Irvin v. Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association Board

Marianne and Richard obtained a judgment of legal separation a few months before his death. Notwithstanding the separation, the couple‘s agreement dividing their assets reflected Richard‘s intent that Marianne would receive the pension benefits available to a surviving spouse after his death. The Contra Costa County Employees‘ Retirement Association Board, however, denied Marianne those benefits, concluding she was not Richard‘s “surviving spouse” for purposes of the governing statute. In the absence of an applicable statutory definition of the term, the Board relied on the definition found in the Probate Code. The trial court agreed. The court of appeal reversed. Because the entry of a judgment of legal separation does not terminate a marriage, but only separates a couple‘s economic interests, the plain meaning of the term “surviving spouse” includes a legally separated person. While the Probate Code defines “surviving spouse” generally not to include a person who is legally separated, several substantive provisions of the Probate Code treat legally separated spouses in the same manner as a surviving spouse; no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from the Probate Code‘s definition. The Board has not articulated any plausible public policy that would be furthered by the denial of continuance benefits in these circumstances. View "Irvin v. Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association Board" on Justia Law