EFFECT OF DIVORCE,
ANNULMENT, AND DECREE OF SEPARATION on Wills and Estate Planning.
Uniform Probate Code
(a) An individual who is divorced from the decedent or whose marriage to the decedent has been annulled is not a surviving spouse unless, by virtue of a subsequent marriage, he [or she] is married to the decedent at the time of death. A decree of separation that does not terminate the status of husband and wife is not a divorce for purposes of this section.
(b) For purposes of [Parts] 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this [article], and of Section 3-203, a surviving spouse does not include:
(1) an individual who obtains or consents to a final decree or judgment of divorce from the decedent or an annulment of their marriage, which decree or judgment is not recognized as valid in this state, unless subsequently they participate in a marriage ceremony purporting to marry each to the other or live together as husband and wife;
(2) an individual who, following an invalid decree or judgment of divorce or annulment obtained by the decedent, participates in a marriage ceremony with a third individual; or
(3) an individual who was a party to a valid proceeding concluded by an order purporting to terminate all marital property rights.
Comment
Clarifying Revision. The only substantive revision of this section is a clarifying revision of subsection (b)(2), making it clear that this subsection refers to an invalid decree of divorce or annulment.
Rationale. Although some existing statutes bar the surviving spouse for desertion or adultery, the present section requires some definitive legal act to bar the surviving spouse. Normally, this is divorce. Subsection (a) states an obvious proposition, but subsection (b) deals with the difficult problem of invalid divorce or annulment, which is particularly frequent as to foreign divorce decrees but may arise as to a local decree where there is some defect in jurisdiction; the basic principle underlying these provisions is estoppel against the surviving spouse. Where there is only a legal separation, rather than a divorce, succession patterns are not affected; but if the separation is accompanied by a complete property settlement, this may operate under Section 2-213 as a waiver or renunciation of benefits under a prior will and by intestate succession.
Cross Reference. See Section 2-804 for similar provisions relating to the effect of divorce to revoke devises and other revocable provisions to a former spouse.
Historical Note. This Comment was revised in 1993. For the prior version, see 8 U.L.A. 159 (Supp. 1992).
SECTION 2-803. EFFECT OF HOMICIDE ON INTESTATE SUCCESSION, WILLS, TRUSTS, JOINT ASSETS, LIFE INSURANCE, AND BENEFICIARY DESIGNATIONS.
(a) [Definitions.] In this section:
(1) “Disposition or appointment of property” includes a transfer of an item of
property or any other benefit to a beneficiary designated in a governing instrument.
(2) “Governing instrument” means a governing instrument executed by the
decedent.
(3) “Revocable,” with respect to a disposition, appointment, provision, or nomination, means one under which the decedent, at the time of or immediately before death, was alone empowered, by law or under the governing instrument, to cancel the designation in favor of the killer, whether or not the decedent was then empowered to designate himself [or
herself] in place of his [or her] killer and whether or not the decedent then had capacity to exercise the power.
(b) [Forfeiture of Statutory Benefits.] An individual who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent forfeits all benefits under this [article] with respect to the decedent’s estate, including an intestate share, an elective share, an omitted spouse’s or child’s share, a homestead allowance, exempt property, and a family allowance. If the decedent died intestate, the decedent’s intestate estate passes as if the killer disclaimed his [or her] intestate share.
(c) [Revocation of Benefits Under Governing Instruments.] The felonious and intentional killing of the decedent:
(1) revokes any revocable (i) disposition or appointment of property made by the decedent to the killer in a governing instrument, (ii) provision in a governing instrument conferring a general or nongeneral power of appointment on the killer, and (iii) nomination of the killer in a governing instrument, nominating or appointing the killer to serve in any fiduciary or representative capacity, including a personal representative, executor, trustee, or agent; and
(2) severs the interests of the decedent and killer in property held by them at the time of the killing as joint tenants with the right of survivorship [or as community property with the right of survivorship], transforming the interests of the decedent and killer into equal tenancies in common.
(d) [Effect of Severance.] A severance under subsection (c)(2) does not affect any third- party interest in property acquired for value and in good faith reliance on an apparent title by survivorship in the killer unless a writing declaring the severance has been noted, registered, filed, or recorded in records appropriate to the kind and location of the property which are relied upon, in the ordinary course of transactions involving such property, as evidence of ownership.
(e) [Effect of Revocation.] Provisions of a governing instrument are given effect as if the killer disclaimed all provisions revoked by this section or, in the case of a revoked nomination in a fiduciary or representative capacity, as if the killer predeceased the decedent.
(f) [Wrongful Acquisition of Property.] A wrongful acquisition of property or interest by a killer not covered by this section must be treated in accordance with the principle that a killer cannot profit from his [or her] wrong.
(g) [Felonious and Intentional Killing; How Determined.] After all right to appeal has been exhausted, a judgment of conviction establishing criminal accountability for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent conclusively establishes the convicted individual as the decedent’s killer for purposes of this section. In the absence of a conviction, the court, upon the petition of an interested person, must determine whether, under the preponderance of evidence standard, the individual would be found criminally accountable for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent. If the court determines that, under that standard, the individual would be found criminally accountable for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent, the determination conclusively establishes that individual as the decedent’s killer for purposes of this section.
(h) [Protection of Payors and Other Third Parties.]
(1) A payor or other third party is not liable for having made a payment or
transferred an item of property or any other benefit to a beneficiary designated in a governing instrument affected by an intentional and felonious killing, or for having taken any other action in good faith reliance on the validity of the governing instrument, upon request and satisfactory proof of the decedent’s death, before the payor or other third party received written notice of a claimed forfeiture or revocation under this section. A payor or other third party is liable for a
payment made or other action taken after the payor or other third party received written notice of a claimed forfeiture or revocation under this section.
(2) Written notice of a claimed forfeiture or revocation under paragraph (1) must be mailed to the payor’s or other third party’s main office or home by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or served upon the payor or other third party in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. Upon receipt of written notice of a claimed forfeiture or revocation under this section, a payor or other third party may pay any amount owed or transfer or deposit any item of property held by it to or with the court having jurisdiction of the probate proceedings relating to the decedent’s estate, or if no proceedings have been commenced, to or with the court having jurisdiction of probate proceedings relating to decedents’ estates located in the county of the decedent’s residence. The court shall hold the funds or item of property and, upon its determination under this section, shall order disbursement in accordance with the determination. Payments, transfers, or deposits made to or with the court discharge the payor or other third party from all claims for the value of amounts paid to or items of property transferred to or deposited with the court.
(i) [Protection of Bona Fide Purchasers; Personal Liability of Recipient.]
