The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to retain retirement benefits received by him during the time periods May 19, 1983, through December 31, 1983; May 18, 1984, through December 31, 1984; and May 17, 1985 through June 30, 1985.
Findings Of Fact On June 26 and 27, 1990, respectively, the Respondent and the Petitioner submitted to the Hearing Officer their proposed Findings of Fact. In the Appendix to the Recommended Order the Hearing Officer submitted recommended rulings thereon. The following constitutes the rulings in this Final Order on those proposed Findings of Fact. The Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are hereby accepted and adopted in that they are supported by competent, substantial evidence. The Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 4 is hereby rejected as an ultimate finding of fact in that it a recitation of isolated bits and pieces of testimony of witnesses, and it is not proper as an ultimate finding of fact. The Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 5 is hereby rejected upon the authority of Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So.2d 173 (Fla.), in that it is based upon statements of the parties as to the working relationship, which under the Cantor case is not competent evidence. The Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 6 is hereby rejected upon the grounds and for the reason stated in Paragraph No. 3. The Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 7 is accepted to the extent that on November 1, 1984, the Petitioner was an employee of the Union County School Board, and continued as such through June 30, 1987, but the remainder of that proposed Finding of Fact No. 7 is hereby rejected in that it is based on the statements and arrangements of the parties, which, based upon the Cantor case do not constitute competent evidence. The Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact Nos. 8, 9, and 11, are hereby rejected in that each of them is ambiguous, irrelevant, not based upon any competent substantial evidence in the record, and do not serve to either prove or disapprove any of the issues in this cause. The Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 10, is hereby rejected in that is erroneous as to the dates in question and as to the number of hours in the School Board workweek. The dates in 1983, 1984, and 1985, during which the Petitioner's retirement benefits had been suspended because of exceeding the 780-hour work limitation were as follows: May 19, 1983, through December 31, 1983; May 18, 1984, through December 31, 1984; and May 17, 1985, through June 30, 1985. The Respondent's proposed Finding of Fact Nos. 1 through 8 are each hereby accepted and adopted in that they are each based upon competent, substantial evidence.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner was overpaid retirement benefits for the time periods of May 25, 1985 through June 30, 1985, in the amount of $3024.66. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1990.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, correctly excluded Petitioner from participation in the Florida Retirement System from August 18, 1995, through November 17, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Dixie County on August 18, 1995, to work the roll-off site in Jena, Dixie County, Florida. At the time of his hiring, Petitioner's position was described as "Temporary Roll-Off Site Fill In." A roll-off site is where people take their garbage which is then transferred to the main facility for disposal. A "Temporary Roll-Off Site Fill In" is defined as someone who is called to work as needed. According to the Dixie County Payroll Records, Petitioner was employed as a "Temporary Roll-Off Site Fill In" from August 19, 1995, until November 18, 1996, when he became a "Part-Time Fill In Roll-Off" with an 80-hour biweekly schedule, until a permanent position could be filled. In July 1998, Petitioner's position became classified as permanent and his position description was changed to "Full Time Roll-Off Site." Testimony from Howard Reid, the road superintendent who was Petitioner's supervisor at the Jena roll-off site during the time period of August 18, 1995, to November 17, 1996, was that Petitioner was employed to fill the full-time position of Houston O. ("Hugh") Markham who had been fired from his employment with Dixie County in August 1995. Mr. Reid testified that Petitioner was employed in a regularly established position during this time period. No documentation was produced to substantiate the claim that Petitioner worked in a regularly established position from August 18, 1995, to November 17, 1996. Respondent's records show that Houston O. Markham was employed by Dixie County during the period of August 18, 1995, to November 17, 1996. Houston Markham was paid by Dixie County until December 1, 1996. December 1, 1996 is the pay date for the period beginning November 18, 1996. Based upon the payroll records, Petitioner began working 80 hours, biweekly, on November 18, 1996. This date coincides with Respondent's records for the last pay date of Houston Markham. The only time records in evidence for Petitioner are for the time period of November 3, 1996, to July 26, 1998. For the pay date of November 3, 1996, Petitioner was paid for 42 hours of work. For the pay date of November 17, 1996, Petitioner was paid for 53 hours of work. Thereafter, for the next 43 pay periods, Petitioner was paid for 80 hours of work biweekly (with one exception, the pay date of July 13, 1997, for which he was paid 76 hours). Petitioner's other witnesses, Joseph Ruth and Arthur Bellot, were not in a supervisory position over Petitioner from August 18, 1995, to November 17, 1996, and could not attest to Petitioner's employment during that time. Membership in the Florida Retirement System is compulsory for any person who fills a regularly established position, as defined by statute. A person filling a temporary position, as defined by statute, is not eligible to participate in the FRS. The agency would not report the temporary employee's work to Respondent. The first time Dixie County ever reported Petitioner for retirement purposes was in January 1998. After review, Respondent found that Petitioner was eligible to participate in the FRS effective November 18, 1996, based upon a Payroll Change Notice from Dixie County. The number of hours a state employee works is not dispositive of the issue of whether he or she is an employee in a regularly established position. An employee who works only two days a week, for example, would be a participant in the FRS if employed in a regularly established position. Based upon the documentation in its possession, Respondent enrolled Petitioner in the FRS effective November 18, 1996. Respondent requested that Petitioner submit tax documentation to demonstrate that he had worked full-time for Dixie County during the August 18, 1995, to November 17, 1996, period, as he claimed. Respondent submitted no documentation to support his claim to have been either a full-time employee or an employee in a regularly established position.