Law of Wills, 2016A

purpose with federalism’s need to preserve state autonomy. Indeed, in today’s world, filled with legal
complexity, the true test of federalist principle may lie, not in the occasional constitutional effort to
trim Congress’ commerce power at its edges, United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S.Ct. 1740,
146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000), or to protect a State’s treasury from a private damages action, Board of
Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001), but rather in
those many statutory cases where courts interpret the mass of technical detail that is the ordinary
diet of the law, AT & T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 427 119 S.Ct. 721, 119 S.Ct. 721, 142
L.Ed.2d 835 (1999) (BREYER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In this case, “field pre-emption” is not at issue. There is no “direct” conflict between state and
federal statutes. The state statute poses no significant obstacle to the accomplishment of any federal
objective. Any effort to squeeze some additional pre-emptive force from ERISA’s words (i.e., “relate
to”) is inconsistent with the Court’s recent case law. And the state statute before us is one regarding
family property-a “fiel[d] of traditional state regulation,” where the interpretive presumption against
pre-emption is particularly strong. Travelers, 514 U.S., at 655, 115 S.Ct. 1671. For these reasons, I
disagree with the Court’s conclusion. And, consequently, I dissent.
Questions
1. What reasons did the Respondents give to support their argument that ordinary ERISA preemption
analysis should not apply here?
2. What was the basis of the Respondents’ claim to the insurance proceeds?
3. When does ERISA apply to a retirement plan?
4. Why did the Court conclude that the Washington statute had a prohibited connection with
ERISA plans?
16.4 Joint Bank Accounts
A joint bank account is a good way to transfer money to a person without executing a will.
Banks usually give their customers joint tenancy bank accounts. Therefore, the surviving person
listed on the account has the legal right to the funds that remain in the account. All of the parties
listed on the account have the present right to withdraw funds from the account. However, the
person who opens the bank account may want to prevent the third party from taking money from
the account during his or her lifetime. One way to accomplish that objective is to open up a payable
on death (POD) account. For example, A opens up a joint account with B and tells the bank that A
only wants B to receive the balance upon A’s death. Courts have also permitted money to be
transferred using a POD saving account referred to as a Totten trust.
703