Document: 520 U.S. 833117 S.Ct. 1754138 L.Ed.2d 45 Sandra Jean Dale BOGGS, Petitioner,v.Thomas F. Harry M. Boggs and David B. Boggs. No. 96-79. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Jan. 15, 1997. Decided June 2, Syllabus* Respondents are sons Isaac Dorothy After Dorothy's death in 1979, married petitioner When retired 1985, he received various benefits from his employer's retirement plans, including a lump-sum savings plan distribution, which rolled over into an individual account (IRA); shares stock company's employee ownership (ESOP); monthly annuity payment. Following 1989, this dispute arose between sons. The sons' claim is based on purported testamentary transfer to them, under Louisiana law, portion her community property interest Isaac's undistributed pension benefits. contested validity that transfer, arguing pre-empted by Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. Federal District disagreed granted summary judgment against Sandra, Fifth Circuit affirmed. Held: ERISA pre-empts state law allowing nonparticipant spouse instrument Pp. ____-____. (a) In order resolve case, need not interpret ERISA's pre-emption clause, §1144(a), but can simply apply conventional conflict principles, asking whether Louisiana's conflicts with frustrates its purposes. (b) To extent provides right Sandra's survivor's annuity, it pre-empted. That qualified joint survivor mandated §1055, object ensure stream income surviving spouses. solicitude for economic security such spouses would be undermined predeceasing spouse's heirs legatees have annuity. Even participant cannot defeat statutory entitlement See §1055(c)(2). Nothing language supports conclusion Congress decided permit do so. Testamentary transfers as one at issue could reduce below minimum. §1055(d)(1). Perhaps even more troubling, recipient family member; e.g., might substantially reduced so funds diverted support unrelated stranger. face direct clash provisions objectives, stand. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 88, 98, 112 2374, 2383, 120 73. (c) state-law payments, IRA, ESOP also principal protect participants beneficiaries. See, §§1001(b), (c), 1103(c)(1), 1104(a)(1), 1108(a)(2), 1132(a)(1)(B). confers beneficiary status or dependent only required covered §1055(a), "qualified domestic relations order'' (QDRO) awards participant's benefits, §§1056(d)(3)(K) (J). These provisions, acknowledge specific interests, give rise strong implication other claims consistent scheme. silence respect control powerful does exist. Cf. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. Russell, 473 134, 147-148, 105 3085, 3092-3093, 87 96. no share because they neither nor beneficiaries §§1002(7) (8), base their attempted transfer. It inimical purposes them prevail. Early cases holding did pre-empt spousal interests regardless who was beneficiary, applicable here light subsequent amendments ERISA. Reading nonbeneficiary if enforced plan, result troubling anomalies accord intended respondents' given reinforcement §1056(d)(1), requires plans specify "may assigned alienated.'' prohibited "assignment alienation'' regulations. Community laws have, past, been prevent diversion Free Bland, 369 663, 669, 82 1089, 1093-1094, 8 180. matter respondents sought enforce rights after were distributed, since those flawed theory had F.3d 90, reversed. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion Court, STEVENS, SCALIA, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined, REHNQUIST, C.J., GINSBURG, joined Part III. BREYER, filed dissenting opinion, O'CONNOR, except II-B-3. Justice KENNEDY Court. 1 We consider 88 Stat. 832, amended, seq., Given pervasive significance national economy, congressional mandate uniform comprehensive regulation, fundamental importance defining marital partnership number States, question undoubted importance. hold law. 2 * DP1SIsaac worked South Central Bell 1949 until 1985. Dorothy, first wife, when began working company, remained husband wife 1979. They three Within year death, 1989. 3 Upon retirement, plans. One distribution System Savings Plan Salaried Employees (Savings Plan) $151,628.94, Individual Account (IRA). He made withdrawals worth $180,778.05 died. 96 AT & T Stock Ownership (ESOP). addition, enjoyed payment during $1,777.67 Service Program. 