Opinion ID: 2976977
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plain Language of the Plan

Text: The primary issue on appeal is the amount of the monthly payment to which Marilyn Galenski is entitled under the terms of Ford’s plan. The district court, however, did not cite the language from the plan’s Guidelines for Qualified Domestic Relations Orders or ERISA, both of which have very specific terms about eligibility for benefits. Instead, looking to the Indiana lien from 1998, the initial Qualified Domestic Relations Order from October 11, 2001, and the Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order from February 12, 2002, the district court found that it was -7- No. 07-1914 Galenski v. Ford Motor Pension Plan “unable to ascertain any language which would support” a finding that Marilyn is entitled to only pre-retirement surviving spouse benefits. Based on the plain language of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order Guidelines in Ford’s plan, Marilyn should receive only the pre-retirement surviving spouse benefits because Joseph died before he was eligible to receive any retirement benefits. The relevant section in Ford’s “QDRO Approval Guidelines and Procedures” under “Pre-Retirement Surviving Spouse” states: The Order may provide for the Alternate Payee to be treated as the Participant’s surviving spouse under the Plan in the event of the death of the Participant before the Participant commences retirement benefits. If the participant dies prior to his or her earliest eligible retirement date under the Plan, the Alternate Payee will not be entitled to receive the portion of the benefit awarded under the QDRO (including a separate annuity based on the Alternate Payee’s own lifetime). The only benefit payable in such case would be a surviving spouse benefit and only if the QDRO provides for the Alternate Payee to be considered the Participant’s surviving spouse for the purposes of the pre-retirement survivor annuity. . . . QDRO Guidelines at 5 (emphasis added). The plain language of the Guidelines, therefore, establishes that Marilyn is only entitled to the pre-retirement surviving spouse benefits, regardless of what the Qualified Domestic Relations Order says. B. Timing of Filing the Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order The district court found, erroneously, that Ford denied Marilyn benefits because the Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order was not filed prior to Joseph’s death in June 2001. As explained above, the record instead demonstrates that Ford denied pension benefits to Marilyn based on the language in the Plan and the fact that Joseph had not reached age 55, leaving Marilyn entitled only to pre-retirement surviving spouse benefits, the same benefits that she would have -8- No. 07-1914 Galenski v. Ford Motor Pension Plan received had she and Joseph remained married until his death. Although the district court found that it would be “futile” for Marilyn to file for surviving spouse benefits, there is nothing in the record that supports such a finding. To the contrary, Ford has encouraged Marilyn to apply for such benefits numerous times and sent her the required forms. C. Whether Marilyn’s Interest in Joseph’s Pension Is a “Separate Interest” Marilyn also incorrectly argues that the Indiana lien gave her a “separate interest” in Joseph’s pension in the amount of $51,265.28 that she is entitled to collect from his “accrued pension benefit.” Ford argues correctly that Marilyn’s interest is “intertwined” with Joseph’s and she cannot receive anything greater than Joseph would have received (or Joseph’s spouse had he been married at the time of his death). Marilyn mistakenly relies upon a Third Circuit case that held that the exwife of a deceased pension plan participant had pre-existing rights to plan benefits where the domestic order stated that the “wife shall be entitled to one-half of the Exxon pension . . .” Files v. Exxon Mobile Pension Plan, 428 F.2d 478, 480 (3d Cir. 2005). The court held that that language created a separate interest in the pension for the ex-wife. But, unlike the instant case, the participant’s pension had fully vested, and he was past the eligibility age of fifty prior to his death. Unlike in Files, Marilyn seeks to collect pension benefits to which Joseph never had a vested right. She has not cited a case, and we have not found one, where the surviving ex-spouse is entitled to more than the participant would have received had he lived or more than the participant’s current spouse would receive if one existed at the time of the participant’s death. -9- No. 07-1914 Galenski v. Ford Motor Pension Plan D. Attorney Fees Attorney fees are not appropriate in this case. We are reversing and remanding the case to the district court because we find that Ford did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in awarding only surviving spouse benefits to Marilyn. We, therefore, also reverse the award of attorney fees. See, e.g., Cattin v. General Motors Corp., 955 F.2d 416, 427 (6th Cir. 1992) (it is always “ ‘an abuse of discretion for the district court to award attorney’s fees to a losing party.’ ”) (quoting Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Indus., 728 F.2d 820, 829 (7th Cir. 1984)). As explained above, Ford’s decision to deny pension benefits and award only surviving spouse benefits was reasonable based on the language in the Plan. Furthermore, we find nothing in the record to show that Ford acted in bad faith towards Marilyn.