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for participation in the Florida Retirement System for the period of August 18, 1995, through November 17, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Spencer Kraemer, Assistant General Counsel Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Joseph Lander, Esquire Lander & Lander, Attorneys at Law Post Office Box 2007 Cross City, Florida 32628 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a refund of contributions made to the Florida State Officers and Employees Retirement System from October 1952 through January 1956.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Florida A & M Hospital, Tallahassee, Florida, from October 1952 through January 1956. During the course of this employment, contributions to SOERS were withheld from her monthly pay warrant. On February 23, 1956, Division records reflect that she had contributed a total of $455.04 into SOERS. During January 1956 she terminated her employment. On or about February 23, 1956, the sum of $455.04 was debited from Petitioner's account. This action was taken because the Florida law in effect in 1956, mandated the return of contributions made to SOERS to an employee upon termination of employment. However, evidence which might have demonstrated that a warrant was issued naming Petitioner as payee, is unavailable because cancelled warrants are only maintained on file by the Florida Comptroller for 20 years. Under applicable statutes and, pursuant to Division practice at times pertinent, if a warrant had been issued, but never negotiated, the amount would have been credited back to the trust fund under Petitioner's account. Petitioner's account at the Division does not reflect such a credit. If a warrant had been issued and negotiated pursuant to a forged endorsement, and such forgery was not detected, no entries subsequent to issuance would have been made to Petitioner's account. Petitioner, in January 1956, departed Tallahassee for Nuremburg, Germany, after marrying. She did not leave a forwarding address with her employer or with Respondent. Petitioner ultimately became a resident of Coram, New York, where she currently resides. Petitioner testified that she never received a warrant for $455.04 from the State of Florida. Her testimony was unrebutted and credible and is taken as a fact. Petitioner first became aware she was entitled to a payment of $455.04 from the Division when, in the year 2000, she made inquiries regarding her eligibility for social security. Petitioner has determined that the amount in question is not being held in the Unclaimed Property Bureau of the Florida Comptroller.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division cause to be issued to Petitioner a warrant in the amount of $455.04. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lettie L. Echols No. 2 Gulf Lane Coram, New York 11727 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Chief Legal Counsel Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Linda Holston, violated the reemployment provisions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes (2005), and, if so, whether Petitioner is liable to repay the retirement benefits.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Linda Holston, is a member of FRS. She ended DROP and retired, effective January 31, 2006. Petitioner returned to work for the PCSB, for whom she had worked for 32 years on April 17, 2006, as a human resources clerk. With specific statutory exceptions, a FRS retiree is prohibited from returning to work for a FRS employer and receiving retirement benefits during the 12 months following their effective retirement date. As a clerical employee, Petitioner did not qualify for any of the specific statutory exceptions. Shortly after her retirement in 2006, Petitioner was contacted by PCSB regarding returning to work on a part-time basis. She indicated a willingness to return, but advised that she was concerned that her recent retirement would be an impediment to reemployment. Allen Ford, a PCSB employee, contacted Respondent and was advised that Petitioner "fell within the 780 hour maximum hourly requirement for reemployment and that she could work part-time." Mr. Ford did not record the name of Respondent's employee or the date of the conversation. He did not give Petitioner's name to Respondent's employee which would have resulted in the entry of a record of the phone conversation in Petitioner's record. Respondent has no record of Mr. Ford's phone call. Until July 1, 2003, repeal of the exception, certain school board employees could be employed within the first year of retirement for up to 780 hours without the suspension of retirement benefits. Petitioner was assured by PCSB that she could return to part-time work without impairing her retirement benefits. In fact, PCSB supplied, and Petitioner signed, a "District School Board of Pasco County Employment After Retirement Statement" that incorrectly stated that she may "be eligible for a reemployment exemption that limits my reemployment to 780 hours during the limitation period." This document also recorded the fact that Petitioner was a retired member of FRS, although PCSB was fully aware of this fact. However, Respondent was not made aware of Petitioner's reemployment because of her part-time status. After PCSB started reporting Petitioner's wages, Respondent made inquiry regarding her start date and discovered that Petitioner had been reemployed during the first 12 months of her retirement. That discovery initiated this case. In making her decision to return to work, Petitioner relied on the information provided by PCSB; she did not contact Respondent, nor did she review information available from Respondent regarding her status as a retired member of FRS. Petitioner returned to work on April 17, 2006. During the period of April 17, 2006, through January 31, 2007, Petitioner received $14,312.15 in