Board of Trustees Masters Mates & Pilots Pension Plan et al v. Carney et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge William M Nickerson on 3/11/14. (c/m)(hmls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
MASTERS, MATES & PILOTS
PENSION PLAN et al.
v.
DENNIS J. CARNEY et al.
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. WMN-13-1005

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs are the trustees of three member benefit plans
of the Masters, Mates & Pilots labor union.

Defendant Dennis

Carney (Dennis) has been a member of that union since 1977.
Plaintiffs brought this action for declaratory judgment and
equitable relief seeking the resolution of a dispute as to which
of two women claiming to be Dennis’s wife is entitled to
benefits under those plans.

On December 3, 2013, this Court

issued a memorandum and order granting a summary judgment motion
filed by Defendant Dennis Carney.

ECF Nos. 21 and 22.

The

Court held that Dennis’s first wife, Defendant Santina Vega
Carney (Santina), was not entitled to those benefits.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court did not opine as to
the validity of Dennis’s 1983 attempt to divorce Santina in
Mexico.

Instead, the Court held that Santina was estopped from

contesting the validity of that divorce.
1

For almost thirty

years, Santina has represented that she was single, including in
a statement under oath made in conjunction with her bankruptcy
proceedings.

In the meantime, Dennis remarried and raised three

children to adulthood.

In light of that undisputed evidence,

the Court held that, “[a]fter thirty years of silence, to permit
Santina to now raise an issue challenging the validity of
[Dennis’s] second marriage would be plainly inequitable.”

ECF

No. 21 at 7.
On December 16, 2013, the Court received a letter from
Santina, with various documents attached, which the Court will
treat as a motion for reconsideration.

ECF No. 23.

The letter

and attachments, however, relate solely to Santina’s challenge
to the validity of the 1983 Mexican divorce.

She does not

address, in any way, the issue of estoppel, which was the basis
of the Court’s previous ruling.

Accordingly, the motion for

reconsideration will be denied.
In its memorandum and order, the Court also requested that
Plaintiffs submit a proposed order addressing any remaining
issues in this litigation, along with a memorandum providing
authority for that requested relief.
so.

ECF No. 24.

Plaintiffs have now done

In their proposed order, Plaintiffs ask the

Court: (1) to issue a declaration that they have properly paid

2

Dennis and Dennis’s second wife, Nilsa Carney (Nilsa), all
benefits due them to date, and (2) to award the Masters, Mates &
Pilots Health & Benefit Plan (the Plan) an equitable lien,
restitution and a constructive trust judgment in the amount of
$63,738.26 from Santina, which Plaintiffs assert is the amount
of errant benefit payments Santina has received from the Plan.
As to the first request for a declaration regarding Dennis
and Nilsa’s entitlement to benefits, the Court will include that
in its final order.

As noted by Plaintiffs, that declaration is

the logical corollary to the Court’s indication in its prior
memorandum that it would issue a declaration that Santina is not
entitled to benefits.

The Court will decline, however, to

include any award of restitution from Santina to the Plan for
whatever benefits that may have been provided in the past.

The

Court notes that Plaintiffs have provided little explanation and
no supporting evidence regarding payments made to Santina.1

The

Court also notes that it appears that Santina requested those
benefits based on her reliance on a determination by the Social
Security Administration that she remained legally married to
Dennis.

While Plaintiffs assert that the Plan documents allow

1

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they have paid
$30,828.54 in health claims for Santina’s benefit, Compl. ¶ 36,
but provide no supporting documentation even for that amount of
benefits paid.
3

for the recovery of overpayments, ECF No. 24 at 5, it is not
clear that Santina was made aware of that provision when she
requested and received benefits from the Plan.
A separate order consistent with this memorandum will be
issued.

___________/s/_______________________
William M. Nickerson
Senior United States District Judge

DATED: March 11, 2014

4