Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Foster Art Service, Inc. Pension Trust Plan; Kenneth Enright; Janice Gutman; Eileen Sunner, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees, v. Terri v. Wolfe, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant., 955 F.2d 47 (9th Cir. 1992)

Federal Circuits, 9th Cir. (February 19, 1992)

Docket number: 90-56334
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/37424323
Id. vLex: VLEX-37424323

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

US Code - Title 26: Internal Revenue Code - 26 USC 415 - Sec. 415. Limitations on benefits and contribution under qualified plans

US Code - Title 29: Labor - 29 USC 1132 - Sec. 1132. Civil enforcement

U.S. Supreme Court - Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Joseph R. Bolker, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellant., 760 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir. 1985)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary J. Waller, Defendant-Appellee. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mary J. Waller, Defendant-Appellant., 906 F.2d 985 (4th Cir. 1990) Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary J. Waller, Defendant-Appellee. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mary J. Waller, Defendant-Appellant.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Barbara A. Dytrt, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the Mountain State Telephone and Telegraph Company, Defendant-Appellee., 921 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1990)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Cecil L. Williams, Joel Morgan Bryan, Peter E. Carnute, William Crum, Richard L. Gonzales, James Moretti, James P. Payton, John L. Tennant, Robert A. Van Buren, and Frederick W. Walker, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Caterpillar, Inc., Caterpillar Retirement Income Plan, Caterpillar Non-Contributory Pension Plan, Caterpillar Group Insurance Plan, Caterpillar Benefit Funds Committee, Keith Wheeler and Jack Ziegler, Defendants-Appellees., 944 F.2d 658 (9th Cir. 1991)

Text:

Before TANG, KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

A. "Trust principles make a deferential standard of review appropriate when a trustee exercises discretionary powers." Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 111 (1989). The Foster Art Pension Plan, article III, grants plan fiduciaries broad discretionary power to administer the plan and interpret its provisions, and we cannot say that the interpretation of the plan adopted by the fiduciaries was an abuse of discretion. Id.1

B. The fiduciaries properly applied 26 U.S.C. 415 to limit the death benefit owed to Wolfe. See Treas.Reg. § 1.415-3 (1991); Final Regulations, Limitations on Benefits and Contributions Under Qualified Plans, 46 Fed.Reg. 1687 (1981).2 The fiduciaries did not err in applying section 415 at the time benefits were paid, even though payment occurred after the normal retirement date. See Treas.Reg. § 1.415-3(b); 46 Fed.Reg. at 1688 & 1701.

C. The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the Foster Art Pension Plan was entitled to restitution of its overpayment to Wolfe under Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Waller, 906 F.2d 985, 993-94 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 512 (1990). See also Restatement of the Law of Restitution § 1 (1937). Wolfe received the excessive benefits as a mid-litigation payment that she should not have dissipated prior to learning the outcome of the litigation. Id. §§ 69(1), 142(1) (change in circumstances diminishes right to receive restitution only if change would make full restitution inequitable).

D. We decline to exercise our discretion to address any of the issues raised by Wolfe for the first time on appeal. See Bolker v. Commissioner, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985).

E. We also decline to exercise our discretion to award attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs under 29 U.S.C. 1132(g) (1988). See Williams v. Caterpillar, Inc., 944 F.2d 658, 667-68 (9th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

1 The fiduciaries acted under no conflict of interest that would require us to review their actions "under [a] less deferential standard." Dytrt v. Mountain State Tel. & Tel., 921 F.2d 889, 894 (9th Cir.1990)

2 Wolfe's death benefit is not exempted from section 415 by section 415(b)(2)(B) because it is not an "ancillary benefit which is not directly related to retirement income benefits...." Rather, it is a benefit with respect to a participant that is subject to the limits of section 415

Other documents:
resolucion de 15 de mayo de 2000, del director general de organización y sistemas de información, por la que se a... | ANUNCIO de 3 de diciembre de 2007 por el que se convoca concurso abierto relativo a la contratación de la ejecución del suministro del sistema de ba... | anuncio de 12 de septiembre de 2002, de exposición pública de propuesta de deslinde de vías pecuarias en e... | Parvulario en el restaurante | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia - Madrid - Sala de lo Social, of December 13, 2004 | ANUNCIO de 6 de marzo de 2003 por el que se notifica la Resolucion recaida en el expediente AD-01-0166-1 del que es titular la empresa Const... | RESOLUCIÓN de 23 de junio de 1995 de la Dirección General de Ordenación e Innovación Educativa por la que se convoca el ¿I Concurso... | anuncio del ayuntamiento de esparreguera, sobre contratacion de obras. | Pamplona Adjudicacion de obras de acondicionamiento de la Biblioteca de La Milagrosa