The Issue Whether deceased retiree's prior selection of Option One retirement benefit pay-out and his receipt and negotiation of retirement several checks should now be set aside, due to his wife's alleged forgery of her signature on the Spousal Acknowledgement (Form FR-11).
Findings Of Fact 1. Irvin M. Carpenter was born November 16, 1934, and died of cancer on November 18, 1997. Mr. Carpenter was employed by the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority as a police officer on September 10, 1984, and attained the rank of police sergeant at the time of his retirement. Mr. Carpenter was a member of the Florida Retirement System. 2. On January 20, 1991, Irvin M. Carpenter and Susan Ann Prescott were married. Susan Ann Carpenter is now, and has been at all time pertinent to these proceeding, employed by the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority as a police officer. Susan Carpenter is a member of the Florida Retirement System. 3. In October of 1996, Irvin Carpenter and Susan Carpenter separated and continued to live separately. Dissolution of marriage proceedings were initiated but was not finalized at the time of Irvin Carpenter's death in November 1997. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Irvin Carpenter and Susan Ann Carpenter were husband and wife. 4. On July 8, 1997, Irvin Carpenter executed a Florida Retirement System form styled "Application for Service Retirement" (Form FR-11). This form provides the retiree with information pertaining to the four options by which his retirement benefits can be paid. One full page of the form provides an explanation of each option. By use of this form, Irvin Carpenter selected Option One retirement benefit payout plan. The explanation of Option One on Form FR-11 is as follows: Option 1: A monthly benefit payable for my lifetime. Upon my death, the monthly benefit will stop and my beneficiary will receive only a refund of any contributions 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. 5. The FR-11 also contained the following information in bold lettering: THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED IF YOU SELECT OPTION 1 OR 2 MARRIED YES[ ] NO [ ] IF YES, YOUR SPOUSE MUST SIGN BELOW: SPOUSAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT : I, (Signature) Susan A. Carpenter,’ being the spouse of the above named member, acknowledges that the member has elected either Option 1 or 2. (Signature Irvin Carpenter 11-27-96 Signature of Spouse Date If your spouse does not sign, you must attach a signed statement explaining why your spouse did not acknowledge your selection. 6. The "yes" or "no" blocks requesting marriage status were blank on the FR-11 submitted by the retiree to the Agency. The Spousal Acknowledgement block contained the signature of "Susan Ann Carpenter." Susan Carpenter alleged this signature to be a forgery. 7. The form FPR-11 also contained the following statement in capital letters: I UNDERSTAND I MUST TERMINATE ALL EMPLOYMENT WITH FRS EMPLOYERS TO RECEIVE A RETIREMENT BENEFIT UNDER CHAPTER 121, FLORIDA STATUTES. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I CANNOT ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICE, CHANGE OPTIONS, OR CHANGE MY TYPE OF RETIREMENT (REGULAR, DISABILITY AND EARLY) ONCE MY RETIREMENT BECOMES FINAL. MY RETIREMENT BECOMES FINAL WHEN ANY BENEFIT PAYMENT IS CASHED OR DEPOSITED. 8. Between the date of his retirement and the date of his death, Irvin Carpenter received, cashed, or deposited a minimum of three retirement checks from the Florida Retirement System, pursuant to his selection of Option One benefit payout plan. 9. After the death of Mr. Carpenter, the Agency, by letter dated November 24, 1997, addressed to: FAMILY OF IRVIN M. CARPENTER, 3602 W. Tampa Circle, Tampa, Florida 33629, informed the family of the retirement benefit due beneficiaries for November and the income tax deduction therefrom. 10. By letter to the Agency dated July 13, 2000, Susan Carpenter stated: My Husband, Irvin M. Carpenter, DOB 11/16/34, SSN 263-42-0146, retired from the Tampa International Airport Police Department on 07/31/1997. At the time of his retirement, we were separated but still Married. He passed away less than three months later in November 1997. I inquired as to any benefits and informed by the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, the parent organization of the Tampa International Airport Police Department, that he had changed his beneficiary to his daughter, Anita Carpenter. Just recently, I became aware of the Florida Retirement System provisions concerning retirement options. I ama police officer with the Tampa International Airport Police Department and these matters were covered in a pre-retirement briefing conducted by Human Resources. It is my understanding that if you are married and select option 1 or 2, the spouse must acknowledge that selection in writing. Since I had not signed any such acknowledgement, it occurred to me that my deceased husband's remaining options both provide for the joint annuitant. I posed this question to the HCAA Human Resources and was informed that my deceased husband did not retire. The Department announced his retirement, his name was added to the plaque listing retired officers and Department personnel files indicate a retirement date of 07/31/1999. I questioned my police captain and Chief of Police and both of them were emphatic that my husband retired on 07/31/1999. With my superiors providing information contrary to Human Resources, I have some doubt as to the status of my deceased husband with regards to the Florida Retirement System. Please confirm the status of Irvin M. Carpenter. Did he retire from FRS? If not, what was his status at the time he passed away? I am sure you understand the significance of my determining the correct status. Thank you for any assistance you can provide. 11. The Agency denied Susan Carpenter's request to void Irvin Carpenter's selection of Option One retirement pay-out. The Agency's letter of November 15, 2000, asserted the position that the selection cannot be changed since the retirement checks were cashed or deposited and cited the following portions of Section 121.091(6) (a), Florida Statutes: "The spouse of any member who elects to receive the benefit provided under subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. shall be notified of and shall acknowledge any such election." The law does not require the spouse to agree with the members' retirement option selection. The Form FR-11, Application for Service Retirement, submitted by Irvin Carpenter included Susan Carpenter's signature acknowledging that she was aware of the Option 1 selection. We receive numerous applications monthly and we do not investigate to determine if each signature is authentic. Although Mrs. Carpenter contends that her signature was forged, once a member cashes or deposits a check the option selection cannot be changed. The statutes do not require the spouse to agree with the members option selection, only to be made aware. Your request to void the Option 1 selection is denied. 12. Susan Carpenter denies having signed the Form FR-11, Application for Service Retirement submitted by Irvin Carpenter. Susan Carpenter alleges that the signature, "Susan Ann Carpenter," appearing on the Form FR-11 is a forgery. 13. During the final hearing and in the presence of the undersigned, Susan Carpenter signed "Susan A. Carpenter" three times, Petitioner's Exhibit F. At the request of the undersigned Susan Carpenter signed "Susan Ann Carpenter" once. A review of the four signature samples provided by Susan Carpenter, the sample signature, "Susan Ann Carpenter," proved to the satisfaction of the undersigned evidence of the genuineness of the written signature in dispute. Accordingly, and as a finding of fact, the Form FR-11 signature "Susan Ann Carpenter" is not a forgery. 14. Susan Carpenter's assertion that the Agency is under legal obligation to contact each spouse or otherwise verify the signature of each spouse on the Form FR-11ls received in the Agency's normal course of business is without foundation in law and in fact. 15. Only the circuit court has jurisdiction and authority in dissolution of marriage cases to enter final orders determining property rights of marital assets. Petitioner proffered no such order as evidence. Accordingly, all testimony and evidence based on alleged spousal rights and entitlements pursuant to Chapter 61, Florida Statutes, are not considered
Conclusions For Petitioner: Scott W. Fitzpatrick, Esquire Southeast Building, Suite 1500 St. Petersburg, Florida 33703 For Respondent: Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building Cc 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact an Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Susan Carpenter's request to change the retirement option 13 selected by Mr. Irvin Carpenter, including benefits due, and denying all such other relief. lo& DONE AND ENTERED this = day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 J2% day of July, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether payment of Petitioner's retirement benefits should have commenced after the filing of an application to retire with the Division of Retirement, with an effective date of April 1, 2004, or be retroactively changed to the date of his termination of employment, July 1, 2003.
