Leon FL Lawyers | Thomas Everett Wright -- eLawyers

19-002746 LEWIS VELKEN vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT (2019)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 22, 2019

Whether Petitioner Lewis Velken failed to meet the Deferred Retirement Option Program ("DROP") termination requirements set forth in chapter 121, Florida Statutes; and, if so, whether he is liable for repayment of the distribution from DROP in the amount of $691,307.41.Petitioner is an independent contractor pursuant to section 121.021(50) and rule 60S-6.001(33). Therefore, he did not violate the terms of the DROP agreement and gets to retain his FRS retirement benefits.

19-002985 LORI A. SAVINSKY, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF CALI ANN SAVINSKY, THE MINOR WARD vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, BUREAU OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS (2019)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 04, 2019

Whether Petitioner, as a surviving minor child, is entitled to benefits from the Florida Retirement System (FRS), instead of the beneficiaries designated by the FRS member on the form provided by the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (Department). Alternatively stated, the issue is what effect, if any, did the marriage and subsequent divorce of the FRS member to the minor child's mother have on his previous designation of beneficiaries, pursuant to section 121.091, Florida Statutes (2018).1/Petitioner failed to prove that FRS member's minor child is entitled to receive benefits instead of the beneficiaries designated by the FRS member.

08-004766 CITY OF WILTON MANORS, FLORIDA, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF WILTON MANORS PENSION PLAN FOR GENERAL EMPLOYEES AND POLICE vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 23, 2008

The issue in this case is whether a city, which sponsors a retirement plan covering its general employees and police officers, became ineligible to receive funds that the state distributes for the benefit of police pensions when, in 1999, the board of trustees for the retirement plan failed to hold an election affording the member police officers a chance to vote on whether a new plan for police officers only should be established.City's retirement plan was not rendered ineligible to receive premium tax distributions when the plan's board of trustees failed to hold an election, as required by statute, on whether a new plan should be established for police only.

09-006250 JAMES M. VARDON vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 16, 2009

The issue for determination is whether Petitioner has enough creditable service in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(17)(a), Florida Statutes (2009),1 to be "vested" and, therefore, eligible for a retirement benefit.Petitioner had only 3.09 years of service and was not vested in the Florida Retirement System.

05-003145 MARY L. COYLE vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 30, 2005

Whether Petitioner is entitled to receive continuing retirement benefits as a joint annuitant of her late husband, Raymond Coyle.Petitioner could not demonstrate entitlement to her deceased spouse`s retirement benefits, where he never executed a form to change the designation of joint annuitant to Petitioner.

05-003200 JEANNE S. HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF ROY HOFFMAN, JR., DECEASED vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 01, 2005

The primary issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive an early retirement benefit pursuant to Sections 121.091(3)(b) and 121.091(7)(b), Florida Statutes, based on an effective retirement date of February 1, 1996.Petitioner is entitled to receive an early retirement benefit pursuant to Sections 121.091(3)(b) and 121.091(7)(b), Florida Statutes, based on an effective retirement date of February 1, 1996.

05-003679 JEANNE S. HOFFMAN vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 10, 2005

The primary issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive an early retirement benefit pursuant to Sections 121.091(3)(b) and 121.091(7)(b), Florida Statutes, based on an effective retirement date of February 1, 1996.Petitioner is entitled to receive an early retirement benefit pursuant to Sections 121.091(3)(b) and 121.091(7)(b), Florida Statutes, based on an effective retirement date of February 1, 1996.

01-001618 SUSAN ANN CARPENTER vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT (2001)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 30, 2001

Whether wife alleged forgery of her signature, if proven, would cause Department of Retirement to change deceased husband`s selection of Option One retirement pay-out plan. Failed to prove forgery.

20-004937 TOWN OF MIAMI LAKES, FLORIDA vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT (2020)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 09, 2020

The issues to be determined are whether Dawn Jenkins (“Jenkins”) failed to meet the Deferred Retirement Option Program (“DROP”) termination requirements set forth in chapter 121, Florida Statutes; and, if so, whether Petitioner, Town of Miami Lakes (“Miami Lakes,” the “Town,” or “Petitioner”), is required to reimburse Respondent, Department of Management Services (“DMS”), Division of Retirement (“DOR” or “Respondent”), for the overpayment of retirement benefits paid to Jenkins.Town of Miami Lakes is jointly and severally liable for repayment of overpayment paid to employee who violated DROP terms.

21-001362 CELESTE LYONS vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT (2021)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 21, 2021

Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Florida Retirement System Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) when she submitted the DROP paperwork to her employer, but that paperwork was not submitted to Respondent within the timeframe set forth by statute or administrative rule.Petitioner was not entitled to participate in DROP where she provided DROP paperwork to employer, but it was never received by Respondent in the 12-month eligibility period.

Thomas Everett Wright