Opinion ID: 1359769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hallingby's Marriages, Divorce, and Pension Benefits

Text: The events are largely undisputed. Harrison and Hallingby were married in 1983. At that time, Hallingby was a participant in the pension plan (Plan) for employees of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Affiliates (Merrill Lynch). Under the Plan, Hallingby was to receive a monthly pension following his retirement; after his death, the pension would continue to be paid to his survivor beneficiary at a reduced rate. In 1984 and 1986, Hallingby named Harrison as his beneficiary. Hallingby retired from Merrill Lynch on October 1, 1986, at which time his benefits, and those of his beneficiary, vested. In December 1988, the Plan was terminated. In order to satisfy its obligations to its employees, as required by ERISA, see 29 U.S.C. § 1341(b)(3)(A)(i); 29 C.F.R. § 4001.2, Merrill Lynch purchased group annuity (Annuity) contracts from defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife). These contracts provided that [i]n the case of any annuity that has provision for payment to a beneficiary, the designation of beneficiary may be changed by filing written notice of the change with Metropolitan on an appropriate form (Annuity ¶ 4.5); that [i]f both the Annuitant and the survivor annuitant are alive on the Annuity Commencement Date, the Annuitant will not have the right to change the survivor annuitant for any reason ( id. ¶ 3.3(B)); but that MetLife will honor any valid court order relating to . . . marital property rights to a Spouse . . . or other dependent of an Annuitant covered under this Contract if such order does not require payments under a form of benefit not otherwise available under this Contract nor increase the present value of the benefit payable ( id. ¶ 3.19). In June 1994, Harrison and Hallingby were divorced. They had entered into a settlement agreement that provided, inter alia, that  the parties acknowledge that they have no right, title or interest in any of the bank accounts, securities, pension plans, retirement plans, profit sharing plans, annuities or IRAs now in the name of the other, whether in the other's sole name or jointly or in trust for another. (Settlement Agreement between Paul Hallingby, Jr., and Mai V. Hallingby dated May 5, 1994 (Settlement Agreement), art. II., ¶ 2 (emphases added).) The judgment granting Hallingby the divorce incorporated the parties' Settlement Agreement and provided that the court retains jurisdiction in this matter concurrently with the Family Court, for the purpose of specifically enforcing such of the provisions of that agreement as are capable of specific performance. Hallingby v. Hallingby, No. 300913/93 (Sup.Ct. N.Y. Co. June 7, 1994), Judgment of Divorce at 3. In November 1994, Hallingby married plaintiff and submitted forms to MetLife designating plaintiff as his new survivor beneficiary and revoking all previous beneficiary designations. Hallingby died in June 2005. Thereafter, despite requests by plaintiff that MetLife pay Hallingby's survivor benefits to his Estate, MetLife made the Annuity payments to Harrison. MetLife took the position that ERISA and the terms of the Annuities required it to make the payments to Harrison.