Featured Topics
Retirement Industry
Magazine Archive
Education/Advice
Where Do you Go for Financial Advice?
According to the court’s opinion, the plan administrator was particularly concerned that many plan participants would not necessarily expect stepchildren to benefit from the plan absent affirmative designation by the participant since, in many cases, stepparents and stepchildren might not have a close relationship, and participants with both biological and stepchildren might not expect both to benefit. When she reviewed her initial determination after the Herrings’ 2008 challenge, the plan administrator applied these same considerations and also considered that including “equitably adopted” individuals under the definition of “children” would create substantial uncertainties and additional expenses for the plan by giving rise to disputes about whether individuals had been “equitably adopted.” When Hunter died, his spouse had predeceased him and he had no surviving parents and no biological or legally adopted children, so the plan administrator distributed the benefits -- which totaled more than $300,000.00 -- to Hunter’s six siblings. About two years later, the Herrings challenged the distribution, arguing that they were Hunter’s “children” and should have been given priority over Hunter’s siblings. The plan administrator conducted a second review, and again determined that Hunter’s stepsons were not entitled to collect benefits under the plan. The Herrings then filed suit. After a bench trial, the district court found for the Herrings, and denied the plan administrator’s counterclaim for a declaratory judgment. The opinion in Herring v. Campbell is at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-40953-CV0.wpd.pdf.
According to the court’s opinion, the plan administrator was particularly concerned that many plan participants would not necessarily expect stepchildren to benefit from the plan absent affirmative designation by the participant since, in many cases, stepparents and stepchildren might not have a close relationship, and participants with both biological and stepchildren might not expect both to benefit.
When she reviewed her initial determination after the Herrings’ 2008 challenge, the plan administrator applied these same considerations and also considered that including “equitably adopted” individuals under the definition of “children” would create substantial uncertainties and additional expenses for the plan by giving rise to disputes about whether individuals had been “equitably adopted.”
When Hunter died, his spouse had predeceased him and he had no surviving parents and no biological or legally adopted children, so the plan administrator distributed the benefits -- which totaled more than $300,000.00 -- to Hunter’s six siblings. About two years later, the Herrings challenged the distribution, arguing that they were Hunter’s “children” and should have been given priority over Hunter’s siblings.
The plan administrator conducted a second review, and again determined that Hunter’s stepsons were not entitled to collect benefits under the plan. The Herrings then filed suit.
After a bench trial, the district court found for the Herrings, and denied the plan administrator’s counterclaim for a declaratory judgment.
The opinion in Herring v. Campbell is at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-40953-CV0.wpd.pdf.
Rebecca Mooreeditors@plansponsor.com