4 instant (the wife) marriage. will. bequeathed one-third estate, lifetime usufruct remaining two-thirds. A rough equivalent common-law life estate. La. Civ.Code Ann., Art. 535 (West 1980). She naked two-thirds, subject usufruct. All agree that, absent pre-emption, controls will dispose court, 1980 entitled "Judgment Possession,'' ascribed estate valued time $21,194.29. 5 contests basing §1055. outright certain real home. His gave remainder being held argues competing claim, Program now paid spouse. 6 two action court requesting appointment expert compute percentage further awarding of: IRA; stock; payments retirement; both payable. 7 response, complaint Eastern Louisiana, seeking declaratory application succession recognize disputed 849 F.Supp. 462 (1994). found husband's built up creation interest, explained, violate prohibits "assigned'' "alienated,'' intend alter traditional familial obligations. court's view, there assignment alienation acquired operation Isaac. Turning effective " [ERISA] display any particular preserving maximum beneficiary.'' F.Supp., 465. divided panel 90 (1996). stressed affects what may relationship administrator beneficiary. Id., For reasons anti-alienation provision, inapplicable Boggs' concluded alienation, "two steps removed disbursement benefits.'' 97. 9 Six members Appeals dissented failure grant rehearing en banc. 89 1169 goals securing uniformity administration ensuring retirees, dependents, actual recipients income. believed Congress' mechanism §1056(d)(3), whose requirements met possession, supported position. —(A QDRO limited exception provision allows courts circumstances.) 10 reasoning Circuit's decision substantial Ninth Ablamis Roper, 937 F.2d 1450 (1991), division Circuits significant, has jurisdiction Texas, while includes Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Washington. Having certiorari issue, 519 ----, 117 379, 136 297 (1996), we reverse. II 11 questions recurrent, having come before current Term alone, see California Division Labor Standards Enforcement Dillingham Construction, 791 (1997); De Buono NYSA-ILA Medical Clinical Services Fund, --- 1747, ---- (1997). large part reflects nature statute, centrality welfare financial Nation's work force. designed proper years employee's active service years. 12 This case lies intersection None central role play nine States. than regime. commitment equality inherent relationship. State laws, many ancient lineage, "must continued exist through lengths manifold excellences lightly abrogated tossed aside.'' W. de Funiak, Principles Property (1943). regime dates 1808 territorial legislature Orleans drafted civil code adopted Spanish principles property. 85-89. regimes enacted implement policies values lying within domain considerations inform our analysis. Hisquierdo Hisquierdo, 439 572, 581, 99 802, 808, 59 (1979). 13 some 80 million residents, perhaps $1 trillion Brief Estate Planning, Trust Probate Law Section Bar Amicus Curiae 1. involves ruling affect well make assert State, recognizes Our must scheme assure families every State. enacting ERISA, noted findings declaration policy, explaining: 14 [T]he growth size, scope, numbers benefit recent rapid substantial; . well-being millions employees dependents directly affected these plans; public [and] become important factor affecting stability employment successful development industrial '' §1001(a). 15 intricate, statute. Its federal regulatory governs include conform reporting, disclosure fiduciary requirements, §§1021-1031, 1101-1114, comply participation, vesting, funding §§1051-1086. here, statute's mandatory participation vesting requirements. provide detailed protections which, cases, exceed sole measure. 16 express clause states "shall supersede all insofar hereafter relate §1144(a). begin, end, analysis operates frustrate objects. conflict, suffices case. inquire phrase "relate to'' additional claim. Nor applicability field Fidelity Fed. Sav. Loan Assn. la Cuesta, 458 141, 153, 102 3014, 3022, 73 664 (1982). 17 address then turn III 18 Boggs, observed, asserts supersedes agree. 19 1055(a) provides: 20 "Each section applies shall that- 21 (1) vested die starting date, accrued payable provided form annuity.'' 22 less 50% amount lives Provision waived participant, circumstances, unless consents writing designation another changed without consent, witnessed representative notary public. spouse, provisions. let alone consented designated 23 say Their claims, argue, disposition proceeds disbursed Program, thus nothing plan. concern implicated. argue obligations, she receives "fai[l] implicate concerns ERISA.'' Fort Halifax Packing Coyne, 482 1, 107 2211, 2219, (1987). 