The Issue May Petitioner make an application with Respondent for disability retirement benefits when he was already applied for and has received regular retirement payments?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Vernon Taylor Bell voluntarily terminated his employment with the Department of Legal Affairs on February 26, 1980. By that date he had accumulated 23.66 years of service for credit in the Florida Retirement System. After his termination Mr. Bell had a conference with a retirement benefits specialist, Ms. Taylor, who is an employee of Respondent. At Mr. Bell's request she gave him an estimate of his retirement benefits for a regular retirement. She did not discuss the benefits which a disabled retiree might receive. The testimony of Ms. Taylor and Mr. Bell is in conflict on whether or not she discussed disability retirement benefits with him. Ms. Taylor's testimony is accepted as being more credible because Mr. Bell was shown throughout his testimony to have a poor memory. Mr. Bell began to receive regular retirement benefits in the monthly amounts of $178.32 on May 30, 1980. Since that date he has continued to receive and accept regular retirement payments. Petitioner has cashed or deposited his first benefit check. If Mr. Bell were to be granted disability retirement benefits rather than regular retirement benefits, his monthly payment would be substantially increased. Petitioner did not present credible evidence that he was misinformed or mislead by Respondent about the relative advantages to him in electing to apply for regular retirement as opposed to applying for disability benefits. On August 26, 1980, Mr. Bell wrote a letter to Mr. Andrew M. McMullian III, who is the State Retirement Director. Mr. Bell stated that he had been given incorrect information about the disability benefits he might be eligible for. He requested that he be allowed to make an application as a disabled retiree. On October 1, 1980, Mr. McMullian responded to Mr. Bell in a letter which states in part: We have reviewed your retirement account and have determined the information provided to you by this office was correct regarding your retirement eligibility. We regret if there was any misunderstanding on your part re- garding disability retirement; however, we cannot honor your request to be retired with disability at this late date, because you applied for regular retirement which was approved for you effective April 1, 1980. Your initial monthly benefit was $178.32 and your July 1980 benefit payment contained a cost-of-living increase, thus your current monthly benefit is $179.73. The Florida Retirement System law requires certification by two licensed physicians in Florida that one is totally and permanently disabled and unable to render any useful and efficient work before this agency can approve an employee for retirement with disability. Apparently, you made no attempt to retire with disability, other than discussing the matter in general with us, and according to our records, you made no application for disability retirement. Further, a retiree is not allowed by law to change his type of re- tirement once he begins drawing monthly re- tirement benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the State Retirement Director enter a Final Order authorizing Mr. Bell is submit an application for disability retirement benefits. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Department of Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24 day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Silas R. Eubanks, Esquire 103 North Gadsden Street Post Office Box 4266 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 William Frieder, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C - Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 The issue in this case is whether Daniel Maddox, a deceased retiree in the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan, selected Option 1 (maximum retiree’s monthly benefit without any spousal benefit after death of the retiree) or Option 2 (a reduced retiree’s monthly benefit with continued spousal benefit after death of the retiree, if within a period of ten years after retirement for the balance of the ten-year period).
Findings Of Fact Daniel Maddox was an employee of Pinellas County and a vested member of FRS. Petitioner is Mr. Maddox’s wife. Mr. Maddox retired under the early retirement provisions of FRS in June 2015, and received benefits until his death in December 2016. When Mr. Maddox applied to retire, he submitted an application that included an unexecuted option selection form that had a mark by Option 2. After being notified of the deficiency on two occasions by Respondent, Mr. Maddox submitted an executed option selection form on July 30, 2015, on which he selected Option 1. Option 1 provides the maximum benefit for the life of the member of FRS with no continuing benefit after the member’s death. Option 2 provides a reduced benefit for the lifetime of the member of FRS, but should the member die before 120 payments have been made, the remainder of the first 120 payments will be made to the member’s designated beneficiary. Petitioner signed a Spousal Acknowledgement Form acknowledging that Mr. Maddox selected either Option 1 or 2, rather than an Option 3 benefit, which would have provided a lifetime reduced benefit for her. Mr. Maddox’s signature on the Option Selection for FRS Members form selecting Option 1 was properly notarized. The purpose of the Spousal Acknowledgement Form is to inform the spouse that he/she will not be receiving a lifetime benefit. It does not give control over which option the FRS member selects. That decision is the sole choice of the member. Petitioner testified that she and her husband completed the forms together, with Mr. Maddox selecting Option 2 since he was disabled at the time and on medication. Mr. Maddox took the forms to their bank to have them notarized, but returned without the Option Selection for FRS Members form notarized. While Mr. Maddox was taking his forms to the bank for execution, Petitioner executed the Spousal Acknowledgement Form in the presence of a notary and submitted it to Respondent. She believed her husband had executed the required forms and selected Option 2. Her testimony concerning this sequence of events is credible. Mr. Maddox received a letter entitled “Acknowledgement of Service Retirement Application” from Respondent dated May 15, 2014. That letter confirmed that Option 2 had been selected and included an Estimate of Retirement Benefits spreadsheet. Based upon this letter, Petitioner believed that her husband had selected Option 2 and that the selection was in force. The Acknowledgement of Service Retirement Application, stating that Option 2 had been selected, required two additional pieces of information from Mr. Maddox: verification of his birthdate; and a notarized Option Selection for FRS Members form, since the one that was submitted (selecting Option 2) had not been executed. When Mr. Maddox submitted the notarized Option Selection form, he had selected Option 1. Respondent relied upon the executed selection in making its determination that Option 1, not Option 2, had been selected by Mr. Maddox. Respondent did not provide an additional Spousal Acknowledgement Form to Petitioner when it received the notarized form selecting Option 1 since its processing people deemed the file complete once all the required forms for retirement had been received. Petitioner testified that she believed she should have been provided a new Spousal Acknowledgement Form when Mr. Maddox selected Option 1 since her acknowledgement signed previously had been executed under the impression her husband had selected Option 2 in her presence and was taking that election to the bank to be notarized. She believes that a Spousal Acknowledgement Form signed several months before and based upon her husband’s election of Option 2 should have been re-sent to her since a different selection was made by Mr. Maddox. She further testified that her husband was disabled and on heavy medication and may have gotten confused when he went to the bank a second time to sign the selection form.