Martinez-Olson v. Estate of Dan Olson
After a former husband died without changing the beneficiary designation on his ERISA-governed 401(k), the plan paid the proceeds to his ex-wife, and his estate moved to enforce the marital settlement agreement's waiver. The Third District held the MSA's Article 9.1 language i awarding each party his or her own retirement plan 'together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom and any other rights related thereto,' with the other party waiving 'any and all claims or interest therein,' was specific enough under Crawford v. Barker to override the beneficiary designation, and held as a matter of first impression that ERISA does not preempt a post-distribution state-law action by the estate against the named beneficiary to enforce the contractual waiver.
Key facts
- Former husband died without updating 401(k) beneficiary designation, and plan paid proceeds to ex-wife Martinez-Olson; estate of Dan Olson sought to enforce marital settlement agreement provision waiving ex-wife's claims to retirement proceeds.
- Marital settlement agreement's Article 9.1 awarded each party 'his or her own retirement plan together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom and any other rights related thereto' with mutual waiver of 'any and all claims or interest therein.'
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This is the Third District's first decision approving post-distribution suits against ERISA plan beneficiaries to enforce marital settlement agreement waivers, adopting the Eleventh Circuit's MetLife/Akpele approach and… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.