retirement benefits and $1,500.00 in health insurance subsidy. Petitioner's earnings as a part-time clerical worker are insignificant relative to the amount of retirement benefits she is asked to forfeit. As a retired member of FRS, Petitioner is subject to the reemployment limitations in Section 121.091, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Linda Holston, violated the reemployment restrictions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Linda J. Holston 5841 10th Street Zephyrhills, Florida 33542 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Palm Beach County from 1954 to 1968 as Assistant County Engineer and County Engineer. During this period he was a member of SCOERS, had deductions taken from his salary for retirement, and became eligible for full retirement based on years of service when he reached the age of 60 in April, 1983. From 1954 to 1956 six percent (6 percent) [5 percent prior to July 1, 1955] was deducted from Petitioner's salary as his retirement contributions pursuant to the retirement plan in effect for state and county officers and employees. In 1957 the Legislature amended Chapter 122, Florida Statutes, by providing social security coverage for state and county employees electing to be so covered. All groups of employees, including SCOERS employees, were divided into Division A and Division B. Those in Division B were those who made an election in writing to have their retirement deductions changed from six percent (6 percent) to four percent (4 percent) to have FICA deductions withheld from their salaries, and to be covered by the Social Security System. Those not so electing remained in Division A, their employment was not covered by social security, and their retirement deduction was six percent (6 percent). As a county employee any election Petitioner made to convert from Division A to Division B would have been made to Palm Beach County, who provided the names of those so electing to the Comptroller's Office, who in 1958 handled the retirement files for the state. No list of names submitted by the counties has been retained by the state. Palm Beach County does not maintain active personnel files for retired people and had no personnel records for Petitioner in the dead files. Accordingly, at the time of the hearing Palm Beach County had no written election from Petitioner to change from Division A to Division B. When the employees in these SCOERs system elected to change to social security coverage in 1957 or 1958, part of the sum they had contributed to their state retirement was transferred to the Social Security Administration to make their entry into social security retroactive to January 1, 1956. The maximum that was transferred to the Social Security Administration for any one member of SCOERS so electing was $178.50. This amount was transferred from Petitioner's retirement account to the Social Security Administration in 1958. Effective January 1, 1956, Petitioner's contribution to SCOERS was calculated at four percent (4 percent) of his salary and this amount was deducted monthly until his employment with Palm Beach County ended in 1968. During the period Petitioner was employed by Palm Beach County he contributed to this retirement fund at the rate of six percent (6 percent) for 1.17 years and at the rate of four percent (4 percent) for12.91 years. From 1958 through 1962 annual statements were submitted to SCOERS members showing the contributions to and the status of their retirement accounts. In 1963 such a statement was provided on July 1, 1963. Thereafter, the statements were submitted on a fiscal year basis. At no time did Petitioner protest the FICA deductions from his salary or question the percentage deducted from his pay for the retirement fund. Petitioner now contends that he did not pay any attention to the deductions from his salary to the retirement fund and was unaware that social security deductions were being taken. This contention is not consistent with Petitioner's testimony that he is a fiscal conservative nor with his background as an engineer. In addition to the referendum made available to employees under the SCOERS in 1957 to elect to be covered by social security the Legislature subsequently established other referendums in 1959 and again in the 1960s providing members of SCOERS other opportunities to elect social security coverage. On December 1, 1970, the Florida Retirement System was started and membership in the old Florida retirement systems, including SCOERS, was closed. All members of the Florida Retirement System are covered by social security. Of the approximately ten thousand employees not in the Florida Retirement System, i.e., still in SCOERS, teachers and law enforcement retirement systems, less than one hundred remain in Division A and are not covered by social security. A special Statute of Limitations bars actions to modify contributions to the Social Security System three years three months and fifteen days after the contributions are made. Accordingly, Petitioner's coverage under social security from 1956 to 1968 is irrevocable.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of or credit for $2,125.88 in employee contributions to the Florida Retirement System ("FRS").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division of Retirement is the state agency charged with the responsibility for administering the FRS. Section 121.031, Florida Statutes. Prior to 1975, the FRS was contributory, meaning that members paid a portion of their salaries into the Florida Retirement Trust Fund as a contribution toward their future retirement benefits. Members who have contributed to the trust fund may request a refund of those contributions at the time they leave their FRS-eligible employment. Receipt of such refunds constitutes cancellation of the right to service credit for the subject employment period. Mr. Helms worked for the Polk County Board of County Commissioners, and made contributions to the Florida Retirement Trust Fund. At the time of his termination in June 1974, Mr. Helms had accrued 6.3 years of service in the FRS, and was not vested in the system. In September 1974, the Division received a "Request for Refund" card bearing Mr. Helms' name, social security number, and address; and bearing what purported to be Mr. Helms' signature. It was not unusual at the time for non- vested members such as Mr. Helms to request refunds when they terminated their employment. The refund card was countersigned by Avlee Askew, the personnel clerk for the Polk