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for Option 2 retirement benefits on behalf of Daniel Maddox. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2017, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne L. Maddox 1579 Jeffords Street Clearwater, Florida 33756-4408 (eServed) Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Elizabeth Stevens, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 (eServed) J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for retroactive retirement benefits should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office for approximately twelve years, working in a special risk capacity. As a result of that employment, he was a member of the Florida Retirement System. In 1972 Petitioner completed Respondent's form FRS-M10 setting forth his membership as a special risk member of the Florida Retirement System as of November 1, 1970. Petitioner resigned his position on March 15, 1982, when he was 47 years of age and had more than ten years of creditable service. At the time of his resignation, he was employed in the position of Inspector, Director of Law Enforcement, the third in command at the Sheriff's Office. There are approximately 550,000 active members in the Florida Retirement System. Many members choose not to submit an application for retirement benefits on their normal retirement date for a variety of reasons. An application for retirement benefits is a prerequisite for the establishment of an effective retirement date for a member of the Florida Retirement System. In September of 1991, Petitioner applied for retirement benefits. At the time of his application, he was 57 years of age. Petitioner never contacted Respondent to request information or advice regarding his retirement benefits prior to filing his retirement application in September of 1991. Based upon receipt of Petitioner's application for retirement benefits in September of 1991, Respondent established October 1, 1991, as Petitioner's effective retirement date. In October of 1986 Petitioner received from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office a copy of some of Respondent's forms which are utilized by persons filing applications for retirement benefits. Some of the information included in that package relates to persons who are regular members of the Florida Retirement System, not special risk members.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's request to change his effective retirement date and denying Petitioner's request for retroactive retirement benefits. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 1st day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-0849 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 3-5 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6-13 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Alice Gwynn, Esquire Suite 302 215 Fifth Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee FL 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Building C Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Larry Strong Acting Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Petitioner was eligible to participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) when he applied on October 4, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation as a law enforcement officer, and has been since October 17, 1977 (Testimony of Petitioner). Petitioner was considered "vested" in the special risk class of the FRS when he reached ten years of service in 1987 (Testimony of Ira Gaines). On January 15, 2001, Petitioner reached 55 years of age. On October 4, 2002, Respondent received Petitioner's application to participate in the DROP. The Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (Division), denied Petitioner's application for DROP participation because more than 12 months had passed since he first became eligible, and his opportunity to enter the program had lapsed. Petitioner testified that he was confused by the language of the educational materials on the Division's web site and thought he could defer DROP participation until he reached 25 years of service. The Division's web site stated the following regarding DROP eligibility when Petitioner became eligible: Eligibility - You are eligible to participate in the DROP when you are a participant of the Pension Plan, are vested and have reached your normal retirement date. Your "normal retirement date" is the earliest date at which you are eligible for full, unreduced benefits based upon your age and service. In most cases, you reach your normal retirement date when you are vested and reach age 62, or when you complete 30 years of service, regardless of your age (age 55 or 25 years of service for special risk members). You may make your election to participate in DROP up to 6 months before the date you plan to begin participation, and you must elect DROP participation within 12 months after you first reach your normal retirement date . . . . (Emphasis added) Petitioner admitted he never sought advice either from his personnel office or from the Division. Petitioner filed a timely request for a review of the Division's denial of his DROP application and this hearing followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts 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 participate in the DROP. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether to grant Petitioner's request that her deceased husband's selection under the Florida Retirement System be changed from Option 1 to Option 3.