Findings Of Fact On July 19, 1995, Petitioner applied for membership in the Special Risk Division of the Elected Officers' Class of the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"). On August 14, 1995, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter admitting him into FRS. On September 6, 1995, Sarabeth Snuggs, Chief of the Bureau of Enrollment and Contributions for Respondent, sent Petitioner a letter revoking his membership in FRS. On December 17, 1996, Petitioner wrote to Sarabeth Snuggs responding to Respondent's decision to revoke his membership in FRS. Petitioner cited Section 121.052(2)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that membership in FRS includes "any constitutional county elected officer assuming office after July 1, 1981, including any sheriff." The Consolidated City of Jacksonville was created by the Florida Legislature with the enactment of Chapter 67-1320, Laws of Florida. Section 1.01 of the Jacksonville Charter provides that the county government of Duval County and the municipal government of the City of Jacksonville are consolidated into a single body politic. The Charter further provides that the consolidated government succeeds to and possesses all of the properties of the former government. After being denied membership in FRS, Petitioner and other members of the consolidated government and its instrumentalities worked diligently to convince Respondent to admit Petitioner into FRS. During Petitioner's attempts to be included in FRS, Respondent repeatedly took the position that Duval County did not exist as a county agency. In a letter to Petitioner dated January 15, 1997, Ms. Snuggs wrote that the consolidated Duval County government "chose to consolidate as a 'city' government." Mr. Keane worked with the Duval County Legislative Delegation to amend Chapter 121 to specifically clarify the fact that the Duval County Sheriff and Clerk of Court are constitutional officers entitled to participate in FRS. In 2002, the Florida Legislature adopted language to clarify the Duval County Sheriff and Clerk of Court's status with respect to FRS. In a letter dated June 24, 2002, Petitioner thanked Ms. Snuggs for recognizing his right to elect membership in FRS. Petitioner observed that, since he was in the last year of his second term as Sheriff (Duval County allows only two consecutive terms), he wanted confirmation of his "right to connect the previous seven (7) years of service as Sheriff." The June 24, 2002, letter also asked for "guidance" from Respondent. The purpose of the June 24, 2002, letter was for Petitioner to learn how Respondent intended to treat his first six years of service. Petitioner sought to avoid any problems since his retirement date was rapidly approaching. On October 10, 2002, Petitioner and Mr. George Dandelake, the Chief of the Budget and Management Division of the Sheriff's Office, wrote to Ms. Snuggs requesting a calculation of the amount of employer contributions required on Petitioner's behalf. The October 10 letter also requested that Respondent "identify what documents are required, in addition to the contribution amount which will be paid by the City, that must be supplied to the Florida Retirement System." Petitioner re-applied for membership in FRS, which was granted on June 1, 2002, after the effective date of the legislation designed to specifically admit the Duval County Sheriff and Clerk of Court into FRS. On June 18, 2003, twelve days before the expiration of his term of office, still not having received confirmation of the status of his prior service, Petitioner sent a letter to Ms. Snuggs advising that FRS had not recognized his service from 1995 through 2002. Petitioner again stated in the letter that he was terminating his position as Sheriff on June 30, 2003. Less than a week prior to the termination of his term, Petitioner received two "Statement[s] of Account" dated June 24, 2003, indicating that "you have until retirement to pay the amount due on your account." The statements further indicated that "when you become vested for monthly benefits, we will provide you an estimate of benefits with and without this service." According to the first Statement of Account, Petitioner was entitled to purchase prior service at the 1.6 percent multiplier rate for the FRS regular class. According to the second Statement of Account, Petitioner was entitled to purchase prior service at the 2.0 percent multiplier rate for the FRS special risk class. Neither Statement of Account was correct, as both failed to permit Petitioner to purchase service at the 3.0 percent rate for special risk, despite the fact that Petitioner had served a continuous and uninterrupted term as Sheriff. The Statement of Account did not advise Petitioner that he must submit a separate retirement application, Form FR-11, in order to preserve his retirement date. The statement did advise Petitioner that interest would be assessed at a rate of 6.5 percent. This warning appeared in bold face on the Statement of Account. The June 24, 2003, statements were the first time that Petitioner was supplied with the amount due to purchase service credit. Since neither statement applied the correct multiplier rate (3.0 percent) for all eight years of Petitioner's service as Sheriff, neither statement was correct. Recognizing that only six days remained prior to the expiration of Petitioner's term as Sheriff, Mr. Keane advised Petitioner to submit payment to Respondent on an expedited basis. After receiving the June 24, 2003, Statements of Account, Petitioner prepared a letter dated June 26, 2003, to Cal Ray, the Director of the Department of Administration and Finance for the Consolidated City of Jacksonville. In this letter, Petitioner requested an employer contribution in the amount of $163,554.32 to purchase his prior service. Petitioner further requested an expedited preparation of the check to ensure delivery to Respondent by July 1, 2003. The letter to Mr. Ray requested payment of the amounts that would have been periodically contributed by the City of Jacksonville if Respondent had been acknowledged as a participant in FRS in 1995. On June 27, 2003, three days prior to the expiration of his term of office, Petitioner drove from Jacksonville to Tallahassee to meet with Respondent's representatives, including Ms. Snuggs, regarding Petitioner's retirement. Mr. Dandelake accompanied Petitioner on this trip. At the June 27, 2003, meeting, Petitioner personally delivered a check to Respondent in the amount of $163,554.32. Respondent accepted the check and issued a written receipt signed by Sarabeth Snuggs. Petitioner was never told during the June 27, 2003, meeting with Respondent that he would forfeit benefits if he failed to complete an application. Respondent knew that Petitioner was leaving office on June 30, 2003. Respondent never discussed the filing of an application for retirement benefits at any time during the course of its conversations and correspondence with Petitioner. Petitioner was never told by Respondent to complete any forms to protect his rights to the 2.0 percent multiplier during the pendency of his dispute with Respondent. Petitioner was never provided any handbook, notice, statutes, or rules indicating he would forfeit benefits under any circumstances. When Petitioner left the June 27, 2003, meeting, both he and Mr. Dandelake understood that he was still engaged in a dispute with Respondent over his entitlement to the 3.0 percent multiplier. Petitioner knew that he was required to file an application in order to receive retirement benefits. Petitioner testified that if he had left the June 27 meeting with any indication that he would forfeit benefits by not filing an application, he would have filed something, with advice of counsel, to preserve his rights. Petitioner received an Estimate of Benefits via fax from Respondent on June 27, 2003, reflecting an annual benefit of $23,105.90. This statement valued 6.92 years of Petitioner's uninterrupted special risk service as Sheriff using the 2.0 percent multiplier, and 1.08 years of service as Sheriff using the 3.0 percent multiplier. The June 27, 2003, statement lists Petitioner's retirement date as July 1, 2003. The estimate does not warn Petitioner that he must do anything in order to preserve his July 2003 retirement date. The estimate states only that it is subject to "final verification of all factors." Petitioner's term of office as elected Sheriff ended on June 30, 2003. Petitioner's employment terminated when his term expired on that date. Respondent was aware of the dates of the expiration of Petitioner's term of office as well as his employment termination date. When Petitioner's employment terminated on June 30, 2003, it was unclear whether he would be credited with the 3.0 percent multiplier for his eight years of special risk service. Petitioner was not notified by Respondent prior to the expiration of his term as Sheriff on June 30, 2003, that he needed to submit a retirement application. The first time Petitioner was advised by Respondent of the need to file an application for retirement benefits was in the comment section of the Estimate of Retirement Benefits provided to him by letter dated March 4, 2004. The warning was printed in bold face type. The Estimate of Retirement Benefits dated June 27, 2003, did not include the bold face warning to file an application. Respondent was not provided with a Division of Retirement publication entitled "Preparing to Retire" prior to his leaving service on June 30, 2003. In fact, the copy of the publication offered into evidence by Respondent is dated "July 2003," subsequent to Petitioner's retirement. As the only member of FRS in his office in Jacksonville, Petitioner had no staff or employees trained in FRS or Florida retirement benefits. Petitioner was provided with a "Preparing to Retire" booklet in March 2004. On November 3, 2003, Florida Attorney General Opinion 2003-46 confirmed that Petitioner, as the elected Sheriff, was eligible for membership in the Elected Officer's Class of the Florida Retirement System. On December 31, 2003, and on January 16, 2004, Petitioner's counsel attempted to obtain clarification from Respondent regarding Petitioner's retirement benefits. The December 31, 2003, letter noted that the "extraordinary delay" in resolving the issue of Petitioner's benefits was at no time due to fault on the part of Petitioner. Respondent never refuted or disputed this statement. By letter dated March 4, 2004, Petitioner was finally advised by Respondent that he was entitled to be credited with the higher 3.0 percent multiplier for all eight years of his service as Sheriff. Petitioner noted that the March 4, 2004, Statement of Account, while properly applying the 3.0 percent multiplier, now had changed Petitioner's retirement date to April 2004 from the previous estimates showing a retirement date of July 2003. The March 4, 2004, statement included the bold face notice to Petitioner that he must file an application for retirement benefits. No prior notices or correspondence from Respondent had informed Petitioner that he must file Form FR-11 in order to retain his retirement date of July 1, 2003. After formally being notified that he would receive the 3.0 percent multiplier for all eight of his years of service as Sheriff, and after having received the notice that he must file Form FR-11, Petitioner submitted the form in April 2004. Respondent is a fiduciary charged with acting in the best interest of participants in FRS. Andy Snuggs, who travels around the state educating employers and employees in FRS, acknowledged that Petitioner was not responsible for the delay by Respondent in recognizing Petitioner's entitlement to the 3.0 percent multiplier. Mr. Snuggs acknowledged that he does not tell employees that they will forfeit benefits if they delay the filing of their applications. Petitioner received his first retirement check in May 2004 which was based upon the benefit established in March 2004 of $32,624.58 annually, not the $23,105.90 previously established by Respondent in June 2003. Petitioner has received no retroactive benefits for the period of July 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004. In a letter dated May 6, 2004, Petitioner stated that his acceptance of the first retirement check was not to be construed by Respondent of a waiver of his rights to retroactive benefits from July 1, 2003, forward.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be awarded retirement benefits at the rate of 3.0 percent per year for his eight years of Elected Officer's Class of service, retroactive to July 1, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2005, 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 21st day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Klausner, Esquire Klausner & Kaufman, P.A. 10059 Northwest 1st Court Plantation, Florida 33324 Robert B. Button, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9000 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9000