County Board of County Commissioners, as the representative of Mr. Helms' last Florida employer. The Division diligently searched its records, but was unable to find the actual refund checks because they were destroyed by the Comptroller's Office. However, the Division's computer records indicate that the Comptroller issued two checks totaling $2,125.88 and sent them to Box 988, c/o Clerk's Office, Bartow, Florida 33830, in September 1974. The listed address was and still is the address of the Polk County Board of County Commissioners. At the time, it was standard practice for refund checks to be mailed to the Board's offices, where the former employees would pick them up. In July 2000, Mr. Helms began working for a Hillsborough County agency and began to make inquiries regarding credit for his prior 6.3 years of FRS-eligible employment. Mr. Helms contacted the Division requesting information regarding his retirement benefits and was advised by the Division that its records showed that his accumulated contributions of $2,125.88 were paid to him in 1974. Mr. Helms denied signing the "Request for Refund" card, and denied receiving either of the two refund checks. At the hearing, Mr. Helms contended that the signature on the refund card was a forgery. He introduced several samples of his signature in an effort to show that the signature on the refund card was not his. The "Request for Refund" card itself now exists only as a microfilm facsimile, and the poor quality of the reproduction does not permit a comparison of the signature on the refund card to those samples provided by Mr. Helms. Mr. Helms offered no other evidence to support his claim that he did not sign the card and did not receive the refund. The evidence presented in this case is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Helms is now entitled to a refund of or credit for contributions he made to the Florida Retirement Trust Fund prior to September 1974.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final order denying the request of Milford Mack Helms for a refund of or credit for contributions he made to the Florida Retirement Trust Fund prior to September 1974. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Milford Mack Helms Post Office Box 261 Valrico, Florida 33595 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sojostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Monesia Taylor Brown, Acting General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Sally T. Sperling commenced teaching for the Leon County School Board in 1969 as an elementary teacher at Sabal Palm Elementary School. Following maternity leave and absences to continue her education, Mrs. Sperling returned to the Leon County School System in 1971 as a full-time teacher and subsequently gained continuing contract status before resigning in 1976. In 1978 Petitioner submitted an application (Exhibit 5) for part-time employment with the Leon County School System in which she indicated a desire to work "perhaps, three days per week. She was employed in the Adult Education Program at Lively Vocational-Technical School in Tallahassee teaching remedial reading. The form contract used by the Leon County School Board for Petitioner's employment is the same that is used for all instructional personnel. The contract purported to run for one year and Petitioner was paid on an hourly basis, with no minimum or maximum hours specified. Full-time teachers are hired on an annual basis. Some of the teachers in the Adult Education Program are full-time teachers and are on annual or continuing contracts. Most of the teachers in the Adult Education Programs are part-time teachers and are paid only for the hours they teach. Petitioner taught remedial reading classes and sufficient interest in this course has been maintained so the program has continued semester after semester for the four years Petitioner has taught adult education courses. Other Adult Education Programs in which sufficient interest has not developed have been dropped. Funding for Adult Education Programs depends upon the number of students attending the classes. If this number drops below the number required to keep the course self-sufficient, the course will be dropped. In such a case the teacher of the course will not remain on the Leon County payroll, as no hours will be devoted to teaching this course. Unless an actual course is taught, the part-time teacher is not paid. Teachers on annual contracts are paid for the full year regardless of the number of hours of classes taught. At the time Petitioner was hired she was given a packet of information (Exhibit 7) but was not specifically told that part-time teachers are not eligible for the Florida Retirement System. During the four years Petitioner has been employed as a part-time teacher she has had no social security deductions taken from her pay and has earned no annual or sick leave. Pursuant to an agreement between the state and federal governments all members of the Florida Retirement System are covered by social security and FICA deductions are taken from their pay. This deduction is indicated on the check stub given to the employee with each pay check. State employees not under the Florida Retirement System and not specifically made parts of the Social Security System are not covered by social security. Full-time teachers are considered salaried employees holding a regularly established position. They are paid from funds provided in the "100" account. Part-time employees are designated as Other Personal Services (OPS) and are paid from funds in the "700" account. These accounting codes are established by the Department of Education to provide uniformity in accounting in the various school systems. The accounting code designation from which fund the employee is paid gives a quick reference to the status of the employee. When the pay records show Petitioner is paid from "751" funds, there will be no state retirement or FICA contributions from the code that disburses those funds. When the Florida Retirement System replaced older state retirement systems, some confusion developed regarding the status of personnel hired temporarily and retained on the payroll for an extended period. This confusion carried over to part-time teachers in the Adult Education Programs throughout the state. Some of the counties placed these part-time teachers in the Florida Retirement System where they have been covered for nearly ten years. The Division of Retirement is in the process of removing those people from the retirement system. At the time Petitioner wads hired she did not believe she was eligible for the Florida Retirement System and no FICA deductions were ever taken from her pay. After a visiting friend advised her she might be eligible for the Florida Retirement System Petitioner initiated the inquiries that led to these proceedings.
