## JUDGMENT No. 2017-1 (Mr. “MM” v. International Monetary Fund) ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [JUDGMENT No. 2017-1 (Mr. “MM” v. International Monetary Fund)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2017-1.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2017-1.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2017-1.pdf.json) --- ### Overview of case and parties - Tribunal composition: Judge Catherine M. O’Regan, President, and Judges Jan Paulsson and Francisco Orrego Vicuña. Meeting date: November 15, 2017. - Applicant: Mr. “MM”, participant in the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP); citizen of Country X; lawful permanent resident of the United States; SRP participant for more than twenty years. - Intervenor: Applicant’s former spouse; citizen of the United States. - Respondent: International Monetary Fund, represented by Ms. Juliet Johnson and Ms. Diana Benoit, Senior Counsels in the IMF Legal Department. - Procedural representation: Applicant designated two legal practitioners but personally signed and submitted the Application and related filings. ### Subject of the dispute and relief sought - Subject: Challenge to the SRP Administration Committee’s grant of Intervenor’s request under SRP Section 11.3 to give effect to a District of Columbia divorce judgment awarding Intervenor one-half of the marital portion of Applicant’s future pension payments. - Applicant’s principal contentions: - The D.C. divorce judgment was not “final and binding on the parties” (criterion (C)) because an appeal was filed. - The judgment conflicts with Country X law and pending Country X proceedings (criterion (D)). - Relief sought by Applicant: - Rescission of the Committee’s decision; - Acknowledgement that, under Country X law, Applicant’s pension will be granted entirely to Applicant with no portion to his former spouse; - Registration and execution of a future Country X court decision as the sole court decision to be acted upon by the IMF; - Costs under Article XIV, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute if the Application is well-founded. ### Procedural history and intervention - Application filed: December 2, 2016; supplemented on February 2 and February 21, 2017; transmitted to Respondent February 21, 2017. - Respondent Answer filed: April 7, 2017. - Tribunal invited Intervention under Rule XIV; Intervenor filed Application to Intervene on June 9, 2017. - Applicant did not file a Reply after transmission of the Fund’s Answer and Intervenor’s Response; an extended period to supplement had been granted on account of a health condition. - President modified pleading schedule on July 31, 2017 under Rule XXI, paras. 2 and 3: Intervenor’s pleading transmitted to Respondent for a Comment; no further pleadings except as admitted under Rule XI. - Respondent’s Comment filed: August 7, 2017. - Tribunal requested parties to notify it of subsequent court developments (Rule XVII, para. 3); Fund replied August 7, 2017 it was not aware of developments. - Applicant requested anonymity under Rule XXII; granted because matter concerns family relations and privacy. ### Factual background — key facts - Marriage: Married in the United States and, the following year, in Country X. - D.C. proceedings: - Intervenor filed for divorce in the D.C. Superior Court in 2012. - After a four-day trial in 2014 and subsequent evidentiary hearings, the court granted a Judgment of Absolute Divorce in 2015. - The D.C. judgment awarded Intervenor “one-half of the marital portion of [Applicant]’s IMF Defined Benefit Pension, including pre-retirement death benefits and survivor annuity benefits.” The court explained the marital portion was 100 percent as of decision date but Intervenor would be entitled to one-half of the marital portion as calculated when payments commence. - The court ordered alimony terminating upon remarriage, death, or the date Intervenor begins receiving monthly retirement benefits from Applicant’s SRP pension. - Applicant filed a motion for a stay and an appeal; the Superior Court denied the stay in 2015. - SRP administrative proceedings: - Intervenor submitted a Request under SRP Section 11.3 on December 7, 2015. - Applicant filed a January 26, 2016 response asserting (i) appeal pending so D.C. order not final (criterion (C)); (ii) Country X proceedings creating conflict (criterion (D)). - Administration Committee Decision: March 10, 2016 — denied rejection of Request; found no stay and no conflicting foreign order in the record; advised Applicant could submit future modifications to the Committee. - Applicant requested Committee Review on June 7, 2016; Committee denied Review on August 24, 2016 (notified September 2, 2016), finding D.C. judgment met criteria (A)–(D). - Subsequent judicial developments: - Early 2017: D.C. Court of Appeals denied Applicant’s appeal and affirmed the Judgment of Absolute Divorce. - Country X courts: - September 2016: Country X family court issued a decision dissolving the marriage; that decision became final on November 28, 2016. - December 1, 2016: Applicant filed with Country X courts an application for division of property seeking a statement that Intervenor is not entitled to any share of Applicant’s IMF pension under Country X law. - Applicant’s Country X counsel provided a “Legal Opinion” expecting decision “within October 2017.” - Intervenor asserts she was never served or notified of Country X proceedings and, as of June 9, 2017, remained unaware of any proceedings in Country X. ### Applicable SRP law and Committee Rules (Section 11.3 framework) - SRP Section 11.3 permits giving effect to a legal obligation arising from marital relationship or child support evidenced by a court order or settlement incorporated into a court order; directs how benefits may be paid and limits: - When payable to spouse or former spouse, up to 50 percent of the portion attributable to eligible service during marriage. - When payable to child or children, 16 2/3 percent of the benefit; aggregate to children shall not exceed 16 2/3 percent. - Where child support included, aggregate payments to spouse(s) shall not exceed 66 2/3 percent. - Administration Committee Rules under Section 11.3 set criteria (A)–(D) for presuming enforceability of a court order: - (A) reasonable notification and opportunity to be heard; judgment by court of competent jurisdiction and proper rendition; - (B) product of fair proceedings; - (C) final and binding on the parties; - (D) does not conflict with any other valid court order or decree. - Committee options: - Accept request and treat as participant direction if no substantial reason not to (para. 1(b)). - If bona fide dispute exists as to application, interpretation, effectiveness, finality or validity, take no action until resolved; activation and payments may be suspended (para. 1(c)). - If order fails criteria (A)–(D), notify parties and do not give effect until remedied (para. 2). ### Tribunal’s standard of review and legal framework for decision - Tribunal assesses whether the Committee correctly interpreted Plan provisions and soundly applied them to the facts. - The Tribunal may rescind a Committee decision if it was “in error.” - Distinct standard: SRP Section 7.2(b) vests individual decision authority in the Administration Committee subject to appeal to the Tribunal; construing Plan terms and applying them resembles a judicial act. - Tribunal applies the Section 11.3 Rules’ enforceability criteria (A)–(D) as “of cardinal importance.” ### Tribunal findings on criteria (A)–(D) - Criteria (A) and (B) — competent jurisdiction; fair proceedings: - D.C. Superior Court conducted adversary proceedings including a four-day trial, further evidentiary hearings, and extensive motions practice. - Applicant participated with counsel; court expressly found jurisdiction based on Intervenor’s D.C. residence of more than six months and that “[b]oth parties were present and represented by counsel at all hearings.” - Tribunal concluded Committee did not err in finding criteria (A) and (B) satisfied. - Criterion (C) — final and binding on the parties: - D.C. law (D.C. Code Section 16-920) provides a Judgment of Absolute Divorce becomes effective thirty days after docketing unless a stay is granted; if application for a stay is denied, the judgment becomes final upon entry of the order denying the stay. - Applicant filed for a stay which was denied in 2015 prior to Intervenor’s SRP Request. - The D.C. Court of Appeals later denied Applicant’s appeal in early 2017, affirming the Superior Court judgment. - Tribunal found Applicant did not submit convincing argument that appeal pendency rendered the D.C. judgment not “final and binding”; Committee correctly applied criterion (C). - Criterion (D) — absence of conflict or inconsistency with any other valid court order or decree: - At the time of the Committee’s Decision (March 10, 2016) and Decision on Review (August 24, 2016), no conflicting foreign court order was in the Committee record. - Committee is not required to speculate about the content of future orders or to hold in abeyance valid orders meeting (A)–(C). - Section 11.3(c) permits parties to request new directions or requests based on subsequently rendered court orders; Section 11.3 Rules para. 2 provides that where conflict exists later, neither order will be given effect until resolved. - Tribunal found no error in the Committee’s conclusion that the D.C. judgment did not conflict with any other valid court order at the time and that the Committee reasonably invited submission of any subsequent conflicting orders for reconsideration. ### Developments after Committee review and Tribunal jurisdictional role - Applicant identified two developments after exhaustion: (1) September 2016 Country X family court dissolution order (final November 28, 2016); (2) December 1, 2016 application in Country X for division of property including pension rights. - Tribunal held these developments were not ripe for its consideration because the Committee had not yet been given the opportunity to consider any subsequently rendered conflicting order. - Tribunal emphasized its appellate role: it reviews alleged errors in the Committee’s contested decision and does not decide in the first instance whether current or future foreign orders conflict with the D.C. judgment. - Tribunal reiterated it “does not apply the law of any nation but rather the internal law of the Fund” in SRP Section 11.3 disputes. ### Procedural consequence of Applicant’s failure to file a Reply - Applicant did not file a Reply under Rule IX after Fund Answer and Intervenor Response were transmitted; Registrar follow-up inquiries received no response. - Tribunal noted pleading rules: Rule VIII (Answer) uses “shall”; Rule IX (Reply) uses “may”; Rule X (Rejoinder) uses “may.” - Tribunal concluded the optional nature of Reply and Rejoinder means Applicant’s failure to file a Reply does not preclude the Tribunal from deciding the Application. ### Tribunal conclusions and disposition - The Tribunal concluded the SRP Administration Committee correctly interpreted SRP Section 11.3 and the Section 11.3 Rules and soundly applied them in granting Intervenor’s request to give effect to the portion of the D.C. Judgment awarding Intervenor “one-half of the marital portion of [Applicant]’s IMF Defined Benefit Pension, including pre-retirement death benefits and survivor annuity benefits.” - The Tribunal concluded Applicant has not shown that developments subsequent to the Committee’s Decision on Review preclude sustaining that decision. - Final disposition: - The Application of Mr. “MM” is denied. - Decision signed by Catherine M. O’Regan, President; Jan Paulsson, Judge; Francisco Orrego Vicuña, Judge; and Celia Goldman, Registrar. - Location and date: Washington, D.C., November 15, 2017. *Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — Decision, November 15, 2017.* ### INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... ### INTRODUCTION ### Overview of case and parties - The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund met on November 15, 2017, composed, for this case, of Judge Catherine M. O’Regan, President, and Judges Jan Paulsson and Francisco Orrego Vicuña, to adjudge the Application brought by Mr. “MM” (Applicant) against the International Monetary Fund (Respondent). - Applicant is a participant in the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP or Plan). - Applicant designated two legal practitioners (one in the District of Columbia and one in “Country X”) as “duly authorized representatives and counsels” but signed and submitted the Application, Supplementary Application, and Applicant’s Views on Intervention personally. - Respondent was represented by Ms. Juliet Johnson and Ms. Diana Benoit, Senior Counsels in the IMF Legal Department. - Intervenor (Applicant’s former spouse) was represented by Mr. Robert C. Liotta, Liotta, Dranitzke & Engel, LLP. ### Subject of the dispute - Applicant challenges the decision of the SRP Administration Committee (Committee) granting Intervenor’s request under SRP Section 11.3 to give effect to a District of Columbia divorce judgment awarding her one-half of the marital portion of Applicant’s future pension payments. - Applicant participated in the Committee proceedings and challenges the Committee’s Decision on Review. ### Applicant’s principal contentions and relief sought - Applicant contends: - The District of Columbia divorce judgment is not “final and binding on the parties” (criterion (C) of the Section 11.3 Rules) because an appeal was filed from that judgment.1 - The judgment conflicts with the law of Applicant’s home country (“Country X”) and proceedings in Country X are underway seeking a conflicting court order, so the judgment fails criterion (D) of the Section 11.3 Rules that it “does not conflict and is not inconsistent with any other valid court order or decree.” - Applicant seeks: - Rescission of the Committee’s decision; - Acknowledgement that, in accordance with the law of Country X, Applicant’s pension will be granted entirely to Applicant with no portion to his former spouse; - Registration and execution of a future court decision from Country X as the sole court decision to be acted upon by the IMF; - Costs under Article XIV, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute if the Application is well-founded in whole or in part. - 1 In early 2017, following the filing of the Application with the Administrative Tribunal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied that appeal and affirmed the Judgment of Absolute Divorce. ### Respondent and Intervenor positions - Respondent maintains the Committee correctly interpreted the Plan and applied it to the facts and that the District of Columbia divorce judgment met SRP Section 11.3 and the implementing Rules for giving effect to an order for division of marital property. - Intervenor opposes the Application and urges the Tribunal to uphold the Committee’s decision, asserting there is no conflicting court order under criterion (D) and that division of marital property has been finally adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction in proceedings in which both parties fully participated. --- ### PROCEDURE - Applicant filed an Application on December 2, 2016, supplemented on February 2 and February 21, 2017. The Application, as supplemented, was transmitted to Respondent on February 21, 2017. - On February 22, 2017, pursuant to Rule IV, para. (f), the Registrar circulated a notice summarizing the issues raised in the Application. - Respondent filed its Answer on April 7, 2017. H3: Intervention (Rule XIV) - On April 20, 2017, the Tribunal suspended the exchange of pleadings and sought the parties’ views on inviting Applicant’s former spouse to intervene under Rule XIV. - Neither Respondent nor Applicant objected to the proposed Intervention; on May 10, 2017 the Tribunal invited Intervention and notified the parties on May 12, 2017. The schedule of pleadings was modified to accommodate Intervention. - Intervenor filed an “Application to Intervene” (Intervenor’s Response) on June 9, 2017. The Fund’s Answer and Intervenor’s Response were transmitted to Applicant on June 12, 2017 with thirty days for a single Reply. - Applicant did not file a Reply. Applicant was granted an unusually long period to supplement the Application under Rule VII, para. 6, on account of a health condition. H3: Further exchange of pleadings and procedural modifications - Because Applicant did not file a Reply and did not respond to follow-up inquiries from the Registrar, on July 31, 2017 the President modified application of the Rules under Rule XXI, paras. 