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to purchase leave of absence retirement credit on behalf of James Gapinski, Petitioner's ex- husband and a deceased member of the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Geraldine Gapinski, is the former spouse of James Gapinski, deceased. At the time of his death, Mr. Gapinski was an employee of Florida State University and a "vested" Florida Retirement Service (FRS) member. Petitioner is an employee of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and an active member of FRS. Mr. Gapinski was continuously employed by Florida's Univeristy System from approximately 1970, until his death on November 20, 2000, with the exception of a period from September 10, 1976 to June 9, 1977, during which period he took an approved leave of absence. During the period September 10, 1976 to June 9, 1977, no contributions were made by Mr. Gapinski or on Mr. Gapinski's behalf to FRS toward his accruing retirement benefits and he earned no creditable service in FRS for this eight month period he was on his leave of absence. On May 4, 2000, Mr. Gapinski requested an audit and estimate of retirement benefits from Respondent. At the time of his request for an audit and estimate, Mr. Gapinski and Petitioner had begun a dissolution of marriage proceeding (divorce). At all times material, each litigant had independent legal counsel, and each lawyer was aware that Mr. Gapinski's FRS benefits were "on the table" for division of the marital estate in the course of the divorce proceedings. At all times material, Mr. Gapinski was terminally ill with cancer. On September 14, 2000, Mr. Gapinski applied for participation in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). His application (DROP Form DP11) requested a DROP "begin date" of September 1, 2000, and designated each of Mr. Gapinski's two adult daughters as 50 percent primary beneficiaries. Petitioner, who at that time was still married to Mr. Gapinski, was not even designated a secondary beneficiary. The application, which Mr. Gapinski signed, stated in pertinent part, I understand that the earliest date my participation in the DROP can begin is the first date I reach my normal retirement date as determined by law . . . I cannot add additional service, change options, or change my type of retirement after my DROP begin date (emphasis in original). The application also specified eight required acts before Mr. Gapinski could retire and become a DROP participant, including, but not limited to, 4. A check payable to FRS for any amount you owe, or a written statement that you do not wish to claim the service . . . . On September 15, 2000, Respondent provided James Gapinski with two estimates of benefits. Estimate No. 1 showed the benefit Mr. Gapinski would be entitled to if he chose to purchase the one year leave of absence for $6,820.52, providing for a DROP beginning date of September 1, 2000. This estimate further advised that 6.5 percent per annum would be posted on June 30, 2001. It also stated, Comments: The amount due is to purchase service for your leave of absence from September 10, 1976 to June 9, 1977. This amount must be paid for a DROP begin date of September 1, 2000. Mr. Gapinski was also notified of the need to purchase his leave of absence credit in a letter from Respondent dated September 15, 2001, stating, in pertinent part, as follows: The following items are pending. The amount due is to purchase service for your leave of absence from September 10, 1976 to June 9, 1977. If you do not elect to pay the above amount due and purchase the service it represents, we must have written notification of your intent. * * * Completion of the Option Selection for FRS members, . . . AFTER YOUR FIRST MONTH OF DROP PARTICIPATION YOU CANNOT ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICE, CHANGE OPTIONS, CHANGE YOUR DROP BEGIN DATE OR CHANGE YOUR TYPE OF RETIREMENT. * * * Estimate No. 2 sent to Mr. Gapinski on September 15, 2000, showed the benefit Mr. Gapinski would be entitled to if he chose not to purchase his leave of absence and waited until March 1, 2001, to participate in DROP, when he would accrue 30 years of service without counting the gap left by his 1976-1977 leave of absence. This estimate also stated: Comments: This estimate does not include the purchase of your leave of absence and is provided for comparison purposes. It is provided for DROP purposes with a March 1, 2001, DROP begin date (see the enclosed DROP brochure). If you do not elect to pay the amount due and purchase the service it represents, we must have written notice of your intent. Apparently, neither attorney ever saw any of the foregoing papers. The thrust of Petitioner's attorney's actions and advice was to obtain survivorship retirement benefits, not necessarily DROP benefits, for Petitioner. On October 23, 2000, Petitioner's attorney was told by telephone by Ms. Ferguson, a representative of Respondent, that Petitioner must make a non-party request to release Mr. Gapinski's retirement information to her. So far as this record shows, no third party request was ever made, but that day, Petitioner's attorney and Ferguson also generally discussed retirement pay-out options that Mr. Gapinski could elect, and Petitioner's attorney was generally aware that the DROP process was not complete. On October 24, 2000, Petitioner's attorney discussed by telephone, retirement, divorce, and survivorship benefit issues and life insurance payment options with Ms. Hudson, a representative of Respondent. On October 26, 2000, Petitioner's attorney discussed, by telephone, retirement options and steps to be taken, with both Ms. Ferguson and Mr. Helms, another of Respondent's representatives. Mr. Helms told her the DROP application was not complete but if the couple were still married, Option No. 3 would give the most benefit for survivorship benefits. During the October 2000, conversations, Petitioner's attorney made each of Respondent's representatives aware of the impending divorce and of Mr. Gapinski's impending death, but the attorney did not specifically inquire how soon the lapsed time payment must be made and none of Respondent's representatives volunteered information on that issue. At Mr. Gapinski's request, the divorce proceeding was bifurcated. Prior to the divorce, Petitioner's attorney had done independent research and was aware that Mr. Gapinski had to pay the $6,820.52, in order to perfect the DROP program and in order to complete 30 years of creditable service in order to be eligible for survivorship benefits on his retirement. This information was communicated to Petitioner by her attorney and whether or not Petitioner would be willing to pay half the amount was discussed. Petitioner stated she would be willing to pay half the amount owed. As a condition to her agreement to bifurcate the divorce proceeding, that is, as a condition to letting Mr. Gapinski out of the marriage but reserving jurisdiction in the Circuit Court to resolve certain disputes concerning assets and entitlements, Petitioner required that the couple enter into an "Agreement" on October 27, 2000, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: BIFURCATION: The Husband shall be entitled to bifurcation of the dissolution action. The marriage of the parties shall be dissolved with the Court reserving on all remaining unresolved issues not addressed in this agreement. In light of the Husband's health, the Wife shall schedule and appear at an ex parte hearing to dissolve the marriage, to obtain Court-ordered approval of this agreement, and to ensure the Court's reservation of jurisdiction to hear any and all issues pertinent to support and the division of property not yet settled by the parties. * * * B. The Wife further agrees that all marital assets awarded to her in this cause (including proceeds from the Husband's retirement and life insurance in the event the Husband predeceases her), shall be placed in an inter vivos trust, from which she may draw living, personal, and medical expenses, during her life, with the parties' adult daughters named as the irrevocable beneficiaries of the remainder of such trust. C. The Husband agrees to bequeath sufficient marital assets, awarded to him in this cause, to the parties' adult daughters to aid in their comfort and support. HUSBAND'S RETIREMENT: The Husband shall elect an option on his retirement with the State of Florida that provides for survivorship benefits for the benefit of the Wife. The wife shall be entitled to all such retirement survivorship benefits which, like the other assets she receives in this bifurcated action, shall be placed in an inter vivos trust for her living, personal and medical expenses, during her life, with the adult daughters as irrevocable beneficiaries of the remainder of the trust. The Husband shall, simultaneously with the signing of the agreement, execute such documents as are necessary to create retirement survivorship benefits in accordance with this term. Should the Husband fail to execute the survivorship option on his retirement or should he ever change such option in contravention of this term, the Husband agrees that the obligation of this term is binding upon his estate, which estate shall be responsible for paying such retirement survivorship benefits to the Wife. The Agreement could have, but did not, specifically require that the leave of absence be purchased by either Mr. Gapinski or Petitioner. Petitioner's and Mr. Gapinski's Agreement does not bind the Respondent, which was in no way privy to that Agreement. Petitioner and Mr. Gapinski's marriage was dissolved on November 1, 2000. Petitioner's attorney provided Mr. Gapinski, through his counsel, with DROP forms (FST-12 and FRS-11o). On November 1, 2000, Mr. Gapinski executed Option 2 for his DROP retirement on these forms, naming Petitioner as his sole primary beneficiary and negating his prior designation of his adult daughters as beneficiaries. Option No. 2 provides for a reduced monthly benefit payable for the FRS member's (Mr. Gapinski's) lifetime. If the member dies before receiving 120 monthly payments, his designated beneficiary (Petitioner) would receive a monthly benefit in the same amount until the monthly benefit payments to both of them equaled 120 monthly payments, when payments would terminate. Option No. 2 is available for regular service retirements as well as DROP retirements. Option No. 3 is also available for regular service retirements and DROP retirements. Option No. 3 would have provided a reduced monthly benefit payable for Mr. Gapinski's lifetime, and upon his death, his joint annuitant, if