Legal Opinion
Critchell v. Critchell
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided February 10, 2000No. 98-FM-1304PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WASHINGTON, Associate Judge:
The issue on appeal is whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 832, as amended by the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (REA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., pre-empts state marital property law and proscribes a nonparticipating spouse’s waiver of a property interest in her husband’s pension at divorce by a validly executed prenuptial agreement. The trial judge ruled that ERISA pre-empted the District of Columbia’s marital property law and ordered an equal distribution of the husband’s pension fund. For the following reasons, we reverse.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Boggs v. BoggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Mansell v. MansellSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Rose v. RoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Fox Valley & Vicinity Construction Workers Pension Fund v. Laurine Brown (Lamar), and Dessie Brown, and All UnknownCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
- Peter Hurwitz v. Joan Lear SherCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Kotsch v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- Joeckel v. Disabled American VeteransDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- Dorn v. International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
- Bruno v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- Files v. Exxonmobil Pension PlanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.