Skip to main content

Bonneau v. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 51 Pension Trust Fund Ex Rel. Bolton

1st CircuitNovember 15, 2013No. 13-1515Cited 21 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Lynch, Selya, Hillman
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Remanded by First Circuit Court of Appeals
Circuit
1st Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The First Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings regarding pension trust fund governance and fiduciary duties related to the Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 51 Pension Trust Fund.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** This case involved a dispute over how the Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 51 Pension Trust Fund was being managed. A worker named Bonneau challenged the fund's trustees, claiming they weren't properly fulfilling their responsibilities to protect and manage the pension money that belongs to union members and retirees. **What the Court Decided:** The First Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to a lower court for additional review. Rather than making a final decision, the appeals court determined that more proceedings were needed to properly examine whether the pension fund trustees violated their duties to manage the fund in the best interests of the workers and retirees who depend on it. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case highlights workers' rights to challenge pension fund mismanagement. Pension trustees have a legal duty to act in the best interests of plan participants, not their own interests or those of employers. When workers suspect their pension funds are being mishandled, they can take legal action. This ruling shows courts will seriously examine these claims and ensure proper procedures are followed to protect workers' retirement security.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

International Union of Operating Engineers of Eastern Pennsylvania & Delaware Benefit Pension Fund v. N. Abbonizio Contractors
E.D. Pa.Nov 2015
Mixed Result
Briant
Unknown CourtOct 1889

<p>Error to Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. Jas. B. Gantt, Judge.</p> <p>(I) Wken the defendant Jackson became the administrator of the estate of Jacob Fudge, deceased, the debt of Erwin, on which the judgment was rendered in his favor, under which the lands sought to be affected by this proceeding were sold, vested in him, in trust, for the use and benefit of those entitled thereto, under the laws of this state: First, the creditors; second, the-heirs-at-law. It was his duty to pi’eserve the trust fund for those so entitled, as aforesaid. Had he bought in said land at the execution sale, as he might have done, with said trust funds, and taken title to himself, he would have taken and held the land on and subject to the same trusts as aforesaid. When he caused said real estate to be sold and bought 'in, in the names of his wife and her brothers and sisters, the heirs-at-law of said Fudge, paid therefor out of and with said trust, funds, and caused title to same to be conveyed to them, they took and held said land upon and subject to the-same trusts as the said Jackson held said funds — in trust for the use and benefit of 'those entitled thereto under the laws of this state: First, for the creditors; and, second, for the heirs-at-law. 1 Pom. Eq., secs. 422-473; 2 Pom. Eq., secs. 587, 1049, 1077, 1080; 1 Perry-on Trusts [3 Ed.] secs. 127-225; 1 Story’s Eq. [12 Ed.] sec. 322, and note; Davoue v. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch. 251; Allen v. Gillett, 21 Fed. Rep. 273; Michoud v.. Girod, 4 How. 503; Wolf v. Robinson, 20 Mo. 460; . Smith v. Isaac, 12 Mo. 106; Thornton v. Irwin, 43 Mo. 153; Grumly v. Webb, 44 Mo. 451; Ray v. Qopelin, 47' Mo. 83; Lass v. Sternberg, 50 Mo. 126; Gaines v. Allen, 58 Mo. 545; Kitchen v. Railroad, 69 Mo. 260; Hull v. Yorhis, 45 Mo. 555; Durfee v. Moran, 57 Mo. 374; Roberts v. Mosely, 64 Mo. 507; Baker v. Railroad, 86-Mo. 75; Edwards ?>. Gotschalk,, 25 Mo. App. 549; Harper v. Mansfield, 58 Mo. 17;° Clark v. Drake,. 63-Mo. 354; Meyer v. Jefferson, 5 Mo. App. 250

Remanded
Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund v. Harborview Healthcare Center, Inc.
D.D.C.Jun 2016
Mixed Result
City of Miami Gen. Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Ret. Trust v. RH, Inc.
N.D. Cal.Feb 2018
Unresolvable
California Public Employees' Retirement System v. City of San Bernardino
C.D. Cal.Dec 2013
Dismissed

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.