STATE TREASURER V ROY O YARYAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
STATE TREASURER,
UNPUBLISHED
October 5, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
ROY O. YARYAN and TERRY L. YARYAN,
POA,
No. 292524
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2008-093843-CZ
Defendants-Appellants,
and
CHARLES SCHWAB & COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.
Before: WILDER, P.J., and CAVANAGH and M. J. KELLY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants Roy and Terry Yaryan appeal as of right from the circuit court’s order
allowing plaintiff to recover Roy Yaryan’s assets pursuant to the State Correctional Facility
Reimbursement Act (“SCFRA”), MCL 800.401 et seq. We affirm. This appeal has been
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant Roy Yaryan is a state prisoner. Plaintiff obtained orders of reimbursement for
the cost of his care under the SCFRA. Assets recoverable under the SCFRA include pension and
retirement benefits. MCL 800.401a(a). The trial court determined that Yaryan’s pension
benefits and 401(k) plan funds were subject to plaintiff’s right to reimbursement and ordered
Yaryan to inform his plan administrator to send his benefits to his prison address for deposit into
his prisoner account. Relying on DaimlerChrysler Corp v Cox, 447 F3d 967 (CA 6, 2006),
defendants contend that the trial court’s orders violate 29 USC 1056(d)(1), the anti-alienation
provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 USC 1056(d)(1), et
seq. We disagree.
Whether a trial court’s order effectuates an assignment or alienation of pension funds is a
question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal. Selflube, Inc v JJMT, Inc, 278 Mich App
298, 306; 750 NW2d 245 (2008). Statutory interpretation is also a question of law that is
-1-
reviewed de novo on appeal. Van Reken v Darden, Neef & Heitsch, 259 Mich App 454, 456;
674 NW2d 731 (2003).
The law is clear that the state can obtain reimbursement from pension funds in a
prisoner’s possession. State Treasurer v Abbott, 468 Mich 143, 153-154; 660 NW2d 714 (2003);
DaimlerChrysler, 447 F3d at 976. In Abbott, 468 Mich at 150-151, the Supreme Court held that
the state can order a prisoner to direct his plan administrator to send his pension benefits to his
prison account and can order the plan administrator to send the benefits to the prisoner’s account
if the prisoner does not do so himself without violating ERISA’s anti-alienation provision. In
DaimlerChrysler, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a state order directing the plan
administrator to send the benefits to the prisoner’s account violates the anti-alienation provision,
but it declined to consider whether the anti-alienation provision precludes the state from ordering
the prisoner to direct his plan administrator to send his pension benefits to his prison account.
DaimlerChrysler, 447 F3d at 976. Therefore, the two cases do not conflict with respect to the
latter issue, on which Abbott is controlling. State Treasurer v Sprague, 284 Mich App 235, 240242; 772 NW2d 452 (2009). Therefore, the trial court did not err in so ruling.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-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.