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this retirement dispute, Petitioner, Clara F. Holland, seeks to change her late husband's selection under the Florida Retirement System from Option 1 to Option 3 on the ground he was mentally incompetent to make a rational decision when the selection was made. Respondent, Division of Retirement (Division), has denied the request on the grounds that the late husband, William T. Holland (Holland), cashed or deposited his Option 1 retirement benefits from February 1993 until his death in December 1997, and that the law prohibits a change of options under these circumstances. Counting his state and military service, Holland accrued almost thirty years of creditable service with the Florida Retirement System between 1959 and early 1993, when he retired, due to a disability. In the spring of 1990, while employed at Florida State Hospital as a vocational instructor II, he first began contemplating retirement and contacted the Division requesting an estimate of benefits. In April or May 1990, Holland was sent an estimate of benefits, a pamphlet entitled "Preparing to Retire," and an "OPT FRS form," which explained in detail the various retirement options available. Among these were Options 1 and 3. In general terms, the first option paid the largest monthly benefits but terminated upon the death of the retiree. The third option paid smaller benefits, but if the retiree predeceased his spouse, the spouse would continue receiving benefits for her lifetime. This was fully explained in the form. On October 8, 1992, Holland was admitted to Tallahassee Community Hospital (TCC) suffering from recurrent transient ischemic attacks. After various tests were run, Holland underwent an emergency carotid endarterectomy to alleviate a blockage in his left carotid artery. During that surgery, he suffered a stroke, which, among other things, paralyzed his left side and temporarily confined him to a wheelchair. Immediately after the stroke, he could not speak or recognize family members, and he was totally dependent on others. Holland was eventually discharged from TCC on October 22, 1992, and referred to Capital Rehabilitation Hospital (CRH) for additional physical and speech therapy. At the time of discharge from TCC, his treating neurologist, who did not testify at final hearing, noted in the patient records, and without further explanation, that he had "returned to essentially his normal mental status." As a medical record, and an exception to the hearsay rule, this notation constitutes the only competent evidence of record from a medical doctor concerning Holland's mental status at that time. Holland remained at CRH until November 25, 1992, or the day before Thanksgiving. During his month-long stay at CRH, he was given a course of rehabilitation treatment which included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, psychology, and recreation. In addition, his brain function was evaluated by a certified speech language pathologist, Linda Boynton, who presented expert testimony as a speech pathologist in this cause. Boynton had no independent recollection of Holland; instead, she based her deposition testimony on the evaluation and testing data she compiled in October and November 1992 while treating him. According to Boynton, because of a deficit in the right side of his brain, Holland was disoriented in terms of time and date; his brain could not interpret all of the images that it was picking up; he had difficulty with remembering, retaining, or recalling facts; and he had problems with the higher levels of mental activity. In addition, while he could read "chunks" of words, he could not read whole sentences. She also opined that at the time she was evaluating him, Holland would have been unable to remember the information contained in the four retirement options even if it was explained to him. Boynton conceded, however, that Holland's stroke was "mild," his comprehension was "adequate," and he scored "moderate" in the cognitive areas. She also confirmed that stroke victims could improve in a matter of days, and that everyone's recovery is different. She had no firsthand knowledge of Holland's mental status on November 7, 1992, the critical date in this dispute. Finally, Boynton was not a medical doctor, and her expertise was limited to speech pathology. For these reasons, her testimony has not been accorded the weight given to the notation in Holland's medical records during his stay at TCH. Shortly after being transferred to CRH, that facility began allowing Holland to go to his home in Sneads, Florida, on "weekend passes." While at home on November 7, 1992, a Saturday, Holland decided to make application for disability retirement with the State. The record does not reflect the person who actually obtained the retirement papers from the Division, but Holland's daughter carried them to his treating physicians so that they could verify in writing the nature of his disability. With the assistance of his wife, Holland completed Division Form FR-13 and selected Option 1, which extended retirement benefits for his lifetime only. In his wife's words, Option 1 was selected because "I don't think we knew we had a choice." At that time, Petitioner says her husband was still strapped in a wheelchair, he was mentally confused, and he could only briefly converse with others. Petitioner also signed the form since there is a requirement that if Option 1 is selected by a married retiree, the spouse must sign the form. Petitioner telephoned William "Bubba" Nelson, Jr., a second cousin who was chief of police in Sneads, and asked that he stop by the house that morning, witness Holland sign the form, and notarize the application. Nelson agreed and notarized the document as requested. The entire visit took no more than five minutes. At hearing, Nelson recalled that Holland used a walker to come into the den to sign the document; he did not appear to be "confused" when he signed the application; he did not ever lose his train of thought; he did not struggle to think of a word while speaking; his "mental capacity seemed to be not affected," and the two were able to engage in small talk for a minute or so. Petitioner then carried the papers to the Division's offices in Tallahassee on November 9, 1992, but was told that her husband needed to sign the form in one other place. Accordingly, she carried the form to CRH and obtained her husband's signature. A stamp on the document reflects that the fully executed document was later filed with the Division on November 13, 1992. When she filed the forms, Petitioner did not ask for any additional information regarding the various options; had she done so, counseling was available at the Division during normal business hours. When the application was filed, Holland had 1.84 years of military service; he also had refunded service from October 1959 to October 1961 and September 1963 to February 1966. Accordingly, on January 12, 1993, the Division advised Holland that $3,334.68 was due if he intended to claim that service. If he did so, his Option 1 benefits would increase almost $200.00 per month. The form requested that Holland notify the Division in writing only if he wished to retire with paid-on service, and not claim his military and refunded service. Finally, the form advised him in bold print as follows: YOU HAVE CHOSEN OPTION 1. YOUR OPTION SELECTION CANNOT BE CHANGED AFTER YOU CASH OR DEPOSIT ANY BENEFIT PAYMENT. The record does not specifically show if Holland opted to purchase his military and refunded service. However, it can be reasonably inferred that he did since the first benefit check described in Respondent's Exhibit 4 roughly equated to what his estimated benefits would have been under Option 1 if such