(1) A person who purchases property for value and without notice, or who
receives a payment or other item of property in partial or full satisfaction of a legally enforceable obligation, is neither obligated under this section to return the payment, item of property, or benefit nor is liable under this section for the amount of the payment or the value of the item of property or benefit. But a person who, not for value, receives a payment, item of property, or any other benefit to which the person is not entitled under this section is obligated to return the payment, item of property, or benefit, or is personally liable for the amount of the payment or the
value of the item of property or benefit, to the person who is entitled to it under this section. (2) If this section or any part of this section is preempted by federal law with
respect to a payment, an item of property, or any other benefit covered by this section, a person who, not for value, receives the payment, item of property, or any other benefit to which the person is not entitled under this section is obligated to return the payment, item of property, or benefit, or is personally liable for the amount of the payment or the value of the item of property or benefit, to the person who would have been entitled to it were this section or part of this section not preempted.
Comment
Purpose and Scope of Revisions. This section is substantially revised. Although the revised version does make a few substantive changes in certain subsidiary rules (such as the treatment of multiple party accounts, etc.), it does not alter the main thrust of the pre-1990 version. The major change is that the revised version is more comprehensive than the pre-1990 version. The structure of the section is also changed so that it substantially parallels the structure of Section 2-804, which deals with the effect of divorce on revocable benefits to the former spouse.
The pre-1990 version of this section was bracketed to indicate that it may be omitted by an enacting state without difficulty. The revised version omits the brackets because the Joint Editorial Board/Article II Drafting Committee believes that uniformity is desirable on the question.
As in the pre-1990 version, this section is confined to felonious and intentional killing and excludes the accidental manslaughter killing. Subsection (g) leaves no doubt that, for purposes of this section, a killing can be “felonious and intentional,” whether or not the killer has actually been convicted in a criminal prosecution. Under subsection (g), after all right to appeal has been exhausted, a judgment of conviction establishing criminal accountability for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent conclusively establishes the convicted individual as the decedent’s killer for purposes of this section. Acquittal, however, does not preclude the acquitted individual from being regarded as the decedent’s killer for purposes of this section. This is because different considerations as well as a different burden of proof enter into the finding of criminal accountability in the criminal prosecution. Hence it is possible that the defendant on a murder charge may be found not guilty and acquitted, but if the same person claims as an heir, devisee, or beneficiary of a revocable beneficiary designation, etc. of the decedent, the probate court, upon the petition of an interested person, may find that, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, he or she would be found criminally accountable for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent and thus be barred under this section from
sharing in the affected property. In fact, in many of the cases arising under this section there may be no criminal prosecution because the killer has committed suicide.
It is now well accepted that the matter dealt with is not exclusively criminal in nature but is also a proper matter for probate courts. The concept that a wrongdoer may not profit by his or her own wrong is a civil concept, and the probate court is the proper forum to determine the effect of killing on succession to the decedent’s property covered by this section. There are numerous situations where the same conduct gives rise to both criminal and civil consequences. A killing may result in criminal prosecution for murder and civil litigation by the decedent’s family under wrongful death statutes. Another analogy exists in the tax field, where a taxpayer may be acquitted of tax fraud in a criminal prosecution but found to have committed the fraud in a civil proceeding.
The phrases “criminal accountability” and “criminally accountable” for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent not only include criminal accountability as an actor or direct perpetrator, but also as an accomplice or co-conspirator.
Unlike the pre-1990 version, the revised version contains a subsection protecting payors who pay before receiving written notice of a claimed forfeiture or revocation under this section, and imposing personal liability on the recipient or killer.
The pre-1990 version’s provision on the severance of joint tenancies and tenancies by the entirety also extended to “joint and multiple party accounts in banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions and other institutions, and any other form of co-ownership with survivorship incidents.” Under subsection (c)(2) of the revised version, the severance applies only to “property held by [the decedent and killer] as joint tenants with the right of survivorship [or as community property with the right of survivorship].” The terms “joint tenants with the right of survivorship” and “community property with the right of survivorship” are defined in Section 1-201. That definition includes tenancies by the entirety, but excludes “forms of co- ownership registration in which the underlying ownership of each party is in proportion to that party’s contribution.” Under subsection (c)(1), any portion of the decedent’s contribution to the co-ownership registration running in favor of the killer would be treated as a revocable and revoked disposition.
Subsection (e) was amended in 1993 to make it clear that the antilapse statute applies in appropriate cases in which the killer is treated as having disclaimed.
ERISA Preemption of State Law. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) federalizes pension and employee benefit law. Section 514(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), provides that the provisions of Titles I and IV of ERISA “shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan” governed by ERISA. See the Comment to Section 2-804 for a discussion of the ERISA preemption question.
Cross References. See Section 1-201 for definitions of “beneficiary designated in a governing instrument,” “governing instrument,” “joint tenants with the right of survivorship,”
“community property with the right of survivorship,” and “payor.”
Historical Note. The above Comment was revised in 1993. For the prior version, see 8 U.L.A. 161 (Supp. 1992).
1997 Technical Amendment. By technical amendment effective July 31, 1997, the word “equal” was added to subsection (c)(2) to make it clear that the effect of severing the interests of the decedent and killer is to transform their interests into equal tenancies in common, without regard to the percentage of consideration furnished by either. Although this was the intent of this subsection, the court in Estate of Garland, 928 P.2d 928 (Mont. 1996), misconstrued the original language and held that once the interests were severed and transformed into tenancies in common, the shares “depend on the decedent’s and the [killer’s] individual contributions to the acquisition and maintenance of the property.” This percentage-of- consideration rule is inconsistent with both the general principle of Section 2-803 and with the statutory language. Section 2-803 is based on the principle that while the killer should not gain from the killing, neither should the killer be deprived of the killer’s own property. In the case of a joint tenancy, neither the killer nor the victim could by a lawful, unilateral act have severed and become owner of more than his or her fractional interest. This is true even if one joint tenant provided more consideration than another joint tenant. Once property is titled in joint tenancy, any excess consideration provided by one joint tenant constitutes an irrevocable gift to the other joint tenant or tenants. The original statutory language established a fractional-interest rule by providing that the interests that are transformed into tenancies in common are “the [severed] interests of the decedent and killer.” This statutory language, as revised, confirms this strict fractioning.
SECTION 2-804. REVOCATION OF PROBATE AND NONPROBATE TRANSFERS BY DIVORCE; NO REVOCATION BY OTHER CHANGES OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
(a) [Definitions.] In this section:
(1) “Disposition or appointment of property” includes a transfer of an item of
property or any other benefit to a beneficiary designated in a governing instrument.
(2) “Divorce or annulment” means any divorce or annulment, or any dissolution
or declaration of invalidity of a marriage, that would exclude the spouse as a surviving spouse within the meaning of Section 2-802. A decree of separation that does not terminate the status of husband and wife is not a divorce for purposes of this section.
