5 U.S.C. § 8465

Waiver, allotment, and assignment of benefits

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) An individual entitled to an annuity payable from the Fund may decline to accept all or any part of the amount of the annuity by a waiver signed and filed with the Office. The waiver may be revoked in writing at any time. Payment of the annuity waived may not be made for the period during which the waiver is in effect.(b) An individual entitled to an annuity payable from the Fund may make allotments or assignments of amounts from the annuity for such purposes as the Office considers appropriate.(Added Pub. L. 99–335, title I, § 101(a), June 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 575.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: James M. McGowan Sr. v. Njr Serv. Corp. New Jersey Nat. Gas Co., 423 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

James M. McGowan Sr. v. Njr Serv. Corp. New Jersey Nat. Gas Co., 423 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2005). “Congress understands this distinction between a waiver and an assignment, see 5 U.S.C. § 8465 , 13 and chose only to prohibit the latter (along with alienations) in the anti-alienation provision of ERISA.”

Byrum v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 618 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “” 5 U.S.C. § 8465 (b). As the Government acknowledges, this raises the question of whether an assignment of an annuity to Ms.”

Van Den Broek v. Tang, 88 Va. Cir. 65 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “] is not assignable, either in law or equity, except under the provisions of section 8465 or 8467 [ 5 U.S.C. § 8465 or § 8467], or subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment or other *79 legal process, except as otherwise may be provided by Federal laws.”

Joseph E Harding v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2024). “1994) (recognizing that an individual can waive his annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System)); see also 5 U.S.C. § 8465 (a) (reflecting that a FERS annuitant can waive all or part of his annuity).”

McGowan v. NJR Ser Corp (3rd Cir. 2005). “Congress understands this distinction between a waiver and an assignment, see 5 U.S.C. § 8465 ,13 and chose only to prohibit the latter (along with alienations) in the anti-alienation provision of ERISA.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.