The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Barbara L. Hughes, who was reemployed as a "media specialist," but who also taught a class, violated the provisions of Section 121.091, Florida Statutes (2006).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Barbara L. Hughes, is a member of FRS. She terminated DROP and retired effective June 30, 2007. Petitioner returned to work on August 14, 2007. Petitioner was paid retirement benefits and health insurance subsidy payments for August 2007. The retirement benefit for August was $1,640.23. The health insurance subsidy payment for August was $150.00. The total amount for retirement benefits and health insurance benefits was $1,790.23. To avoid a threatened penalty, she voluntarily repaid these benefits subject to her belief that she was legally entitled to them. Petitioner's retirement benefits have been inactivated since September 2007. Petitioner is currently employed and has been employed for more than 32 years as a media specialist for the Glades County School Board, teaching at Moore Haven Junior-Senior High School. The school's student population is approximately 350. Although her position title is "media specialist," her present instructional activities are mixed, i.e., she is a media specialist 71 percent of the workday and a classroom teacher 29 percent of the workday. In July 1999, Petitioner enrolled in the Florida Retirement System DROP plan. The Florida Retirement System DROP plan allows a member of the FRS to retire and accrue retirement benefits while the member continues employment. Since the member does not accrue further service credit while in DROP, the FRS considers the member retired. Petitioner terminated her DROP and retired, effective June 30, 2007. As a retired member of FRS, Petitioner is subject to the reemployment limitations in Section 121.091, Florida Statutes. Petitioner returned to employment with an annual contract with a position title, media specialist, in August 2007. This was the same position that she had been employed in when she entered and terminated DROP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Barbara L. Hughes, meets the definition of "classroom teacher" in Subsection 1012.01(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and that she is eligible for retirement payments from August 2007 to present. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Barbara L. Hughes c/o Norman L. Hughes Education Center of Southwest Florida, Inc. Post Office Box 183 LaBelle, Florida 33975 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 general issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to modify her deceased husband's retirement benefit option by changing from "Option 1" to "Option 3". Embodied within that issue is the question of whether the Petitioner's deceased husband was competent to effect a change in his retirement option from service retirement "Option 3" to disability retirement "Option 1."
Findings Of Fact The decedent, Elijah B. Hutchinson, was a teacher of math and science for the Calhoun County school district for some 31 years. In the early 1980's, his health had deteriorated significantly due primarily to diabetes mellitus, which caused a number of associated complications necessitating several hospitalizations during the early 1980's. In consideration of his deteriorating health, the decedent elected to retire in the spring of 1983. He filed an application dated May 27, 1983, seeking regular retirement benefits from the Florida Retirement System. See Exhibit 1 in evidence. In response to his application, the decedent received information from the Division advising him of his retirement benefits under the different retirement options he was entitled to select. On or about June 24, 1983, the decedent elected retirement Option 3. Option 3 retirement benefits include the retiree's entitlement to a reduced monthly retirement benefit during his lifetime with the same monthly retirement benefit being paid, after his death, to his "joint annuitant", in this case, his surviving spouse, the Petitioner. Thereafter, and before he received any benefit check from his initially-selected Option 3 retirement, the decedent appeared at the Division's offices and requested to change his type of retirement or option. On August 12, 1983, therefore, the decedent requested to change his type of retirement benefit from regular retirement to disability retirement. On that date, he requested to change his option selection from Option 3 to Option 1. See Exhibit 4 in evidence. An explanation of the benefits to be provided and the differences in the two options as to his benefits was given to the decedent by an employee of the Division. See Exhibit 4 in evidence. The decedent thereupon changed his option selection from Option 3 to Option 1. In 1983, a retirement system member receiving retirement benefits as the result of a disability could only receive benefits in accordance with either Option 1 or Option 2, if he chose to elect disability retirement. On September 16, 1983, the decedent was mailed a letter from the Division advising him that his application for disability retirement benefits had been approved by the State Retirement Director and acknowledging that he had elected Option 1 for disability retirement. Thereafter, the decedent received and cashed a number of State warrants representing payment of those retirement benefits under Option 1. See Exhibit 10 in evidence. The decedent died on March 8, 1991. The Petitioner had been unaware that he had changed from Option 3 benefits to Option 1 benefits, as delineated above. Upon learning of this, after the decedent's death, the Petitioner, on April 30, 1991, requested the Division to modify the benefits option selected by the decedent to Option 3 benefits. Her basis for requesting this change was that the decedent had not been mentally or physically competent to make an informed selection at the time he changed his Option 3 retirement benefits election to Option 1 and that, therefore, she should be allowed to modify and reinstitute his retirement election to Option 3 benefits, which would provide her the death benefits permitted under the Option 3 election. This request was denied by the Division by its "final agency action letter" dated May 21, 1991, by which the Division advised the Petitioner that based upon its records, the decedent, who had requested Option 1 retirement benefits, was added to the retirement payroll in that category for September, 1983 and that he had received benefit payments and negotiated the checks, so that, under the provisions of Rule 22B-4.