(3) “Divorced individual” includes an individual whose marriage has been annulled.
(4) “Governing instrument” means a governing instrument executed by the divorced individual before the divorce or annulment of his [or her] marriage to his [or her] former spouse.
(5) “Relative of the divorced individual’s former spouse” means an individual who is related to the divorced individual’s former spouse by blood, adoption, or affinity and who, after the divorce or annulment, is not related to the divorced individual by blood, adoption, or affinity.
(6) “Revocable,” with respect to a disposition, appointment, provision, or nomination, means one under which the divorced individual, at the time of the divorce or annulment, was alone empowered, by law or under the governing instrument, to cancel the designation in favor of his [or her] former spouse or former spouse’s relative, whether or not the divorced individual was then empowered to designate himself [or herself] in place of his [or her] former spouse or in place of his [or her] former spouse’s relative and whether or not the divorced individual then had the capacity to exercise the power.
(b) [Revocation Upon Divorce.] Except as provided by the express terms of a governing instrument, a court order, or a contract relating to the division of the marital estate made between the divorced individuals before or after the marriage, divorce, or annulment, the divorce or annulment of a marriage:
(1) revokes any revocable
(A) disposition or appointment of property made by a divorced individual
to his [or her] former spouse in a governing instrument and any disposition or appointment created by law or in a governing instrument to a relative of the divorced individual’s former
spouse,
(B) provision in a governing instrument conferring a general or nongeneral power of appointment on the divorced individual’s former spouse or on a relative of the divorced individual’s former spouse, and
(C) nomination in a governing instrument, nominating a divorced individual’s former spouse or a relative of the divorced individual’s former spouse to serve in any fiduciary or representative capacity, including a personal representative, executor, trustee, conservator, agent, or guardian; and
(2) severs the interests of the former spouses in property held by them at the time of the divorce or annulment as joint tenants with the right of survivorship [or as community property with the right of survivorship], transforming the interests of the former spouses into equal tenancies in common.
(c) [Effect of Severance.] A severance under subsection (b)(2) does not affect any third- party interest in property acquired for value and in good faith reliance on an apparent title by survivorship in the survivor of the former spouses unless a writing declaring the severance has been noted, registered, filed, or recorded in records appropriate to the kind and location of the property which are relied upon, in the ordinary course of transactions involving such property, as evidence of ownership.
(d) [Effect of Revocation.] Provisions of a governing instrument are given effect as if the former spouse and relatives of the former spouse disclaimed all provisions revoked by this section or, in the case of a revoked nomination in a fiduciary or representative capacity, as if the former spouse and relatives of the former spouse died immediately before the divorce or annulment.
(e) [Revival if Divorce Nullified.] Provisions revoked solely by this section are revived by the divorced individual’s remarriage to the former spouse or by a nullification of the divorce or annulment.
(f) [No Revocation for Other Change of Circumstances.] No change of circumstances other than as described in this section and in Section 2-803 effects a revocation.
(g) [Protection of Payors and Other Third Parties.]
(1) A payor or other third party is not liable for having made a payment or
transferred an item of property or any other benefit to a beneficiary designated in a governing instrument affected by a divorce, annulment, or remarriage, or for having taken any other action in good faith reliance on the validity of the governing instrument, before the payor or other third party received written notice of the divorce, annulment, or remarriage. A payor or other third party is liable for a payment made or other action taken after the payor or other third party received written notice of a claimed forfeiture or revocation under this section.
(2) Written notice of the divorce, annulment, or remarriage under subsection (g)(1) must be mailed to the payor’s or other third party’s main office or home by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or served upon the payor or other third party in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. Upon receipt of written notice of the divorce, annulment, or remarriage, a payor or other third party may pay any amount owed or transfer or deposit any item of property held by it to or with the court having jurisdiction of the probate proceedings relating to the decedent’s estate or, if no proceedings have been commenced, to or with the court having jurisdiction of probate proceedings relating to decedents’ estates located in the county of the decedent’s residence. The court shall hold the funds or item of property and, upon its determination under this section, shall order disbursement or transfer in accordance with the
determination. Payments, transfers, or deposits made to or with the court discharge the payor or other third party from all claims for the value of amounts paid to or items of property transferred to or deposited with the court.
(h) [Protection of Bona Fide Purchasers; Personal Liability of Recipient.]
(1) A person who purchases property from a former spouse, relative of a former
spouse, or any other person for value and without notice, or who receives from a former spouse, relative of a former spouse, or any other person a payment or other item of property in partial or full satisfaction of a legally enforceable obligation, is neither obligated under this section to return the payment, item of property, or benefit nor is liable under this section for the amount of the payment or the value of the item of property or benefit. But a former spouse, relative of a former spouse, or other person who, not for value, received a payment, item of property, or any other benefit to which that person is not entitled under this section is obligated to return the payment, item of property, or benefit, or is personally liable for the amount of the payment or the value of the item of property or benefit, to the person who is entitled to it under this section.
(2) If this section or any part of this section is preempted by federal law with respect to a payment, an item of property, or any other benefit covered by this section, a former spouse, relative of the former spouse, or any other person who, not for value, received a payment, item of property, or any other benefit to which that person is not entitled under this section is obligated to return that payment, item of property, or benefit, or is personally liable for the amount of the payment or the value of the item of property or benefit, to the person who would have been entitled to it were this section or part of this section not preempted.
Comment
Purpose and Scope of Revision. The revisions of this section, pre-1990 Section 2-508,
intend to unify the law of probate and nonprobate transfers. As originally promulgated, pre-1990
Section 2-508 revoked a predivorce devise to the testator’s former spouse. The revisions expand the section to cover “will substitutes” such as revocable inter-vivos trusts, life-insurance and retirement-plan beneficiary designations, transfer-on-death accounts, and other revocable dispositions to the former spouse that the divorced individual established before the divorce (or annulment). As revised, this section also effects a severance of the interests of the former spouses in property that they held at the time of the divorce (or annulment) as joint tenants with the right of survivorship; their co-ownership interests become tenancies in common.
As revised, this section is the most comprehensive provision of its kind, but many states have enacted piecemeal legislation tending in the same direction. For example, Michigan and Ohio have statutes transforming spousal joint tenancies in land into tenancies in common upon the spouses’ divorce. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.102; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5302.20(c)(5). Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have recently enacted legislation effecting a revocation of provisions for the settlor’s former spouse in revocable inter-vivos trusts. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1339.62; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 60, § 175; Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-50-5115 (applies to revocable and irrevocable inter-vivos trusts). Statutes in Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas relate to the consequence of divorce on life-insurance and retirement-plan beneficiary designations. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.101; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1339.63; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 178; Tex. Fam. Code §§ 3.632-.633.