2 and 3, as follows: - Intervenor’s pleading would be transmitted to Respondent, which would have thirty days to submit a Comment; - No further pleadings would be permitted except as admitted under Rule XI (Additional Pleadings). - Respondent’s Comment was filed on August 7, 2017 and transmitted to Applicant and Intervenor; no further submissions were made. - On November 14, 2017 Applicant telephoned to say he had been indisposed for several months. The Tribunal proceeded with deliberations because (a) Applicant would first need to submit any allegedly conflicting court order to the SRP Administration Committee (a procedure Applicant had been notified of in the Committee’s Decision on Review), and (b) Applicant’s failure to file a Reply does not bar the Tribunal from deciding the Application. H3: Tribunal’s request for information (Rule XVII, para. 3) - On July 31, 2017 the Tribunal requested parties to bring to its attention, with documentation, any further developments in the courts of the District of Columbia or other jurisdiction pertinent to the Application, and placed the parties under a continuing obligation to inform the Tribunal of such developments. - The Fund responded on August 7, 2017 that it was not aware of any such developments. Neither Applicant nor Intervenor filed a response to the Tribunal’s request for information. H3: Applicant’s request for anonymity (Rule XXII) - Applicant requested anonymity pursuant to Rule XXII. - Respondent did not oppose anonymity, noting the facts “clearly concern ‘family relations’” and citing IMFAT jurisprudence where anonymity was afforded in SRP Section 11.3 cases. - The Tribunal’s jurisprudence recognizes shielding identities in disputes concerning “matters of personal privacy such as health . . . or family relations” as a core ground for anonymity under Rule XXII. --- ### FACTUAL BACKGROUND (headings as provided) - The document contains structured sections: A. Background; B. Proceedings in the District of Columbia courts; C. Proceedings in the SRP Administration Committee. (Substantive factual details and chronology of those proceedings are set out in those sections.) --- ### CHANNELS OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - The document sets out channels of administrative review relevant to SRP Section 11.3 and the Committee’s Decision on Review. (Detailed statutory and Rules references appear in the Relevant Provisions section.) --- ### DEVELOPMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO APPLICANT’S EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - The document addresses subsequent judicial developments: - A. Proceedings in the District of Columbia courts - B. Proceedings in the Country X courts - (Specific subsequent developments are set out in those subsections.) --- ### SUMMARY OF PARTIES’ PRINCIPAL CONTENTIONS - A. Applicant’s principal contentions: challenged Committee Decision on Review on grounds that District of Columbia judgment is not “final and binding on the parties” (criterion (C)) and conflicts with Country X law and pending Country X proceedings (criterion (D)). - B. Respondent’s principal contentions: Committee correctly interpreted and applied SRP Section 11.3 and implementing Rules; the District of Columbia judgment meets the Section 11.3 criteria. - C. Intervenor’s principal contentions: no conflicting court order as required by criterion (D); division of marital property has been finally adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction with full participation by the parties. --- ### RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE FUND’S INTERNAL LAW - A. SRP Section 11.3 is quoted and treated as central to the Tribunal’s review. - B. Rules of the Administration Committee under Section 11.3 of the Staff Retirement Plan (Section 11.3 Rules) provide criteria (A)–(D) for giving effect to foreign court orders dividing marital property and were applied by the Committee in the Decision on Review. - The Tribunal’s consideration focuses on interpretation and application of these provisions by the Committee. --- ### CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES - A. Whether the SRP Administration Committee erred in granting Intervenor’s request under SRP Section 11.3 to give effect to the District of Columbia divorce judgment awarding her one-half of the marital portion of Applicant’s pension entitlements, analyzed in two parts: - (1) Standard of review applicable to the Committee’s decision (What standard governs Applicant’s challenge?). - (2) Whether the Committee correctly interpreted SRP Section 11.3 and the implementing Rules and properly applied them to the facts, with detailed subanalysis: - (a) Interpretation and application of criteria (A) and (B) regarding jurisdiction and fair process, including notice and opportunity to be heard. - (b) Interpretation and application of criterion (C) regarding whether the District of Columbia divorce judgment was “final and binding on the parties.” - (c) Interpretation and application of criterion (D) regarding whether the District of Columbia judgment “conflict[s] and [is] not inconsistent with any other valid court order or decree.” - B. Whether developments subsequent to the Committee’s Decision on Review preclude the Tribunal from sustaining the Committee’s decision. - C. Applicant’s failure to file a Reply and its consequences for proceeding. --- ### CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL - The Tribunal reaches conclusions on the legal issues set out in the Consideration of the Issues section, including the standard of review, the correctness of the Committee’s interpretation and application of SRP Section 11.3 and the Section 11.3 Rules, the effect of subsequent developments, and the impact of Applicant’s failure to file a Reply. ### DECISION - The Tribunal issues a formal Decision (Judgment No. 2017-1) disposing of the Application; the Decision follows analysis in the Consideration of the Issues and the Tribunal’s Conclusions. *Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — JUDGMENT No. 2017-1 (Mr. “MM” v. International Monetary Fund).* ### 1. In accordance with Rule VII, Paragraph 2(j), an Applicant may request in his ### 1. In accordance with Rule VII, Paragraph 2(j), an Applicant may request in his application that his name not be made public by the Tribunal. ### Anonymity and privacy - Applicants may request anonymity under Rule VII, Paragraph 2(j). - The Fund may request anonymity for any other individual under Rule VIII, Paragraph 6; an intervenor may request anonymity in an application for intervention. - Parties shall be given an opportunity to present views in response to an anonymity request (Rule VIII, Paragraph 5; Rule IX, Paragraph 6). - The Tribunal shall grant anonymity where good cause has been shown for protecting the privacy of an individual. - The Tribunal’s jurisprudence has afforded anonymity in matters of a private nature, including SRP Section 11.3 requests (e.g., Ms. “M” and Dr. “M” (No. 2), IMFAT Judgment No. 2016-3 (October 31, 2016), note 1). - In the present case, because the matter involves allocation of Applicant’s pension entitlements upon divorce, Applicant and Intervenor will be afforded anonymity in the Judgment (para. 20). ### Oral proceedings - Article XII of the Tribunal’s Statute: the Tribunal shall decide whether oral proceedings are warranted. - Rule XIII, para. 1: such proceedings shall be held if the Tribunal deems them useful. - None of the parties requested oral proceedings (para. 21). - The Tribunal decided