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, the selection of the option could no longer be altered. The Petitioner's testimony and that of Phillip H. Hutchinson indicates that sometime in 1983, the decedent suffered a cerebral-vascular incident or "stroke". This testimony is borne out by the medical records in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, which, however, does not indicate when the stroke occurred. The Petitioner and her son maintain in their testimony that the stroke resulted in a deterioration in the decedent's mental faculties such that he could no longer manage his business affairs, pay bills, and handle financial matters in general. They maintain that this was evidenced also by a marked personality change whereby the decedent became extravagant with money, as evidenced by impulsively ordering and purchasing items which he observed advertised on television, sending money to television evangelists, and otherwise being free with donations. This was entirely different from his character and personality before he suffered the stroke, whereby he was known to be miserly with the family funds and very careful about not spending money unnecessarily. As a result of his stroke, he was no longer able to handle his business affairs; and his spouse, the Petitioner, had to assume the duties of paying family bills and otherwise handling financial and business matters for the family. When the decedent first decided to retire, he had explained to the Petitioner that he would select a retirement option which would give her something after he "passed"; and he showed her the retirement system booklet of allowable retirement options in discussing the matter with her. He never mentioned to her that he decided to or did change his option to Option 1 disability retirement. Although the Petitioner may have established that due to the stroke he suffered, the decedent may have, indeed, had difficulty attending to financial matters and overseeing and managing the family finances, the Petitioner failed to establish that at the time he made the election to select Option 1 retirement benefit, he did not possess the mental capacity to make a knowing and intelligent selection of that option and to waive his previously-selected Option 3 benefits. The evidence shows that he appeared at the Division's offices and, after an explanation of the option he chose to select, he freely and voluntarily selected that option and signed the pertinent documents attesting to it. It has simply not been demonstrated by substantial evidence that at the time the decedent made the second retirement option election, he did not understand the nature and consequences of that election, especially since it was not established by the Petitioner when he actually suffered the stroke, other than that it occurred sometime in 1983. As found above, the decedent made the election to chose Option 1 retirement benefits in August, 1983. Consequently, due to insufficient evidence, it cannot be found that the Petitioner's decedent was incompetent to knowingly and intelligently elect to receive Option 1 retirement benefits at the time he made the election.
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 entered by the Division denying the request of the Petitioner to modify the retirement benefits elected by the decedent from Option 1 retirement benefits entitlement to Option 3 retirement benefits entitlement. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrativ 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 24 day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-3870 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted, except that the evidence does not support that the stroke actually occurred in mid 1983. 3-4. Accepted. Rejected, as not being demonstrated by the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-14. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Phillip H. Hutchinson 4115 Tanglewood S., Apt. 570 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Larry D. Scott, Esq. Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
The Issue Whether Respondent, John R. Blum (Mr. Blum), violated the re-employment provisions set forth in section 121.091(13)(c)5.d., Florida Statutes (2013), and, therefore, must repay his Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) distribution and subsequent monthly retirement benefits.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Mr. Blum was employed as a highway patrol officer with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV). He made the decision to enter DROP, and, for the last five years of his employment with DHSMV, he participated in DROP. Prior to ending his DROP participation, Mr. Blum completed a Deferred Retirement Option Program Termination Notification, confirming he would terminate employment on May 31, 2013. The notification was also signed by the retirement coordinator for DHSMV confirming Mr. Blum’s employment termination date, and reads in pertinent part: In order to satisfy your employment termination requirement, you must terminate all employment relationships with all participating FRS employers for the first 6 calendar months after your DROP termination date. Termination requirement means you cannot remain employed or become employed with any FRS covered employer in a position covered or non-covered by retirement for the first 6 calendar months following your DROP termination date. This includes but is not limited to: part-time work, temporary work, other personal services (OPS), substitute teaching, adjunct professor or non-Division approved contractual services. * * * If you fail to meet the termination requirement, you will void (cancel) your retirement and DROP participation and you must repay all retirement benefits received (including accumulated DROP benefits). The form has been incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-11.004(9). Mr. Blum terminated his employment with DHSMV on the agreed termination date of May 31, 2013. In July 2013, Mr. Blum began to work once again with DHSMV. He had applied and was hired to return as a reserve officer to work security at Florida turnpike stations. The Florida Highway Patrol provided Mr. Blum with access to the online system for payroll, and he was paid for his work through direct deposit from DHSMV, an FRS employer. Mr. Blum was under the mistaken impression that, when he worked the security for the turnpike stations, he was working for a private vendor. He had no intention of violating the termination of employment provisions. In September 2013, after working for almost three months, Mr. Blum was notified that he had violated the termination of employment provisions of DROP, and he ceased working as a reserve officer. On May 8, 2014, the Division sent a letter to Mr. Blum, notifying him that his DROP participation and retirement had been voided and that he must repay all retirement benefits, including his DROP accumulation. The total amount paid is $227,755.51, which the Division seeks to recover. He was also informed that his retirement account would be credited to reflect membership from March 2009 through May 2013. Mr. Blum has returned to work as a highway patrol officer, and his DROP application has been approved effective May 1, 2014.