The courts have also come under increasing pressure to use statutory construction techniques to extend statutes like the pre-1990 version of Section 2-508 to various will substitutes. In Clymer v. Mayo, 473 N.E.2d 1084 (Mass.1985), the Massachusetts court held the statute applicable to a revocable inter-vivos trust, but restricted its “holding to the particular facts of this case – specifically the existence of a revocable pour-over trust funded entirely at the time of the decedent’s death.” 473 N.E.2d at 1093. The trust in that case was an unfunded life- insurance trust; the life insurance was employer-paid life insurance. In Miller v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co., 637 P.2d 75 (Okla.1981), the court also held such a statute to be applicable to an unfunded life-insurance trust. The testator’s will devised the residue of his estate to the trustee of the life-insurance trust. Despite the absence of meaningful evidence of intent to incorporate, the court held that the pour-over devise incorporated the life-insurance trust into the will by reference, and thus was able to apply the revocation-upon-divorce statute. In Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Stitzel, 1 Pa. Fiduc. 2d 316 (C.P. 1981), however, the court held a statute similar to the pre-1990 version of Section 2-508 to be inapplicable to effect a revocation of a life-insurance beneficiary designation of the former spouse.
Revoking Benefits of the Former Spouse’s Relatives. In several cases, including Clymer v. Mayo, 473 N.E.2d 1084 (Mass.1985), and Estate of Coffed, 387 N.E.2d 1209 (N.Y.1979), the result of treating the former spouse as if he or she predeceased the testator was that a gift in the governing instrument was triggered in favor of relatives of the former spouse who, after the divorce, were no longer relatives of the testator. In the Massachusetts case, the former spouse’s nieces and nephews ended up with an interest in the property. In the New York case, the winners included the former spouse’s child by a prior marriage. For other cases to the same effect, see Porter v. Porter, 286 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa 1979); Bloom v. Selfon, 555 A.2d 75 (Pa.1989); Estate of Graef, 368 N.W.2d 633 (Wis.1985). Given that, during divorce process or in the aftermath of the divorce, the former spouse’s relatives are likely to side with the former spouse, breaking down or weakening any former ties that may previously have developed between the transferor and the former spouse’s relatives, seldom would the transferor have favored such a result. This section, therefore, also revokes these gifts.
Consequence of Revocation. The effect of revocation by this section is that the provisions of the governing instrument are given effect as if the divorced individual’s former spouse (and relatives of the former spouse) disclaimed all provisions revoked by this section (see Section 2-1106 for the effect of a disclaimer). Note that this means that the antilapse statute applies in appropriate cases in which the divorced individual or relative is treated as having disclaimed. In the case of a revoked nomination in a fiduciary or representative capacity, the provisions of the governing instrument are given effect as if the former spouse and relatives of the former spouse died immediately before the divorce or annulment. If the divorced individual (or relative of the divorced individual) is the donee of an unexercised power of appointment that is revoked by this section, the gift-in-default clause, if any, is to take effect, to the extent that the gift-in-default clause is not itself revoked by this section.
ERISA Preemption of State Law. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) federalizes pension and employee benefit law. Section 514(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), provides that the provisions of Titles I and IV of ERISA “shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan” governed by ERISA.
ERISA’s preemption clause is extraordinarily broad. ERISA Section 514(a) does not merely preempt state laws that conflict with specific provisions in ERISA. Section 514(a) preempts “any and all State laws” insofar as they “relate to” any ERISA-governed employee benefit plan.
A complex case law has arisen concerning the question of whether to apply ERISA Section 514(a) to preempt state law in circumstances in which ERISA supplies no substantive regulation. For example, until 1984, ERISA contained no authorization for the enforcement of state domestic relations decrees against pension accounts, but the federal courts were virtually unanimous in refusing to apply ERISA preemption against such state decrees. See, e.g., American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Merry, 592 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1979). The Retirement Equity Act of 1984 amended ERISA to add Sections 206(d)(3) and 514(b)(7), confirming the judicially created exception for state domestic relations decrees.
The federal courts have been less certain about whether to defer to state probate law. In Board of Trustees of Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. H.F. Johnson, Inc., 830 F.2d 1009 (9th Cir. 1987), the court held that ERISA preempted the Montana nonclaim statute (which is Section 3-803 of the Uniform Probate Code). On the other hand, in Mendez- Bellido v. Board of Trustees, 709 F.Supp. 329 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), the court applied the New York “slayer-rule” against an ERISA preemption claim, reasoning that “state laws prohibiting murderers from receiving death benefits are relatively uniform [and therefore] there is little threat of creating a ‘patchwork scheme of regulations’” that ERISA sought to avoid.
It is to be hoped that the federal courts will continue to show sensitivity to the primary role of state law in the field of probate and nonprobate transfers. To the extent that the federal courts think themselves unable to craft exceptions to ERISA’s preemption language, it is open to them to apply state law concepts as federal common law. Because the Uniform Probate Code contemplates multistate applicability, it is well suited to be the model for federal common law absorption.
Another avenue of reconciliation between ERISA preemption and the primacy of state law in this field is envisioned in subsection (h)(2) of this section. It imposes a personal liability for pension payments that pass to a former spouse or relative of a former spouse. This provision respects ERISA’s concern that federal law govern the administration of the plan, while still preventing unjust enrichment that would result if an unintended beneficiary were to receive the pension benefits. Federal law has no interest in working a broader disruption of state probate and nonprobate transfer law than is required in the interest of smooth administration of pension and employee benefit plans.
Cross References. See Section 1-201 for definitions of “beneficiary designated in a governing instrument,” “governing instrument,” “joint tenants with the right of survivorship,” “community property with the right of survivorship,” and “payor.”
References. The theory of this section is discussed in Waggoner, Spousal Rights in Our Multiple-Marriage Society: The Revised Uniform Probate Code,” 26 Real Prop. Prob. & Tr. J. 683, 689-701 (1992). See also Langbein, “The Nonprobate Revolution and the Future of the Law of Succession,” 97 Harv. L. Rev. 1108 (1984).
1997 Technical Amendment. For an explanation of the 1997 technical amendment, which added the word “equal” to subsection (b)(2), see the Comment to Section 2-803.
2002 Amendment Relating to Disclaimers. In 2002, the Code’s former disclaimer provision (Section 2-801) was replaced by the Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act, which is incorporated into the Code as Part 11 of Article 2 (Sections 2-1101 to 2-1117). The statutory references in this Comment to former Section 2-801 have been replaced by appropriate references to Part 11. Updating these statutory references has not changed the substance of this Comment.
Historical Note. The above Comment was revised in 1993 and 2002. For the prior version, see 8 U.L.A. 164 (Supp.1992).
