Carmona

Carmona v. Carmona

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 17, 200806-15581California9,079 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. Background

The essential facts of this case are undisputed. Lupe Car- mona married his eighth wife,3 Janis Carmona (nee Kester), in 1988. While they were married, Lupe designated Janis as his survivor beneficiary under two pension plans which pro- vided QJSA benefits, Hilton and IATSE. Under the terms of these plans, Janis would receive a portion of Lupe’s monthly pension benefits upon his death if she survived him. After naming Janis as the survivor beneficiary of both plans, Lupe retired and began collecting pension benefits under the plans in 1992. Then, in 1994, Lupe and Janis began divorce pro- ceedings. 2 “Annuity start date” and “retirement date” are the same date in this case and we use the two terms synonymously. For the purposes of QJSA benefits, the retirement date and the annuity start date are often the same. As a result, most of the cases addressing this issue have also used “retire- ment date” synonymously with “annuity start date.” We recognize that the terms may not always be synonymous: for example, a participant could retire early, but he or she may not receive benefit payments until a later date. For the purposes of this opinion, however, we need not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.