not to conduct oral proceedings because, given the written record and absence of any request, oral proceedings would not be useful (para. 22). ### Factual background — key facts - Applicant: Fund staff member and SRP participant for more than twenty years; citizen of Country X; lawful permanent resident of the United States; married Intervenor in the United States and, the following year, in Country X (para. 24). - Intervenor: citizen of the United States. The couple lived in the District of Columbia while Applicant worked at Fund headquarters (para. 24). - In 2012 Intervenor filed for divorce in the District of Columbia Superior Court; after a four-day trial in 2014 and subsequent evidentiary hearings, the court granted a Judgment of Absolute Divorce in 2015 (para. 25). - The District of Columbia court awarded Intervenor “one-half of the marital portion of [Applicant]’s IMF Defined Benefit Pension, including pre-retirement death benefits and survivor annuity benefits.” (Id., p. 27.) The court explained that, as of its decision date, the “marital portion” constituted 100 percent, but Intervenor would be entitled to one-half of the “marital portion” as calculated when payments commence (note 12). - The court ordered alimony to Intervenor, terminating upon remarriage, death, or the date she begins receiving monthly retirement benefits from Applicant’s SRP pension (Id., p. 27). - Applicant filed a motion for a stay of the judgment and an appeal with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals; the Superior Court denied the motion for a stay in 2015 (para. 28). ### SRP Section 11.3 framework and Administration Committee procedures - SRP Section 11.3 permits the Plan to give effect to a “legal obligation arising from a marital relationship or pursuant to a legal obligation to make child support payments, evidenced by an order of a court or by a settlement agreement incorporated into a court order.” The provision evolved in response to diplomatic concerns that staff should not evade family support obligations due to immunities (para. 29). - SRP Section 11.3(b): if a participant fails to submit a timely written direction in compliance with a court order, a spouse or former spouse who is a party to the court order may request that the Administration Committee give effect to the order and treat the request as if it were a direction from the participant or retired participant (para. 30). - The Administration Committee adopted Section 11.3 Rules with four criteria (A)–(D) to test adequacy of a court order: - (A) presumed valid where (1) reasonable notification and opportunity to be heard, and (2) judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and in accordance with rendition requirements; - (B) product of fair proceedings; - (C) final and binding on the parties; - (D) does not conflict with any other valid court order or decree. (Section 11.3 Rules, para. 2) (para. 31). - Committee options when presented a Section 11.3 request: - Accept the request and treat it as a participant’s direction if no substantial reason not to (Section 11.3 Rules, para. 1(b)). - If a bona fide dispute exists as to application, interpretation, effectiveness, finality or validity, take no action unless and until resolved to Committee’s satisfaction; activation and payments may be suspended (Section 11.3 Rules, para. 1(c)). - If the order fails criteria (A)–(D), notify parties and do not give effect until deficiencies are remedied (Section 11.3 Rules, para. 2) (para. 32). ### Administrative record and Committee decisions - On December 7, 2015, following denial of Applicant’s stay request, Intervenor initiated a Request to the SRP Administration Committee under SRP Section 11.3 to give effect to the District of Columbia order awarding one-half of the marital portion of Applicant’s pension when payable (Intervenor’s Request, December 7, 2015) (para. 33). - The Committee provided Applicant notice and opportunity to respond. On January 26, 2016 Applicant filed a response seeking rejection of the Request on grounds that: - (i) Applicant’s appeal of the District of Columbia judgment remained pending, so the court order was not “final and binding on the parties” per criterion (C); and - (ii) the order conflicted with a pending Country X proceeding in which Applicant maintained a divorced spouse cannot receive any portion of ex-spouse’s pension benefits, invoking criterion (D). (Applicant’s January 26, 2016 Response) (para. 34). - On March 10, 2016 the Committee issued its Decision concluding Applicant’s objections did not form a basis to reject the Request. Findings included: - Under District of Columbia law a Judgment of Absolute Divorce is final unless stayed by the court; no evidence of a stay existed. - No evidence of a court order from another jurisdiction inconsistent with the District of Columbia judgment. - The Committee advised Applicant that future modifications to the D.C. judgment regarding SRP benefits could be brought to the Committee for reconsideration. - Applicant was informed of his right to seek review by the Committee of its Decision (SRP Administration Committee Decision, March 10, 2016) (para. 35). ### Channels of administrative review and subsequent Committee action - On June 7, 2016 Applicant submitted a Request for Review to the Committee (Rule VIII) reiterating that disputes in U.S. and Country X courts remained unresolved; Applicant attached his District of Columbia Court of Appeals brief and a letter from a Country X attorney stating a petition for dissolution had been filed in May 2016; Applicant requested an oral hearing (Applicant’s Request for Review, June 7, 2016) (para. 36). - On September 2, 2016 the Committee notified Applicant of its August 24, 2016 decision denying the Request for Review. The Committee determined the D.C. judgment met each criterion (A)–(D), including proper jurisdiction and notice (para. 37). - On criteria (C) and (D) the Committee reasoned: - Under D.C. law, absent a stay, a Judgment of Absolute Divorce becomes final thirty days after entry; Applicant’s stay motion had been denied. - No order from a Country X court was in the record before the Committee; the Committee would not rely on Applicant’s speculation about contents of a future Country X order as a basis to reject a valid D.C. judgment. (Id., p. 3) (para. 38). - The Committee noted that in bona fide disputes over finality it may suspend activation and payments, but did not consider a bona fide dispute existed in this case and observed no SRP payments were then payable to trigger suspension (Id., pp. 3-4) (para. 39). - The Decision on Review concluded Applicant may submit new evidence to the Committee if (a) the D.C. Court of Appeals reverses in whole or in part the D.C. Superior Court judgment regarding SRP pension division, or (b) a Country X court issues an order conflicting with the D.C. judgment (Id., p. 4). The Committee denied Applicant’s request for an oral hearing before the Committee (para. 40). - Under Rule X of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, Committee review channels are exhausted for filing with the Administrative Tribunal when the Committee has notified the party of the results of its review (para. 41). - On December 2, 2016 Applicant filed his Application with the Administrative Tribunal (para. 42). ### Developments after exhaustion of administrative review - District of Columbia courts: In early 2017 the D.C. Court of Appeals denied Applicant’s appeal, affirming the Judgment of Absolute Divorce (D.C. Court of Appeals, “Memorandum Opinion and Judgment”) (para. 44). - Country X courts: - September 2016: Country X family court issued a decision dissolving the marriage, taken “[f]ollowing the hearing of the application in the presence of [counsel] for the Applicant, and the Respondent not appearing . . . .” The decision was not appealed and became final on November 28, 2016 (September 30, 2016 order) (para. 45). - December 1, 2016: Applicant filed with Country X courts an application for division of property requesting, inter alia, “Statement by the Court as the