Uniform Probate Code
(a) An individual who is divorced from the decedent or whose marriage to the decedent has been annulled is not a surviving spouse unless, by virtue of a subsequent marriage, he [or she] is married to the decedent at the time of death. A decree of separation that does not terminate the status of husband and wife is not a divorce for purposes of this section.
(b) For purposes of [Parts] 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this [article], and of Section 3-203, a surviving spouse does not include:
(1) an individual who obtains or consents to a final decree or judgment of divorce from the decedent or an annulment of their marriage, which decree or judgment is not recognized as valid in this state, unless subsequently they participate in a marriage ceremony purporting to marry each to the other or live together as husband and wife;
(2) an individual who, following an invalid decree or judgment of divorce or annulment obtained by the decedent, participates in a marriage ceremony with a third individual; or
(3) an individual who was a party to a valid proceeding concluded by an order purporting to terminate all marital property rights.
Comment
Clarifying Revision. The only substantive revision of this section is a clarifying revision of subsection (b)(2), making it clear that this subsection refers to an invalid decree of divorce or annulment.
Rationale. Although some existing statutes bar the surviving spouse for desertion or adultery, the present section requires some definitive legal act to bar the surviving spouse. Normally, this is divorce. Subsection (a) states an obvious proposition, but subsection (b) deals with the difficult problem of invalid divorce or annulment, which is particularly frequent as to foreign divorce decrees but may arise as to a local decree where there is some defect in jurisdiction; the basic principle underlying these provisions is estoppel against the surviving spouse. Where there is only a legal separation, rather than a divorce, succession patterns are not affected; but if the separation is accompanied by a complete property settlement, this may operate under Section 2-213 as a waiver or renunciation of benefits under a prior will and by intestate succession.
Cross Reference. See Section 2-804 for similar provisions relating to the effect of divorce to revoke devises and other revocable provisions to a former spouse.
Historical Note. This Comment was revised in 1993. For the prior version, see 8 U.L.A. 159 (Supp. 1992).
SECTION 2-803. EFFECT OF HOMICIDE ON INTESTATE SUCCESSION, WILLS, TRUSTS, JOINT ASSETS, LIFE INSURANCE, AND BENEFICIARY DESIGNATIONS.
(a) [Definitions.] In this section:
(1) “Disposition or appointment of property” includes a transfer of an item of
property or any other benefit to a beneficiary designated in a governing instrument.
(2) “Governing instrument” means a governing instrument executed by the
decedent.
(3) “Revocable,” with respect to a disposition, appointment, provision, or nomination, means one under which the decedent, at the time of or immediately before death, was alone empowered, by law or under the governing instrument, to cancel the designation in favor of the killer, whether or not the decedent was then empowered to designate himself [or
herself] in place of his [or her] killer and whether or not the decedent then had capacity to exercise the power.
(b) [Forfeiture of Statutory Benefits.] An individual who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent forfeits all benefits under this [article] with respect to the decedent’s estate, including an intestate share, an elective share, an omitted spouse’s or child’s share, a homestead allowance, exempt property, and a family allowance. If the decedent died intestate, the decedent’s intestate estate passes as if the killer disclaimed his [or her] intestate share.
(c) [Revocation of Benefits Under Governing Instruments.] The felonious and intentional killing of the decedent:
(1) revokes any revocable (i) disposition or appointment of property made by the decedent to the killer in a governing instrument, (ii) provision in a governing instrument conferring a general or nongeneral power of appointment on the killer, and (iii) nomination of the killer in a governing instrument, nominating or appointing the killer to serve in any fiduciary or representative capacity, including a personal representative, executor, trustee, or agent; and
(2) severs the interests of the decedent and killer in property held by them at the time of the killing as joint tenants with the right of survivorship [or as community property with the right of survivorship], transforming the interests of the decedent and killer into equal tenancies in common.
(d) [Effect of Severance.] A severance under subsection (c)(2) does not affect any third- party interest in property acquired for value and in good faith reliance on an apparent title by survivorship in the killer unless a writing declaring the severance has been noted, registered, filed, or recorded in records appropriate to the kind and location of the property which are relied upon, in the ordinary course of transactions involving such property, as evidence of ownership.
(e) [Effect of Revocation.] Provisions of a governing instrument are given effect as if the killer disclaimed all provisions revoked by this section or, in the case of a revoked nomination in a fiduciary or representative capacity, as if the killer predeceased the decedent.
(f) [Wrongful Acquisition of Property.] A wrongful acquisition of property or interest by a killer not covered by this section must be treated in accordance with the principle that a killer cannot profit from his [or her] wrong.
(g) [Felonious and Intentional Killing; How Determined.] After all right to appeal has been exhausted, a judgment of conviction establishing criminal accountability for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent conclusively establishes the convicted individual as the decedent’s killer for purposes of this section. In the absence of a conviction, the court, upon the petition of an interested person, must determine whether, under the preponderance of evidence standard, the individual would be found criminally accountable for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent. If the court determines that, under that standard, the individual would be found criminally accountable for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent, the determination conclusively establishes that individual as the decedent’s killer for purposes of this section.
(h) [Protection of Payors and Other Third Parties.]
(1) A payor or other third party is not liable for having made a payment or
transferred an item of property or any other benefit to a beneficiary designated in a governing instrument affected by an intentional and felonious killing, or for having taken any other action in good faith reliance on the validity of the governing instrument, upon request and satisfactory proof of the decedent’s death, before the payor or other third party received written notice of a claimed forfeiture or revocation under this section. A payor or other third party is liable for a
payment made or other action taken after the payor or other third party received written notice of a claimed forfeiture or revocation under this section.
(2) Written notice of a claimed forfeiture or revocation under paragraph (1) must be mailed to the payor’s or other third party’s main office or home by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or served upon the payor or other third party in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. Upon receipt of written notice of a claimed forfeiture or revocation under this section, a payor or other third party may pay any amount owed or transfer or deposit any item of property held by it to or with the court having jurisdiction of the probate proceedings relating to the decedent’s estate, or if no proceedings have been commenced, to or with the court having jurisdiction of probate proceedings relating to decedents’ estates located in the county of the decedent’s residence. The court shall hold the funds or item of property and, upon its determination under this section, shall order disbursement in accordance with the determination. Payments, transfers, or deposits made to or with the court discharge the payor or other third party from all claims for the value of amounts paid to or items of property transferred to or deposited with the court.
(i) [Protection of Bona Fide Purchasers; Personal Liability of Recipient.]