service had been purchased, and there is no record of any written notice to the Division by Holland that he did not wish to purchase this service. Holland's first benefit check was issued on February 5, 1993, and mailed to him on February 9, 1993. That check, and all subsequent monthly checks until his death in December 1997, were cashed or deposited by Holland. They totaled $55,830.72, or more than his total deposits to the retirement system. Therefore, when he died, Petitioner was not due any refunded contributions or future monthly benefits. If Petitioner prevails in this action, however, she would be required to offset any future benefits by approximately $22,000.00, which represents the difference between the benefits payable under Options 1 and 3 during the lifetime of her husband. In August 1994, Holland received a new driver's license with the only restriction being that he had to drive a vehicle with an automatic transmission. He used his license to drive to Marianna for physical rehabilitation treatement. At no time was Holland ever adjudicated incompetent or incapacitated by a court. It is fair to state that he experienced gradual but continued improvement from the time of his release from the hospital until his death in December 1997.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final order denying Petitioner's request that her late husband's election of retirement benefits be changed. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 29th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Chief Legal Counsel Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Robert B. Button, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire 2114 Great Oak Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The central issue is whether the Petitioner is entitled to modify her deceased husband's retirement benefit option.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact. Petitioner is the surviving spouse of Lamar W. Whaley, Jr., deceased. From 1972 to 1990, Mr. Whaley was employed by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (Board) and as such was a member of the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Whaley retired from his position as a minibus driver with the Board on June 29, 1990. In anticipation of his retirement, Mr. Whaley filed an FR-9 Form with the Division of Retirement (Division). The FR-9 Form, entitled "Request for Audit," was signed by Mr. Whaley and dated November 6, 1989. The FR-9 Form is used by members of the Florida Retirement System who want estimates of the monthly payments which they will receive after they retire. The FR-9 Form provided a space where Mr. Whaley could list the name and birthdate of a joint annuitant. On the FR-9 Form, Mr. Whaley named the Petitioner and the Petitioner's birthdate in these spaces. On the line immediately after the spaces provided for name and birthdate of the joint annuitant, the FR-9 expressly states that "This is not an official beneficiary designation." By listing a joint annuitant and that individual's birthday on the FR-9 Form, the Division is able to calculate the monthly benefits that would be payable to a member under each of the four retirement options available. In response to Mr. Whaley's audit request, the Division calculated the amount of the monthly payments he and/or his survivor would receive under the four retirement options available. On or about November 22, 1989, the Division sent Mr. Whaley information which reflected an estimate of the monthly benefits he and/or his survivor would receive under each of the four retirement options from which he was eligible to select. Included with the estimate of retirement benefits sent to Mr. Whaley, was a document entitled, "What Retirement Option Should I Choose?". This information sheet listed sent to Mr. Whaley listed and described the four different options. In 1990, members of the Retirement System contemplating retirement were provided a Division Form FR-11, Florida Retirement System Application for Service Retirement (Application). The application listed the four different options and provided a brief description of each. Next to Option 1 was the following: "Benefit for the Member Only." A further notation on the application read, "SEE THE REVERSE SIDE FOR AN EXPLANATION OF THESE OPTIONS." The Application adequately described the consequences of the election of each option. The explanation read as follows: Option 1: A monthly benefit payable to you for your lifetime. This option does not provide continuing benefit to a beneficiary. Upon your death, the monthly benefit will stop and you beneficiary will receive only a refund of any contributions you paid which are in excess of the amount you received in benefits. If you wish to provide a beneficiary with a continued monthly benefit after your death, you should consider selecting one of the other three options. The option 1 benefit is the maximum form of lifetime payment and all other optional payments are derived by applying actuarial factors to the option 1 benefit. Option 2: A reduced monthly benefit payable to you for your lifetime. If you die before receiving 120 monthly benefit payments, your designated beneficiary will receive a monthly benefit payment in the same amount as you were receiving until the total monthly benefit payments to both you and your beneficiary equal 120 monthly payments. No further benefits are then payable. Option 3: A reduced monthly benefit payable to you for your lifetime. Upon your death, your joint annuitant (spouse or financial dependent), if living, will receive a lifetime monthly benefit payment in the same amount as you were receiving. No further benefits are payable after both you and your joint annuitant are deceased. Option 4: An adjusted monthly benefit payable to you while both you and your joint annuitant (spouse or financial dependent) are living. Upon the death of either you or your joint annuitant, the monthly benefit payable to the survivor is reduced to two- thirds of the monthly benefit you were receiving when both were living. No further benefits are payable after both you and your joint annuitant are deceased. (Emphasis in original text.) On January 12, 1990, Mr. Whaley executed an Application. The Application listed the Petitioner as beneficiary and indicated that the retirement option selected was Option 1. In selecting Option 1, Mr. Whaley rejected all other options. The fact that Petitioner was listed on the application as a beneficiary is of no consequence given that Mr. Whaley chose Option 1. An explanation on the back of the retirement application expressly states, "This option does not provide continuing benefit to a beneficiary." Because Mr. Whaley chose Option 1, Petitioner, as his beneficiary, would have been entitled only to a refund of Mr. Whaley's contributions in the event that Mr. Whaley's contribution exceeded the amount of monthly benefits paid to him before prior to his death. Petitioner did not assert, nor did the evidence establish that the refund provision in Option 1 applies in the instant case. Petitioner stated that Mr. Whaley could read and was not mentally impaired at the time he completed