The Issue Whether the purported selection of Option 2 for payment of Florida Retirement System disability retirement benefits to Lon Emory Sweely, now deceased, and his beneficiary, the Petitioner, Richard A. Castillo, Jr., was valid and effective.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 20, 1990, Lon Emory Sweely executed a Division of Retirement Form FR-13 Florida Retirement System Application for Disability Retirement. The application indicated that Sweely's disability resulted from AIDS-related conditions. It selected Option 1, which the application designates as the "Maximum Benefit" and describes as follows: Full benefits payable to the member for his lifetime. If death occurs before the total benefits paid to member equals the contributions made, the difference, if any, is refunded to beneficiary in a lump sum payment. In so doing, Sweely rejected Option 2, which the application designates as "Ten Years Certain," and describes: Lifetime benefit to member, but not less than 120 monthly payments to someone. A decreased retirement benefit payable to a member during his lifetime, and in the event of his death with a period of ten (10) years after his retirement, the same monthly amount shall be payable for the balance of such ten (10) year period to his beneficiary, or in case the beneficiary is deceased, in accordance with Section 121.091(3), Florida Statutes, as though no beneficiary has been named. The application, also designated the Petitioner, Richard A. Castillo, Jr., as Sweely's sole beneficiary. (Sweely previously had designated the Petitioner as his beneficiary, with the Petitioner's mother as the first contingent beneficiary, on a Division of Retirement Personal History Record Form FRS-M10 (Revised 3/89) executed by Sweely on January 25, 1990.) At the time of Sweely's application for disability retirement, Sweely knew that he had full-blown AIDS and that his life expectancy would have to be estimated at approximately two years or less. There also is evidence that Eulah Lee McWilliams, the principal at the elementary school where Sweely taught, counseled Sweely on his options and advised Sweely to select the "Ten Years Certain" option. It is clear that Sweely wanted the Petitioner, and no one else, to be his sole beneficiary and to be provided for after his death in the manner and to the extent to which he decided. McWilliams believed that Sweely wanted the Petitioner to have the benefits of the "Ten Year Certain" Option 2. Based on their conversations, McWilliams believed that Sweely concurred with her recommendation in order to provide the maximum possible benefit to the Petitioner upon Sweely's death. But, in the face of Sweely's knowledge and McWilliams's advice and understanding, the application indicates that Sweely selected Option 1. There was evidence that the Petitioner was present and assisting Sweely when the Form FR-13 was executed and that the Petitioner filled out part of the form at Sweely's direction, as writing was inconvenient and difficult for Sweely at the time. But there was no evidence that Sweely was unable to make informed decisions when he executed Division of Retirement Form FR-13 on or about June 20, 1990. The evidence also did not prove that Sweely's choice of Option 1 was inadvertent error. At that point in time, Sweely may have wanted to be optimistic and to be able to enjoy and share with the Petitioner the maximum possible monthly benefit for as long as Sweely lived. McWilliams testified that, at the time, Sweely was trying to remain "up-beat" concerning his illness, in part thinking that this might extend his lifetime. A decision to choose Option 1, contrary to McWilliams's recommendation, also would not have been inconsistent with an earlier decision by Sweely in April, 1990, (this time in conformance with McWilliams's recommendation) to postpone applying for retirement benefits until he exhausted all of his accumulated fully-paid sick leave. Had Sweely died while on sick leave, the Petitioner would not have received the additional retirement benefits he is seeking in this case. (It is not clear from the record exactly what the benefits would have been, but it seems that the Petitioner would not have been entitled to any of the additional retirement benefits he is seeking in this case. Cf. Section 121.091(7), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1990); F.A.C. Rule 60S-4.008.) A little over a month later, Sweely's condition worsened, and on or about August 14, 1990, he had to be hospitalized again (as already had happened from time to time during Sweely's full-blown AIDS.) On or about August 15, 1990, the Division of Retirement approved Sweely's application for disability retirement, effective July 1, 1990. On the same date, the Division of Retirement also sent Sweely a Division of Retirement Form FST-40c (R5/89) Acknowledgement of Retirement Application and a blank FRS- 11o "Option Selection Form for FRS Members." The Form FST-40c (R5/89) requested that Sweely "review carefully how the option one and two are paid to your beneficiary." The descriptions of the options in the Form FRS-11o were somewhat different from those in the Form FR-13 application. Option 1 was not called the "Maximum Benefit," and it was described as follows: A monthly benefit payable for my lifetime. Upon my death, the monthy benefit will stop and my beneficiary will receive only a refund of any contributionss I have paid which are in excess of the amount I have received in benefits. This option does not provide a continuing benefit to my beneficiary. (Emphasis in the original.) Option 2 was not called "Ten Years Certain," and it was described as follows: A reduced monthly benefit payable for my lifetime. If I die before receiving 120 monthly benefit payments, my designated beneficiary will receive a monthly benefit payment in the same amount as I was receiving until the monthly benefit payments to both me and my beneficiary equal 120 monthly payments. No further benefits are then payable. The FRS-11o "Option Selection Form for FRS Members" also stated in bold and underlined upper case type: "MEMBER MUST SIGN AND DATE IN THE PRESENCE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC." Whenever