(1) A person who purchases property for value and without notice, or who
receives a payment or other item of property in partial or full satisfaction of a legally enforceable obligation, is neither obligated under this section to return the payment, item of property, or benefit nor is liable under this section for the amount of the payment or the value of the item of property or benefit. But a person who, not for value, receives a payment, item of property, or any other benefit to which the person is not entitled under this section is obligated to return the payment, item of property, or benefit, or is personally liable for the amount of the payment or the
value of the item of property or benefit, to the person who is entitled to it under this section. (2) If this section or any part of this section is preempted by federal law with
respect to a payment, an item of property, or any other benefit covered by this section, a person who, not for value, receives the payment, item of property, or any other benefit to which the person is not entitled under this section is obligated to return the payment, item of property, or benefit, or is personally liable for the amount of the payment or the value of the item of property or benefit, to the person who would have been entitled to it were this section or part of this section not preempted.
Comment
Purpose and Scope of Revisions. This section is substantially revised. Although the revised version does make a few substantive changes in certain subsidiary rules (such as the treatment of multiple party accounts, etc.), it does not alter the main thrust of the pre-1990 version. The major change is that the revised version is more comprehensive than the pre-1990 version. The structure of the section is also changed so that it substantially parallels the structure of Section 2-804, which deals with the effect of divorce on revocable benefits to the former spouse.
The pre-1990 version of this section was bracketed to indicate that it may be omitted by an enacting state without difficulty. The revised version omits the brackets because the Joint Editorial Board/Article II Drafting Committee believes that uniformity is desirable on the question.
As in the pre-1990 version, this section is confined to felonious and intentional killing and excludes the accidental manslaughter killing. Subsection (g) leaves no doubt that, for purposes of this section, a killing can be “felonious and intentional,” whether or not the killer has actually been convicted in a criminal prosecution. Under subsection (g), after all right to appeal has been exhausted, a judgment of conviction establishing criminal accountability for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent conclusively establishes the convicted individual as the decedent’s killer for purposes of this section. Acquittal, however, does not preclude the acquitted individual from being regarded as the decedent’s killer for purposes of this section. This is because different considerations as well as a different burden of proof enter into the finding of criminal accountability in the criminal prosecution. Hence it is possible that the defendant on a murder charge may be found not guilty and acquitted, but if the same person claims as an heir, devisee, or beneficiary of a revocable beneficiary designation, etc. of the decedent, the probate court, upon the petition of an interested person, may find that, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, he or she would be found criminally accountable for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent and thus be barred under this section from
sharing in the affected property. In fact, in many of the cases arising under this section there may be no criminal prosecution because the killer has committed suicide.
It is now well accepted that the matter dealt with is not exclusively criminal in nature but is also a proper matter for probate courts. The concept that a wrongdoer may not profit by his or her own wrong is a civil concept, and the probate court is the proper forum to determine the effect of killing on succession to the decedent’s property covered by this section. There are numerous situations where the same conduct gives rise to both criminal and civil consequences. A killing may result in criminal prosecution for murder and civil litigation by the decedent’s family under wrongful death statutes. Another analogy exists in the tax field, where a taxpayer may be acquitted of tax fraud in a criminal prosecution but found to have committed the fraud in a civil proceeding.
The phrases “criminal accountability” and “criminally accountable” for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent not only include criminal accountability as an actor or direct perpetrator, but also as an accomplice or co-conspirator.
Unlike the pre-1990 version, the revised version contains a subsection protecting payors who pay before receiving written notice of a claimed forfeiture or revocation under this section, and imposing personal liability on the recipient or killer.
The pre-1990 version’s provision on the severance of joint tenancies and tenancies by the entirety also extended to “joint and multiple party accounts in banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions and other institutions, and any other form of co-ownership with survivorship incidents.” Under subsection (c)(2) of the revised version, the severance applies only to “property held by [the decedent and killer] as joint tenants with the right of survivorship [or as community property with the right of survivorship].” The terms “joint tenants with the right of survivorship” and “community property with the right of survivorship” are defined in Section 1-201. That definition includes tenancies by the entirety, but excludes “forms of co- ownership registration in which the underlying ownership of each party is in proportion to that party’s contribution.” Under subsection (c)(1), any portion of the decedent’s contribution to the co-ownership registration running in favor of the killer would be treated as a revocable and revoked disposition.
Subsection (e) was amended in 1993 to make it clear that the antilapse statute applies in appropriate cases in which the killer is treated as having disclaimed.
ERISA Preemption of State Law. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) federalizes pension and employee benefit law. Section 514(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), provides that the provisions of Titles I and IV of ERISA “shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan” governed by ERISA. See the Comment to Section 2-804 for a discussion of the ERISA preemption question.
Cross References. See Section 1-201 for definitions of “beneficiary designated in a governing instrument,” “governing instrument,” “joint tenants with the right of survivorship,”
“community property with the right of survivorship,” and “payor.”
Historical Note. The above Comment was revised in 1993. For the prior version, see 8 U.L.A. 161 (Supp. 1992).
1997 Technical Amendment. By technical amendment effective July 31, 1997, the word “equal” was added to subsection (c)(2) to make it clear that the effect of severing the interests of the decedent and killer is to transform their interests into equal tenancies in common, without regard to the percentage of consideration furnished by either. Although this was the intent of this subsection, the court in Estate of Garland, 928 P.2d 928 (Mont. 1996), misconstrued the original language and held that once the interests were severed and transformed into tenancies in common, the shares “depend on the decedent’s and the [killer’s] individual contributions to the acquisition and maintenance of the property.” This percentage-of- consideration rule is inconsistent with both the general principle of Section 2-803 and with the statutory language. Section 2-803 is based on the principle that while the killer should not gain from the killing, neither should the killer be deprived of the killer’s own property. In the case of a joint tenancy, neither the killer nor the victim could by a lawful, unilateral act have severed and become owner of more than his or her fractional interest. This is true even if one joint tenant provided more consideration than another joint tenant. Once property is titled in joint tenancy, any excess consideration provided by one joint tenant constitutes an irrevocable gift to the other joint tenant or tenants. The original statutory language established a fractional-interest rule by providing that the interests that are transformed into tenancies in common are “the [severed] interests of the decedent and killer.” This statutory language, as revised, confirms this strict fractioning.
SECTION 2-804. REVOCATION OF PROBATE AND NONPROBATE TRANSFERS BY DIVORCE; NO REVOCATION BY OTHER CHANGES OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
(a) [Definitions.] In this section:
(1) “Disposition or appointment of property” includes a transfer of an item of
property or any other benefit to a beneficiary designated in a governing instrument.
(2) “Divorce or annulment” means any divorce or annulment, or any dissolution
or declaration of invalidity of a marriage, that would exclude the spouse as a surviving spouse within the meaning of Section 2-802. A decree of separation that does not terminate the status of husband and wife is not a divorce for purposes of this section.
