Boulds v. Nielsen

Supreme Court of Alaska · Family Law

Family Lawunmarried cohabitantsproperty divisionERISAdomestic partnership propertyERISAQDROother dependent

Facts

Boulds and Nielsen cohabited for 16 years, never married, and raised three children together; Boulds also raised Nielsen's son from a prior relationship. During the relationship Boulds worked outside the home, Nielsen stayed home with the children and used her disability income on the household and children, and Boulds claimed Nielsen as a dependent on his taxes for at least some years. Boulds accumulated an insurance death benefit, a 401(k), and an ERISA-governed union pension through his employment. He initially listed Nielsen as the intended pre-retirement death beneficiary on the union pension until his employer told him a cohabitant could not be listed, after which he listed the children.

Issue

Whether ERISA bars an Alaska court from awarding an unmarried cohabitant a share of an ERISA-governed pension, and whether the superior court erred in finding that the parties intended the union pension to be domestic partnership property.

Rule

ERISA does not preclude distribution of part of an ERISA-governed pension to an unmarried cohabitant when state law gives the cohabitant a marital-like property right and the cohabitant qualifies as an authorized alternate payee, including an "other dependent." Under Alaska law, division of property accumulated during cohabitation begins with the parties' express or implied intent, and when their conduct shows they intended to share property in a marriage-like domestic partnership, a court need not find separate specific intent by each cohabitant as to each individual asset.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

For 14 years in Anchorage, Devin Cross and Marisol Vega lived together, raised two children, and divided labor so Devin worked full-time while Marisol managed the home and used her part-time earnings for groceries and school costs. During the relationship, Devin accrued a private retirement account through his employer, and the couple kept most finances informal rather than in joint accounts.

If Marisol seeks a share of the retirement account after separation, which is the strongest basis for a court to award it under the governing rule?

Explanation. Property accumulated during cohabitation is distributed according to the parties' express or implied intent. When the evidence shows the couple formed a domestic partnership and intended to share the fruits of their relationship as though married, a court need not find separate specific intent as to each individual asset. Joint tax returns and direct contributions may be relevant evidence, but neither is required, and cohabitation alone does not create automatic equal division. (Derived from Boulds v. Nielsen (n.d.).)