living, would receive a lifetime monthly benefit payment in the same amount as Mr. Gapinski was receiving. Then, no further benefits would be payable after both he and his joint annuitant were deceased. There are exceptions to the foregoing general description, none of which matter to the case at bar. Option No. 3 would clearly provide more money to Petitioner if she were eligible. On November 2, 2000, Petitioner's attorney had three short telephone conversations with Mr. Helms, who opined that since Mr. Gapinski had signed up for DROP while the couple were still married, Petitioner could still get Option No. 3, with DROP retroactive to September 1, 2000, but that the leave of absence must be paid for. Apparently, Petitioner's attorney did not ask what would happen if the gap was not paid for before Mr. Gapinski died and no representative of Respondent volunteered that information. The thrust of Petitioner's case continued to be to persuade Mr. Gapinski to pay the whole amount due and to change his Option election to No. 3. On or about November 3, 2000, Mr. Helms sent an estimate letter based on selecting a September 1, 2000, retirement date with Option No. 1, to Mr. Gapinski. This estimate letter stated Mr. Gapinski had 30.11 years of creditable service. It did not mention DROP or any pay back. It did state that no lump sum retirement or cash value payments were available. (Second page of attachment to Exhibit P-11). On November 3, 2000, Petitioner's attorney wrote Mr. Gapinski's attorney that Mr. Gapinski was considered by Respondent to be in the DROP program as of September 1, 2000, not March 1, 2001, as supposed before the divorce, but he had not bought back his leave by paying $6,820.52, and requested that Mr. Gapinski change his Option Election Form to Option No. 3 and authorize the payment of the $6,820.52 to Respondent. On or about November 9, 2000, Petitioner's attorney sent the already-executed FST-12 (Beneficiary Designation Form) and FRS-11o (Option Selection for FRS Members) showing Option No. 2 to Respondent. Mr. Helms acknowledged receipt. On or about November 9, 2000, Mr. Helms told Petitioner's attorney that the forms were correct and anyone could pay the $6,820.52. The attorney felt Mr. Gapinski was enrolled in DROP but that the $6,820.52 was still needed. On November 15, 2000, Petitioner's attorney sent Mr. Helms a letter memorializing their conversation, in which Mr. Helms had indicated it was not necessary for Petitioner to sign below the Option No. 2 selection paragraph on FRS 11o as long as she was aware of the option Mr. Gapinski had selected. On November 20, 2000, Mr. Gapinski passed away without anyone having purchased his leave of absence credit. Mr. Gapinski was only 57 years of age when he died. DROP retirement or regular service retirement with full benefits is possible at 62 years of age or upon attaining 30 years of creditable service. Mr. Gapinski remained in regular employment until his death. Because he had not purchased the leave of absence credit, Mr. Gapinski died with only 29 years and 9 months of creditable service for purposes of retirement. In other words, he was 3 months and ten days short of the 30-year retirement mark necessary to activate DROP or regular service retirement. Petitioner never communicated directly with Respondent until after Mr. Gapinski's death. Mr. Gapinski's will provided for the effective disinheritance of Petitioner to the extent provided by law. On December 14, 2000, Petitioner's attorney spoke by telephone with Mr. Helms, who told her he thought Petitioner could still pay the leave of absence money but he would call her back. On December 15, 2000, Stanley Colvin, another of Respondent's representatives, telephoned Petitioner's attorney to say Petitioner could not pay the amount after Mr. Gapinski's death. At no time prior to Mr. Gapinski's death did any representative of Respondent affirmatively represent to anyone that Petitioner could pay the money after Mr. Gapinski's death or the conditions under which no benefits would be paid or specifically what would happen if Mr. Gapinski died before the money was paid by someone. By a December 15, 2000, letter, Respondent notified Petitioner that since Mr. Gapinski had elected not to purchase the leave of absence, he could not have reached the required 30 years of service necessary to participate in the DROP program until March 1, 2001. It further stated that since Mr. Gapinski's death occurred before completion of the required months necessary to participate in DROP, his DROP application was cancelled and his choice of Option No. 2 was nullified. Moreover, Mr. Gapinski was viewed as an active FRS member on the date of his death, and because Petitioner, though designated as his beneficiary was not also a joint annuitant, she could only receive a refund of Mr. Gapinski's retirement contributions in the amount of $4,719.19,and was not eligible to receive Option No. 3. Respondent did not send a similar letter to prior beneficiaries, the decedent, or his estate/personal representatives. Petitioner requested a review, and on February 2, 2001, Respondent issued its proposed final agency action letter, to the same effect as the December 15, 2000, letter. Respondent did not send a similar proposed final agency action letter to prior beneficiaries, the decedent, or his estate/personal representatives. However, the undersigned notes that Mr. Gapinski's adult daughters, who also were his joint personal representatives, were present in the courtroom on September 24, 2001, the first day of hearing. As of the second day of hearing on October 21, 2001, the estate had been closed and the personal representatives had been discharged. Mr. Larry Hunnicutt, Benefits Administrator for the Bureau of Retirement Calculations, Division of Retirement, testified by deposition. He indicated that Respondent Division of Retirement has no rules in place specifically addressing DROP. Therefore, in DROP cases, Respondent interprets and applies Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and the existing rules addressing regular service retirement. In practice, Respondent gives DROP applicants a 90-day grace period from the date of application in which to finalize all the outstanding documents or other requirements for DROP eligibility, including payments of amounts due, even though there are no provisions in place authorizing a grace period for DROP applicants. If there are money amounts due, the member must pay up during this period. If the member fails to pay up during this period, the DROP application and the option selected for DROP is cancelled by a certified letter, but the designated beneficiary remains intact. Herein, because the amounts were not paid before Mr. Gapinski died, and because it would serve no purpose to notify the decedent, who could no longer complete his DROP requirements, Respondent did not send the deceased member a cancellation of his DROP application and Option No. 2 selection. Rather, it treated the DROP application and option selection as null and void and notified his ex-wife, the designated beneficiary, of what Respondent understood to be her rights. In this notification, Respondent applied the statutes as its personnel understood them to apply to a member who dies in active service prior to reaching either 62 years of age or 30 years of creditable service. Respondent would have permitted Petitioner to pay the money on Mr. Gapinski's behalf only during his lifetime. If the amount due had been paid, and Petitioner were qualified for Option No. 2, she would receive approximately $500,000 plus cost of living increases as opposed to $4,719.19. She would receive considerably more if she qualified for Option No. 3.
Recommendation Upon 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 denying Petitioner's request to purchase leave of absence credit on the account of James Gapinski. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of December, 2001.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System ("FRS") have been forfeited as set forth in the Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits dated August 26, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, on the stipulation of the parties, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency charged with the responsibility of managing, governing, and administering the FRS on behalf of the Department of Management Services. The FRS is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. It provides benefits to local and state employees, including teachers, state legislators, and local public officials. Mr. Childers was employed as a school teacher in Escambia County from 1955 to 1957, and this employment continued for approximately two and one-half years. During this time, Mr. Childers was a member of the Teacher Retirement System, which later became part of the FRS. His two and one-half years of service as a teacher is credited service under the FRS. In November 1970, Mr. Childers was elected to serve as a member of the Florida Legislature, and he continued to serve as a state legislator until November 2000, when he left office as a result of term limits. As a state legislator, Mr. Childers was a member of the FRS class of State Elected Officials, and his 30 years of service is credited service under the FRS. In November 2000, Mr. Childers was elected to serve as a member of the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners. In this position, Mr. Childers was a member of the FRS class of County Elected Officials, and his years of service as a County Commissioner is credited service under the FRS. On or about June 17, 2002, Mr. Childers was charged by indictment with one count of money laundering, a second-degree felony pursuant to Section 896.101(3)(a)1. and 2.a. and (5)(b), Florida Statutes (2002)1; one count of bribery, a third degree felony pursuant to Section 838.015, Florida Statutes2; and one count of receipt of unlawful compensation or reward for official behavior, a third degree felony pursuant to Section 838.016(1), Florida Statutes.3 The charges in the June 17, 2002, indictment were based solely on activities allegedly occurring subsequent to November 2000 and arising out of Mr. Childers's service as a member of the Escambia County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Childers was tried and found guilty by a jury of two counts in the indictment, bribery and unlawful compensation or reward for official behavior.4 On or about May 16, 2003, Mr. Childers was adjudicated guilty of these two crimes and was sentenced to 42 months in prison, to be followed by 18 months probation. Mr. Childers has not, to date, applied for retirement benefits under the FRS. Mr. Childers was a public officer who was adjudicated guilty of two offenses specified in Chapter 838, Florida Statutes, which arose out of his service as a member of the Escambia County Board of Commissioners. None of the actions related to his service as a state legislator or as a teacher in Escambia County.
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 W.D. Childers committed specified offenses, as defined in Section 112.3173(2)(e), Florida Statutes, prior to his retirement from public service and ordering that, pursuant to Section 112.3173(3), Florida Statutes, W.D. Childers forfeit all his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System, except for the return of any accumulated contributions. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 31st day of August, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner held a "regularly established position" during the period from January 1979 through June 1979, when she worked as a teacher's assistant for a district school board; if so, then she would be entitled to receive retirement service credit for the period, which Respondent so far has declined to grant.
