SAMAROO v. SAMAROO, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23221 (3rd Cir. September 24, 1999)-Upon the death of Winston Samaroo, his former wife sought pre-retirement survivor’s annuity benefits. She would have been entitled to them except that she and her husband were divorced, and neither the divorce decree nor the property settlement mentioned any rights to the survivor’s annuity. After her former husband’s death, Robichaud obtained a nunc pro tunc amendment to the divorce decree purportedly creating an entitlement to the annuity. The district court properly held that the amended order was not a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) capable of conferring on Robichaud the benefits she sought.
The district court applied the arbitrary and capricious standard of review since the plan gave the plan administrator discretion to interpret plan terms. However, this court used the de novo standard of review, since the issue in the case was a question of statutory construction regarding the requisites of a QDRO, rather than a question of interpretation of the Plan. Under section 1056(d)(3)(D), a domestic decree cannot be a QDRO if it increases or gives additional benefits over what has been provided in the Plan (read in light of federal law). The court cited cases which reasoned that rights to benefits are determined on the day of the participant’s death and pointed out: "The fact that some [annuity] participants die without a surviving spouse to qualify for benefits is not an unfair forfeiture, as Robichaud contends, but rather part of the ordinary workings of an insurance plan. Allowing the insured to change the operative facts after he has lost the gamble would wreak actuarial havoc on administration of the Plan."