Court of competent jurisdiction to the effect that the respondent [Applicant’s ex-spouse] is not entitled, on the basis of [statute of Country X] or on the basis of any other law or otherwise, to any share of the applicant’s pension from the International Monetary Fund.” (Application to Country X court for division of property, filed December 1, 2016) (para. 46). - Applicant attached a “Legal Opinion” by Country X counsel stating a decision on Applicant’s application to the Country X court is expected “within October 2017.” (“Legal Opinion” by Applicant’s Country X counsel) (para. 46). - Intervenor maintains she was never served or notified of any Country X proceedings and, as of her pleading filed with the Tribunal on June 9, 2017, she “still has not been served and is unaware of any proceedings in [Country X].” (para. 47). ### Summary of Applicant’s principal contentions (beginning) - Applicant’s principal contentions stated in his Application and Supplementary Application include: - The SRP Administration Committee failed to take account of Applicant’s appeal of the District of Columbia divorce judgment, which remained pending at the time of its decision on Intervenor’s Request (para. 48, item 1). *International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal (Application j2017-1).* ### 2. The Committee also failed to take account of the law of Country X, in which ### j2017-1 - 2. The Committee also failed to take account of the law of Country X, in which ### Factual background and procedural posture - Applicant and Intervenor were married in Country X and Applicant is a citizen of Country X. - The law of Country X provides that pensions are non-marital assets and that a divorced spouse is not entitled to any portion of the pension of the former spouse. - Applicant is presently seeking a judgment in the courts of Country X that will determine his pension rights in accordance with the law of Country X. - According to the law of Country X, the competent court regarding divorce and property decisions in this case is the court of that country; the decision of the United States court is not recognized by Country X. ### Relief sought by Applicant - Rescission of the Committee’s decision; - Acknowledgement that, in accordance with the law of Country X, Applicant’s pension will be granted entirely to Applicant with no portion to his former spouse; - Registration and execution of a future court decision from Country X as the sole court decision to be acted upon by the IMF; - Costs, pursuant to Article XIV of the Tribunal’s Statute. ### Respondent’s principal contentions - The District of Columbia divorce judgment met all of the criteria required to give effect to a court order for division of marital property pursuant to SRP Section 11.3 and the Rules thereunder. - The District of Columbia divorce judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, which afforded the parties due process. - At the time of the Committee’s decision, the District of Columbia divorce judgment was final, notwithstanding Applicant’s then pending appeal; District of Columbia law provides that if an application for a stay of a divorce judgment is denied, the judgment will become final upon entry of the court’s order denying the stay. (Following the Committee’s decision, in early 2017, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied the appeal.) - The District of Columbia divorce judgment is not in conflict or inconsistent with any other court order. Applicant brought no other court order to the attention of the Committee. The September 2016 order from Country X, which Applicant has submitted to the Tribunal, does not treat the division of marital property and therefore is not inconsistent with the District of Columbia order. - Neither the Committee nor the Tribunal is required to examine pension law in various jurisdictions or to take account of a hypothetical conflicting order. ### Intervenor’s principal contentions - The District of Columbia divorce judgment is a final and binding order for division of marital property under SRP Section 11.3. - No other court order exists which is in conflict or inconsistent with that judgment. The September 2016 order from Country X does not address distribution of assets or pensions and was obtained in disregard of even minimal standards of due process. - All matters relating to the adjudication of marital property have been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction as a result of proceedings in which both Applicant and Intervenor fully participated. ### Relevant provisions of the Fund’s internal law — SRP Section 11.3 (as cited) - Section 11.3 permits a participant or retired participant, pursuant to a legal obligation arising from a marital relationship or to make child support payments evidenced by a court order or settlement incorporated into a court order, to direct in writing to the Secretary of the Administration Committee that a benefit otherwise payable under the Plan be paid to one or more former spouses, a current spouse from whom there is a decree of legal separation, his child or children under 22 years of age, or the court-approved guardian of such child or children. - (a) The benefit payable shall not exceed: - i. when payable to the spouse or former spouse, 50 percent of the portion of the participant's or retired participant's benefit that is attributable to his eligible service during the period of the couple's marriage whenever the obligation or obligations to which the court order relates are for support of the spouse or former spouse or division of marital property or both, and - ii. when payable to a child or children or their parents or guardians, 16 2/3 percent of the benefit payable to the participant or retired participant whenever the court ordered obligation is for support of his child or children. The sum of payments to two or more children, or their parents or guardians on their behalf, shall not exceed 16 2/3 percent of the benefit payable to the participant or retired participant; such payments shall be made in equal shares unless otherwise allocated by decision of the Administration Committee pursuant to rules adopted by it. - (b) If a participant or retired participant fails to submit a timely written direction in compliance with the court order to the Secretary of the Administration Committee, under rules and conditions prescribed by the Administration Committee, a spouse or former spouse, child or children, or parents or guardians acting on their behalf, who is a party to the court order(s) may request that the Administration Committee give effect to such court order(s) and treat the request as if it were a direction from the participant or retired participant. Pending consideration, the Administration Committee may withhold, in whole or in part, payments otherwise payable. - (c) A direction or accepted request shall not convey an interest in the Retirement Fund or give elective rights under the Plan to any person. A direction or accepted request must be consistent with the provisions of the Plan, which shall override the direction or accepted request in the event of conflict. Any direction or accepted request shall be irrevocable, provided that a participant, retired participant, spouse or former spouse, child or child's parent or guardian may request, upon satisfactory evidence based on a court order or provision of a settlement agreement incorporated into a court order, permission to issue a new direction or submit a new request to increase, diminish, or discontinue payments. Directions cease on death of the participant or retired participant. If a beneficiary predeceases the participant or retired participant, payments shall not commence or shall cease. If payments have been diminished, discontinued, failed to commence, or ceased, the corresponding amount of benefit payable to the participant or retired participant shall be restored less the value of any amounts paid as withdrawal or commuted sums. ### Rules of the Administration Committee under Section 11.3 (selected provisions) - 1.