Estate of Confessor Hichez-Zapata v. Emerecia

Background

Confessor Hichez-Zapata participated in an employee pension benefit plan established by the IUOE Local 15 Annuity Fund. The plan documents provided that, if a participant had not designated a beneficiary at death, the account proceeds would go to the surviving spouse, or, if there was no living spouse, to the participant’s estate.

Hichez-Zapata married Quenia D. Emerecia in 2008. In 2017, they signed a stipulation of divorce in the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic later issued a divorce judgment, but it was never submitted to a New York court for recognition, and Emerecia was never served with it. After Hichez-Zapata died in December 2018, Emerecia applied for the annuity balance, identified herself as his spouse, and certified that her statements were true. The Fund distributed the $488,567.75 account balance to her.

The plaintiffs were the Estate of Confessor Hichez-Zapata, Robert Hichez, Jessica Hichez, and Robert Hichez in his capacity as the purported administrator of the Estate and on behalf of R.H. and Y.H., who were identified as Hichez-Zapata’s minor children. The plaintiffs asserted fraud-based claims against Emerecia and a negligence claim against the Fund, alleging that the Fund failed to investigate and authenticate the documents supporting Emerecia’s claimed spousal status. The Fund moved for summary judgment under Rule 56.

Robert and Jessica’s statutory standing

The court held that Robert and Jessica could not bring a claim under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. That provision allows a plan participant or beneficiary to sue to recover benefits or enforce rights under the plan. ERISA defines a beneficiary as someone designated by the participant or by the plan who is or may become entitled to benefits.

The annuity beneficiary form contained no names or other information identifying any beneficiaries. Although a separate welfare-plan form named Robert, Jessica, R.H., and Y.H. as recipients of death benefits, the court found no evidence that those designations applied to the annuity account. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Hichez-Zapata may have intended to name the same people on the annuity plan but made a paperwork mistake. It concluded that no plaintiff had been designated as a beneficiary of the annuity account and dismissed Robert and Jessica’s claim against the Fund.

The Estate and Robert’s claims as administrator

The court also dismissed the Estate’s claim and the claims Robert brought for R.H. and Y.H. as administrator. The court had previously told the plaintiffs that those claims depended on Robert’s appointment as administrator and had directed them to amend the complaint to add the administrator as a plaintiff. No amended complaint was filed.

The plaintiffs told the court that Robert had received amended letters of administration from the Bronx County Surrogate’s Court, but they did not submit the letters or another judicial document showing that appointment. The court stated that a person generally lacks legal capacity to sue for an estate unless letters of administration have been issued and documented. Because the plaintiffs offered no evidence establishing Robert’s authority and did not explain their failure to amend the complaint, the court denied their request for permission to file an amended complaint and dismissed the Estate-related claims.

The Fund’s alleged duty

As an alternative basis for its ruling, the court held that the plaintiffs had not identified an actionable duty breached by the Fund. The plaintiffs characterized their claim as negligence under New York law and argued that the Fund had a duty to exercise due diligence to determine the rightful beneficiary and to verify Emerecia’s marital status.

The court explained that ERISA preempts state-law claims relating to an employee-benefit plan, including common-law claims concerning the processing of benefit claims. It held that the negligence claim was preempted because it was based on an alleged state-law duty not required by ERISA or the plan documents.

The court further held that, even if the claim were treated as alleging a breach of an ERISA fiduciary duty, summary judgment was still warranted. The Fund had received Emerecia’s certification that she was Hichez-Zapata’s spouse, a marriage certificate had been sent to the Fund, and Hichez-Zapata had identified Emerecia as his spouse in plan documents. The court found no evidence that the Fund knew or should have known about the divorce documents and no language in ERISA or the plan documents requiring the Fund to investigate the participant’s marital status again at death, correct allegedly conflicting beneficiary forms, or make additional inquiries based on Emerecia’s statements.

Disposition

The court granted the Fund’s motion for summary judgment. It dismissed Robert and Jessica’s claim for lack of statutory standing, dismissed the Estate’s claim and Robert’s claims as administrator for lack of a showing that Robert had authority to act for the Estate, denied the request for leave to re-plead, and separately granted summary judgment because the plaintiffs had not identified an actionable duty breached by the Fund. The opinion’s conclusion addresses the Fund’s motion and does not state a separate disposition of the claims against Emerecia.