24 disagree. along rest 1055 mandates where dies date guarantees then. §§1055(a)(2), (e). Equity 1984 (REA), Pub.L. 98-397, 98 1426, enlarged protection significant respects. Before REA, offer option entirely discretion. §§1055(a), (e) (1982 ed.). REA modified designate agrees. evident expansive coverage amended REA. 1055's general matter, "individual plans'' "defined plans.'' §1055(b)(1). terms defined, §1055 purposes, fall categories. §1002(35). While escape §1055's conditions, still protects requiring pay nonforfeitable §1055(b)(1)(C). 25 odd, least, permitted concluding inexplicable decision. guaranteed minimum set (defined spouse). approximately 20%, according calculations contained state-court filings. There reason why greater amount. member. instance, 26 objectives Conventional require "where compliance regulations physical impossibility, stands obstacle accomplishment execution full Congress.'' (1992) (internal quotation marks citation omitted). undermine purpose allow be. free change structure balance. 27 IV 28 Beyond stock. As before, further-and somewhat inconsistently- again once imposing obligations itself. Both parties present obtain devisable out existence brief overview design necessary put contentions context. statute Shaw Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 85, 103 2890, 2896, 77 490 (1983) ("ERISA promote plans''). 1001(b) policy "to beneficiaries.'' 1001(c) explains contains safeguards help guarantee "equitable character soundness [private pension] "the private implemented Apart few enumerated exceptions, "discharge duties solely §1104(a)(1). assets "held exclusive providing defraying reasonable expenses administering plan.'' §1103(c)(1). Secretary authority create exemptions prohibition holdings, acquisitions, transactions, doing plan's "participants §1108(a)(2). Persons bring suit enforcement either 1132(a)(1)(B), brought "by recover due him clarify future 30 narrow circumstances delineated example, discussed, §1055(a) and, consequence extent. 1056's likewise dependents. type creates alternate payee's to, assigns payee §1056(d)(3)(B)(i). order, turn, judgment, decree, child support, alimony former child, participant'' "made pursuant (including law).'' §1056(d)(3)(B)(ii). meet qualify QDRO. §§1056(d)(3)(C)-(E). QDRO's, unlike orders general, exempt §1056(d)(3)(A), §1144(b)(7). creating careful payee, "spouse, participant,'' considered §§1056(d)(3)(K), essential REA's enhanced children event divorce separation, confer nonparticipants status. 31 outside context restriction, deemed enact dependent's Through §1169 medical child's parent's group health care enforced. "medical defined law) relates §1169(a)(2)(B)(i). QDRO, satisfy criteria qualify. §§1169(a)(3)-(4). accordance conforming entitlements status, treats qualifying reporting §1169(a)(7). 32 (1985). should cause little surprise chose separated divorced children, accommodate [t]he whole parent belongs States.'' re Burrus, 586, 593-594, 850, 853, 34 L.Ed. 500 (1890). Support particular, "deeply rooted moral responsibilities'' unlikely intrude upon. Rose Rose, 481 619, 632, 2029, 2037, 95 599 (1987); id., 636-640, S.Ct., 2039-2041 (O'Connor, concurring). ensured orders, long 33 conclude begin with, "participant'' "employee employer, member organization, eligible receive benefit.'' §1002(7). "beneficiary'' "person thereunder.'' §1002(8). Respondents' attempt virtue possession An amicus, position, points pre-REA below, amicus relies upon Marriage Campa, Cal.App.3d 113, 152 Cal.Rptr. 362 (1979), First bar joining marriage dissolution proceedings ordering divide dismissed appeal want question, 444 1028, 100 696, 62 (1980), although precedential weight, Edelman Jordan, 415 651, 670-671, 94 1347, 1359-1360, 39 662 (1974), constitutes merits, Hicks Miranda, 422 332, 344, 2281, 2289, 223 (1975). Campa refusing find Stone Stone, 450 919 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 632 740 (C.A.9 1980), cert. denied, 453 922, 101 3158, 69 1004 (1981); Profit Sharing Fund Sears Gago, 717 1038 (C.A.7 1983); Eichelberger Eichelberger, 584 899 (S.D.Tex.1984). judicial consensus, argues, codified amendments. contends allegedly adopted, context, construed governing different subject. 