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order finding that Mr. Blum violated the re-employment provisions of section 121.091(13)(c)5.d., Florida Statutes, and, therefore, must repay retirement payments in the amount of $227,755.51 to the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Blum 5050 Southwest Eleventh Place Margate, Florida 33068-4060 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Dan Drake, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 Bruce Conroy, Interim General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the surviving spouse of Huldah C. Roach. At the time of her death, Mrs. Roach was a retired member of the Florida Retirement System, and was receiving retirement benefits pursuant to Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, Division of Retirement, sent Mrs. Roach her retirement benefits for the month of June, 1977, at the end of that month. The warrant for the retirement benefit was received by the Petitioner on or about June 30, 1977, and was deposited by him in the joint account which he had shared with Mrs. Roach. On June 8, 1977, Mrs. Roach died. By letter dated July 4, 1977, the Petitioner advised the Respondent of his wife's death. He also advised the Respondent that he was holding the benefit warrant, but in a telephone conversation on August 22, 1977, he advised the Respondent that the warrant had been deposited in the joint account. By letter dated August 24, 1977, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that Mrs. Roach was entitled to retirement benefits only up to the date of her death, and that $330.81 of the June payment thus represented an overpayment. The letter included a demand for repayment of the asserted overpayment. The Respondent made no effort to collect the asserted overpayment between August 24, 1977, and December 5, 1979, when the Respondent, through counsel, forwarded a demand letter to the Petitioner. The petitioner was not able to identify what expenses he paid from the June, 1977, retirement benefit. Mrs. Roach received retirement benefits in excess of her total contributions to the Florida Retirement System, and under the retirement option that she selected, she was entitled to no additional benefits after the day of her death. The Respondent has consistently interpreted provisions of the Florida Retirement Law as allowing payment of retirement benefits only through the date of a retiree's death.
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 for consideration in this matter is whether Peter McRedmond, the deceased, should have been permitted to change the beneficiary on his state retirement plan to elect an annuity for the benefit of his estate and the Intervenor, Martin Horton.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Division of Retirement, was the state agency responsible for the control, operation and monitoring of the State Retirement System. Petitioner, Eugene McRedmond, is the surviving brother of Peter McRedmond, deceased, a former member of the Florida Retirement System. Intervenor, Martin V. Horton, is the former live-in friend and companion to Peter McRedmond and the individual who claims an interest in Peter's retirements benefits. For some period prior to 1988, Peter McRedmond was employed at Manatee Community College as a psychology professor and as such was a member of the Florida Retirement System, (FRS). He was so employed until he retired for disability in early 1990. Before that time, however, in August or September, 1988, he was diagnosed as having AIDS by Dr. Warren D. Kuippers, a physician with the Community Migrant Health Center. Tests taken at or around that time indicated he was suffering from toxoplasmosis, a disease of the brain in which significant portions of that organ are eaten by parasites, resulting in intermittent periods of impaired judgement and reasoning ability. He also suffered numerous other medical problems including weight loss, a wasting syndrome, general weakness and fatigue. Notwithstanding the seriousness of his illness, because Mr. McRedmond wanted to qualify for retirement under the FRS system, he continued to work for another year to meet the minimum requirements for retirement. On April 27, 1990, he made application for disability retirement to be effective July 1, 1990. As a part of that application, Mr. McRedmond selected Option 1 under the FRS as the method under which he desired his benefits be paid and named the Intervenor, Mr. Horton, as his designated beneficiary to receive any benefits legally due after his death. Mr. McRedmond could have elected to receive benefits under either Option 1 or Option 2 of the plan. Option 3 was not available to him because of his marital status. Under Option 1, he would receive payments of $639.33 per month for the remainder of his life, regardless of how long he lived. Under Option 2, he would have been paid a slightly lesser monthly sum, $587.51, for the rest of his life, but not less than 10 calendar years, and if he were to die before 10 years were up, the payments would go to his designated beneficiary. In May, 1990, consistent with the procedure then in effect within the Division, Mr. McRedmond was sent a second Option selection form to give him as much information as was possib1e and to make sure he understood what he was doing as it related to his option selection. Mr. McRedmond again selected Option 1, had his signature notarized, and returned the executed form to the Division. The individual who performed the notary service did not recall the transaction but indicated her routine practice was not to notarize a document for anyone who did not appear to know what he was doing. Peter McRedmond died on August 23, 1990 from the disease with which he was afflicted. Several months before his death, in mid June, 1990, Mr. McRedmond and Mr. Horton discussed finances and what Horton could expect after McRedmond's death. It is clear that Mr. McRedmond wanted to make arrangements for Mr. Horton to finish his education without having to work while doing so. At that time, McRedmond's life insurance policy, in the face amount of $60,000.00, had Horton as the beneficiary. Shortly before his death, however, upon the prompting of his brother, Eugene, Petitioner herein, Peter McRedmond directed the policy be changed to make his estate the beneficiary. This was done by Eugene through a power of attorney. There was also some discussion of an additional $500.00 per month which was to go to Mr. Horton, but no one, other than Mr. Horton, recalls this. Also shortly before his death, Mr. McRedmond and Mr. Horton travelled to the family home in Connecticut for several weeks. During that time, Mr. McRedmond had at least one major seizure and family members noticed that while he was sometimes forgetful, for the most part his thinking was rational and normal. There can be little doubt that Mr. McRedmond had deep