the retirement application, yet Petitioner testified that the agency did not explain to Mr. Whaley the benefits of the plan which he selected. According to the testimony of Stanley Colvin, administrator and supervisor of the Division's Survivor Benefits Section, staff members are available to provide counseling to members who come in or call with questions relative to their retirement. There is no record that Mr. Whaley ever contacted the Division with questions regarding the various options. The pastor of the church which Petitioner is a member testified that Mr. Whaley may have needed help to understand the ramifications of legal documents. Mr. Whaley's daughter also testified that her father may not have understood the retirement option he chose. Both the pastor and Mr. Whaley's daughter testified further that in conversations with Mr. Whaley, he had indicated to them that he had taken care of the legal work necessary to ensure that his was family was taken care of in the event of his death. Notwithstanding the testimony of Petitioner and others, there is no evidence that at the time Mr. Whaley selected Option 1 he did not fully understand the nature and effect of his selection. Neither does the evidence support the claim that the selection of Option 1 by Mr. Whaley was inconsistent with his desire or intention at the time the choice was made. At the time of Mr. Whaley's retirement, he was in good health. Given this fact it is not unusual that he selected the option that would provide him with the maximum monthly benefit. Statements by Mr. Whaley that he had taken care of matters and that "things were in order" do not provide substantial evidence that the selection of Option 1 by Mr. Whaley was made only because he did not fully understand the consequences of his choice. The testimony revealed that upon Mr. Whaley's death, the Petitioner was the beneficiary of his life insurance policy and also the recipient of benefits under his social security. Under these circumstances, Mr. Whaley's selection of Option 1 was not necessarily inconsistent with his statement that things "were in order" or his listing Petitioner as beneficiary on the Application. On several documents provided to and/or completed by Mr. Whaley, it was clearly stated that once a member begins to receive his benefit, the option selection cannot be changed. The information sheet, "What Retirement Option Should You Choose?," mailed to Mr. Whaley on or about November 22, 1989, contained the following provision: Option Choice Cannot Be Changed Once you begin to receive your benefit your option selection cannot be changed. Therefore, it is important to carefully study your personal circumstances before making your decision . . . . The Application submitted to the Division by Mr. Whaley on or about January 25, 1990, contained a statement that "[o]nce you retire, you cannot add additional service nor change options." Finally, the Acknowledgment of Retirement Application sent to Mr. Whaley by the Division on or about February 8, 1990, provided in relevant part the following: ONCE YOU RETIRE, YOU CANNOT ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICE OR CHANGE OPTIONS. RETIREMENT BECOMES FINAL WHEN ANY BENEFIT CHECK IS CASHED OR DEPOSITED! Mr. Whaley received his first retirement check on or about the last working day in July 1990. Petitioner testified that Mr. Whaley cashed this check in July or August of that same year. By cashing that check, Mr. Whaley was precluded from thereafter changing his retirement option. By selecting Option 1, Mr. Whaley received the maximum benefits payable to him during his lifetime. However, under the provisions of retirement Option 1, upon Mr. Whaley's death, his beneficiary, the Petitioner is not entitled to receive any benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Retirement enter a final order denying the request of Petitioner to modify the retirement benefits elected by Mr. Whaley, the deceased husband of Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 1st day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0059 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1a-1c. Rejected as not being supported by competent and substantial evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7-8. Accepted. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Gladys Whaley 3807 East Norfolk Street Tampa, Florida 33604 Robert B.Button, Esquire Division of Retirement Legal Office Cedars Executive Center-Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 265 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Respondent agreed to the following facts: On November 23, 1975, Herschel and Audi Motes, a deputy sheriff with the Putnam County Sheriff's Department, died of a heart attack while arresting an individual who struggled with the arresting Louise Motes, Petitioner in this cause, was married to Herschel Audi Motes at the time of his death, thereby becoming his widow. Mrs. Motes remains unmarried to date and is qualified as to her status for all of the rights and benefits granted January 21, 1976, Sheriff E.W. Pellicer wrote a letter to the Department of Administration, Division of Personnel and Retirement, furnishing the Department with the record of Mr. Motes' salary, contributions to the retirement fund, together with the dates of his employment. The letter concluded by stating, "I would appreciate hearing from you at an early date and if anything further is needed, please advise." The letter was signed by E.W. Pellicer, Sheriff, Putnam County, Florida. On March 10, 1976, Mrs. Motes received a letter from Marjorie B. Smith, Retirement Benefits Specialist, with the letter showing a copy to Mr. E.W. Pellicer. The letter stated as follows: "As the designated beneficiary and surviving spouse of Herschel A. Motes, who died November 23, 1975, you are entitled to the refund of the accumulated retirement contributions which amount to $4,325.69 or the Option 3 monthly retirement benefit. If you desire the refund of the contributions, you should execute a request for refund, form . . . which must be completed in the personnel office of the Putnam County Sheriff's Department If you prefer the Option 3 monthly retirement benefit, which has been computed to be $125.29 based on 18.30 years of service, you should execute the enclosed form FST-11b on which a single beneficiary must be designated and send your personal remittance in the amount of $1,089.23 made payable to the Florida Retirement System. This payment is necessary to allow credit for four years of military service, service rendered from April through August 1963, and complete payment of the necessary contributions for the 1963-64 and 1964-65 years. This monthly benefit, if elected instead of the refund, is a lifetime income which will continue even though you should remarry. In the event of your death prior to receiving in monthly benefits an amount equal to the total accumulated retirement contributions, any contribution on deposit in excess of the total monthly benefits paid will be refunded to your beneficiary. Please let us know if we may be of further assistance." (emphasis added). Enclosed with this letter was