Opinion ID: 1359769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proceedings in the State and District Courts

Text: After unsuccessful requests to Harrison that she cease claiming the right to receive survivor benefits under Hallingby's Annuities and that she pay over to the Estate the benefits she had received, plaintiff, by order to show cause, commenced the present action in New York State Supreme Court in May 2006. She sought enforcement of Harrison's Settlement Agreement waiver of any interest in Hallingby's pension benefits, as well as disgorgement of the Annuity payments Harrison had received from MetLife since Hallingby's death. Plaintiff also sought an order bringing MetLife into the action and requiring it to make all further payments of survivor benefits to Hallingby's Estate. After MetLife was made a defendant, it removed the action to federal court, contending that the issue of entitlement to the Annuity benefits was governed by ERISA. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging causes of action against Harrison for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and requesting, inter alia, declaratory and monetary relief against Harrison and an injunction directing MetLife to make the Annuity payments to Hallingby's Estate. Both defendants, in their answers to the complaint, asserted, inter alia, that plaintiff's claims were preempted by ERISA. At pretrial conferences in 2007, MetLife informed the court that MetLife has no interest in the outcome of the dispute between plaintiff and Harrison and that MetLife will make the payments under the Annuities to whichever party the court determines should receive them. Following those representations, the action against MetLife was dismissed with prejudice. Thereafter, both plaintiff and Harrison moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff contended principally that ERISA is inapplicable, arguing that the Annuities are private contracts between MetLife and the former participants in the Merrill Lynch Plan and that, like other typical annuity contracts, they are governed by state law. Harrison argued principally that because the beneficiary interests under the Plan vested on the date of Hallingby's retirement, and Harrison was then his spouse-survivor beneficiary, her interest had become non-assignable under the terms of the Annuities and irrevocable under the provisions of ERISA. In an opinion dated March 26, 2008, reported at 541 F.Supp.2d 591, the district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the motion of Harrison. The court found that the Annuity contracts at issue . . . constitute the pension plan, and the dispute . . . involve[s] benefits due to plan participants. 541 F.Supp.2d at 596. Pointing out that ERISA preempts state-law causes of action to enforce rights under employee benefit plans that are covered by ERISA, the court concluded that it must look to ERISA, rather than to New York State law, to determine the proper recipient of the beneficiary-annuity at issue here. Id. The court noted that ERISA requires that a pension plan prohibit the assignment or alienation of benefits (the `anti-alienation provision'), id. at 598 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1)); and it therefore concluded that the anti-alienation provision of ERISA precludes enforcement of a waiver of a vested interest by a non-participant beneficiary, id. at 599. Judgment was entered dismissing the complaint, and this appeal followed.