35 disagree reasoning. true spouses, extension §1002(8)'s definition appreciation fact primarily area concern, supra, 124, Cal.Rptr., 367-368, basic principle beneficiary's spendthrift trust, despite otherwise protections, reached separation. E. Griswold, Spendthrift Trusts 389-391 (2d ed.1947) (summarizing law); Restatement (Second) §157 (1959). took implicit determination logical conclusion, forcing join party compelling Whether force, authorities define scope 36 effect ask us ignore new class persons whom administered. amenable sweeping extratextual extension. unpersuasive suggest third counted "beneficiaries.'' fiduciary's responsibilities run Assets administration. anomalies. Either subset stake move fill apparent gaps rights, resulting complex varying Neither accords 37 nonbeneficiary, provision. 1056(d)(1) [e]ach Statutory potent mechanisms dissipation funds. interpreted U.S., 583-590, 809-813. explicit §§1056(d)(2), (d)(3)(A), expansion. Guidry Sheet Metal Workers Nat. Pension 493 365, 376, 110 680, 687, 782 (1990). "be seen bespeak protective special intensity: remain inviolate retirement.'' J. Langbein Wolk, Benefit 547 ed.1995). 38 source claimed alienation.'' exceptions [a]ny indirect arrangement whereby acquires beneficiary'' enforceable "all is, become, CFR §1.401(a)-13(c)(1)(ii). Those met. Under Eskine Eskine, 518 So.2d 505, 508 (La.1988). If allowed succeed acquired, 1980, expense survivors' annuities, acquire Guidry, 687 (" [The provision] choice, safeguard pensioners ''). years, end. §1001(c). Besides measures expect them. are, standards termination insurance program terminated fully funded. §§1082, 1301-1461. approach, retirees sums recipients. ERISA-regulated disrupted name protecting spouses' successors logic creditors, incompatible §1056(d)(1). 40 implementation McCune Essig, 199 382, 78, 50 237 (1905); Wissner Wissner, 338 655, 70 398, 424 (1950); 180 (1962); (1979); McCarty McCarty, 210, 2728, 589 Mansell Mansell, 109 2023, 104 675 (1989); cf. Ridgway Ridgway, 454 46, 49, (1981). relevance here. purchased bonds Treasury effect, co-owner died, entire bonds. son-the will-demanded one-half reimbursement loss interest. 41 "One inducements selected survivorship convenient method avoiding complicated probate proceedings. Notwithstanding awarded title half value decedent's Viewed realistically, rendered award meaningless.'' 1093. 42 same pre-empted, occur benefit. obligation accounting, moreover, referred Free, itself burden proportions. forced accounting deceased death. couple lived several entail complex, expensive, time-consuming litigation. accountants attorneys purpose. 43 contend anomalous unfair thought otherwise. reinforce concerned living. who, often divorce, available means predeceased fairness distinction debated, favor living dead policy. 44 axis around revolve concepts chosen depart framework, done manner. succeed, upsetting deliberate balance distributed asserted Reversed. 46 O'CONNOR joins, THE CHIEF JUSTICE GINSBURG II-B-3, dissenting. 47 §1001, "pre-empts,'' thereby nullifies, leave earned (or, "community property'' terms, together earned) From perspective unusually important, for, told, answer potentially ERISA-qualified plans- couple's most assets. my aspect law-at least wife's bequest second obtaining precisely specifically sets aside her. §1055(a). view. I therefore affirm judgment. 48 49 married; children; died; remarried; retired; survived wife. specific, employee, resident Telephone Company (now known BellSouth) 1949. participated about almost time-from children. 1980. died survives him. left ""the [share estate] law,''' ""usufruct''' (rather like estate) remainder. 2. meant outright. two-thirds (i.e., "naked ownership,'' common remainder). 51 Throughout life, 30-year BellSouth's 1985 (six death), plans: (from Plan); (2) cash $150,000 Employees); (3) $1,800 per month afterwards Sandra. immediately placed (IRA), immediate tax. §408(e)(1); S. Bruce, Claims: Rights Obligations ed.1993). property, presumably survivor, B 52 On December 17, 1992, district court. §1132(a)(1)(B) (plan "clarify benefits''). said themselves BellSouth mother, owned (insofar prior death) (two-thirds interest'' death). asked (in words) "an accounting'' "for undivided in, and/or benefits'' Petition Declaratory Judgment 92-4174 (ED La., Dec. 16, 1992), p. 3. declare nutshell, stock, cash, hers. 53 denied motion declared "ERISA preempt laws.'' 462, 467 (E.D.La.1994); Mar. 9, 1994), reviewing pre-emption; assume view relevant facts 54 Judge Wisdom, described "system'' "conceives each partner equal share.'' (1996); McClanahan, §2:27, (1982) (hereinafter McClanahan) (community views "as contract ente[r] equals retai[n] personalities''). Recognizing though non-employed, contributes marriage,'' F.3d, 96, Dorothy-that community-and other. 