(a) Any direction under Section 11.3 must be addressed to the Secretary of the Administration Committee and accompanied by a copy of the relevant court order or decree (understood to include a judgment or other determination by a court of the rights of the parties). It shall indicate that a copy has been sent to the spouse or former spouse and shall be transmitted to the Legal Department for inspection. If deemed in order and not inconsistent with the Plan and rules, the direction and court order shall be held pending activation. An inconsistent or otherwise inappropriate direction or court order that raises a substantial question as to its application, interpretation, effectiveness, finality or validity will be returned with an explanation of its deficiencies. A notification of filing shall be sent to the sender, the spouse or former spouse, and members of the Administration Committee. - 1.(b) If a participant or retired participant fails to submit a direction within thirty (30) working days of issuance of a relevant court order or decree, the Administration Committee may accept a request by the spouse or former spouse and treat it as if it were a direction. The Secretary will give the participant or retired participant written notice of such a request. The participant or retired participant will be allowed at least thirty (30) working days to consent or object in writing with full explanation. The Administration Committee will decide whether to accept the request within forty-five (45) working days after the participant or retired participant responds or the time for response expires. If the Administration Committee is satisfied that there is a bona fide dispute as to application, interpretation, effectiveness, finality or validity of the court order or decree, no action shall be taken unless and until resolved to the Committee's satisfaction. If no substantial reason exists for not giving effect, the Committee may accept the request and treat it as a direction. Any payment withheld pending consideration will be paid to the person determined entitled; the Committee may deposit it in escrow in the Bank-Fund Staff Federal Credit Union in an interest-bearing account until payment is made. - 1.(c) The Administration Committee will not (i) interpret agreements between spouses or former spouses, directions or accepted requests to pay or orders or decrees in cases of ambiguity, or (ii) resolve questions where there is a bona fide dispute about efficacy, finality or meaning of an order or decree. Activation and associated payments may be suspended until such ambiguity or dispute is settled in the judgment of the Administration Committee. - 2. Unless objected to, the Administration Committee may presume that a court order or decree concerning payment of amounts from the Staff Retirement Plan: - (A) is valid if (1) a reasonable method of notification has been employed and a reasonable opportunity to be heard afforded to persons affected; and (2) the judgment has been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with requirements necessary for valid exercise of power by the court; - (B) is the product of fair proceedings; - (C) is final and binding on the parties; and - (D) does not conflict and is not inconsistent with any other valid court order or decree. If a party objects, the Committee will assess adequacy based on criteria (A) through (D). The Committee will not review merits of the court judgment regarding rights or equities between parties. If the Committee finds the order does not satisfy any of (A) through (D), the parties will be notified and the order will not be given effect unless deficiencies are remedied. If there is inconsistency or conflict under (D) with an order that was basis of a prior direction or accepted request, neither order will be given effect unless and until the conflict or inconsistencies are resolved. - 3. A direction or accepted request may apply to pension benefits, amounts to be commuted or withdrawn, and any other benefits payable during the life of the participant or retired participant. Payments to a spouse or former spouse shall not commence prior to the effective date that payment of participant's or retired participant's benefits commences. Such payments shall relate to the same type of benefits that the participant or retired participant elects and shall not be payable in a manner that would apply a different type of benefit to the spouse or former spouse. Whenever payments to a spouse or former spouses are for support or division of marital property, such payments shall not exceed 50 percent of the benefits payable under the Staff Retirement Plan attributable to months of eligible service during which the participant was married to such spouse or former spouses. However, whenever the court order includes child support, the aggregate of payments to a spouse or any former spouses shall not exceed 66 2/3 percent of the benefit payable to the participant or retired participant under the Staff Retirement Plan. Any amounts that exceed limits applicable to payments to a spouse or former spouses must be directly related to court ordered or approved child support payments. - Directions and accepted requests may specify payment to a former spouse of: - (a) a percentage of the retired participant's pension (not augmented by a cost of living pension supplement); - (b) a fixed amount; or - (c) either (a) or (b) increased by the applicable annual cost of living pension supplement calculated as prescribed under Section 4.11 of the Plan. - The amount of payment will be calculated on the basis of the base amount in U.S. dollars or, if the retired participant elects another currency (or combination), in that currency (or combination). A direction or accepted request specifying (a) or (b) shall be payable in the initial currency selection made by the retired participant at the end of the 90-day period specified in Section 16.3(a) of the Staff Retirement Plan and shall continue regardless of subsequent changes. If specifying (c), the currency(s) shall change in accordance with subsequent changes elected by the retired participant. *Source: Administration Committee and Tribunal documents.* ### 4. A payment from a withdrawa l benefit or a commute d lump ### 4. A payment from a withdrawal benefit or a commuted lump sum ### Currency and payment mechanics (Sections 4–9 of the Rules) - A payment from a withdrawal benefit or a commuted lump sum shall be paid in United States dollars. - Other payments will be paid as described in paragraph 3 of the Rules. - If upon or subsequent to retirement the retired participant is not entitled under Section 16 of the Staff Retirement Plan to the currency specified, the payment will be made in United States dollars from the amount of dollars which the retired participant may elect under Section 16.3(a). - If the retired participant is not entitled to United States dollars and the currency specified is other than a currency which he is entitled to elect under Section 16.3, he will be so informed and requested, with the written consent of his former spouse, to issue a new direction specifying a currency that he is entitled to receive under that provision. - Failure to issue a new direction or to obtain the written consent shall result in the payment being made in United States dollars which shall be deducted from the initial calculation of the payment to which the retired participant is entitled prior to any conversion that has been elected. - The split currency election under Section 16 of the Staff Retirement Plan shall not be available at the option of a designee under a direction or under an accepted request. - Benefit deductions shall be made on the basis of the amount of a retired participant's pension before payment of the former spouse's pension and shall be deducted solely from the portion due to the retired participant. - Payment shall be effected by direct deposit in an account of the former spouse in a bank in the Washington locality or, at the expense of such person, to another account by wire transfer. - A direction or accepted request under Section 