feelings for Mr. Horton and wanted the latter to be provided for after his death. Friends of both relate the numerous comments McRedmond made to that effect and are convinced that at the time he made the contested election, Mr. McRedmond was not of sound mind sufficient to knowingly make the choice he made. To be sure, the ravages of his disease had taken its toll and there were numerous occasions on which he was not lucid or competent to determine issues such as here. On the other hand, the benefits administrator with whom McRedmond talked at the time he selected his retirement plan option was totally satisfied that at that time, he fully understood the nature and effect of the option he selected and was choosing that which was consistent with his desires at the time. By the same token, the notary, whose testimony was noted previously herein, also was satisfied he knew what he was doing at the time of the second election. In its final configuration, Mr. McRedmond's estate includes all his assets, including the proceeds of the insurance policy previously designated to go to Mr. Horton, for a total of approximately $120,000.00. According to the terms of the will, the estate is to be put into a trust from which Mr. Norton is to receive $1,000.00 per month for his lifetime, as well as all his medical expenses. Since Mr. Horton has tested HIV positive, these can be expected to be extensive. Eugene McRedmond is the executor of the estate. Petitioner and Mr. Horton claim that since the trust contains all of Peter's assets existing at his death, the only other source of the additional $500.00 per month would be the benefits from the FRS. Both cite this as evidence of Mr. McRedmond's intent that the option selection providing for payment after death was his intention. This does not necessarily follow, however. Notwithstanding what Petitioner and Intervenor state were his intentions, Mr. McRedomnd took no action to make the change in option selection which would have effectuated them. Instead, he went out of town to visit family for several weeks, and even after receipt of the first retirement check, received on July 31, 1990, still took no action to make the change. During this period, after the return from Connecticut, Mr. McRedmond's condition deteriorated to the point he was often bedridden and was periodically unaware. However, there is ample evidence to indicate that he was often lucid during this period and still took no action to change his retirement option. During this time, Mr. Horton conducted come of Mr. McRedmond's business affairs for him pursuant to specific instructions. These included making bank deposits and as a part of one of these deposits, when Horton was to deposit two checks as requested by McRedmond, he also deposited the first retirement check. Horton and Eugene McRedmond both claim that at no time did Peter McRedmond ask or authorize him to do so. In a visit that Petitioner made to his brother in early August, 1990, just weeks prior to Peter's death, according to Petitioner his brother explained he had selected the wrong retirement option and requested that Eugene attempt to change the election. Peter gave Eugene a Power of Attorney with which he was to do this as well as to change the beneficiary on the life insurance policy. Consistent with those instructions, Eugene wrote a letter to the Division explaining the situation and that the check had been deposited by mistake. On August 13, 1990, Eugene telephonically contacted the Division where he spoke with Melanie White. During this conversation, in which he again spelled out the circumstances which he believed constituted the mistaken election, he was told to file a power of attorney. When he did this, the Division would not honor it claiming that since it had been executed in May, 1990, some three months earlier, it was not current. Subsequent to the death of Peter McRedmond and the filing of the claim against the Division, Eugene McRedmond and Martin Horton have entered into an agreement whereby any sums recovered from the Division will be split with 25% going to Mr. Horton and 75% going to the Trust. Upon the death of Mr. Horton, any sums remaining in the trust will be split by Eugene McRedmond and another brother.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's and Intervenor's claims for retirement benefits under Option 2 of the Florida Retirement System retirement plan, on behalf of Peter McRedmond, be denied. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 29th day of July, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Buildi5g 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clark of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1991 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 90-7104 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 AND INTERVENOR: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First two sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence not proven. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that Peter McRedmond had numerous conversations with friends about providing for Mr. Horton, but it was not established that he mentioned using his retirement benefits for that purpose. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not necessarily following from the facts. Rejected as speculation not supported by fact, except that Petitioner claims Peter desired to change the option selection. First sentence accepted. Second sentence accepted in so far as it asserts Peter told Horton he would receive a monthly sum of $1,000.00. Balance rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as speculation and conclusion except for first sentence and first clause of second sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17.-20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. First and second and last sentences accepted. 22.-24. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 28. Accepted. 29. Irrelevant. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1-4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8.-10. Accepted. Ultimate finding accepted. On the date he filed his application, Peter McRedmond was capable of understanding what he was doing and the implications thereof. & 13. Rejected as comments of the evidence and not Findings of Fact. First four sentences accepted. Remainder rejected except that McRedmond wanted Horton to get at least $1,000.00 per month for life, and more if possible. & 16. Accepted except for last two sentences of 16. Accepted except for last sentence which is a comment on the evidence and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward S. Stafman, Esquire Stafman & Saunders 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 1639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 John A. Pieno Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Linda Stalvey Acting General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what amount?
Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. § 57.105(5), Fla. Stat.; and Order and Mandate in Case No. 1D04-4167, First District Court of Appeal. Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: (5) In administrative proceedings under chapter 120, an administrative law judge shall award a reasonable attorney's fee and damages to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and a losing party's attorney or qualified representative in the same manner and upon the same basis as provided in subsections (1)-(4). Such award shall be a final order subject to judicial review pursuant to s. 120.68. If the losing party is an agency as defined in s. 120.52(1), the award to the prevailing party shall be against and paid by the agency. A voluntary dismissal by a nonprevailing party does not divest the administrative law judge of jurisdiction to make the award described in this subsection. Subsection (5) of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, directs the undersigned to the preceding subsections which set forth standards to be applied in the analysis of entitlement to attorney’s fees. Subsection (1) provides that reasonable attorney’s fees shall be awarded to the prevailing party to be paid by the losing party where the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense, when initially presented to the administrative tribunal or at any time before the administrative hearing, “[w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense or [w]ould not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.” The standards set forth in Subsection (1) and incorporated by reference in Subsection (5) were the result of an amendment to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, in 1999. s. 4, Ch. 99-225, Laws of Florida. Prior to that amendment, the statute provided for the award of attorney’s fees when “there was a complete absence of justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint or defense of the losing party.” These new standards became applicable to administrative hearings in 2003 by s. 9, Ch. 2003-94, Laws of Florida, with an effective date of June 4, 2003. Petitioner filed his Petition for Administrative Hearing in September 2003. Accordingly, the newer standards of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, apply to this case. In the case of Wendy’s v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the court discussed the legislative changes to Section 57.105: [T]his statute was amended in 1999 as part of the 1999 Tort Reform Act in an effort to reduce frivolous litigation and thereby to decrease the cost imposed on the civil justice system by broadening the remedies that were previously available. See Ch. 99- 225, s. 4, Laws of Florida. Unlike its predecessor, the 1999 version of the statute no longer requires a party to show a complete absence of a justiciable issue of fact or law, but instead allows recovery of fees for any claims or defenses that are unsupported. (Citations omitted) However, this Court cautioned that section 57.105 must be applied carefully to ensure that it serves the purpose for which it was intended, which was to deter frivolous pleadings. (Citations omitted) In determining whether a party is entitled to statutory attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, frivolousness is determined when the claim or defense was initially filed; if the claim or defense is not initially frivolous, the court must then determine whether the claim or defense became frivolous after the suit was filed. (Citation omitted) In so doing, the court determines if the party or its counsel knew or should have known that the claim or defense asserted was not supported by the facts or an application of existing law.(Citation omitted) An award of fees is not always appropriate under section 57.105, even when the party seeking fees was successful in obtaining the dismissal of the action or summary judgment in an action. (Citation omitted) Wendy's v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 523. The court in Wendy’s recognized that the new standard is difficult to define and must be applied on a case-by-case basis: While the revised statute incorporates the ‘not supported by the material facts or would not be supported by application of then-existing law to those material facts’ standard instead of the ‘frivolous’ standard of the earlier statute, an all encompassing definition of the new standard defies us. It is clear that the bar for imposition of sanctions has been lowered, but just how far it has been lowered is an open question requiring a case by case analysis. Wendy’s v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 524 citing Mullins v. Kennelly, 847 So. 2d at 1155, n.4. (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). More recently, the First District Court of Appeal further described the legislative change: The 1999 version lowered the bar a party must overcome before becoming entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes . . . Significantly, the 1999 version of 57.105 ‘applies to any claim or defense, and does not require that the entire action be frivolous.’ Albritton v. Ferrera, 913 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), quoting Mullins v. Kennelly, supra. The Florida Supreme Court has noted that the 1999 amendments to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, “greatly expand the statute’s potential use.” Boca Burger, Inc. v. Richard Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 570, (Fla. 2005). The phrase “supported by the material facts” found in Section 57.105(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was defined by the court in Albritton to mean that the “party possesses admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact if accepted by the finder of fact.” Albritton, 913 So. 2d 5, at 7, n.1. Therefore, the first question is whether FAMU or its attorneys knew or should have known that its defense of Dr. Jain’s claim was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the defense when the case was initially filed or at any time before trial. That is, did FAMU possess admissible evidence sufficient to establish its defense. The parties filed a Pretrial Stipulation the day before the hearing. The Pretrial Stipulation characterized FAMU’s position as follows: It is the position of the University that Dr. Babu Jain retired at the close of business on May 30, 2003, pursuant to the provision of the DROP retirement program. Dr. Jain did not have the right, nor the authority, to unilaterally rescind his resignation and retirement date. In a letter dated May 5, 2003, the Division of Retirement informed Dr. Jain that it was providing him with the “DROP VOID” form that had to be signed by himself and the University, for his participation in DROP to be rescinded. No University official signed that form nor agreed to rescind his retirement. On May 30, 2003, Dr. Babu Jain knew that his retirement through DROP had not been voided and that he had in-fact retired. The University included the position that Dr. Jain occupied in its vacancy announcement in the ‘Chronicle of Higher Education.’ The University, through Dr. Larry Robinson notified Dr. Jain that his retirement rescission was not accepted. Dr. Jain did not work past May 30, 2003. Finally, there was never a ‘meeting of the minds’, nor any other agreement between the University and Dr. Jain to void his retirement commitment. It [is] the University’s position that Dr. Babu Jain retired from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University effective at the close of business on May 30, 2003. Pretrial Stipulation at 14-15. (emphasis in original) The material facts known by FAMU necessary to establish its defense against Petitioner's claim at the time the case was filed included: Petitioner’s initial Notice of Election to Participate in DROP and Resignation of Employment in which Dr. Jain resigned effective the date he terminated from DROP (designated as May 30, 2003); Dr. Robinson’s letter dated May 27, 2003, which asserted that the University was not in agreement with Dr. Jain's decision and that the decision to terminate from DROP is a mutual one; Dr. Robinson's letter of May 30, 2003, which informed Dr. Jain that the two summer semester employment contracts were issued to him in error and informing Dr. Jain that he would be paid through May 30, 2003, his designated DROP date; the refusal of anyone from FAMU to sign the DROP-VOID form provided to Dr. Jain by the Division of Retirement; the reassignment of another instructor to take over Dr. Jain’s classes the first Monday following the designated DROP termination date; and the Refund of Overpayment of Salary Form and resulting salary deduction from Dr. Jain’s sick leave payout. It is difficult to determine what, if any, additional facts FAMU learned through discovery. That is, whether deposition testimony of FAMU officials enlightened FAMU or its attorneys as to material facts not known at the time the case was filed by Dr. Jain, is not readily apparent. However, a review of the pre-trial depositions reveals material facts which supported FAMU’s defense that the summer contracts were issued in error and that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties regarding voiding Dr. Jain’s DROP participation. In particular, Dr. Robinson, Provost and Vice- President for Academic Affairs, testified in deposition that when he signed Dr. Jain’s summer employment contracts on May 20, 2003, he had no knowledge of Dr. Jain’s participation in the DROP program; that he first became aware that Dr. Jain was in DROP with a DROP termination date of May 30, 2003, upon receiving a May 21, 2003, memorandum from Nellie Woodruff, Director of the FAMU Personnel Office; and that Dean Larry Rivers did not have the authority to issue work assignments for any of his faculty beyond their DROP dates. Additionally, Dr. Henry Williams, Assistant Dean for Science and Technology, testified in deposition that when he signed the Recommendation for Summer Employment on May 5, 2003, which recommended Dr. Jain for teaching summer courses beginning May 12, 2003, he was unaware that there was a 30-day window during which a DROP participant could not be employed. Obviously, when the undersigned weighed all of the evidence, including evidence presented at hearing which is not part of this analysis, it was determined that the preponderance of the evidence was in favor of Dr. Jain’s position. However, that is not the standard to be applied here. The undersigned concludes that at the time the case was filed and prior to the commencement of the hearing, FAMU possessed admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact that it did not give written agreement to his decision to abandon DROP and resume employment if accepted by the finder of fact. While the finder of fact ultimately did not agree with FAMU, FAMU possessed the material facts necessary to establish the defense, i.e., admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact if accepted by the trier of fact, when the case was filed and prior to the final hearing. The second question is whether FAMU’s defense would not be supported by the application of then existing law to those material facts, when the case was initially filed or at any time before the final hearing. In the Pretrial Stipulation, the parties referenced Sections 121.091(13) and 121.021(39), Florida Statutes, as provisions of law relevant to the determination of the issues in the case.2/ These statutory provisions were also referenced by the undersigned in the Recommended Order as “two competing statutory provisions.” Recommended Order at 15. Subsection 121.091(13), Florida Statutes, establishing the DROP program, was created by s. 8, Ch. 97-180, Laws of Florida, with an effective date of January 1, 1999.3/ Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes (2003), read as follows: DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PROGRAM.--In general, and subject to the provisions of this section, the Deferred Retirement Option Program, hereinafter referred to as the DROP, is a program under which an eligible member of the Florida Retirement System may elect to participate, deferring receipt of retirement benefits while continuing employment with his or her Florida Retirement System employer. The deferred monthly benefits shall accrue in the System Trust Fund on behalf of the participant, plus interest compounded monthly, for the specified period of the DROP participation, as provided in paragraph (c). Upon termination of employment, the participant shall receive the total DROP benefits and begin to receive the previously determined normal retirement benefits. Participation in the DROP does not guarantee employment for the specified period of DROP. Participation in the DROP by an eligible member beyond the initial 60-month period as authorized in this subsection shall be on an annual contractual basis for all participants. Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), read as follows: 'Termination' for a member electing to participate under the Deferred Retirement Option Program occurs when the Deferred Retirement Option Program participant ceases all employment relationships with employers under this system in accordance with s. 121.091(13), but in the event the Deferred Retirement Option Program participant should be employed by any such employer within the next calendar month, termination will be deemed not to have occurred, except as provided in s. 121.091(13)(b)4.c. A leave of absence shall constitute a continuation of the employment relationship. Unlike the situation in Albritton, supra, the DROP program was relatively new and the statutes creating the same were not well established provisions of law. Dr. Jain was in the first “class” of DROP for FAMU. FAMU and its lawyers did not have the benefit of established case law that discussed DROP and its provisions when this case was filed or at any time before the hearing. While general contract law also came into play, it had to be considered in the context of the DROP program, which had no precedent of case law. FAMU argues in its Response to the Motion for Attorney's Fees that it interpreted the provision in Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes, that requires written approval of the employer to be either the DROP VOID form provided by the Division of Retirement or a written document, executed by the designated University official, specifically approving Petitioner's decision. "The University did not believe the employment contracts that were issued to Petitioner in error, would constitute written approval." FAMU's Response at 5. This argument is consistent with the position FAMU took in the Pretrial Statement quoted above, that there was never a meeting of the minds "or any other agreement" that Dr. Jain's retirement rescission was accepted. A critical conclusion in the Recommended Order is found in paragraph 38: "Moreover, while the FAMU administration did not sign the DROP-VOID form, the contracts issued to Dr. Jain constitute written approval of Dr. Jain's employer regarding modification of his termination date." FAMU also took the position in the Pretrial Stipulation that Dr. Jain did not work past May 30, 2003, based upon the material facts recited above. Under that reading of the facts, Dr. Jain did not work during the next calendar month after DROP, and, therefore terminated employment consistent with the definition of "termination" in Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes. Again, while the undersigned did not agree with FAMU's application of the material facts to the then-existing law, FAMU's interpretation was not completely without merit. See Mullins v. Kennerly, 847 So. 2d 1151, 1155. (Case completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by reasonable argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law is a guideline for determining if an action is frivolous.) Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that at the time the case was filed and prior to the commencement of the hearing, FAMU did not know and could not be expected to know that its defense would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to the material facts necessary to establish the defense. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is ORDERED: Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 1st day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact On June 19, 1987, the last day of the 1986-87 school year, Petitioner received his class schedule for the forthcoming 1987-88 school year at Kinlock Park Junior High School in Dade County, Florida, where he was the band director. Petitioner was discomfited with the schedule and resolved that he would investigate the process of applying for retirement benefits in view of a total of 36 years of service in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), inclusive of four years of military service. He knew he had been eligible for retirement since August, 1985. On July 1, 1987, Petitioner requested an appointment with administrative personnel of the Dade County School Board to discuss retirement options by executing and mailing a form entitled "Retirement Information/Appointment Request" to the Dade County School Board's Bureau of Personnel Management, Retirement Section. The form was received by the bureau on July 8, 1987. On the form, Petitioner stated he was tentatively planning to retire in August, 1987. Thereafter, Petitioner was contacted and attended a conference with a representative of the school board's retirement section on July 27, 1987, where he executed numerous personnel documents and completed the application for retirement benefits. The application was received by Respondent on July 30, 1987. The face of the application form contains a blank where an applicant for retirement inscribes the date for termination of service with all FRS employers. In the instant case, that blank reflects the date of June 19, 1987, as the effective date of Petitioner's termination of employment. Following the effective date of termination of employment on the application is the form's emphatic printed statement that this is the date for termination of employment and not the effective date of retirement. The application is notarized and bears the signature of Petitioner. While evidencing Petitioner's intent to terminate his employment on June 19, 1987, the application form provides no evidence of Petitioner's intent to retire prior to July 1, 1987. Another of the many forms which Petitioner received at the July 27, 1987, retirement conference is entitled "Retirement Information Form." Petitioner acknowledged his signature on this form which sets forth language stating that the signatory understands the data on the form is an estimate of his potential retirement benefits and that the amount may change. That form sets forth an effective retirement date of August 1, 1987. The Dade County School Board has 26,000 to 27,000 employees. Of this total number, approximately 18,000 are teachers. Between 400 and 500 of the employees seek retirement each year. Of that number, approximately 150-200 teachers retire in June of every year. All employees of the board are urged to contact the retirement section as soon as possible. The general policy is for the employee contemplating retirement to telephone the office. Four or five seminars are held throughout the year by various entities to familiarize school board employees with retirement procedures and benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered establishing Petitioner's retirement date for purpose of receipt of retirement benefits to be August 1, 1987. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 15th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3317 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Petitioner did not submit proposed findings. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Addressed. Addressed. Addressed. Addressed. Addressed. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan W. Thurston 4850 Northwest 24th Court Miami, Florida 33142 Burton M. Michaels, Esquire Department of Administration 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Hon. Adis Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
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 retirement benefits to which Petitioner is entitled.