Sweely was hospitalized, the emotional strain on the Petitioner increased, and the time spent with Sweely in the hospital left the Petitioner less time to accomplish normal household tasks. The Petitioner's life and home usually became disorganized during Sweely's hospitalizations, and the Petitioner often allowed mail to pile up at their home at these times. The Petitioner testified that, notwithstanding Sweely's hospitalization and its disruptive effect on his life and habits, he happened to collect and read the mail on August 16, 1990. He testified that among the items of mail he read that day was the envelope postmarked the day before in Tallahassee, Florida, containing the Division of Retirement Form FST-40c (R5/89) Acknowledgement of Retirement Application and the blank FRS-11o "Option Selection Form for FRS Members." The Petitioner testified that he telephoned McWilliams to discuss the forms with her, and she asked him to bring them to the hospital. He testified, and she confirmed, that she met with the Petitioner at the hospital, looked at the forms, and explained them to the Petitioner. Believing, based on the conversations she had with Sweely before June 20, 1990, that Option 2 was Sweely's actual choice, McWilliams advised the Petitioner to choose Option 2. McWilliams testified that she discussed the matter with Sweely and with the Petitioner in Sweely's presence on August 16, 1990. (It certainly is possible that, had they discussed the matter with Sweely on August 16, 1990, Sweely might have chosen Option 2 at that time.) But the Petitioner testified that they did not discuss the matter with Sweely on August 16, 1990. The Petitioner explained that, although Sweely was oriented and physically able to write his name and, from time to time, was mentally lucid on that day, the Petitioner did not think that Sweely was in a position to give full consideration to the matter at the time they were discussing the forms because he was on morphine, was lethargic, and was having difficulty breathing without a non-rebreather mask. The Petitioner also did not think it was necessary to trouble Sweely with the matter, since the Petitioner believed that the selection of Option 2 on the Form FRS-11o was redundant and also that he was authorized to execute the form for Sweely as his attorney-in-fact under a purported durable power of attorney which Sweely executed on or about February 28, 1990, authorizing the Petitoner to act in Sweely's behalf in all matters. Under the circumstances on the afternoon of August 16, 1990, the Petitioner did not think that Sweely would have wanted to be troubled with the matter unnecessarily. He checked Option 2 and signed Sweely's name to the Form FRS-11o. On numerous previous occasions, the Petitioner had signed Sweely's name on Sweely's personal checks to pay Sweely's bills. In doing so, the Petitioner believed that he was acting properly under the authority of the purported durable power of attorney, and the bank always honored the checks the Petitioner signed this way. But on June 13, 1990, a physician insisted that the Petitioner sign a Division of Retirement medical records release form FR-13b in his own name as attorney-in-fact for Sweely. Himself not thinking well or clearly under the circumstances, the Petitioner assumed that his signature on the Form FRS-11o was valid. The Petitioner testified that it did not occur to him that there were notary services available for his use at the hospital. He testified that, after checking Option 2 and signing the Form FRS-11o, he telephoned his father, who was a notary, and asked him to come to the hospital to notarize something for him. The Petitioner's father confirmed this and also confirmed the Petitioner's testimony that they met in the hallway outside Sweely's hospital room, where the Petitioner gave his father the signed form and asked him to notarize it. Both testified that they did not discuss the form in any detail before the Petitioner returned to Sweely's hospital room. The Petitioner's father testified that he notarized the form thinking that Sweely had signed it. Sweely died two days later on August 18, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order: (1) that the purported selection, on the Form FRS-11o dated August 16, 1990, of Option 2 for payment of Florida Retirement System disability retirement benefits to Lon Emory Sweely, now deceased, and his beneficiary, the Petitioner, Richard A. Castillo, Jr., was invalid and ineffective; and (2) that the previous selection of Option 1 on the Form FR-13 executed on or about June 20, 1990, is valid and shall be given effect. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as subordinate to facts not proven and as hearsay insufficient in itself to support a finding. (Taking as true that Sweely made such a statement to the Petitioner, his actions were not in accordance with the statement.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 12.-14. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as subordinate to facts not proven and as hearsay insufficient in itself to support a finding. (Taking as true that Sweely made such a statement to McWilliams, his actions were not in accordance with the statement, and McWilliams also testified that Sweely tried to remain "up-beat," thinking that this might extend his lifetime.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (Specifically, it was clear that Sweely wanted the Petitioner, and no one else, to be his sole beneficiary and to be provided for after his death in the manner and to the extent to which he decided.) Last sentence, not proven (as to expression of "clear and unqualified acknowledgment and understanding); also rejected as subordinate to facts not proven and as hearsay insufficient in itself to support a finding. (Taking as true that Sweely made such a statement to McWilliams, his actions were not in accordance with the statement, and McWilliams also testified that Sweely tried to remain "up-beat," thinking that this might extend his lifetime.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (Specifically, it was clear that Sweely wanted the Petitioner, and no one else, to be his sole beneficiary and to be provided for after his death in the manner and to the extent to which he decided.) 17.-30. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 31. "Substantially," rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 32.-35. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-7. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Ultimate and penultimate sentences, rejected in part as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. (The evidence was that the Patient Care Technician Records were prepared near the beginning of each nursing shift and reflected conditions at that time. Meanwhile, there was evidence that the patient's mental state would "wax" and "wane." When the patient "waned" and was lethargic, it was difficult to communicate with him. Changes during the course of a shift may or may not be noted in the Progress Notes. While the Patient Care Technician Records indicate that the patient was both oriented and lethargic, the 8 a.m. progress notes indicate "lethargic at times." The progress notes also indicate that, earlier in the day, the patient had difficulty breathing without the non-rebreather mask and that, by 2 p.m., he was wearing the mask continuously. Even disregarding the possibility that the morphine dosage was enough to affect his judgment, the patient's lethargy and his difficulty breathing without the mask probably would have made it difficult for him to communicate on legal matters on the afternoon of August 16, 1990.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Ultimate and penultimate sentences, rejected in part as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. (He did not allege that Sweely could not communicate or write his name. He testified that he did not think Sweely would have been able to think clearly or want to be troubled with the form unnecessarily. He did not think he had to discuss it with Sweely or have Sweely sign it.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, Dr. Breen's curt medical evaluation of Sweely's general medical condition on August 16, 1990, was not for the purpose of evaluating whether it was possible or prudent to have him considering legal documents and making important legal judgments. In addition, Dr. Breen saw the patient early in the morning and would not have seen changes during the course of the day. 11.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that Castillo, Jr., "insist[ed] that Sweely was incompetent, unable to provide or receive meaningful communication on August 16--and could not execute the form himself . . .." (Rather, he testified that he did not think Sweely would have been able to think clearly or want to be troubled with the form unnecessarily.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 14.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith F. Roberts, Esquire 201 North MacDill Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 Robert B. Button, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Heike Stoll (f/k/a Heike Bybee), has standing to assert a claim or right to any portion of her former husband’s Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) benefits as an “innocent spouse” pursuant to Article II, Section 8(d) of the Florida Constitution, and section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2017).1/
Findings Of Fact Mr. Bybee is a member of the FRS Investment Plan by virtue of his former employment as a deputy with the Sarasota County Sheriff, an FRS participating employer. On October 6, 2017, in Sarasota County Circuit Court Case Number 2017CF001018, Mr. Bybee was found guilty by jury verdict of the following felonies under Florida law: Kidnap- Commit or Facilitate Commission of Felony; Crimes Against Person-Exploitation Elderly or Disabled Adult $20,000 to $100,000 dollars; Fraudulent Use of Personal Identifying Information (8 counts); and Computer Crime to Defraud or Obtain Property (3 Counts) (referred to collectively as the “felony convictions”). On October 6, 2017, judgment was entered against Mr. Bybee adjudicating him guilty of the felony convictions. The SBA notified Mr. Bybee that his felony convictions required forfeiture of his FRS benefits under section 112.3173(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Mr. Bybee did not file a petition for hearing to challenge the Notice of Forfeiture or otherwise assert that his felony convictions did not warrant forfeiture of his FRS benefits under the forfeiture statute. Mr. Bybee’s interest in his FRS benefits is subject to forfeiture due to his commission of the crimes, and his felony convictions. Ms. Stoll was married to Mr. Bybee on August 27, 1994. On or about May 9, 2017, Ms. Stoll filed her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in Manatee County (Circuit Court Case Number 2017-DR-2067) asserting her interest in, inter alia, Mr. Bybee’s FRS benefits. On December 8, 2017, Ms. Stoll filed an “FRS Investment Plan Petition for Hearing” asserting her claim of entitlement to her spousal share of Mr. Bybee’s FRS benefits as an “innocent spouse.” On February 26, 2018, Mr. Bybee and Ms. Stoll executed a Marital Settlement Agreement. As to retirement accounts, Mr. Bybee and Ms. Stoll agreed to the following: Retirement Accounts/Pension. Wife shall receive as her sole property, and all equity and value therein, all retirement accounts and/or pensions in the Husband’s sole name, in the joint name of the parties, and/or in the Wife’s sole name, free and clear of any claims or interest which Husband may have thereto. Specifically, Husband has a pension and/or retirement account through the County of Sarasota Sheriff’s Department, State of Florida. Wife shall receive as her sole property, and all equity and value therein, in said pension and/or retirement account, free and clear of any claims or interest which Husband may have thereto. Further, Husband assigns, transfers, and relinquishes any legal or equitable claims, causes of action, or remedies of any nature against the pension and/or retirement account through the County of Sarasota Sheriff’s Department, State of Florida; and Husband shall fully cooperate with Wife in any and all respects as necessary for Wife to pursue any such legal or equitable claims, causes of action, or remedies related any manner said pension and/or retirement account. Ms. Stoll was not charged with or convicted of any crimes related to Mr. Bybee’s felony convictions. Ms. Stoll’s testimony was credible that she was unaware of Mr. Bybee’s crimes, and had not benefited from them in any fashion. On April 16, 2018, a Final Judgement of Dissolution of Marriage was entered in Manatee County Circuit Court Case Number 2017-DR-2067 that “approved, ratified and incorporated” the marital settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration issue a final order finding that Petitioner is not entitled to her former husband’s retirement benefits, because he was a public employee convicted of specified offenses; and pursuant to section 112.3173, he forfeited all of his rights and benefits in his Florida Retirement System Investment Plan account upon committing the crimes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether James B. Anderson, a deceased retiree in the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan, selected Option 1 (maximum retiree’s monthly benefit without any spousal benefit after death of the retiree) or Option 3 (a reduced retiree’s monthly benefit with continued spousal benefit after death of the retiree).