11.3 of the Staff Retirement Plan shall apply to benefits available under the Staff Retirement Plan or from the Supplemental Retirement Benefits Plans. - For purposes of the U.S. federal income tax law, unless otherwise established: (i) amounts paid in accordance with a direction or accepted request shall be included for income tax purposes in the gross income of the recipient rather than in the gross income of the retired participant; and (ii) the retired participant and each other recipient shall be entitled to a pro rata allocation of the investment in the contract to the payment made. - If a direction has been given on the basis of a normal pension, but a disability pension is payable instead and the terms of the direction and the applicable court order or decree do not expressly provide for the case of disability, then the initial direction shall not be activated until the date that normal retirement would have occurred; alternatively, the matter may be the subject of a new direction or accepted request. - A restoration of an amount of the benefit payable shall be prospective only, and shall be limited by any amounts that have been paid as withdrawal or commuted sums and any option that had become irrevocable under Section 4.6 of the Staff Retirement Plan. It is the duty of the participant or retired participant to notify the Secretary of the Administration Committee of any change that may give rise to a restoration. - Payments pursuant to a direction or an accepted request shall be prospective only; no payment will be made for amounts payable or due prior to the later of the date that the direction or request was received or the effective date referred to in the direction. - No payment pursuant to a direction or accepted request will be payable sooner than the first day of the month which is at least 60 days after the Secretary of the Administration Committee has received a direction or request and an authenticated copy of the court order or decree, following the effective date of Section 11.3 of the Staff Retirement Plan. ### Tribunal review framework and issues presented - Principal question for decision: Did the SRP Administration Committee err in granting Intervenor’s request under SRP Section 11.3 to give effect to the District of Columbia divorce judgment awarding her one-half of the marital portion of Applicant’s pension entitlements? - Secondary question if Committee did not err: Do any developments subsequent to the Committee’s Decision on Review preclude the Tribunal from sustaining the Committee’s decision? - Standard of review applied by the Tribunal: - The Tribunal considers whether the Committee correctly interpreted the relevant Plan provisions and soundly applied them to the facts of the case. - The Tribunal may rescind a Committee decision if it concludes the decision was “in error.” - The Tribunal applies a distinct standard to SRP Administration Committee decisions because: - Pursuant to SRP Section 7.2(b), authority to take an individual decision under the Plan is vested exclusively in the SRP Administration Committee, subject to appeal to the Tribunal. - Construing Plan terms and applying them to facts resembles a judicial act rather than typical managerial authority. ### Criteria from the Section 11.3 Rules used to assess a court order - The Section 11.3 Rules set out criteria (A) through (D) that the Tribunal will assess: - (A) Validity by reason that: - (1) a reasonable method of notification has been employed and a reasonable opportunity to be heard has been afforded to the persons affected; and - (2) the judgment has been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction . . . and in accordance with such requirements of the state of [rendition] as are necessary for the valid exercise of power by the court; - (B) The order is the product of fair proceedings; - (C) The order is final and binding on the parties; - (D) The order does not conflict and is not inconsistent with any other valid court order or decree. - The Tribunal emphasizes that conforming to the criteria of enforceability in these Rules is of “cardinal importance.” ### Tribunal findings on application of the criteria to the District of Columbia judgment - On criteria (A) and (B) (competent jurisdiction; fair process, notice, opportunity to be heard): - The District of Columbia Superior Court rendered its Judgment of Absolute Divorce after adversary proceedings spanning several years, including a four-day trial, additional evidentiary hearings, and extensive motions practice. - Applicant participated in these proceedings with counsel. - The court expressly found it had jurisdiction on the basis that Intervenor had been a resident of the District of Columbia for more than six months prior to filing the complaint. - The Judgment confirmed that “[b]oth parties were present and represented by counsel at all hearings before this Court.” - The Tribunal concluded that the District of Columbia proceedings bore the essential indicia of fair adversarial proceedings conducted by a court of competent jurisdiction and that the Committee did not err in deciding the judgment met criteria (A) and (B). - On criterion (C) (final and binding on the parties): - Applicant argued the District of Columbia divorce judgment was not “final” because his appeal was pending in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals at the time of the Committee’s decisions. - The Fund asked the Tribunal to confirm that the Committee did not err in determining the order was “final and binding on the parties” as of the Committee’s Decision of March 10, 2016 and Decision on Review of August 24, 2016. - The record shows that, in early 2017, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied Applicant’s appeal and affirmed the Superior Court judgment. - The Fund cited D.C. Code Section 16-920: a judgment of absolute divorce “shall become effective to dissolve the bonds of matrimony” thirty days after docketing unless either party applies for a stay, and “[i]f the application for a stay is denied, the judgment will become final upon entry of the court’s order denying the stay.” - The Judgment of Absolute Divorce reflected the rule in D.C. Code Section 16-920. - Applicant did file for a stay, and his application was denied by the District of Columbia Superior Court in 2015, prior to Intervenor’s initiating her Request to the Committee under SRP Section 11.3. ### Legal precedents and jurisprudence the Tribunal relied upon - The Tribunal’s standard of review and approach cite prior IMFAT decisions, including: - Mr. P. Nogueira Batista, Jr., Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2016-4 (November 1, 2016), paras. 48-50. - Ms. “J”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2003-1 (September 30, 2003), para. 128. - Mr. “P” (No. 2) (cited for rescinding Committee decisions and principles regarding enforceability and adversary proceedings). - The Tribunal observed analogous approaches in World Bank Administrative Tribunal decisions regarding enforceability and giving effect to court orders dividing marital property. *Source: IMF Administrative Tribunal document j2017-1* ### 68. Applicant fails to submit any convincing argument in support of his assertion that the ### j2017-1 - 68. Applicant fails to submit any convincing argument in support of his assertion that the ### Finality of the District of Columbia divorce judgment (Section 11.3 criterion (C)) - The Tribunal found that Applicant did not submit any convincing argument that the pendency of his appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals rendered the District of Columbia Superior Court judgment not “final and binding on the parties” for purposes of the Section 11.3 Rules. - The subsequent denial of Applicant’s appeal by the Court of Appeals “serves to negate any doubt that may remain as to the judgment’s finality.” - The Tribunal relied on prevailing law of the District of Columbia, which Applicant did not dispute, to affirm that the Judgment of Absolute Divorce was “final and binding on the parties” within the meaning of criterion (C) of