2338 1985) "property legal effort, skill, industry spouse''); T.L. James Montgomery, 332 834, 841-844, 846 (La.1975) (pension makes contributions plan). 55 today women men 2346 ("Each acting manage, control, law''). K. Spaht Hargrave, Civil Treatise, Matrimonial Regimes 1-2 (1989) (until ""head master''' manager property). And assume, Circuit, determine IRA account, belong 97 [Dorothy's] owes pension''); 3261 1961) (succession broad power, approval, liquidate sale exchange debts legacies, purpose''). La.Rev.Stat. Ann. 9:2801 1991 Supp.1997) (judicial partition divorce); Hare Hodgins, 586 118, 123 (La.1991) (to equalize allocation termination, "cash lieu payments''); James, 851 n. (opinion rehearing) (same); Sims Sims, 358 919, 924 (La.1978) (formula calculating benefits); McClanahan §12:15, pp. 547-550 (state allocate pension); Succession McVay McVay, 476 1070, 1073-1074 (La.App.1985) (decedent's assets, listed asset beneficiary; however, contain value). generally 1993) ("When rule situation derived legislation custom, bound proceed equity''). 56 whether-or which-ERISA applied "relate[s] plan,'' Applying criteria, basis pre-emption. 57 "relates meaning §1144(a) expressly "refers'' impermissible "connection with'' Div. Constr. N. A., 837, grounds 58 refer pensions all. says spouse'' property.'' 1985). act exclusively on, rely of, Dillingham, ---------, 837-838. arises interpretation, 841; §6:21, sort likely whenever phrased among things. Hence "reference'' problem. "connection'' problem difficult. Insofar term refers purpose, discuss II-B, infra. "connection,'' encompass intrudes (given objectives) wanted reserve legislation. 837-838 (quoting New York Conference Blue Cross Shield Plans Travelers Co., 514 645, 654, 115 1671, 1676, 131 695 (1995)). Malone White Motor Corp., 435 497, 504, 1185, 1190, 443 (1978) falls occupy); San Diego Building Trades Council Garmon, 359 236, 244-245, 79 773, 779-780, 775 (1959) (States regulate activities protected Relations Act); Garner Teamsters, 346 485, 498-499, 74 161, 170, 228 (1953) add subtract remedies Act). latter (sometimes called "field pre-emption,'' 843 (Scalia, concurring)) 60 concede primary management themselves, 838-839 (citing Morash, 107, 115, 1668, 1673, (1989)), (which amounts checks funds) closely "connected management. lie closer heart say, goods services purchase, apprenticeship training programs, 841-842, Serv. ante, ----. But, so, wished place State's reach. 61 My family, probate-all areas traditional, concern. 625, 2033-2034, (1987) (domestic traditionally regulation); (1979) Zschernig Miller, 389 429, 440, 664, 683 (1968) ("The course, regulated descent estates''). But __ (majority's effort distinguish passing devise). considers works "on "assumption historic police powers superseded clear manifest Congress.''' 838 Rice Santa Fe Elevator 331 218, 67 1146, 91 1447 (1947)). reasonably category displace. Obviously, govern ownership. all, someone own Nor, similar reasons, believe concerning bequests. like, labor relations, matters own. Machinists Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO Wisconsin Employment Comm'n, 427 132, 144-148, 2548, 2555-2557, 396 (1976). "who owns property?'' needs answer. Ordinarily, answer, 63 appropriately forbidden looking establishing Compare Ingersoll-Rand McClendon, 498 133, 111 478, 474 (1990); 1673. involve lawsuit fund. majority suit. case; produce —(Eskine (La.1988), cited majority, involved governmental 506; §§1002(32), 1003(b)(1).) 64 fund already distributed; asks fund, others, accounting. And, II-B-3 interfere how go forward seek fiduciaries continue owe duty §§1103(c)(1), 1104(a)(1). Contrary majority's suggestion, "participants'' "beneficiaries'' §§1002(7), 1002(8), grocery store, bank, emerged benefit, contrary. Moreover, threat children's pose far posed separation §1056(d). infra, II-B-2. 65 Of look narrowly category, "testamentary bequests other.'' occupying field, whether, interferes 66 important. Indeed, statutes insurance, operated funded Government. 