Findings Of Fact Historical Facts Petitioner Silvia Urrechaga ("Urrechaga") worked for nearly 30 years, in various positions, as an employee of the Miami-Dade County School Board ("MDCSB"). As an employee of a district school board, she became a member of the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"), which is administered by Respondent Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement ("Division"). It is undisputed that, before July 1, 1979 (and thus at all times material to this case), local employers (such as district school boards) that participated in the FRS had the authority to determine, in the exercise of discretion, which of their employees would be covered under the FRS. At that time, the Division did not have the authority to review and overrule local employers' decisions in this regard. From January 1979 through June 1979, Urrechaga was employed as a teacher's assistant. A "Request for Personnel Action" memorandum dated January 8, 1979, memorializes MDCSB's hiring of Urrechaga to fill this part-time hourly position. The memorandum specified that Urrechaga would be "paid from discretionary funds until [the] end of [the] 78/79 school year." On or around January 19, 1979, a "Personnel Transaction Form" was completed, wherein it was recorded that, effective January 8, 1979, Urrechaga would participate in Retirement Plan "F." It is undisputed that Plan "F" meant the FRS. It is further recorded on the personnel form that MDCSB would contribute 9.1 percent of Urrechaga's salary into the FRS trust to fund her retirement benefit. An Annual Earnings Report for the 1978-79 school year shows that for the payroll period ending February 6, 1979——her first as a teacher's assistant——Urrechaga was paid a gross salary of $208.89, and that MDCSB deposited 9.1 percent thereof, or $19.01, into the FRS trust for the benefit of Urrechaga, a Plan "F" participant. Beginning with the very next pay period, however, and continuing through the end of June 1979, Urrechaga's retirement plan designation on the Annual Earnings Report is "J" rather than "F." It is undisputed that "J" meant no retirement benefit. Consistent with that designation, MDCSB (apparently) did not contribute to the FRS on Urrechaga's behalf for the pay periods ending February 9, 1979 through June 22, 1979, at least according to the Annual Earnings Report. MDCSB does not presently have any records documenting the grounds, if there were any, for removing Urrechaga from the FRS. There are likewise no existing records reflecting that Urrechaga was notified contemporaneously that, wittingly or unwittingly, she had been taken out of the retirement plan. It is reasonable to infer, and the undersigned does so, that MDCSB neither informed Urrechaga that she was being excluded from participation in the FRS nor notified her about any administrative remedies that she might have had in consequence of such action. Years later, after an issue had arisen regarding whether Urrechaga is entitled to retirement service credit for the months from January 1979 through June 1979, MDCSB investigated the situation and concluded that Urrechaga had been removed from the retirement plan by mistake. This determination was reported to the Division by MDCSB's Retirement Coordinator, Maria Y. Perez, in a letter dated July 23, 2003, which provided in pertinent part as follows: In reviewing the payroll/personnel records of Ms. Urrechaga, it's [sic] been determined that from January, 1979 through June, 1980, she was excluded from the retirement plan in error. Ms. Urrechaga was hired January 8, 1979, as a part-time hourly teacher assistant, job code 4259, a position eligible for retirement coverage[,] and [she] worked though June, 1979 [in that position.] The Division refused to accept MDCSB's determination, however, on the ground that it was not supported by sufficient proof that Urrechaga had been paid out of a "regular salary account." Consequently, by letter to the Division dated February 28, 2006, Ms. Perez reiterated MDCSB's conclusion, stating in relevant part as follows: Although I cannot provide you with a specific account serial number listing indicating [sic] that specifically Ms. Urrechaga was in a regularly established position; all our hourly teachers assistants were hired in a regularly established position, particularly as late as 1979, and not in a [sic] Other Personnel Services accounts. As support for this statement, Ms. Perez furnished the Division with the records of several other teacher's assistants who, the records unambiguously show, had been treated by MDCSB as FRS participants at the time that Urrechaga, who held the same employment position, had been excluded from the retirement plan. As of the final hearing, Ms. Perez continued to be MDCSB's Retirement Coordinator, a position she had held since 1982. In that capacity, Ms. Perez was MDCSB's senior management person in charge of retirement matters. Ms. Perez's communications to the Division regarding Urrechaga, which were written in her official capacity as MDCSB's agent, did not give voice to mere personal opinions, but rather——as statements clearly falling within the scope of her agency and authority——constituted MDCSB's official statements on the subject of Urrechaga's retirement benefit.1 In other words, Ms. Perez's letters to the Division concerning Urrechaga's retirement benefit expressed an agency determination of Urrechaga's substantial interests, namely the conclusion that Urrechaga had worked for MDCSB in a regularly established position and, accordingly, was supposed to have been a participant in the FRS during the period from January 1979 through June 1979, notwithstanding that conflicting statements in contemporaneously prepared documents give rise to some confusion concerning her participation therein.2 Determinations of Ultimate Fact From January 1979 through June 1979, Urrechaga worked in a "regularly established position" as a teacher's assistant with MDCSB. As an employee in such a position, Urrechaga was entitled to participate in the FRS, and she earned retirement service credit for her work during the period at issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order awarding Urrechaga the retirement service credit that she earned for working in a regularly established position as a teacher's assistant with MDCSB during the period from January 1979 through June 1979. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 11th day of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact In April, 1963, Petitioner, Carl E. R. Nelson, soon to graduate from Florida Southern College with a degree in citrus, wrote to representatives of the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture, with questions regarding his possible employment by the agency upon his graduation. In his reply letter to Petitioner, dated April 24, 1963, H. L. Jones, Assistant Director, Division of Plant Industry, inter alia, outlined the benefits package offered to state employees which convinced Petitioner to apply for a position with the state rather than work for the federal government, which reportedly paid 40% more than the state for similar positions. After an interview with Mr. Jones and the Division Director, Mr. Nelson was offered a regularly established position with the Division of Plant Industry in its Miami office at a salary of $405.00 per month. The letter of notification to him indicated his first six months employment would be on a "probationary" basis. Petitioner was sent an "info" copy of a June 26, 1963 memo from the Department of Agriculture's Personnel Director to the Director of Petitioner's Division, reflecting he was to be paid out of "OPS" funds. However, neither the Division Director's letter nor that of the Secretary of Agriculture, advising him of his hiring, made any mention of the source of his pay or indicated he would be other than a regular probationary employee. Petitioner believed that from the day he began work, on July 1, 1963, he was earning credit toward retirement. In February, 1968, unsolicited by Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture sent him a notice of Continuous and Creditable Service calculation which reflected his beginning employment date as July 1, 1963, and that as of December 31, 1967, he had accumulated four years, 6 months of total continuous and creditable service. Computing back reveals service began on July 1, 1963. On October 31, 1973, a memo from one Department of Agriculture office to another, with an information copy to Petitioner, reflected he had completed ten years service in July, 1973, and an August 10, 1972 memo to Mr. Nelson, in relation to his military service, reflected the Department's calculation that he would complete ten years service in July, 1973. Twenty-two Personnel Action Request Forms of the Department of Agriculture, relating to the Petitioner, and dated from September 23, 1970 to August 14, 1985, all reflect Petitioner's initial service date as July 1, 1963. Ten employee leave statements pertaining to Petitioner, covering the period November 13, 1987 through March 31, 1988 also reflect his continuous creditable service date as July 1, 1963. In early 1975, Petitioner requested of the Department of Agriculture an audit of his service time. This request was forwarded to the Division of Retirement. Mrs. Ruth Sansom, Bureau Chief of Retirement Calculations did the check and determined that as of the end of March, 1975, Petitioner had 11.67 years creditable service. This equates to 11 2/3 years or 11 years, 8 months. Mrs. Sansom's computation was based in part on a November 9, 1973 record check of Department of Agriculture payroll tapes which showed that for July, 1963, Petitioner was paid out of OPS funds. Computing back, 11 years and 8 months prior to March 31, 1975, is August 1, 1963. Consequently, as early as May 1, 1975, Petitioner was advised he was not given credit for the month of July, 1963, but it is obvious he did not recognize the situation as it existed. In October, 1987, Petitioner was again advised by the Division of Retirement, as a response to his inquiry regarding credit for his military service, that as of the end of July, 1987, he had accumulated 24 years service indicating his creditable service started on August 1, 1963, not July 1, 1963. If the latter had been the case, his record would show 24 years, 1 month. It was this last credit report which prompted Petitioner's request for hearing. The evidence of record shows clearly that Petitioner began work with the State of Florida on July 1, 1963 as a probationary but not temporary employee and served continuously since that time. He was paid for the month of July, 1963, out of OPS funds. The June 26, 1963 memo from the Personnel Director to Petitioner's employer indicates he was to be on probationary status for six months and paid out of OPS funds. By implication that could mean he would not be a regular employee during the six months probationary status, but the fact that the source of payroll funds for Petitioner was changed to regular funds after one month would also imply he was supposed to be a regular employee from the inception of his employment, and this is supported by the recruiting correspondence which referred to the many benefits which inure only to regular employees. Consequently, it is found that Petitioner was intended to be a regular employee from the inception of his employment, but he was paid out of OPS funds for the month of July, 1963.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that Petitioner, Carl E. R. Nelson be granted credit toward state retirement for the month of July, 1963. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida, this 7th day of May, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5541 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2 - 3. Accepted as to the fact that Respondent was offered employment. Rejected as to the fact that the "offer" of retirement was the motivating factor in Petitioner's choice to accept state rather than federal employment. 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the finding that Petitioner was never notified he had been paid one month out of OPS funds. However, the method of notification was erroneous in content and did not serve to bring this change to his attention. Accepted and incorporated herein. For the Respondent 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: E. G. Couse, Esquire Grace and Couse, P.A. Post Office Drawer 1647 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 William A. Frieder, Esquire Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Administration 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (“Respondent”), is entitled to a deduction of the retirement benefits to be paid to Aubrie-Elle Perez, and if Respondent is entitled to a deduction, whether the deduction should be in the amount of the gross disbursements of $19,833.21 or the net payments to Edward Perez (“Lt. Perez”) in the amount of $17,017.80.