form FST-11b which is an "Application of Beneficiary for Monthly Benefits." The form. Joint Exhibit I, contained no reference whatsoever to any rights or benefits under Section 121.091(7)(c)(1), Florida Statutes (the death in the line of duty benefits). Either the Division of Retirement or a Mrs. Key, with the Sheriff's Office of Putnam County, had filled in the blank portions of the first sentence of the form by writing "121" and "3" in the blanks where the form states "Chapter 121, Option 3." The remainder of the form is typed in except for the signature of Louise A. Motes. After filing the "application" through the Putnam County Sheriff's Office, and receiving her first benefit check, Mrs. Motes had a conversation with a Mr. Ronald Clark of Palatka, Florida, about workmens' compensation comprehension benefits. As a result of that conversation, she went to an attorney, who filed a workmens' compensation claim for her. Sometime thereafter, Mrs. Motes was going through some of her husband's papers, which were contained in a filing cabinet at the Sheriff's Office, which her sons brought home. In those papers, she found a newspaper article that Mr. Motes had cut out and saved which told about the death in the line of duty benefits, a copy of the newspaper articles is attached to and made part of Joint Exhibit K. In response thereto, Mrs. Motes went back to the attorney who had filed her workmens' compensation claim and inquired about the "death in the line of duty retirement benefits" of Section 121.091(7)(c), Florida Statutes. At no time prior to or during her filing out the "application" from the State of Florida, Bureau of Retirement, was she informed by anyone that she might possibly entitled to higher benefits because of the manner in which her husband died. At no time prior to filling out the retirement "application" did she have any actual knowledge that the State paid benefits other than those benefits which had been presented to her which were listed on said application. At no time did the Sheriff's Office inform her that she had any possibility of benefits other than the benefits listed on the above stated State of Florida, Bureau of Retirement, application form. By letter of November 7, 1977, Steven S. Mathues, Assistant Division Attorney for the Division of Retirement, Department of Administration, informed Ms. Jill Brown (the attorney for Mrs. Motes who began the original inquiry as to obtaining the "death in the line of duty benefits"), that " . . . it is this Division's position that all retirement benefits and options become fixed when the first warrant is cashed. However, it would appear that under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, your client would have a right to challenge this position . . . . As I see it, the issue would be whether Mrs. Motes' notarized application . . . and continued acceptance of benefits would estop her from now attempting to change the benefit " Thereafter, Mrs. Motes' case was referred to Mr. Maynard, who after several conferences with Mr. Mathues, the attorney for the Division of Retirement, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing on Mrs. Motes' behalf, alleging, among other things, that Herschel Audi Motes was killed in the line of duty within the meaning of Section 121.091(7)(c)(1), Florida Statutes. The petition also alleged that the Division's "policy" that as of the moment Mrs. Motes had cashed one of her benefit checks her retirement benefits had vested and could not be changed by her subsequent to that event was within the definition of a rule as defined by Section 120.54(14), Florida Statutes, and that the Division of Retirement had never promulgated such a rule in accord with the procedures required by Chapter 120. Depositions were taken in Daytona, Palatka, and Tallahassee on the issue of whether or not Mr. Motes had been "killed in the line of duty." Subsequent to those depositions, Mr. Mathues informed Petitioner that the Division of Retirement no longer wanted to contest the in line of duty issue. Thereafter, Mr. Mathues and Mr. Maynard, attorney for Petitioner, executed a "Joint Motion for Continuance" which states as follows: "1. The parties have settled all of the questions which relate to the issue of whether Herschel Audi Motes, his widow, to the in line of duty death benefits provided in Chapter121, Florida Statues. The only remaining issue in dispute is whether or not Louise Motes has waived her rights to the in line of duty death benefits provided in Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, because she has been cashing her benefit checks since 1975. The remaining issue is solely a legal issue and does not require any testimony by witnesses, with the possible exception of testimony by Mrs. Motes and/or affidavits from Mrs. Motes and the Putnam County Sheriff's Office if the parties cannot agree to a stipulation of facts. Therefore, this issue can be argued by the undersigned attorneys for the parties in Tallahassee, Florida, at the time and place stated above." The Joint Motion was signed by both Mr. Maynard and Mr. Mathues. In response to that Motion, the hearing officer promulgated an Order entitled "Order of Continuance" which stated: "The parties in the above styled cause have filed a Joint Motion for Continuance of the hearing from February 15, 1979, at 1:00 p.m. in Palatka, Florida, to February 26, 1979, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 103, Collins Building, in Tallahassee, Florida. The Motion is granted. Done and Ordered this 12th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida." With the Division of Retirement, Department of Administration, no longer contesting the in line of duty issue, a final hearing was held on February 26, 1979, on the only remaining issue in dispute which is whether or not Louise Motes has waived her rights to the in line of duty death benefits provided by Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, because she has been cashing retirement benefit checks since 1975. The issue as to whether Petitioner's husband died in such a manner as to entitle her to in-line-of-duty death benefits has been settled by agreement of the parties in Petitioner's favor. This Administrative Hearing was held to resolve the issue of whether Petitioner waived her right to the in-line-of-duty death benefits provided in Section 121.091(7)(c)(1), Florida Statutes, inasmuch as she has been cashing benefit checks awarded her pursuant to Section 121.091(6)(a)(3). Inquiry to the Respondent as to subject retirement claim was made by Petitioner, Louise Motes, when she became aware of the possibility of her entitlement to in-line-of-duty death benefits. No rules have been promulgated in relation to Section 121.091(7) Death benefits, although Rule 22B-4.10(5) was promulgated in 1972 (amended 1974) under authority of Section 212.091(6), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Deny the request of Petitioner to change the retirement benefits she now receives to in-line-of-duty death benefits provided in Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Division of Retirement Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Zollie M. Maynard, Esquire 502 East Jefferson Street Post Office Box 1716 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF RETIREMENT LOUISE MOTES, Petitioner, vs. DOAH Case NO. 78-2105 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. /
