IBEW LOCAL 332 PENSION TRUST QDRO errors

Error # 1 Under paid spousal benefits





Error # 2 Incorrect DRO and QDRO





Error # 3 No QDRO coordination





Error #4 Plan authored DRO of 2005 increased benefits for first wife’s past service credit from $10 per year to $37 per year. Overage lowered participants benefit. Violation of 29 USC 1056(d)(3)(D) which allows no increased benefits greater than the pension allows in the “Summary Plan document“. The SPD is very specific: $10 is the maximum allowed for “past service credit”





Error #5 Plan 2005 DRO increased total of first wife’s benefit to more than the total contributions of the marriage. Violation of ERISA 29USC 1056(d)(3)(D)(i)&(ii) and state case law Lehman v Lehman. Justice Mosk in the Lehman opinion states five times that retirement earnings are only accrued “during the term of the marriage”. Taking money from “wife-two” and giving it to “wife-one” is not proper.





Error #6 The 2005 DRO lowered the remaining account balance below the community property benefit California requires for participant. ERISA 29 USC 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii)(II) requires the Plan not qualify any DRO that does not meet community property law. And, taking money from the electrician and giving it to “wife-one” is not smart because the electrician watches that figure.





Total account balance minus “1999 QDRO” and minus “ 2005 DRO” must leave the proper community property share to the electrician. That share should equal: one half of all the benefits earned during all marriages plus the total of benefits earned during all non-married times.





Perhaps the Plan did not look at the title of the document (ERISA) they incorporated into the Trust Document on August 1, 1980. The "Employee Retirement Income Security Act" is for the protection of the EMPLOYEE. Congress did make provision in ERISA for other beneficiaries but the emphasis was on the employee.





Cowboy Wisdom
Never take to sawing on the branch that supports you, unless you’re hanging from it.





Happy Trails