Light v. Employees' Retirement System of Alabama

Supreme Court of Alabama

Light v. Employees' Retirement System of Alabama

648 So. 2d 582, 1994 Ala. LEXIS 399, 1994 WL 421599

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedAugust 12, 1994

Docket1931006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 648 So. 2d 582 (Light v. Employees' Retirement System of Alabama) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Light v. Employees' Retirement System of Alabama, 648 So. 2d 582, 1994 Ala. LEXIS 399, 1994 WL 421599 (Ala. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

STEAGALL, Justice.

Jeanette W. Cambrón, the ex-wife of Louis Cambrón, deceased, and Loma Cambrón Light and Christopher B. Cambrón, Louis Cambron’s adult children by a previous marriage, filed claims with the Employees’ Retirement System of Alabama (“ERS”), re-questmg payment of Louis Cambron’s prere-tirement death benefits. In 1984, Louis had designated Jeanette, who was then his wife, as the primary beneficiary of his preretirement death benefits and had designated Lorna and Christopher as contingent beneficiaries. Louis and Jeanette were divorced in 1987, but Louis did not remarry, and, at Ms death m 1992, he had not removed Jeanette as the primary beneficiary.

After the ERS rejected their claim, Loma and Christopher sued the ERS and Jeanette, seeldng declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the ERS and Jeanette. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that there is a question of fact as to whether Louis Cam-bron’s designation, of Jeanette as primary beneficiary remained effective despite the separation and divorce agreement. TMs Court granted the ERS’s petition for certio-rari review in order to consider whether the written beneficiary designation of Jeanette, Louis’s former wife, on file with the ERS is bmding despite the subsequent separation agreement and the divorce judgment.

In Ex parte Pitts, 435 So.2d 83 (Ala.1983), this Court, in addressing a similar issue, held that under the facts of that case — -where the wife had designated the husband as the beneficiary under her retirement plan and the parties had subsequently divorced, but the wife did not change the name of the beneficiary under the plan and the separation agreement did not mention the retirement plan — the former spouse, as the named beneficiary under the plan, was entitled to the death benefits.

Here, like Pitts, Louis did not change the name of the primary beneficiary after he and Jeanette were divorced, and their separation agreement did not specifically mention Louis’s retirement plan. Therefore, Jeanette is entitled to the preretirement death benefits. The trial court correctly entered the summary judgment in favor of Jeanette and the ERS, and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in reversing that judgment.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed, and this cause is remanded for action consistent with this opmion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STEAGALL, Justice.

Jeanette W. Cambrón, the ex-wife of Louis Cambrón, deceased, and Loma Cambrón Light and Christopher B. Cambrón, Louis Cambron’s adult children by a previous marriage, filed claims with the Employees’ Retirement System of Alabama (“ERS”), re-questmg payment of Louis Cambron’s prere-tirement death benefits. In 1984, Louis had designated Jeanette, who was then his wife, as the primary beneficiary of his preretirement death benefits and had designated Lorna and Christopher as contingent beneficiaries. Louis and Jeanette were divorced in 1987, but Louis did not remarry, and, at Ms death m 1992, he had not removed Jeanette as the primary beneficiary.

After the ERS rejected their claim, Loma and Christopher sued the ERS and Jeanette, seeldng declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the ERS and Jeanette. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that there is a question of fact as to whether Louis Cam-bron’s designation, of Jeanette as primary beneficiary remained effective despite the separation and divorce agreement. TMs Court granted the ERS’s petition for certio-rari review in order to consider whether the written beneficiary designation of Jeanette, Louis’s former wife, on file with the ERS is bmding despite the subsequent separation agreement and the divorce judgment.

In Ex parte Pitts, 435 So.2d 83 (Ala.1983), this Court, in addressing a similar issue, held that under the facts of that case — -where the wife had designated the husband as the beneficiary under her retirement plan and the parties had subsequently divorced, but the wife did not change the name of the beneficiary under the plan and the separation agreement did not mention the retirement plan — the former spouse, as the named beneficiary under the plan, was entitled to the death benefits.

Here, like Pitts, Louis did not change the name of the primary beneficiary after he and Jeanette were divorced, and their separation agreement did not specifically mention Louis’s retirement plan. Therefore, Jeanette is entitled to the preretirement death benefits. The trial court correctly entered the summary judgment in favor of Jeanette and the ERS, and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in reversing that judgment.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed, and this cause is remanded for action consistent with this opmion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

648 So. 2d 582, 1994 Ala. LEXIS 399, 1994 WL 421599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/light-v-employees-retirement-system-of-alabama-ala-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack