Cingrani v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 73 Pension Fund

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 12/15/2015:Civil case terminated. Mailed notice(wp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY CINGRANI, JR.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15 C 6430

v.

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber

SHEET METAL WORKERS’ LOCAL
NO. 73 PENSON FUND,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
The

Plaintiff,

BACKGROUND

Anthony

Cingrani,

Jr.

(“Cingrani”

or

“Plaintiff”), worked as a sheet metal worker starting in 1978.
He was married to Deborah Cingrani (“Deborah”), from whom he was
divorced on May 16, 2002.

As part of the divorce settlement, a

Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) was entered by the
Circuit Court of Cook County on May 16, 2002.

The intent of

this Order was to assign 50% of Cingrani’s vested interests in
three pension funds to Deborah.
is

at

issue

“Fund”).

in

this

case:

One of the three pension funds

the

Local

73

Pension

Fund

(the

The QDRO did not distinguish between the three funds

but treated them the same.
possibility

that

Deborah

It also did not provide for the
might

predecease

Cingrani.

The

Local 73 Pension Fund was a defined benefit plan in the form of
a pension that commenced upon Cingrani’s retirement and was to
end with his death.
Deborah
which

was

unfortunately

prior

to

passed

Cingrani

received any benefits.

away

taking

on

February

retirement,

so

17,
she

2011
never

There were no amendments made to the

QDRO prior to her death.

In 2014 Cingrani decided to take

retirement as of first of the year 2015 and applied to the Fund
for his pension.

On July 30, 2014, the Fund advised Cingrani

that, because of the assignment of 50% of his pension to Deborah
by the QDRO, he would only be entitled to 50% of his pension,
the remaining 50% was to revert to the Fund due to Deborah’s
death.

Since

possibility

that

the

QDRO

Deborah

did
might

not

make

provision

for

the

predecease

Cingrani,

the

Fund

based its decision on what it claimed was the default rule for
QDROs, which it disclosed in a document attached to its denial
letter.

This default rule stated, in haec verba, “Upon the

Alternate Payee’s death before benefits commenced to him or her,
the Alternate Payee’s assigned benefit will be forfeited and
will revert to the [Plan/Participant].”
circumstances

where

one

or

the

It did not explain the

other

would

receive

the

reversion.
In response, on February 15, 2015, Cingrani obtained from
the same court that issued the 2002 QDRO an amended QDRO.
- 2 -

This

Order provided that “in the event the Alternate Payee [Deborah]
should

predecease

the

participant

[Cingrani],

and

before

any

benefits were made to the Alternate Payee, all of the Alternate
Payee’s

assigned

benefit

and

rights

thereto

shall

revert

entirely to the Participant and the Participant shall therefore
receive

this

full

monthly

benefits afforded him.”

retirement

benefit

and

all

other

On March 3, 2015 the Fund refused to

honor the February 18, 2015 QDRO.

Cingrani appealed this denial

pursuant to the Fund’s rules, which was denied on May 4, 2015.
The wording of the two denials was identical except the earlier
denial was

based

on

Cingrani’s

based on his “appeal.”

“claim”

while

the

latter

was

The appeal denial, however, did refer to

the “discovery” of a “prior version” of the Fund’s QDRO model
form that did not provide a default rule.

The Fund concluded

that even if there was no default rule, Cingrani still loses
because

Deborah

received

all

the

benefits

to

which

she

was

entitled which was Zero.
On both the claim and the appeal the Fund was deadlocked
with the Union Representative voting in favor of Cingrani and
the

Employer

position.

Representative

Under

the

Fund’s

voting

in

rules

of

favor

of

the

Fund’s

procedure,

the

Fund’s

position is sustained unless it is overruled by both the Union
Representative and the Employer Representative.

The reason for

rejecting Cingrani’s claim was that the QDRO was silent as to
- 3 -

what happens in the event of Deborah’s death prior to Cingrani’s
retirement and the commencement of benefits, and the so-called
“default rule” quoted above was applied to deny the claim; and
that an amended QDRO cannot retroactively reverse a result that
had

already

occurred,

i.e.,

the

satisfaction

of

any

claim

Deborah had due to her death prior to Cingrani’s retirement.
II.
The

Union

DISCUSSION

Representative

and

Cingrani

take

the

position

that Deborah died prior to her vesting in the pension which is
proved by the fact that the fund claims that her share had no
value at the time of her death because Cingrani had not yet
retired.
benefits.

Thus, there is no basis for denying his claim for full
Cingrani also claims that the 2015 QDRO effectively

amended the 2002 QDRO when it eliminated any interest Deborah
had.
Based on the above Cingrani filed a two-count Complaint
against the Fund, Count I based on ERISA, and Count II based on
violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Cingrani has

moved for Judgment on the pleading on Count I, contending that
the Fund’s denial of his full pension benefits was arbitrary and
capricious and therefore violated ERISA.

Rule 12(c) permits a

party to move for judgment on the pleadings, which consist of
the Complaint, the Answer and any written instruments attached
to the Complaint as exhibits if it appears that the
- 4 -

moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

North Ind.

Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. V, City of Southbend, 163 F.3d 449,
452 (7th Cir. 1998).
“Where as here the plan administrator is granted discretion
to

construe

plan

administrator’s

terms,

ruling

a

under

capricious standard of review.”
Corp.,

423

Cingrani’s
Court

F.3d

653

(7th

Motion

for

Judgment

finds

that

Administrator’s

under

refusal

a

court

the

arbitrary

deferential

reviews

or

Hess v. Reg-Ellen Machine Tool

Cir.

the
to

reviewing

2005).

on

the

facts

recognize

The

Court

Pleadings

of

this

the

fact

grants

because

case

the

that

the
Plan

Deborah’s

interest terminated on her death and reverted to Cingrani as
required by the 2015 QDRO was arbitrary and capricious.

It is

obvious that where the QDRO is silent, and there is no default
rule,

and

a

beneficiary

dies

prior

to

there is nothing to revert to the Fund.

her

interest

vesting,

If the pension had, in

fact, vested so that there was an interest that would be owned
by her estate there would be a basis for denial of Cingrani’s
claim.

But that is not the case.

The Board specifically held

that her “children do not (and did not) have a right to receive
[Deborah’s] benefits.”

The Fund’s stated position is that even

if it is unjustly enriched it has no authority to ignore the
2002 QDRO and apply provisions of the 2015 QDRO.

But why no

apply the 2015 QDRO even though it was entered after Deborah’s
- 5 -

death?

Courts

have

held

that

ERISA

application of posthumous QDROs.

does

not

prohibit

Marker v. Northrop Grumman

Space & Missions Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan, 2006 WL
2873191 (N.D, Ill. 2006) and cases cited at *9.

See also,

Patton v. Denver Post Corp., 179 F.Supp.2d 1232, 1234 (Colo.
D.C.

2001).

In

the

Patton

case,

participant’s

spouse,

a

participant’s

pension

plans.

A

included

in

overlooked

and

Participant’s

not

death

the

one-half

the

second

first

interest
second
the

plan

QDRO

of

the

plan

was
the

one

pension
QDRO.

was

the

After

in

gave

discovered

omission was believed to have been inadvertent.

and

its

The spouse then

filed a motion in domestic relations court for a second QDRO
asking it to be entered Nunc Pro Tunc to the date of the divorce
and eleven years prior to the participant’s death.

The employer

refused to recognize the second QDRO and the subject suit was
filed.

The court found in favor of the spouse holding that such

an order was valid under Colorado law in order to correct an
error or omission, and it therefore must be recognized by the
employer under ERISA law.
into

account

Cingrani

the

appears

inconceivable

that

Here, similarly, the omission to take

possibility
to

be

Deborah

an

that

Deborah

obvious

would

have

might

predecease

oversight.
opted

to

It
have

is

fifty

percent of Cingrani’s pension revert to the Union Pension Plan
in the event of her prior death.
- 6 -

It is therefore well within

ERISA to allow a domestic relations court to correct such an
omission.
The
first,

Court

the

finds

2002

that

QDRO

Cingrani

allows

should

Deborah’s

win

on

interest

two

to

bases:

revert

to

Cingrani and, second, even if it does not, the 2015 QDRO was
valid to accomplish the same purpose.
While ERISA does not allow the assignment or alienation of
rights of beneficiaries and participants, there is an exception
for QDROs from state courts.
of

the

plan

if

the

Such QDROS will override the terms

statutory

criteria

are

met.

There

are

several formal requirements but the main substantive one is that
the QDRO must not increase the benefits to be paid by the Plan
if

to

do

so

would

increase

§ 1056(d)(3)(D)(ii).

the

actuarial

an

alternative

29

payee

prior

The issue is:

to

the

does the death

institution

of

payments increase the actuarial cost of the benefits.
in

the

first

participant.

instance
After

U.S.C.

In other words, the QDRO cannot itself

increase the cost of the pension.
of

cost.

the

would
QDRO

depend

on

assignment

of

the
50%

age
to

benefit
The cost
of

the

Deborah,

presumably the Fund would have recalculated the benefits based
on the age of Deborah who was two years younger than Cingrani.
A

younger

woman

would

presumably

increase

the

cost

of

the

pension unless the payments were somehow reduced because the
life expectancy of women is longer than that of men.
- 7 -

Thus, it

would seem that her premature death and the reassignment of her
interest back to Cingrani would not have caused the actuarial
cost of the pension to increase but quite possibly decrease.
The

Fund

Thus,

it

does

not

would

suggest

appear

that

that

it

the

would

increase

recognition

of

the

cost.

the

2015

posthumous QDRO would fall well within the statutory criteria to
allow

a

QDRO

to

override

the

ERISA

plan.

Blue

v.

UAL

Motion

for

Corporation, 160 F.3d 383, 385-386 (7th Cir. 1998).
III.
For

the

reasons

CONCLUSION

stated

herein,

Plaintiff’s

Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF No. 12] is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Dated: 12/15/2015

- 8 -