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, as a surviving spouse, is entitled to a continuing benefit from the Florida Retirement System (FRS) based on the retirement account of her deceased husband, George S. Bohler. More specifically, it must be determined whether the forgery of the spousal acknowledgement form renders the member's election of the "Option 1" retirement benefit payment, which precludes a survivor's benefit for his spouse, invalid and void.
Findings Of Fact George Bohler, the FRS member at issue, was employed, at times pertinent, as a Professor of Economics at Florida Community College in Jacksonville. The College is an FRS employer and Mr. Bohler was a member of the FRS retirement system. The Division of Retirement is an administrative agency charged with regulation and operation of the Florida retirement system, including calculation of and determination of entitlement to retirement benefits, under various options and member circumstances. On March 22, 1999, Mr. Bohler filed a completed Florida Retirement System Application for service retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). This was accomplished through his filing of "Form DP-11." The Form provides a retiree with information pertaining to four options by which his retirement benefits may be paid. One full page of that form provides an explanation of each option. Mr. Bohler selected Option 1, a retirement benefit pay-out plan which provides the highest monthly benefit. The Option 1 selection provides that this highest monthly benefit is payable for the lifetime of the retiree only. Upon his death, the benefit would stop and his beneficiary, here his spouse, the Petitioner, would receive only a refund of any contributions the member might have paid into the FRS which exceeds the amount he had received in benefits. Option 1 provides no continuing or survivor benefit to a beneficiary or surviving spouse. The DP-11 Form filed with the retirement application contained an apparent spousal acknowledgement purportedly signed by Deborah T. Bohler, the spouse of member George Bohler. It appears to acknowledge that the member had elected either Option 1 or Option 2, which provide no survivor/spouse benefit. The DP-11 Form indicated to the Division that the member was married. The parties have stipulated, however, that the Petitioner's signature on the FRS application for service retirement and the DROP program was actually forged. George Bohler, the member, was an FRS member from August 19, 1968, to March 31, 2005. He received FRS retirement benefits based upon the above-referenced application from the Division from April 1, 2000, to October 31, 2007. The Form DP-11 contained a statement to the effect that the retiree member understood that he could not add additional service, change options, or change his type of retirement once his retirement became final. Mr. Bohler began participation in the DROP program on April 1, 2000. Thereafter, his last date of employment was March 31, 2005, and he passed away on October 18, 2007. He received FRS benefits from April 1, 2000, until October 31, 2007. For 28 years, until his death on that date, Mr. Bohler was legally married to the Petitioner, Deborah Bohler, during which time they were never separated or divorced. On March 10, 1999, Mr. Bohler executed the FRS Application for Service Retirement and the DROP program. He had his signature notarized as required for that form. Joint Exhibit 1, in evidence. Mr. Bohler designated the Petitioner as his primary beneficiary on the DROP Application. He elected to begin participation in the DROP program as of April 1, 2000, and to retire from state employment effective March 31, 2005, which he did. There are four options which an FRS member may select for his or her retirement benefits to be paid to the member or to the survivors/beneficiaries. Mr. Bohler selected "Option 1" on his DROP Application form. This results in a significantly higher retirement monthly benefit than does Options 3 or 4, which have survivorship rights. The acknowledgement section on the DROP Application form requires that a member's spouse be notified and must acknowledge a member's selection of Option 1 or Option 2 by signing that DROP Application form, so that the FRS is thus informed that the spouse made a knowing, intelligent waiver of survivorship rights to benefits. The spousal acknowledgement provision or section does not require that the member's spouse's signature be notarized. The form also does not require a member to swear under oath that the spouse was notified. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner's apparent signature shown on Mr. Bohler's retirement application form was forged. The Petitioner had no knowledge that her name had been placed on the form by some other person, nor did she have any knowledge that Mr. Bohler had selected Option 1 prior to his death. The Petitioner first learned that her husband had selected Option 1 when she contacted the Respondent, after his death, to request that his retirement benefits now be paid to her. She believed that she was entitled to survivorship benefits. Her husband never informed her that he had selected a retirement option which would not pay her survivorship benefits, nor had they discussed the matter before or since his retirement. In their marital and family relationship, the Bohlers had divided certain duties in such a way that Mr. Bohler, the FRS member at issue, handled all financial matters himself. The Petitioner, Mrs. Bohler, dealt with any tax issues or filings the couple was required to make during the years of their marriage. The Petitioner is a certified public accountant. The Petitioner was simply aware that her husband received retirement benefits, and knew the amount of them, but did not know that they represented benefits for Option 1 rather than Option 3 or 4. The Petitioner's signature on the spousal acknowledgment section of the DROP Application form is stipulated to have been forged. The fact of the forgery, and the Petitioner's un-refuted testimony, establishes that she was never notified, nor did she ever acknowledge that her husband had selected Option 1. She was not aware that an attempt to waive or extinguish her survivor's benefits had been made. She believed, during his lifetime, that she was to be accorded survivor benefits. Testimony presented by the Respondent shows that the Respondent Division will not accept a retirement application form, or process it, if a member fails to complete the spousal acknowledgement section or, alternatively, to submit a signed statement explaining why that section is left blank, or the signature of the spouse has not been obtained. The fact that the Division will not accept a retirement or DROP Application form or process the related benefits if the acknowledgement section is unsigned or blank establishes the mandatory nature of the requirement that a spouse