egelhoff v. egelhoff means: The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that a wife named as beneficiary on her ex-husband’s 401k plan could inherit its money, even though the state law stated that her rights to inherit were automatically removed by divorce. Federal law ERISA governs 401k plans. This preempts state laws that might have interfered with ERISA’s goals. (in Legal Dictionary)
What else does egelhoff v. egelhoff mean?
- Two months after the split with Donna Egelhoff, David Egelhoff passed away. David named Donna Egelhoff as his beneficiary in the life insurance and pension plans provided by the employer and governed under ERISA. Donna was awarded the funds, but David and Donna’s children were from another marriage. They sued Donna, alleging that Donna’s beneficiary status had been revoked by a Washington statute because Donna divorced. (in Legal Dictionary)
- The Court ruled that ERISA was the law that Donna had the right to receive the proceeds. It preempted Washington’s state statute. The Court emphasized the language in ERISA and stated that it would “supersede all state laws”. . . relating to any employee benefits plan.” The report also focused on one key objective of ERISA: to establish uniformity in administration of ERISA plans and to prevent states from interfering with their operation. (in Legal Dictionary)