The first section relevant to this inquiry is 29 U.S.C. The construction of these particular sections of ERISA has yet to receive significant legal attention within the factual context presented by this controversy and presents a difficult question of both statutory interpretation and legislative history. The Court is asked in the case sub judice to determine whether either the language or legislative intent of three provisions of ERISA operate to bar any garnishment under state law of pension benefits by a commercial creditor of a plan beneficiary. § 1001(a), Congress prescribed a variety of requirements for pension plans, including participation and vesting standards, and established a complex regulatory scheme to effectuate the policies underlying the Act. Finding "that the continued well-being and security of millions of employees and their dependents are directly affected by these plans. 2d 354 (1980), which was designed to protect "interstate commerce and the interests of participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries." ERISA § 2(b), 29 U.S.C. As the Supreme Court recently observed, ERISA is a "comprehensive and reticulated statute", Nachman Corp. On September 2, 1974, following almost a decade of study of private pension plans, Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
Tomas Rhodus, Rhodus, Jones & Hytken, Dallas, Tex., for intervenors. Patrick Stark, Baker, Riddle, Miller, Phillips, Brown & Murray, Dallas, Tex., for Garnishee.įranklin H. *511 *512 Jim Lee, Winstead, McGuire, Sechrest & Trimble, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.
Williams act s. rep. no. 510 professional#
510 (1981) COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE INC., Plaintiff,ĬITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF DALLAS, Garnishee,Īlan Eberstein, M.D., Professional Association Employees' Profit Sharing Plan and Trust Alan Eberstein, M.D., Professional Association Employees' Pension Plan and Trust Alan Eberstein, M.D., Professional Association and Alan Eberstein, Trustee Intervenors.
0 kommentar(er)
