A case is currently pending in a Philadelphia court that pits a lesbian spouse against her deceased wife’s parents.
Chicago resident Jennifer Tobits and David and Joan Farley are locked in a legal battle over which party is the beneficiary of the profit-sharing plan of the Farleys’ daughter, who was Tobits’ legal spouse.
Sarah Ellyn Farley, who died of cancer in September at age 37, was an attorney in the Chicago office of Cozen O’Connor, a Philadelphia-based firm, which necessitated the case being handled in a federal Philadelphia court.
Tobits informed the firm in November that she was going to file a claim to collect the $41,000 profit-sharing plan, but Cozen said in court filings that Farley’s parents also supplied a beneficiary form to the firm, in which their daughter appeared to have designated them as the beneficiaries of the plan.
Per Cozen policy, an employee’s spouse is automatically the beneficiary of such a plan unless he or she designates another individual. If so, however, the spouse must sign off on such a transfer.
If the individual is single, the next of kin, which would be the parents in this case, is named the beneficiary. The firm does not define the term “spouse” other than a person to whom the employee is married for longer than one year before his or her death.
Cozen, which filed a complaint against both parties earlier this year to determine the true owner of the plan, indicated in its filings that Farley’s beneficiary form was not submitted until after her death, although it was dated the day prior to her passing.
While the form contains a signature purportedly from Farley, Tobits did not sign it as well. Cozen requires that the signatures be notarized, and there is a notary mark on the spousal-consent block, although the signature space is blank.
Tobits and Farley were married in Canada in 2006, and Tobits presented a copy of their marriage license to the firm when she announced she would claim the plan.
In their own filing last week, the Farleys contended that their daughter’s marriage was invalid, citing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the government from recognizing same-sex marriages, as well as a similar marriage-equality ban in Pennsylvania.
According to Tobits’ motion, also submitted last week, Farley’s parents did not respect their relationship and did not attend their wedding.
“They treated her as just another person her daughter knew when in fact they were married and they were family,” said Melanie Rowen, an attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is representing Tobits.
When Farley was hospitalized in September, the filing says that her father repeatedly asked to see her will, held by her executor, and instructed Tobits to retrieve a beneficiary designation form, which Rowen said she did after being told she otherwise would not be allowed to see her wife.
Tobits was not present for the signing of the form, which took place shortly after Farley was vomiting blood and a few hours before her death.
Tobits’ motion argues that Farley suffered from “weakened intellect” at the time she is said to have signed the form and acted under “duress and constraint.”
“From what I understand this was a tremendously difficult time and very chaotic and upsetting for everyone involved, and then her parents were asking about money and about what she would leave to whom in the final hours of her life,” Rowen said.
Tobits said in a statement that her relationship with her wife was strong, and she is dismayed by the current legal battle.
“Ellyn was the love of my life,” she said. “No one should have to experience the pain of losing the person who means the most to you, only to face a shocking and hostile challenge to your marriage — your commitment, your life together and everything you built as a couple.”
While the Farleys have raised the DOMA issue, Rowen said the law is irrelevant to this case.
“This case comes down to just interpreting the terms in the benefits plan, which was a contract between the employer and the employee. They define spouse as someone you’ve been married to for a year, so it’s pretty sraightforward to interpret the terms of the contract and execute it. [DOMA] doesn’t have any bearing on this case because it is just a contract case.”
Jen Colletta can be reached at [email protected].