587-595, 2027-2032, 221-236, 2735-2743, 53-61, 54-58, 582-590, 808-813; 658-660, 399-401, (1950). turned embodied issue. similarly examination reveal conflict-either directly, sense "frustrate'' achievement Malone, 1189-1190. question. Solicitor General, believes, conflicts-an dealing order[s],'' turn. PCS1 68 "anti-alienation'' "benefits [qualified plan] stated "a (and ).'' General objective, permitting Isaac, spouse; concerned, parties. claim-simply attacking Isaac-does attack "assign[ment]'' "aliena[tion]'' Thus, law's violates be? recognized kind §1056(d)(3)(B)(ii)(II). appropriate framework resolving disputes what. §1056(d)(3). prematurely divesting frustration claim-attacking children-is plausible. Nonetheless, discussed money surprising, longer needed support. embody restrict embodies Dorothy. equally; just much hers his. Why, then, power restricts his? 71 possible die, (persons indifferent) used reason, tends argument (with exception, infra) beside point, seeks take deaths depends doubtful assumptions Consider retired. assets-the cash-not funds, vacation, buy house, bet races, alive receipt. understand will, use expenses, gamble; rather, account. explained fact-which likelihood exigencies tax §408(e)(1)- difference PCS2 72 section-an amendment 1426-that divorce. determined (QDRO). §1056(d)(3)(A). defines QDROs law),'' §1056(d)(3)(B)(ii)(II), §§1056(d)(3)(B)(i), 1056(d)(3)(C), 1056(d)(3)(D). Government shows count "alienations'' effectuating section, taken whole, Government's argument. purport (quoted __). Rather, creation, assignment, recognition 75 "domestic (not order'') decree 76 participant.'' §1056(d)(3)(B)(ii)(I). exempts "qualified'' tell word "alienation'' cover absence. clarified covers Sandra) extended included children). Hence, tells virtually orders,'' orders. 78 Second, amendment, probate. Department Advisory Opinion 90-46A, issued 4, 1990 130 Cong. Rec. 13327 (1984); S.Rep. 98-575, 18-19 (1984)) focused support). judges pension-related meets recordkeeping increasing pay. §§1056(d)(3)(C), said, stating divorce-related exempting created. regulates spouses; taking Third, alive-at procedural Why ask, death? Had him, obtained ERISA-despite absence indication question-that deprive because, instead divorcing "stay[ed] till last breath.'' Tr. Oral Arg. 15. Finally, §1056(d), literally, significantly, easily squeezed order.'' placing dependent,'' distributing estate's readily relating "marital rights.'' Opinion, supra (probate orders''). PCS3 81 forth annuities benefit'' "payable'' takes annuity,'' §1055(a)(1). annuity'' "annuity'' "not percent of) spouse.'' §1055(d). argued lump sum. decide "accrued §1055(d), insist waiver way did-i.e., way, outcome cash. 83 matter. Plan, initially lifetime, life. person (unless §§1055(c) (waiver annuity), 1055(g) (election rather annuity)). 12; §1.401(a)-11 receiving frustrating 84 inconsistency end relief. Although apparently requested pleading, Record stipulated oral 33-34. "accounting''; too, spoke "accounting,'' mention relief 94, 97, 98. 85 pointed argument, (or heirs) collect nonpension value. §9:2801 So.2d, (setting formula pension). 86 retained other, Dorothy-Isaac bequeath (And anyone, appears automatically remarriage. 890 Supp.1997).) circumstance, heirs, applying federally protected. Bendler Marshall, 513 (La.App.1987) (first contributions, second, wife; annuity); lower describe precise explain exactly worked. deny request reflect raised panel's lawfully cited, very roughly following imaginary example illustrates: Assume property: $60,000 investments 140,000 $Total 200,000 $100,000 decide) belonging consisted leaving $40,000 care? postpone community's usufruct, more? $140,000 charity, block ground away. tried $140,000. (which, belonged Dorothy) as) collection property-i.e., assures (on assumption) assets-assets anyone place. 92 suggests cares happens community, might, not, some, charity. seems too indifferent presence, absence, try later-appearing diminished annuity). wives silent strips bulk property-simply died? 93 made, actually infer abstract law-created anything stopping Confusion unnecessary interference inevitable. particularly making interaction sum, goes bequeath, reading limits minimizes pre-existing Hodel Irving, 704, 717, 2076, 2083-2084, 668 (federal stripping owner pass devise Amendment); Babbitt Youpee, 727, 733-734, 696 (1997) (statutory restriction permissible taking). above, convince me below. syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499.

Category: 9