The Egelhoff v. Egelhoff case occurred in 2001 and involved Donna Egelhoff, who was named as the beneficiary of her ex-husband’s 401(k) plan. After her ex-husband’s death, his children sued Donna, claiming that a state law had revoked her right to inherit. However, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law (ERISA) governed the distribution of the proceeds and overruled the state law. This meant that Donna was entitled to inherit the money in the plan, despite the state law’s provisions. Essentially, the court held that federal law takes precedence over state law in matters concerning 401(k) plans. This is because federal law aims to establish uniform rules for all 401(k) plan holders, while state law could create unnecessary complexity. If you wish to read the complete opinion, please click on the link provided.
The Supreme Court case of Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, decided in 2001, involved Donna Egelhoff, who was named as the beneficiary of her ex-husband’s 401(k) plan. Despite state law revoking her right to inherit after their divorce, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Donna, stating that federal law (ERISA) governing 401(k) plans preempted the state law. The case arose when Donna received the proceeds from her ex-husband’s life insurance policy and pension plan, which were governed by ERISA. David’s children from a previous marriage sued, arguing that the state statute revoked Donna’s beneficiary status due to the divorce. The Court determined that ERISA, which entitled Donna to the proceeds, superseded the state statute. The Court emphasized the language of ERISA, which supersedes any state laws related to employee benefit plans, and the objective of uniformity and standard procedures in administering such plans. In conclusion, Egelhoff v. Egelhoff established the supremacy of federal law (ERISA) over state law in matters concerning employee benefit plans like 401(k) plans.
The case involved a dispute over the distribution of a deceased individual’s life insurance policy. Thomas Egelhoff had named his ex-wife, Egelhoff, as the beneficiary, but later remarried and did not update the beneficiary designation. After his death, his children from his first marriage claimed the policy proceeds.
The main legal issue was whether a state law, in this case, Washington’s revocation-on-divorce statute, could override the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and automatically revoke the ex-spouse’s beneficiary designation.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the children from the first marriage, holding that ERISA preempted Washington’s revocation-on-divorce statute. Therefore, the ex-wife, Egelhoff, was entitled to the life insurance policy proceeds.
The Court reasoned that ERISA’s clear language preempted state laws that attempted to regulate employee benefit plans. As a result, Washington’s revocation-on-divorce statute could not override the beneficiary designation made under ERISA.
No, the Court did not consider the deceased individual’s intent. The ruling was based solely on the conflict between ERISA and Washington’s state law.
This case established that ERISA preempts state laws regarding the automatic revocation of beneficiary designations upon divorce. Therefore, unless the deceased individual specifically changes the beneficiary designation after divorce, the ex-spouse named as the beneficiary will still be entitled to the policy proceeds.
Yes, the case highlighted the importance of understanding the interaction between federal laws, such as ERISA, and state laws when it comes to employee benefit plans. It emphasized that federal laws can preempt conflicting state laws in certain situations.
No, the case solely focused on the conflict between ERISA and Washington’s revocation-on-divorce statute and did not address any other legal issues.
Yes, Justice Stevens dissented, arguing that ERISA did not preempt Washington’s revocation-on-divorce statute and that the state law should govern the distribution of the life insurance policy proceeds.
The case provided clarity on the issue of preemption, establishing that ERISA takes precedence over state laws in matters related to employee benefit plans. It served as a precedent for future cases involving similar conflicts between federal and state laws.
This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This glossary post was last updated: 17th April 2024.
To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.
- Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/egelhoff-v-egelhoff-2001/
- Modern Language Association (MLA):Egelhoff V. Egelhoff (2001). dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. May 09 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/egelhoff-v-egelhoff-2001/.
- Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Egelhoff V. Egelhoff (2001). dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/egelhoff-v-egelhoff-2001/ (accessed: May 09 2024).
- American Psychological Association (APA):Egelhoff V. Egelhoff (2001). dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved May 09 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/egelhoff-v-egelhoff-2001/
Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.
All author posts