(3) “Divorced individual” includes an individual whose marriage has been annulled.
(4) “Governing instrument” means a governing instrument executed by the divorced individual before the divorce or annulment of his [or her] marriage to his [or her] former spouse.
(5) “Relative of the divorced individual’s former spouse” means an individual who is related to the divorced individual’s former spouse by blood, adoption, or affinity and who, after the divorce or annulment, is not related to the divorced individual by blood, adoption, or affinity.
(6) “Revocable,” with respect to a disposition, appointment, provision, or nomination, means one under which the divorced individual, at the time of the divorce or annulment, was alone empowered, by law or under the governing instrument, to cancel the designation in favor of his [or her] former spouse or former spouse’s relative, whether or not the divorced individual was then empowered to designate himself [or herself] in place of his [or her] former spouse or in place of his [or her] former spouse’s relative and whether or not the divorced individual then had the capacity to exercise the power.
(b) [Revocation Upon Divorce.] Except as provided by the express terms of a governing instrument, a court order, or a contract relating to the division of the marital estate made between the divorced individuals before or after the marriage, divorce, or annulment, the divorce or annulment of a marriage:
(1) revokes any revocable
(A) disposition or appointment of property made by a divorced individual
to his [or her] former spouse in a governing instrument and any disposition or appointment created by law or in a governing instrument to a relative of the divorced individual’s former
spouse,
(B) provision in a governing instrument conferring a general or nongeneral power of appointment on the divorced individual’s former spouse or on a relative of the divorced individual’s former spouse, and
(C) nomination in a governing instrument, nominating a divorced individual’s former spouse or a relative of the divorced individual’s former spouse to serve in any fiduciary or representative capacity, including a personal representative, executor, trustee, conservator, agent, or guardian; and
(2) severs the interests of the former spouses in property held by them at the time of the divorce or annulment as joint tenants with the right of survivorship [or as community property with the right of survivorship], transforming the interests of the former spouses into equal tenancies in common.
(c) [Effect of Severance.] A severance under subsection (b)(2) does not affect any third- party interest in property acquired for value and in good faith reliance on an apparent title by survivorship in the survivor of the former spouses unless a writing declaring the severance has been noted, registered, filed, or recorded in records appropriate to the kind and location of the property which are relied upon, in the ordinary course of transactions involving such property, as evidence of ownership.
(d) [Effect of Revocation.] Provisions of a governing instrument are given effect as if the former spouse and relatives of the former spouse disclaimed all provisions revoked by this section or, in the case of a revoked nomination in a fiduciary or representative capacity, as if the former spouse and relatives of the former spouse died immediately before the divorce or annulment.
(e) [Revival if Divorce Nullified.] Provisions revoked solely by this section are revived by the divorced individual’s remarriage to the former spouse or by a nullification of the divorce or annulment.
(f) [No Revocation for Other Change of Circumstances.] No change of circumstances other than as described in this section and in Section 2-803 effects a revocation.
(g) [Protection of Payors and Other Third Parties.]
(1) A payor or other third party is not liable for having made a payment or
transferred an item of property or any other benefit to a beneficiary designated in a governing instrument affected by a divorce, annulment, or remarriage, or for having taken any other action in good faith reliance on the validity of the governing instrument, before the payor or other third party received written notice of the divorce, annulment, or remarriage. A payor or other third party is liable for a payment made or other action taken after the payor or other third party received written notice of a claimed forfeiture or revocation under this section.
(2) Written notice of the divorce, annulment, or remarriage under subsection (g)(1) must be mailed to the payor’s or other third party’s main office or home by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or served upon the payor or other third party in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. Upon receipt of written notice of the divorce, annulment, or remarriage, a payor or other third party may pay any amount owed or transfer or deposit any item of property held by it to or with the court having jurisdiction of the probate proceedings relating to the decedent’s estate or, if no proceedings have been commenced, to or with the court having jurisdiction of probate proceedings relating to decedents’ estates located in the county of the decedent’s residence. The court shall hold the funds or item of property and, upon its determination under this section, shall order disbursement or transfer in accordance with the
determination. Payments, transfers, or deposits made to or with the court discharge the payor or other third party from all claims for the value of amounts paid to or items of property transferred to or deposited with the court.
(h) [Protection of Bona Fide Purchasers; Personal Liability of Recipient.]
(1) A person who purchases property from a former spouse, relative of a former
spouse, or any other person for value and without notice, or who receives from a former spouse, relative of a former spouse, or any other person a payment or other item of property in partial or full satisfaction of a legally enforceable obligation, is neither obligated under this section to return the payment, item of property, or benefit nor is liable under this section for the amount of the payment or the value of the item of property or benefit. But a former spouse, relative of a former spouse, or other person who, not for value, received a payment, item of property, or any other benefit to which that person is not entitled under this section is obligated to return the payment, item of property, or benefit, or is personally liable for the amount of the payment or the value of the item of property or benefit, to the person who is entitled to it under this section.
(2) If this section or any part of this section is preempted by federal law with respect to a payment, an item of property, or any other benefit covered by this section, a former spouse, relative of the former spouse, or any other person who, not for value, received a payment, item of property, or any other benefit to which that person is not entitled under this section is obligated to return that payment, item of property, or benefit, or is personally liable for the amount of the payment or the value of the item of property or benefit, to the person who would have been entitled to it were this section or part of this section not preempted.
Comment
Purpose and Scope of Revision. The revisions of this section, pre-1990 Section 2-508,
intend to unify the law of probate and nonprobate transfers. As originally promulgated, pre-1990
Section 2-508 revoked a predivorce devise to the testator’s former spouse. The revisions expand the section to cover “will substitutes” such as revocable inter-vivos trusts, life-insurance and retirement-plan beneficiary designations, transfer-on-death accounts, and other revocable dispositions to the former spouse that the divorced individual established before the divorce (or annulment). As revised, this section also effects a severance of the interests of the former spouses in property that they held at the time of the divorce (or annulment) as joint tenants with the right of survivorship; their co-ownership interests become tenancies in common.
As revised, this section is the most comprehensive provision of its kind, but many states have enacted piecemeal legislation tending in the same direction. For example, Michigan and Ohio have statutes transforming spousal joint tenancies in land into tenancies in common upon the spouses’ divorce. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.102; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5302.20(c)(5). Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have recently enacted legislation effecting a revocation of provisions for the settlor’s former spouse in revocable inter-vivos trusts. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1339.62; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 60, § 175; Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-50-5115 (applies to revocable and irrevocable inter-vivos trusts). Statutes in Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas relate to the consequence of divorce on life-insurance and retirement-plan beneficiary designations. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.101; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1339.63; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 178; Tex. Fam. Code §§ 3.632-.633.
