What is the effect of section 3290 of the California Code of Civil Procedure on a pension plan where the beneficiaries of the pension are entitled to a forced election?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Mitchell v. City of Los Angeles, 239 Cal.App.2d 618, 49 Cal.Rptr. 13 (Cal. App. 1966):
The trial court correctly held that section 3290 was never intended to authorize a forced election in instances involving parties whose relationships were of the type here presented. One's sense of reason and fair play rebels at the thought that public officers, charged with legally and equitably administering a pension plan, may obtain 'coerced waivers' from the beneficiaries of such plan by the means here adopted. As indicated by the notice that accompanied the tendered checks, it had already been judicially determined by the decision in Henry v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 201 Cal.App.2d 299, 20 Cal.Rptr. 440, that plaintiffs were entitled to the payments of the principal amounts which theretofore had been wrongfully withheld.
Further, as pointed out in Benson v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal.2d 355, 364,
Page 20
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