acknowledge a member's election to receive benefits under an option which would preclude a spouse's survivorship benefits. The acknowledgement is thus not an optional requirement. In fact, the legislature clearly placed that requirement in the statute, Section 121.091(6)(a), Florida Statutes, as a mandatory requirement so a spouse would know of any such attempt to waive the spouse's survivorship rights and benefits. It is an acknowledgement that the spouse has a vested or property right in such benefits, which must be knowingly and intelligently waived. The Statute says, in fact, that the spouse of any member "shall be notified of and shall acknowledge any such election." Therefore, obtaining a spouse's signature is not the only desired result set forth by the legislature (and under the rule adopted pursuant thereto) because it requires actual notification of the spouse, not merely the obtaining of a spouse's signature, whether genuine or forged. Actual notification is what must be accomplished. The required notification and indeed the obtaining of the Petitioner's signature was not accomplished in the facts of this case. In light of these facts, the act of declaring and accomplishing retired status, and selection of the related benefit option, was never completed. The Option selection was obviously a nullity and void ab initio because the mandatory condition precedent never was accomplished by the member.
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 RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, awarding the Petitioner retirement benefits based upon her status as a surviving spouse and joint annuitant, in the manner described above, adjusted to reflect re-calculation and recoupment of overpayment based upon the amount of benefits already paid from the subject retirement account pursuant to Option 1. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 10th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Regina Stevens, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32327 T. A. Delegal, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner became an employee of an FRS employer within a calendar month after completing his participation in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) in violation of Subsection 121.091(13)(c)5.d., Florida Statutes (2006)1; whether Respondent's interpretation of relevant statutes is an unadopted rule; and whether Respondent's interpretation of relevant statutes is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to several facts in this proceeding. Respondent is the state agency responsible for administering the FRS. Petitioner was employed as an equipment operator (street sweeper) by the City of Venice, Florida (the City), for more than 35 years until he completed his participation in DROP on January 11, 2007. At that time Petitioner was earning approximately $38,000.00 annually. The City revoked its participation in the FRS effective January 1, 1996, and established a new City retirement plan. The new City retirement plan applies to all employees hired after January 1, 1996. However, the City continued its participation in the FRS for all employees who were members of the FRS prior to January 1, 1996. Petitioner elected to participate in DROP on March 31, 2002. At the conclusion of DROP, Petitioner received a lump-sum payment of approximately $84,279.00 and received monthly benefits until Respondent ceased paying benefits in accordance with the proposed agency action. Petitioner's efforts at reemployment were unsuccessful. On January 31, 2007, the City employed Petitioner to perform the same work he previously performed at a base salary as a "new hire."2 The City assured Petitioner that reemployment would not adversely affect Petitioner's FRS retirement benefits because the City does not consider itself an FRS employer. A member of the City's human resources department contacted a representative for Respondent to verify the City's statutory interpretation. The conversation eventually led to this proceeding. Petitioner was not employed by an employer under the FRS during the next calendar month after completing his participation in DROP on January 11, 2007. Judicial decisions discussed in the Conclusions of Law hold that the issue of whether Petitioner is an employee of an FRS employer is a factual finding. When Petitioner began employment with the City on January 31, 2007, Petitioner was not a member of the FRS within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(12). He was not an employee covered under the FRS because he was hired after January 1, 1996, when the City revoked its participation in FRS. On January 31, 2007, Petitioner was not an employee within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(11). Petitioner was not employed in a covered group within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(34). Petitioner did not become a member under Chapter 121, and the City was not a "city for which coverage under this chapter" was applied for and approved for Petitioner. On January 11, 2007, Petitioner ceased all employment relationships with "employers under this system" within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(39). When Petitioner resumed employment on January 31, 2007, Petitioner did not fail to terminate employment with an employer under the FRS system. Petitioner's new employer was not an employer under the FRS system and had not been such an employer after January 1, 1996. After January 1, 1996, the City was not a covered employer for any employees employed after that date, including Petitioner. On January 31, 2007, Petitioner was not an employee of an employer within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(10). The City did not participate in the FRS system for the benefit of Petitioner. The employment of Petitioner by the City on January 31, 2007, had no financial impact on the FRS, and Petitioner did not begin to accrue new benefits with the FRS. Respondent did not demonstrate in the record why the agency's proposed statutory interpretation requires special agency insight or expertise and did not articulate in the record any underlying technical reasons for deference to agency expertise. Nor did the agency explain in the record or its PRO why the issue of whether Petitioner is an employee of an FRS employer is not an issue of fact that is within the exclusive province of the fact-finder. Respondent proposes a literal interpretation of selected statutory terms without explaining legislative intent for the prohibition against reemployment within the next calendar month.3 Respondent's proposed statutory interpretation also fails to distinguish the economic impact in situations involving what may be fairly characterized as a dual-purpose employer; that is one like the City which is part covered employer and part non-covered employer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order reinstating Petitioner's monthly retirement benefits, paying all past due amounts to Petitioner, with interest, and dismissing its request for reimbursement of past FRS benefits from Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 3rd day of June, 2008.