the Section 11.3 Rules. - The Tribunal recognized the policy purpose of the Plan provision to encourage enforcement of orders for family support and division of marital property and noted the potential for frustration of that object if “final order” were required to mean “unappealable order.” - The Committee’s Decision on Review expressly notified Applicant that: “if in the future[,] . . . the D.C. Court of Appeals reverses in whole or in part the D.C. Superior Court judgment with regard to the division of the SRP pension . . . , [Applicant] may submit such new evidence to the Committee for its consideration.” (SRP Administration Committee Decision on Review, notified to Applicant September 2, 2016, p. 4.) - The Tribunal held that the Committee correctly applied the Section 11.3 requirement that the court order be “final and binding on the parties” and soundly applied that requirement in the circumstances of Applicant’s case. ### Conflict or inconsistency with other valid court orders (Section 11.3 criterion (D)) - Criterion (D) requires that, to be given effect under the Plan, the court order shall not “conflict and [not be] inconsistent with any other valid court order or decree.” - Applicant’s principal contention was that the District of Columbia divorce judgment conflicted with the law of Country X (where the parties were also married and of which Applicant is a citizen), which Applicant asserted treats pensions as non-marital assets and provides that “in no case is a divorced spouse entitled to any portion of the pension of her previous spouse.” - Applicant informed the Committee that he had initiated divorce proceedings in Country X (Applicant’s January 26, 2016 Response) and, in his Request for Review (June 7, 2016), included a letter stating that he had filed a petition for dissolution in Country X in May 2016 and that a court decision was “pending in [Country X]” and “will be inconsistent and conflict with the D.C. Superior Court’s Judgment.” (Emphasis added.) - The Fund maintained that the Committee “is not empowered to reject a valid D.C. Superior Court judgment under criterion (D) when no other valid court order exists with which there could theoretically be any conflict.” - The Tribunal found no error in the Committee’s failure to take account of a court order that did not exist at the time of its initial Decision (March 10, 2016) or Decision on Review (August 24, 2016). - The Committee is not required to speculate about the content of future court orders or to hold proceedings in abeyance while awaiting a new court order when the order presented meets the Section 11.3 Rules. - SRP Section 11.3(c) provides a mechanism by which a participant, retired participant, spouse or former spouse “may request, upon evidence satisfactory to the Administration Committee based on a court order or a provision of a settlement agreement incorporated into a court order, that he be permitted to issue a new direction or submit a new request in writing that would increase, diminish, or discontinue the payment or payments.” - The Section 11.3 Rules (para. 2) specify that where there is an inconsistency or conflict with a court order that was the basis of a prior direction or accepted request, the Administration Committee will notify the parties that neither order will be given effect unless and until the conflict is resolved. - The Committee’s Decision on Review advised Applicant that if a court in Country X issues an order that conflicts or is inconsistent with the D.C. judgment, “[Applicant] may submit such new evidence to the Committee for its consideration.” (Id., p. 4.) (Emphasis added.) - The Tribunal concluded that the Committee did not err in deciding that the District of Columbia divorce judgment did not “conflict and [was] not inconsistent with any other valid court order or decree,” as required by criterion (D). ### Developments subsequent to the Committee’s Decision on Review and Tribunal jurisdiction - Applicant identified two post-exhaustion developments: (1) in September 2016, the “[Country X] family court has issued a divorce decision dissolving the marriage”; and (2) in December 2016, Applicant applied to the Country X courts for “division of property,” seeking a judgment that will “include [his] pension rights according to the [Country X] law.” - Applicant requested relief including rescission of the Committee’s decision, acknowledgement that “in accordance to [Country X] Law, all my pension will be granted to me, without any portion granted to my ex-wife,” and “registration and execution of the Court Decision of the Family Court of [location in Country X], Property Disputes Division, as the sole court decision to be registered and executed by the IMF.” - The Tribunal held that neither of the questions raised by these developments was ripe for its consideration because the Committee had not first been given the opportunity to consider any subsequently rendered conflicting order. - The Tribunal emphasized its appellate role: it resolves disputes only upon a finding of error in the contested decision of the Administration Committee and does not assess in the first instance whether current or future court orders conflict with the District of Columbia judgment. - The Tribunal reiterated jurisprudence that it “does not apply the law of any nation but rather the internal law of the Fund” in deciding disputes under SRP Section 11.3; it applies the SRP’s internal rules and policies and focuses on whether the court order conforms to the enforceability criteria in the Section 11.3 Rules. - The Tribunal concluded that developments subsequent to the Committee’s Decision on Review do not preclude sustaining the Committee’s decision giving effect to the District of Columbia Superior Court judgment awarding Intervenor “one-half of the marital portion of [Applicant]’s IMF Defined Benefit Pension, including pre-retirement death benefits and survivor annuity benefits.” - The Tribunal noted that Applicant remains able to return to the Committee with any new court order he believes is in conflict or inconsistent with the District of Columbia judgment; following Committee review and exhaustion of its review procedures, Applicant could again bring a challenge before the Tribunal. ### Procedural matters: Applicant’s failure to file a Reply - Applicant failed to file a Reply as envisioned by Rule IX of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure after the Fund’s Answer and the Intervenor’s Response were transmitted to him, and neither Applicant nor his designated representatives responded to the Registrar’s follow-up inquiry. - The Tribunal observed the differences in mandatory language among the pleadings rules: - Rule VIII (Answer) states the Fund “shall answer the application within forty-give days of receipt . . . .” (Emphasis added.) - Rule IX (Reply) states an applicant “may” file a Reply. - Rule X (Rejoinder) likewise provides that the Fund “may” file a Rejoinder to the Reply. - The Tribunal concluded that the optional nature of Reply and Rejoinder pleads means that Applicant’s failure to file a Reply does not preclude the Tribunal from deciding the Application. ### Tribunal conclusions and decision - The Tribunal concluded that the SRP Administration Committee correctly interpreted SRP Section 11.3 and the implementing Rules and soundly applied them to the facts when it granted Intervenor’s request to give effect to the portion of the District of Columbia Judgment awarding her “one-half of the marital portion of [Applicant]’s IMF Defined Benefit Pension, including pre-retirement death benefits and survivor annuity benefits.” - The Tribunal concluded that Applicant has not established that any developments subsequent to the Committee’s Decision on Review preclude the Tribunal from sustaining that decision. - The Application of Mr. “MM” is denied. - Decision signed by Catherine M. O’Regan, President; Jan Paulsson, Judge; Francisco Orrego Vicuña, Judge; and Celia Goldman, Registrar. - Washington, D.C., November 15, 2017. --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2017-1.pdf_