United States Third Circuit

In an estate dispute involving various ERISA plans and causes of action, a judgment for defendants is vacated in part and remanded where: 1) the issue of whether a husband had a duty to seek his wife's consent before taking a distribution at all, was a fact issue that depends on the contents of the plan instrument; 2) as the plan instrument has been lost and the parties offer different versions, a remand was proper for fact finding on that issue; 3) a finding that the plan itself suffered no loss is vacated; 4) a finding that the husband's actions did not damage his wife or her daughter was clearly erroneous; and 5) because an ERISA violation was established on another claim and a finding of bad faith was not required, a remand was proper as there was no legal or factual impediment to imposing a constructive trust on traceable assets that were wrongfully withdrawn.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/24/2007
• Decided 08/31/2007
• Published 08/31/2007

Judges

• Before: McKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges, ACKERMAN, District Judge.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• William R. Caroselli, Esquire, Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Conboy, Edward C. Leckey, Esquire (Argued), Pittsburgh, PA, Counsel for Appellant., Mary Beth Buchanan, United States Attorney, Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth L. Greene, Esquire, Michelle B. Smalling, Esquire (Argued), Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Amicus Curiae, Commission of Internal Revenue.


• For Appellees:
  
• David A. Strassburger, Esquire (Argued), Harry F. Kunselman, Esquire, Strassburger, McKenna, Gutnick & Potter, Pittsburgh, PA, Counsel for Appellee.