## Facts

- Douglas Durden married Ann Linzy in Ohio in 1966; they lived together in Ohio until 1982 and had two children.
- Douglas began a relationship with Rita Lorraine Marshall in 1972; they had a child in 1975.
- Douglas and Rita entered a ceremonial marriage in Nevada in 1985; Douglas represented on the marriage certificate that his prior marriage was terminated in 1971 in Tennessee.
- Ann stated she never divorced Douglas and was unaware of any divorce action; relevant Tennessee records did not show a divorce.
- After the Nevada ceremony, Douglas and Rita lived as husband and wife in Ohio until Douglas’s death in 2003 and adopted a child in 1988.
- Douglas participated in employer-sponsored health, insurance, and pension arrangements that paid benefits to a “surviving spouse” and included a Michigan choice-of-law clause.
- After Douglas died, both Ann and Rita claimed surviving-spouse benefits; the plan stakeholder filed a federal interpleader action to determine the proper recipient.
- The district court applied Michigan law and granted summary judgment to Rita based on Michigan’s presumption favoring the validity of the later ceremonial marriage.

## Issues

1. In an ERISA-governed interpleader over “surviving spouse” benefits, whether a plan’s Michigan choice-of-law clause controls the marital-status determination or whether Ohio law governs.
2. Under the governing state law, which claimant proved surviving-spouse status where a first marriage was undisputed but dissolution of that marriage was unproven.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment for Rita and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Ann.
- The court held Ohio law governed the marital-status question despite the plan’s Michigan choice-of-law provision.
- Applying Ohio law, the court held Rita failed to prove the prior marriage between Douglas and Ann was dissolved; therefore, Ann was the surviving spouse entitled to the disputed benefits.

## Legal Principles

- When ERISA does not supply a rule resolving who qualifies as a “surviving spouse,” courts may look to applicable state domestic-relations law to determine marital status.
- A contractual choice-of-law provision in an ERISA plan is not necessarily enforced where conflicts-of-law principles indicate application would contravene a fundamental policy of a state with a materially greater interest in the specific issue.
- Michigan generally presumes the validity of a later ceremonial marriage and presumes termination of an earlier marriage; Ohio generally presumes the continuing validity of the earlier marriage and places the burden on the proponent of the later marriage to prove dissolution of the first.
- Under Ohio’s presumption, testimony that the first spouse divorced the decedent is insufficient absent adequate proof that the earlier marriage ended.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Ohio, not Michigan, supplied the controlling domestic-relations rules for determining “surviving spouse” status under the plans, refused to apply the plan’s Michigan choice-of-law clause because it conflicted with Ohio policy and interests, and awarded the ERISA surviving-spouse benefits to the first wife where no competent proof showed the first marriage was dissolved.


DaimlerChrysler Corp. Healthcare Benefits Plan v. Durden, 448 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 2006)