th e physica l presenc e o f a pla n representativ e o r a notai y public. " 2 6 

C F R (a)-21(d)(6) . m y view , th e inclusio n thi s languag e i n th e regulatio n doe s no t bolste r th e majority' s 

interpretatio n o f ERIS A § 205(c)(2)(a)(iii) , Th e regulatio n doe s not stat e tha t th e witnes s is require d t o b e 

physicall y presen t a t th e time of signing. I t require s onl y tha t th e "signature " b e witnesse d i n th e physica l presenc e 

o f th e spouse . A s state d i n thi s dissent , I agre e tha t th e spous e mus t physicall y appea r i n th e presenc e o f a pla n 

representativ e o r notar y i n orde r fo r th e spouse' s consen t t o b e validl y witnessed . 

N o r d o I find significan t th e fac t tha t PBGC' s benefi t applicatio n 700 ) state s tha t "[y]ou r spous e mus t sig n 

a n d dat e thi s sectio n i n th e presenc e o f a Notar y Publi c witnessin g his/he r signature. " A pla n (o r PBGC ) ma y 

alway s adop t requirement s mor e stringen t tha n wha t ERIS A requires . 

4 
Conclusion 

ERIS A require s tha t th e spouse's "consent " b e "witnessed " b y a pla n representativ e o r 

notar y public . Thi s ERIS A requiremen t ordinaril y is satisfie d i f th e spouse's signature , whic h 

signifie s consent, is authenticate d b y th e notar y o r pla n representativ e i n th e presenc e o f th e 

spouse . Applyin g thi s rule , th e totalit y o f th e circumstance s i n thi s cas e support s th e conclusio n 

tha t th e notar y (Ms . validl y witnesse d th e cons e n t i n acco rdanc e wit h ERI SA' s 

requirement s whe n sh e verifie d th e authenticit y o f Mrs , signatur e i n

presence . Wit h th e rulin g i n th e decision , however , th e Appeal s Boar d ha s se t a muc h 

highe r ba r tha n ERIS A require s fo r a consen t for m tha t wa s signe d an d notarize d years ago . 

F o r th e reason s state d above , I dissent, 

Sincerely , 

Willia m Condron , Jr. 

Appeal s Boar d Membe r 

5