Findings Of Fact The FRS is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. There are approximately 400,000 active members within the FRS. Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the FRS. In 1997, Lt. Perez began employment with the Miami-Dade County Fire Department. For over 16 years, Lt. Perez served as a fire fighter with the Miami-Dade County Fire Department, his last position being a Lieutenant. Lt. Perez was a vested member of the FRS. Upon his initial employment and enrollment with the FRS in 1997, Lt. Perez entered the Investment Plan and made a retirement benefits election designating that if he died before his retirement and chose not to designate a beneficiary, retirement benefits would be paid in accordance with section 121.091(8), Florida Statutes. Lt. Perez chose not to designate a beneficiary. Thus, according to this statute, retirement benefits would first be paid to Lt. Perez’s spouse, and if no spouse, then to his only child, the Petitioner. Tragically, on April 7, 2013, Lt. Perez collapsed at the fire station. Subsequently, Lt. Perez was diagnosed with a grade-four malignant brain tumor known as a glioblastoma multi-forming--a very aggressive and generally terminal form of brain cancer. There is no cure and the median survival rate for adults with this form of brain cancer is 9 to 14 months. Due to his terminal brain cancer and the treatments he had undergone and was undergoing, Lt. Perez was unable to continue his duties with the Miami-Dade County Fire Department. On February 19, 2014, a two-page FRS Investment Plan Application for Disability Retirement Form PR-13 (“application for disability retirement”), and an FRS Investment Option Selection Form PR-11o (“option selection form”), were submitted to Respondent for Lt. Perez. They were sent to Respondent by mail by Lt. Perez’s sister, Alecs Perez-Crespo. The effect of the application for disability retirement and the selection of Option 1 on the option selection form would be to transfer the monies from the Investment Plan into the Pension Plan, and convert Lt. Perez’s accumulated Investment Plan retirement benefits to monthly disability retirement benefits during his lifetime. Then, upon his death, the monthly benefit payments would stop, and the beneficiary would receive only a relatively small amount, if any--a refund of contributions Lt. Perez had paid into the Investment Plan retirement account, which are in excess of the amount he received in benefits, not including the transferred Investment Plan account balance.2/ The two-page application for disability retirement was not completed by the member, Lt. Perez, and was not signed by Lt. Perez in the presence of a notary public. The option selection form was not completed by the member, Lt. Perez, and was not signed by Lt. Perez in the presence of a notary public. Affirmative medical and factual evidence establishes, and rebuts any legal presumption to the contrary, that Lt. Perez was not mentally, physically, cognitively, or legally competent to execute the option selection form or the application for disability retirement in February 2014, or to understand their legal nature and effect. Nevertheless, Respondent processed the application for disability retirement and option selection form. As a result, Lt. Perez was deemed to have retired effective April 1, 2014, and he forfeited approximately $238,000, which was transferred from the Investment Plan to the Pension Plan. Subsequently, two disability retirement benefit warrants were issued by the State of Florida, Department of Financial Services, to Lt. Perez, via the Pension Plan, in care of Alecs Perez-Crespo, POA. The dates of these warrants are April 30, 2014, and May 30, 2014. Both warrants were endorsed by Ms. Perez-Crespo, “POA For Edward Perez.” Respondent made these disability retirement gross benefit disbursements resulting in net payments to Lt. Perez on the following dates and in the following amounts: April 30, 2014: gross disbursement of $4,950.63, less deducted taxes of $413.20, for a net payment to Lt. Perez of $4,537.43; May 30, 2014: gross disbursement of $4,950.63, less taxes of $413.20 and less a medical insurance deduction of $386.00, for a net payment to Lt. Perez of $4,151.43.3/ A direct deposit authorization for electronic transfer of future retirement benefit warrants into a checking account solely in the name of Lt. Perez was signed by Alecs Perez Crespo, “POA for Edward Perez,” on May 9, 2014. Two additional disability retirement gross benefit disbursements resulting in net payments to Lt. Perez were sent to the checking account of Lt. Perez on the following dates and in the following amounts: June 30, 2014: gross disbursement of $4,950.63, less taxes of $413.20 and less a medical deduction of $386.00, for a net payment to Lt. Perez of $4,151.43; July 31, 2014: gross disbursement of $4,981.32, less taxes of $417.81 and less a medical insurance deduction of $386.00, for a net payment to Lt. Perez of $4,177.51, bringing the total sum of the gross disbursements for the four payments made to Lt. Perez $19,833.21, and the total sum of the net disbursements for the four payments made to Lt. Perez $17,017.80. The net sum of $17,017.80 issued by the Pension Plan as disability retirement benefits to Lt. Perez was deposited into Lt. Perez’s checking account. Accordingly, $19,833.21 (gross)/ $17,017.80 (net), was received by Lt. Perez. Lt. Perez died on July 16, 2014, from the cancer. At the time of Lt. Perez’s death, Petitioner was, and remains, his sole surviving child (natural or adopted). Lt. Perez was not married at the time of his death and, thus, left no surviving spouse. Because of the receipt of the four payments during his lifetime, which are applied first to the personal contributions made by Lt. Perez into the Investment Plan during his lifetime, the amount of Lt. Perez’s small contributions into the plan were exhausted by the time of his death. Therefore, if the option selection form is valid, Petitioner, as the sole beneficiary and child of Lt. Perez, would receive nothing. Respondent concedes that notwithstanding the facial appearance of the option selection form and application for disability retirement, the documents are void and invalid because they failed to comply with the statutory, rule, and manual requirements applicable to properly effectuate the Option 1 selection, in that they were not completed by the member, Lt. Perez, and not signed by Lt. Perez in the presence of a notary public. Respondent concedes that due to Lt. Perez lacking the mental, cognitive, physical, and legal capacity to understand the nature and legal effect of executing the option selection form and application for disability retirement, the purported execution by Lt. Perez of the option selection form and of the application for disability retirement are void and invalid. Respondent concedes that the option selection form is invalid and void ab initio, and Lt. Perez’s earlier selection in 1997, pursuant to section 121.091(8), should be reinstated under the FRS Investment Plan. Respondent concedes that with Lt. Perez having died in 2014 with no surviving spouse, and with Petitioner being his sole surviving child at the time of his death, that the full retirement benefits of $234,035.81, to which Lt. Perez was entitled under his Investment Plan designation of beneficiary should be paid directly to Petitioner. Respondent asserts, however, that the payment of the retirement benefits to which Petitioner is entitled should be reduced by the amount of the four payments made by Respondent to Lt. Perez, which gross disbursements total $19,833.21, or net disbursements total $17,017.80, making the retirement benefits to which Petitioner is entitled to be $214,202.60 or $217,018.01, not $234,035.81. Respondent’s position is correct because the gross benefits in the amount of $19,833.21 were received by Lt. Perez when the four payments, after applicable required deductions, were deposited into his personal checking account. At hearing, no persuasive and credible evidence was presented indicating whatever happened, if anything, to the net payments of $17,017.80 deposited into Lt. Perez’s checking account. No persuasive or credible evidence was presented indicating whether any of the monies were withdrawn from the checking account before or after Lt. Perez’s death. No persuasive or credible evidence was presented indicating that Ms. Perez-Crespo used, diverted, or withdrew any of the funds from the checking account. No bank statements were offered into evidence. Petitioner, who is the personal representative of the estate, did not testify. No accounting of the assets of Lt. Perez’s estate was presented. Even if any of the $17,017.80 was used or diverted by Ms. Perez-Crespo after being deposited into Lt. Perez’s checking account, Petitioner, as personal representative of the estate of Lt. Perez, might have a remedy in another forum to recover such funds from Ms. Perez-Crespo. In any event, such a potential claim, not borne by the evidence presented in the instant proceeding, is beyond the scope of this administrative proceeding. Based on the evidence adduced at hearing and the stipulations of the parties, it is clear that $19,833.21 was received by Lt. Perez when $17,017.80 (after the required deductions) was deposited into his personal checking account. To require Respondent to pay the entire amount of $234,035.81 would result in overpayment of $19,833.21. Respondent is, therefore, entitled to a deduction in the amount of the gross disbursement of $19,833.21.4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order requiring that that the total sum of $214,202.60 be returned by Respondent to the FRS Investment Plan for the benefit of Lt. Perez, deceased, and that pursuant to section 121.091(8)(a), Florida Statutes, that Petitioner, Aubrie-Elle Perez, as the sole surviving child of and the sole beneficiary of Lt. Perez, immediately receive the amount of $214,202.60. The undersigned reserves jurisdiction to address issues regarding Petitioner’s entitlement to, and the amount of, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 January, 2017.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's deceased wife, Dorothy Bazzel, made a valid selection of retirement "option 1" instead of "option 2"; whether that apparent selection was a mistake and, consequently, whether the Petitioner should be allowed to receive retirement survivors benefits in accordance with "option 2", as provided for under section 121.091(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joe Bazzel, is a resident of Blountstown, Florida, and is retired. His wife, now deceased, was Dorothy Bazzel. She was a longtime teacher in the Bay County school system, with more than 46 years continuous creditable service in the Florida Retirement System and as a teacher. She retired on July 1, 1988. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering and enforcing the statutes, embodied in Chapter 121, and related rules, by which operation of the Florida Retirement System, including determinations of entitlement to and payment of benefits, is accomplished. Mrs. Bazzel underwent surgery for breast cancer on January 11, 1987. She had been diagnosed by Dr. Dixon McCloy, of Panama City, with breast cancer sometime in January of that year. Her progress after surgery was satisfactory, and she kept all appointments, had required x-rays, examinations and mammograms thereafter, by which her physicians monitored her progress. She had expressed to several persons of her acquaintance a desire to retire by the end of the 1987-1988 school year. In order to prepare for that event, she contacted her brother-in-law, Ray Bazzel, who testified in this case, and asked him to contact the Division of Retirement in Tallahassee, Florida, to obtain an estimate of her expected retirement benefits. He made that request to Ms. Loreen Vause, an employee of the Division, on July 16, 1987, by telephone. The Division of Retirement has an ongoing program which automatically generates an estimate of benefits for members who have certain amounts of creditable service and are of a certain age. When Mr. Bazzel made his request for an estimate of benefits for Mrs. Bazzel, the Division was already in the process of preparing a benefit estimate for her through its routine program. That estimate was forwarded to Mrs. Bazzel on July 22, 1987, and it stated as follows: This is a routine audit of your account. Noting the many years of service you have, we are furnishing you an estimate of your benefits as if you terminate your employment on June 30, 1988, and retire effective July 1, 1988. This is furnished for informational purposes only. By means of that estimate, Mrs. Bazzel was informed as to the benefit amounts which she would receive under all four retirement options. See Respondent's exhibit 8 in evidence. Ray Bazzel would visit Mrs. Bazzel on occasion during his visits to Panama City. She was described by him in his testimony to be a very private person not given to talking much about her illness or the operation. She did discuss the possibility of her retirement on one occasion with him, sometime during the summer of 1987. They discussed all four retirement options, and he explained the options in detail to her. He advised her that she would have to make a decision as to which option she would take, but he was never advised by Mrs. Bazzel nor anyone else as to which option she had actually selected until after her death. He did not know that she had made application for retirement on January 14, 1988. Harold Bazzel is a nephew of the Petitioner. He testified that he did not know that Mrs. Bazzel had made an application for retirement and did not know what option she selected until after her death. Richard Locker was the personnel officer with the school board where she was employed and knew Mrs. Bazzel personally and professionally. He was the principal for six years at Cove Elementary School where both his wife, Nan Locker, and Mrs. Bazzel taught. Mr. Locker had a policy of discussing retirement issues with Florida Retirement Service members on his staff and advising them of correct procedures to follow, as to the paperwork involved, and as to the full retirement options which they could select. He advised all members who were employed at his school to call the Division of Retirement in Tallahassee for more information. He never advised anyone of which option they should take because each case is an individual case, and he did not feel comfortable advising an employee or friend which option to take and then later have that person accuse him of advising the wrong option. Mr. Locker saw Mrs. Bazzel after her surgery and stated that after the surgery, she appeared to be in good health. He saw her in May of 1988 and stated that she was very optimistic and appeared capable of teaching the next year. She did not seem moody or depressed in any way to him. He believed that she exhibited an attitude that her treatment had been a success and that her health had been restored. He discussed with her the possibility of her retiring at the end of the 1987-88 school year, and he believed that she would retire at that time. In two telephone calls, he and Mrs. Bazzel discussed the four different retirement options. She appeared to know what he was talking about and to understand those options. He felt that she understood that option 1 would pay the highest benefit amount to her of the four options. He, however, did not really know what option she had chosen until after the Petitioner, her husband, informed him after Mrs. Bazzel's death. Based upon the testimony of Ray and Harold Bazzel and that of Richard Locker, concerning their contact and discussions with and advice to Mrs. Bazzel, it is found that Mrs. Bazzel was aware of the four options and the differences between them. She was aware that option 1 provided the highest benefit to the retiring member for the lifetime of that member and that it would cease at the death of the member with no further benefits being payable to any person. On January 14, 1988, the Petitioner, Joe Bazzel, drove his wife to the offices of the school board, where she completed the forms necessary for her retirement. She talked with Vicky Poole, the records clerk, who helped teachers and administrators complete necessary retirement forms as part of her job duties. Ms. Poole had worked at the school board offices for approximately seven years and had an established procedure for informing prospective retirees of all information needed to process retirement applications. As part of her instructions to them, she would ask each potential retiree to inform her of the option they wanted to select, who their beneficiary would be and where the checks were to be sent. She would inform them when they would start receiving checks, would discuss with them their sick leave balance "payoff", and what steps they needed to take to obtain social security benefits. This discussion with prospective retirees would take up to one-half hour if the retirement form had not been partially completed before the retiree came into the office, or about 15 minutes if the form had already been partially completed. If Mrs. Bazzel already understood the retirement options and had formed an opinion of what she wanted to do concerning retirement and the selection of an option, and if the form had already been partially completed, then the entire process on January 14, 1988 could have occurred in a few minutes. It was Ms. Poole's practice to sit next to the prospective retiree, obtain the necessary information, and type it on the retirement form at that time. She would then advise the member of the various options by referring to the back of the retirement form (Respondent's exhibit 12 in evidence) or to a pamphlet explaining the options issued by the Division of Retirement. Both of those documents contain a narrative description of the retirement options. Ms. Poole did not choose a retirement option or advise a prospective retiree of which option to choose. The retiree must choose his or her own option. Ms. Poole would never advise a person concerning which option to take and had been advised by the Division of Retirement never to give such advice on option selection. If Ms. Poole perceived that a prospective retiree was indecisive about option selection or did not appear to understand the options or the consequences of such election, she would advise that person to speak with someone else who was knowledgeable about the retirement system and about the retiree's financial situation, such as a friend or relative. If a prospective retiree was still indecisive or unsure of the meaning of options or which option to select, Ms. Poole would hold the form and not complete it without being sure in her own mind that the retiree understood the option and knew what it meant. In her standard procedure, she would go over each item on the form at least two and up to four times with a retiree. If they were very certain of the option they wanted to select, she would then finish the form and have the person sign it and give it to Ms. Bolinger to notarize. Ms. Poole realized that the choice of an option was an important decision and conducted her interview with the retiree accordingly. She testified in this regard as follows: If they said well I'm looking at 2 and 3, that's waivering. If they said I want option 1, I typed 1 in and I would say it several times as I typed it in. I mean I was very well aware that this selection was for the rest of their life and could affect someone else. I was very well aware of that. So, I would repeat it several times and when I was complete, when the form was complete, I'd give it back and go over it again, again reemphasizing the option. If they did waiver, I would briefly go over the options and there was time, I always mention, you know, there's time to do this, to choose your option, perhaps you want to talk to someone. I could not advise them. That's what I did. Ms. Poole remembered that Mrs. Bazzel came into the office but did not remember if the retirement forms had already been completed or partially completed prior to the visit. She testified that there was no doubt in her mind that Mrs. Bazzel chose option 1 and no doubt that she knew what option 1 meant. Ms. Bolinger began to work with the school board dealing with retirement applications in 1984. She is now the records clerk who handles retirement matters for teachers and school administrators. This is the same job that Ms. Poole performed in January of 1988. Ms. Bolinger notarized the retirement form of Mrs. Bazzel. Ms. Bolinger learned her job from Ms. Poole and testified that the retirement form was always completed in the office before a retirement clerk and was never sent to anyone. She stated that the clerk would ask the member if they understood each of the options, and the clerk would be sure that the member did understand them. It was the practice to ask such a retiring person if he or she was familiar with the options. If the retiree seemed the least bit confused, Ms. Bolinger testified that the clerk would discuss each option all over again with the prospective retiree, give him the form with the options listed on the back, and they would then discuss each one and make sure that the prospective retiree understood each option before continuing the process of executing the requisite forms. Thus, Ms. Poole and Ms. Bolinger or any school board clerk follows a routine practice of examining and discussing in detail each retirement option with a prospective retiree and makes sure that person understands the wording of the four options and what the four options mean before making a selection, answering any questions the prospective retiree might have and advising them to seek counsel from a qualified person if the prospective retiree remains unsure of which option to elect. After the forms are completed, the clerks, including Ms. Bolinger and Ms. Poole, when she was performing that function, examine the forms with the retiring member to make sure that all information is correct. "We wait until they check the whole thing and this is exactly what they want, and I watch them sign it." The signature is the last item which is placed on the retirement form. If the retiring member appears unsure about the options, Ms. Poole and Ms. Bolinger will ask them to go home and think about it and think it all through before they decide. Like Ms. Poole, Ms. Bolinger leaves the option selection up to the retiring member and does not attempt to advise persons about which option to select, merely giving them the information concerning the effect of selecting a particular option. In her capacity as a notary, Ms. Bolinger stated that if a person did not look like they knew what they were doing in executing the form, she would not notarize the form. If they did not appear to understand that they were applying for retirement, or which facet of it they were applying for, she would, likewise, not notarize the form. She would not notarize a signature after the fact of the signature being placed on the form. Ms. Bolinger was shown a copy of Petitioner's exhibit 7, in evidence, which is a copy of the retirement form that did not have her notary signature. She observed that her notary stamp was on that copy but that her name had merely been signed in the wrong place, possibly because she was new to those duties concerning retirement clerk matters. She testified, however, that her signature was correctly placed on the form, she believes, that same day. See pages 17 and 37 of Petitioner's exhibit 7, in evidence. On January 14, 1988, Mrs. Bazzel completed two forms: FR-11, "Application for Service Retirement", and FR-9, "Request for Audit", (see Respondent's exhibits 9 and 10, in evidence). Both of those forms contain Mrs. Bazzel's signature and are dated with the same date, January 14, 1988. The FR- 11 form had that date written on it in three places. The two forms were then filed with the Division of Retirement. They were acknowledged by the Division as being received on the next day, January 15, 1988, according to the form FST- 40C, "Acknowledgment of Retirement Application", which has January 15, 1988 as the received date. See Respondent's exhibit 11 and the testimony of Stanley Colvin, in evidence. The Petitioner testified that he believes the retirement application forms referenced above were suspect as to accuracy because, according to his testimony, he took his wife to the school board offices on a Friday to sign the forms after the end of the teaching day on either January 8th or January 15th, and states that generally he remembers that it was a Friday because that was the day they had the habit of leaving the Panama City area to visit relatives for the weekend. However, the forms are