§ 1056(d)(1). Hallingby argues that a waiver is fundamentally different than an assignment or alienation of benefits, because a waiver is a simple refusal to accept benefits, whereas an assignment or alienation is a specific assertion that the beneficiary would like the benefits paid to someone else designated by the beneficiary. Harrison contends that the waiver could have been effectuated only through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”), the one exception to ERISA’s anti-alienation provision, and both sides agree that the Agreement is not a QDRO. Circuits have split on whether ERISA’s anti-alienation provision applies only to participants in an ERISA plan, or whether it also extends to non-participant beneficiaries. See, e.g., Fox Valley, 897 F.2d at 280 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Altobelli, 77 F.3d at 81 (4th Cir.1996)
holding that a proper waiver of interest by a nonpartieipant in a plan is not preempted by erisas antialienation provisions holding that the scfra provision allowing the state to redirect prisoners pension checks to prison account violated erisas antialienation provision and was therefore preempted by erisa holding that the mvra overrides erisas antialienation provision holding that erisas antialienation statute precluded imposition of a constructive trust on pension benefits owed to an individual convicted of embezzlement holding claim providing additional remedies conflicts with erisas remedial scheme and is preempted