Findings Of Fact On June 30, 2007, the named Petitioner, James B. Anderson, terminated his employment with the University of South Florida (USF) at the age of 69 years and 9 months. At the time, his tenure at USF spanned 27 years and entitled him to receive pension benefits under the Florida State Retirement System Pension Plan. Also on June 30, 2007, Mr. Anderson completed an application for retirement. By applying Mr. Anderson, who was USF’s Director of Insurance and Risk Management, acknowledged that he would not be able to add service, change options, change his type of retirement (regular, disability, and early) or elect the Investment Plan once his retirement became final, which would be when he cashed or deposited any benefit payment. Also on July 2, 2007, Mr. Anderson and his wife, Mitzi Anderson, executed a Statutory Official Form FRS 110 before a notary public. By doing so, they selected Option 1, which provides the maximum pension benefits to Mr. Anderson until his death and no pension benefits to his wife after his death. The form stated clearly, in bold print, that Option 1 did not provide a continuing benefit after Mr. Anderson’s death and that the selection of Option 1 would be final when Mr. Anderson cashed or deposited any benefit payment. The next day, Mr. Anderson faxed the executed form to the Division of Retirement, which mailed Mr. Anderson an acknowledgement of receipt of the executed form. The acknowledgement included a clear statement, in bold print, that Mr. Anderson would not be able to change his benefit option selection after retirement and that his retirement would become final when he cashed or deposited any benefit payment. Mr. Anderson had second thoughts about his benefit option selection and contacted Donna Pepper, a retirement specialist employed by USF, to discuss changing to Option 3, which would give him a reduced pension benefit that would continue and be paid to his wife after his death. On July 6, 2007, Ms. Pepper sent an email to Mr. Anderson stating: “Here is another option selection form so that you can change your option.” The email attached a blank Statutory Official Form FRS 110. Ms. Pepper’s email also stated: “As we discussed, you may want to indicate that this form should supersede the previously submitted form.” It also advised the Petitioner to keep a copy for his records and send the original to the Division of Retirement as soon as possible. On July 20, 2007, at 12:53 p.m., a comment was entered on the Integrated Retirement Information System (IRIS) telephone log, documenting that Mr. Anderson was considering changing his benefit option selection and would “either FAX a form with a change of option on it or call to let them know he would not make the change.” The comment also documented that Jan Steller in retirement payroll was asked to hold Mr. Anderson’s first check until “this is resolved.” Later the same day, at 2:30 p.m., another comment was added to document that Mr. Anderson had called back to say he had decided to stay with Option 1 and that Jan Steller had been called back and asked “to release his check.” On July 31, 2007, an initial pension check was sent to Mr. Anderson in the amount of $4,188.45, in accordance with his selection of benefit Option 1, which was about $1,200 more than it would be under Option 3. This check was not immediately cashed. On August 31, 2007, a second Option 1 pension check in the same amount was sent to Mr. Anderson. On September 4, 2007, Mr. Anderson deposited the first two benefit checks into his Bank of America account. He continued to receive and cash or deposit monthly Option 1 benefit checks through January 2015. Mr. Anderson died on February 14, 2015. His wife notified the Division of Retirement, which stopped benefit payments in accordance with Mr. Anderson’s Option 1 selection. In March 2015, Mrs. Anderson found among her husband’s papers a copy of an executed Form FRS 110 that selected Option 3. Notwithstanding the telephonic communications with the Division of Retirement on July 20, 2007, the executed form indicates that it was notarized on July 23, 2007. Included in handwriting at the bottom of the executed form was the language, as suggested by Ms. Pepper: “This option supersedes option dated 7-02-07.” Mrs. Anderson also found a copy of Donna Pepper’s e-mail dated July 6, 2007, with instructions on how to change the selection of pension payments. Mrs. Anderson sent copies to the Division of Retirement and requested Option 3 spousal benefit payments. The Division of Retirement denied Mrs. Anderson’s request because it did not receive an Option 3 benefit selection before the copy Mrs. Anderson sent in March 2015. There was no evidence that the form was sent to the Division of Retirement before then. This, together with the fact that Mr. Anderson received and cashed or deposited seven and a half years’ worth of monthly Option 1 benefit checks, which were each over $1,200 more than the Option 3 benefit would have been, support a finding that Mr. Anderson actually selected Option 1 and never switched to Option 3. It is not clear from the evidence why Mr. Anderson kept a copy of an executed change from Option 1 to Option 3 after deciding not to send it to the Division of Retirement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that Mr. Anderson selected benefit Option 1, finally and irrevocably and that Mrs. Anderson is not entitled to Option 3 spousal benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas E. Karatinos, Esquire Law Office of Karatinos Suite 101 18920 North Dale Mabry Highway Lutz, Florida 33540 (eServed) Joe Thompson, Esquire Department of Management Services Suite 160 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Dan Drake, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 (eServed) J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Ste. 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