The courts have also come under increasing pressure to use statutory construction techniques to extend statutes like the pre-1990 version of Section 2-508 to various will substitutes. In Clymer v. Mayo, 473 N.E.2d 1084 (Mass.1985), the Massachusetts court held the statute applicable to a revocable inter-vivos trust, but restricted its “holding to the particular facts of this case – specifically the existence of a revocable pour-over trust funded entirely at the time of the decedent’s death.” 473 N.E.2d at 1093. The trust in that case was an unfunded life- insurance trust; the life insurance was employer-paid life insurance. In Miller v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co., 637 P.2d 75 (Okla.1981), the court also held such a statute to be applicable to an unfunded life-insurance trust. The testator’s will devised the residue of his estate to the trustee of the life-insurance trust. Despite the absence of meaningful evidence of intent to incorporate, the court held that the pour-over devise incorporated the life-insurance trust into the will by reference, and thus was able to apply the revocation-upon-divorce statute. In Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Stitzel, 1 Pa. Fiduc. 2d 316 (C.P. 1981), however, the court held a statute similar to the pre-1990 version of Section 2-508 to be inapplicable to effect a revocation of a life-insurance beneficiary designation of the former spouse.
Revoking Benefits of the Former Spouse’s Relatives. In several cases, including Clymer v. Mayo, 473 N.E.2d 1084 (Mass.1985), and Estate of Coffed, 387 N.E.2d 1209 (N.Y.1979), the result of treating the former spouse as if he or she predeceased the testator was that a gift in the governing instrument was triggered in favor of relatives of the former spouse who, after the divorce, were no longer relatives of the testator. In the Massachusetts case, the former spouse’s nieces and nephews ended up with an interest in the property. In the New York case, the winners included the former spouse’s child by a prior marriage. For other cases to the same effect, see Porter v. Porter, 286 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa 1979); Bloom v. Selfon, 555 A.2d 75 (Pa.1989); Estate of Graef, 368 N.W.2d 633 (Wis.1985). Given that, during divorce process or in the aftermath of the divorce, the former spouse’s relatives are likely to side with the former spouse, breaking down or weakening any former ties that may previously have developed between the transferor and the former spouse’s relatives, seldom would the transferor have favored such a result. This section, therefore, also revokes these gifts.
Consequence of Revocation. The effect of revocation by this section is that the provisions of the governing instrument are given effect as if the divorced individual’s former spouse (and relatives of the former spouse) disclaimed all provisions revoked by this section (see Section 2-1106 for the effect of a disclaimer). Note that this means that the antilapse statute applies in appropriate cases in which the divorced individual or relative is treated as having disclaimed. In the case of a revoked nomination in a fiduciary or representative capacity, the provisions of the governing instrument are given effect as if the former spouse and relatives of the former spouse died immediately before the divorce or annulment. If the divorced individual (or relative of the divorced individual) is the donee of an unexercised power of appointment that is revoked by this section, the gift-in-default clause, if any, is to take effect, to the extent that the gift-in-default clause is not itself revoked by this section.
ERISA Preemption of State Law. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) federalizes pension and employee benefit law. Section 514(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), provides that the provisions of Titles I and IV of ERISA “shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan” governed by ERISA.
ERISA’s preemption clause is extraordinarily broad. ERISA Section 514(a) does not merely preempt state laws that conflict with specific provisions in ERISA. Section 514(a) preempts “any and all State laws” insofar as they “relate to” any ERISA-governed employee benefit plan.
A complex case law has arisen concerning the question of whether to apply ERISA Section 514(a) to preempt state law in circumstances in which ERISA supplies no substantive regulation. For example, until 1984, ERISA contained no authorization for the enforcement of state domestic relations decrees against pension accounts, but the federal courts were virtually unanimous in refusing to apply ERISA preemption against such state decrees. See, e.g., American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Merry, 592 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1979). The Retirement Equity Act of 1984 amended ERISA to add Sections 206(d)(3) and 514(b)(7), confirming the judicially created exception for state domestic relations decrees.
The federal courts have been less certain about whether to defer to state probate law. In Board of Trustees of Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. H.F. Johnson, Inc., 830 F.2d 1009 (9th Cir. 1987), the court held that ERISA preempted the Montana nonclaim statute (which is Section 3-803 of the Uniform Probate Code). On the other hand, in Mendez- Bellido v. Board of Trustees, 709 F.Supp. 329 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), the court applied the New York “slayer-rule” against an ERISA preemption claim, reasoning that “state laws prohibiting murderers from receiving death benefits are relatively uniform [and therefore] there is little threat of creating a ‘patchwork scheme of regulations’” that ERISA sought to avoid.
It is to be hoped that the federal courts will continue to show sensitivity to the primary role of state law in the field of probate and nonprobate transfers. To the extent that the federal courts think themselves unable to craft exceptions to ERISA’s preemption language, it is open to them to apply state law concepts as federal common law. Because the Uniform Probate Code contemplates multistate applicability, it is well suited to be the model for federal common law absorption.
Another avenue of reconciliation between ERISA preemption and the primacy of state law in this field is envisioned in subsection (h)(2) of this section. It imposes a personal liability for pension payments that pass to a former spouse or relative of a former spouse. This provision respects ERISA’s concern that federal law govern the administration of the plan, while still preventing unjust enrichment that would result if an unintended beneficiary were to receive the pension benefits. Federal law has no interest in working a broader disruption of state probate and nonprobate transfer law than is required in the interest of smooth administration of pension and employee benefit plans.
Cross References. See Section 1-201 for definitions of “beneficiary designated in a governing instrument,” “governing instrument,” “joint tenants with the right of survivorship,” “community property with the right of survivorship,” and “payor.”
References. The theory of this section is discussed in Waggoner, Spousal Rights in Our Multiple-Marriage Society: The Revised Uniform Probate Code,” 26 Real Prop. Prob. & Tr. J. 683, 689-701 (1992). See also Langbein, “The Nonprobate Revolution and the Future of the Law of Succession,” 97 Harv. L. Rev. 1108 (1984).
1997 Technical Amendment. For an explanation of the 1997 technical amendment, which added the word “equal” to subsection (b)(2), see the Comment to Section 2-803.
2002 Amendment Relating to Disclaimers. In 2002, the Code’s former disclaimer provision (Section 2-801) was replaced by the Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act, which is incorporated into the Code as Part 11 of Article 2 (Sections 2-1101 to 2-1117). The statutory references in this Comment to former Section 2-801 have been replaced by appropriate references to Part 11. Updating these statutory references has not changed the substance of this Comment.
Historical Note. The above Comment was revised in 1993 and 2002. For the prior version, see 8 U.L.A. 164 (Supp.1992).