dated January 14, 1988 in several places. The forms in evidence and the testimony of Ms. Colvin establish that the application documents were received on January 15th in the offices of the Respondent agency. Thus, they could not have been signed on Friday, January 15th. If they had been signed on Friday, January 8th, the record leaves no explanation as to why all of the forms were dated January 14th. The Hearing Officer can only logically find that, indeed, the forms were signed by Mrs. Bazzel on January 14, 1988 and received in the offices of the Division in Tallahassee, Florida, on January 15, 1988. The date of January 20, 1988, appearing on the documents, was established to be the date they were received in the bureau within the department which actually performs benefit calculations, not the date it was first received by the department. The evidence establishes that Mrs. Bazzel selected option 1, the retirement option which provides no survivor's benefits. None of the exhibits in evidence can support a finding that she chose or intended to choose option 2, which provides survivor's benefits. The application for service retirement shows an election for option 1 and the acknowledgment of receipt of that retirement application, FST-40C, shows that option 1 was selected, as well as the letter that informed Mrs. Bazzel that she was being added to the retirement payroll in the category of option 1 benefits. On August 1, 1988, the day after the first retirement warrant would have been received by Mrs. Bazzel, Ray Bazzel called the offices of the Division of Retirement to state that Mrs. Bazzel had checked the wrong number of income tax exemptions and wanted to change them. In order to know how many exemptions she had, he would have had to see the stub from that first retirement warrant. The stub would have depicted the gross amount of the benefit, which was the same amount as that provided for option 1, and not the gross amount attributable to option 2. See FST-40C form, in evidence as Respondent's exhibit 8. Additionally, in a conversation with one of her closest friends, Nan Locker, Mrs. Bazzel led Ms. Locker and friends at school to believe that her surgery had alleviated her medical problem with cancer and that she was in good health. During a conversation they had approximately nine months before Mrs. Bazzel's death, Mrs. Bazzel, in talking about retirement with Ms. Locker, who was also contemplating retirement, made a comment as follows: "Well, I've got my retirement and Joe's got his." This comment was made sometime in the fall of 1989 before Mrs. Bazzel's death in July of 1990. Although the Petitioner introduced exhibits 1, 2 and 4 in an attempt to show that his wife meant to select option 2 and that some mistake was made by the school board or the Division in preparing and submitting the documentation setting up Mrs. Bazzel's retirement benefit situation; in reality, those exhibits merely show that Mrs. Bazzel possibly did some calculations as to the difference in monthly amounts between option 1 and option 2. The exhibits can only show that she may have been aware of the difference in monthly benefit amounts between the two options, but they do not show that she intended to select option 2. Indeed, the evidence and testimony, considered in its totality, shows that her selection of option 1 was a voluntary, knowing selection. The evidence also shows that Mrs. Bazzel was mentally and medically competent to make that selection, freely and voluntarily. Her visits with Dr. McCloy, her treating physician, in the first half of 1988, to monitor her health situation after the cancer surgery, were normal and showed nothing unusual as far as any recurrence of cancer was concerned. Her chest x-rays were negative for recurrent cancer. On June 3, 1988, she was diagnosed as having a small duodenal ulcer, but no indication of recurrent cancer was present. Dr. McCloy treated her for the ulcer with medication; and by August 10, 1988, her symptoms attributable thereto had largely been alleviated. Her visits to Dr. McCloy were routine for the remainder of 1988 and 1989, with normal results. It was not until March of 1990 that she was diagnosed with a spot on the left rib, which proved to be recurrent cancer, probably attributable to the original breast cancer. She deceased as a result of this condition on July 9, 1990. Dr. McCloy testified that he never advised Mrs. Bazzel that her cancer was terminal because he believed that it had been successfully treated after the surgery and for a long period of time thereafter he had no evidence of its recurrence. Therefore, he had not advised her that she was terminally ill during the period of time she was making the retirement decisions, applying for and receiving her first retirement check during essentially the first half of 1988. Dr. McCloy's testimony further establishes, without doubt, that Mrs. Bazzel was alert, possessed her full intelligence and faculties, and understood the significance of his medical instructions, and understood his advice as to her health status. Accordingly, it has been established that Mrs. Bazzel did not have a recurrence of cancer until it was diagnosed in March of 1990, long after she had made the relevant retirement decisions pertinent hereto, and that she knew and was fully aware of her medical condition during the process of applying for her retirement benefits. She, therefore, understood the steps she took for retirement application and benefit receipt purposes, and was not medically or mentally impaired to make those decisions. It was established that she began her teaching career as a member of the Teacher Retirement System, pursuant to Chapter 238, Florida Statutes. She subsequently transferred into the Florida Retirement System under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, during an open enrollment period. While a member of the Teacher Retirement System, she paid $12,870.33 in total contributions, plus interest, which accumulated on those contributions in the amount of $8,561.97, for a total on deposit in her account of $21,432.30. During the period of her retirement before her death, Mrs. Bazzel received total benefits in the amount of $49,551.95. She, therefore, received $28,119.65 more in benefits than she had paid into the Teacher Retirement System in contributions, plus accumulated interest. It was proven that the distance to the residence or places of business of the deponents, whose depositions were admitted into evidence, comports with the standard of Rule 1.330, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Since the locations of the deponents as potential witnesses accorded with the 100 mile standard, their depositions were admitted in lieu of live testimony.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Division of Retirement determining that the Petitioner, Joe Bazzel, is not entitled to have the retirement option selected by Dorothy Bazzel changed from option 1 to option 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 15th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5774 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Rejected as not being in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 6. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive. 7-11. Rejected as not being in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-25. Accepted. 26-30. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 Mr. Larry Strong Acting Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Joe Bazzel P.O. Box 46 Blountstown, FL 32424 Stanley M. Danek, Esq. Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street, Bldg. C Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Willie Mae Miles is entitled to retirement credit for the period beginning March 1952 through August 1976 when she was employed at the Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, Florida (the "Hospital"). There is no dispute that Willie Mae Miles was employed at the Hospital during that time period. However, the Department of Administration (the "Department") contends that Ms. Miles received a refund of her employee retirement contributions of $5,475.39 in May 1977. Therefore, the Department contends that Respondent is not entitled to credit for that period of service. Ms. Miles claims that she did not apply for or receive a refund of retirement contributions. She also claims that she would only have accepted a lump sum refund if it included her contributions and the county and state contributions with interest. Since no such sum was received, she claims she is entitled to retirement credit for her employment at the hospital.
Findings Of Fact While Mrs. Miles has handled her case up to and including the hearing since she dispensed with the services of her attorney, her testimony and the nature of the exhibits indicate that she did not fully comprehend the meaning and intent of the documents that she signed requesting a refund of her retirement contributions and mistakenly believed that she still had funds in the Retirement Trust Fund from which a retirement benefit would be paid later upon her retirement. Her belief was erroneous. Under the State and County Officers and Employees' Retirement System (SCOERS), an employee and the employing agency each paid retirement contributions into the Retirement Trust Fund, and these contributions were credited to the employee's retirement account. Eventually, when the employee retired, the retirement benefit was paid from the total contributions paid into the Trust Fund, including investment earnings of the Fund. However, if the employee terminated employment before retirement, he could legally receive only a return of his personal contributions paid in and not the retirement contributions paid in by his employing agency. Mrs. Miles believed she was due and had a right to her own paid-in contributions, as well as the contributions paid in for her by her employing agency, and since she had received a refund of only a portion (her portion) of her retirement contributions, there were monies (retirement contributions made by her employer) still on deposit with the Division of Retirement that would provide for her retirement. Mrs. Miles did not understand that the return of her personal contributions would end any entitlement or vested right on her part to a future retirement benefit under the SCOERS. It is also evident from her testimony that no one with her employing agency advised her of this fact and that none of the information received from the Division of Retirement made this clear to her. The "Request for Refund" card stated the effect of a refund of personal contributions, but Mrs. Miles did not understand the instructions on the refund card. In April, 1989, the Division received an inquiry from Mrs. Miles advising that she was applying for her retirement benefits. This is further evidence that she believed she still had an active retirement account with the State of Florida. It is concluded that Mrs. Miles never had any actual intent to relinquish her right to apply for and receive a retirement benefit under the SCOERS.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner not be credited with any creditable service under the provisions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, for the period from March 1952 to May 1977. DONE and ORDERED this 30 day of March 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 30 day of March 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 89-4834 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent in this case. Petitioner's submittal was a mixture of argument, conclusions and facts which have been carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. However, specific ruling on proposed findings of fact by the Petitioner is not possible given the format of her proposal. Rulings on Respondent's Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. The remainder of the proposal is rejected as unnecessary. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8 and 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11 and 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14 and 16. COPIES FURNISHED: Willie Mae Miles 10220 S.W. 170th Terrace Miami, Florida 33157 Larry Scott, Esquire Division Attorney Office of General Counsel Department of Administration Room 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
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.
