Stepchildren Not Considered Children
A 2012 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision concluded that a pension plan administrator didn't abuse her discretion in determining that a deceased plan participant's stepsons weren't considered his "children" under the terms of the plan. Therefore, the deceased participant's siblings, rather than the stepsons, were entitled to inherit the plan benefits. (Herring v. Campbell, 5th Circuit 2012)
Case Facts. John Wayne Hunter died in 2005. He retired from Marathon Oil Company, where he was a participant in the company pension plan. The plan allowed Hunter to designate a primary and secondary beneficiary. Hunter designated his wife as the primary beneficiary but failed to designate a secondary (contingent) beneficiary. After his wife died, he didn't designate a new primary beneficiary. Under the plan's terms, when a participant died without designating a beneficiary, the deceased participant's benefits were distributed in the following order:
- Surviving spouse,
- Surviving children,
- Surviving parents,
- Surviving brothers and sisters (siblings), and
- The participant's estate.
After Hunter died, the plan administrator considered, and rejected, the possibility that his two stepsons might qualify as "children" entitled to Hunter's benefits. Instead, the administrator distributed the benefits -- more than $300,000 -- to Hunter's six siblings. The stepsons sued, claiming they should have inherited the benefits. Evidence showed that the stepsons had a close relationship with Hunter. His estate was left to them, and Hunter referred to them as his "beloved sons" in his will. The stepsons claimed they were Hunter's children because, by his actions, he "equitably adopted" them. The evidence seemed to indicate that Hunter probably did intend to leave his benefits to the stepsons.
Court Finding. The Fifth Circuit found no error in the administrator's interpretation that the term "children" for purposes of the plan meant biological or legally adopted children and didn't include unadopted stepchildren. As to the stepsons' claim that they had been equitably adopted, the Fifth Circuit found that nothing required the plan administrator to incorporate the theory of equitable adoption into the plan's definition of "children." Therefore, Hunter's pension benefits went to his six siblings. |