STATE TREASURER V CHARLES WILSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
STATE TREASURER,
UNPUBLISHED
September 10, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 286612
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2007-086532-CZ
CHARLES WILSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: M. J. Kelly, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Shapiro, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right the circuit court’s order granting judgment in favor of
plaintiff and requiring defendant to notify his pension administrator of a change in address. We
affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant is an inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (DOC).
The State Correctional Facility and Reimbursement Act (SCFRA), MCL 800.401 et seq.,
authorizes the state to attach a prisoner’s assets to reimburse the state for the cost of the
prisoner’s incarceration. MCL 800.403. Plaintiff filed suit in circuit court alleging that
defendant’s monthly pension of approximately $2,600 from Chrysler Corporation was an “asset”
as that term is defined in MCL 800.401a(a) and seeking an order directing that defendant notify
his pension plan of a change in his address and that he direct the pension administrator to send
pension payments to his prison account. The trial court entered such an order on June 30, 2008
from which defendant appeals.
Whether an order effectuates an alienation or assignment of pension funds under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 USC 1056(d), and CFR
1.401(a)-13(c)(ii), is a question of law that we review de novo. State Treasurer v Abbott, 468
Mich 143, 148; 660 NW2d 714 (2003).
Defendant correctly states that his pension benefits are protected by the non-alienation
and non-assignment provision of ERISA. Defendant then argues that DaimlerChrysler v Cox,
447 F3d 967 (CA 6, 2006) held that allowing the state to direct him where to have those benefits
sent violates that provision. Defendant recognizes our Supreme Court’s holding in Abbott,
supra, but argues that DaimlerChrysler should control to the degree they conflict. We disagree.
-1-
As this Court noted in State Treasurer v Sprague, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___
(Docket No. 281961, issued June 4, 2009), slip op at 3, there is no conflict between Abbott and
DaimlerChrysler as to whether the state can order a defendant to direct that his pension be placed
into his prison account. This Court noted that while our Supreme Court in Abbott “clearly held
that such an order does not violate ERISA,” the Sixth Circuit in DaimlerChrysler specifically
declined to address this issue. Id. Absent any determination by the Sixth Circuit, there is no
conflict and Abbott controls.
Accordingly, the circuit court in this case correctly held that Abbott was controlling and
allowed plaintiff to compel defendant to direct Chrysler to send his pension benefits directly to
his inmate account.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