Findings Of Fact Jules Cofman was born September 20, 1911, and died September 23, 1990. Mr. Cofman was happily married to Petitioner, Beatrice Cofman, for 55 years, and they had two children. Prior to his death, Mr. Cofman was employed by the City of Margate, Florida, as an inspector and became entitled to retirement benefits from the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Cofman retired effective March 1, 1990, with 10.14 years of credible service in the Florida Retirement System. On June 20, 1989, Mr. Cofman was diagnosed as having cancer of the bladder. On June 30, 1989, Mr. Cofman underwent surgery, but the cancer continued to spread following the surgery. After his surgery in June 1990, Mr. Cofman was in constant pain and was on medication, including narcotic analgesics. Following his surgery, Mr. Cofman was treated at Bethesda Memorial Hospital between July 20, 1989, and September 14, 1990, on seven occasions as an inpatient and on twelve occasions as an outpatient. Between January 11, 1990, and July 23, 1990, Mr. Cofman was treated at Boca Medical Center on 16 separate occasions. The record does not reflect the nature of his treatments at Boca Medical Center or whether Mr. Cofman was treated as an inpatient or as an outpatient. No medical records were introduced into evidence. A letter from Dr. Mark Ziffer, the urologist who treated Mr. Cofman, was admitted into evidence as a joint exhibit, but there was no testimony from any of Mr. Cofman's treating physicians. There was no competent medical evidence introduced in this proceeding upon which it can be concluded that Mr. Cofman was incompetent when he selected his retirement option or when he cashed his retirement checks. On July 21, 1989, the Respondent mailed to Mr. Cofman an estimate that provided him with an explanation of his options under the Florida Retirement System and provided him with an estimate of the benefits under each option. On February 16, 1990, Mr. Cofman 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. On the reverse side of the form is an explanation of each option. By this form, Mr. Cofman selected retirement benefit Option 1, which is described as being a "member benefit only." The explanation of Option 1 on the reverse side of FR-11 is as follows: Option 1: A monthly benefit payable to you for your lifetime. Upon your death, the monthly benefit will cease and your beneficiary will receive only a refund of any contributions you paid which are in excess of the amount you received in benefits. This option does not provide a continuing benefit to a beneficiary. If you wish to provide a beneficiary with a continuing 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 equivalency factors to the option 1 benefit. The FR-11 also contained the following statement in capital letters: ONCE YOU RETIRE, YOU CANNOT ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICE NOR CHANGE OPTIONS. RETIREMENT BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE FIRST BENEFIT CHECK IS CASHED OR DEPOSITED! Between the date of his retirement and the date of his death, Mr. Cofman received seven retirement benefit checks from the Florida Retirement System and cashed those benefit checks. The Respondent was notified of the death of Mr. Cofman by a telephone call from Mrs. Cofman on September 24, 1990. On October 2, 1990, the Respondent notified Mrs. Cofman by letter that Mr. Cofman had ". . . elected to retire under Option 1 of the Florida Retirement System which provides the maximum monthly benefit for the lifetime of the member only." This was the first time that Mrs. Cofman was aware that Mr. Cofman had selected a retirement option that would not provide her benefits after his death. By letter to Respondent dated December 7, 1992, Ms. Cofman stated, in pertinent part, as follows: My husband, Jules Cofman (Social Security No. 028-01-6868) has worked as Lot Inspector at the Public Works Department of Margate, Florida for 13 years. In June of 1989 he was diagnosed with bladder cancer. Because of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation he found it necessary to retire. He received notice that he would receive his retirement check the end of April, 1990. In conversations I have had with him in regard to his retirement, he said "of course I would be his beneficiary". He did not discuss the Options with anyone. He received about four checks before he passed away on September 23, 1990. I was shocked to learn that because of his state of mind, he had inadvertently put down Option One instead of Option Two. He had been unable to accept the fact that he was so sick and could not discuss his possible death even with me. He never made any arrangements for my financial security. He had no insurance and no savings. We always planned on his retirement to augment our Social Security. I cannot believe that he would knowingly do this to me. We had been happily married for 55 years. If he had been in a rational state of mind, knowing that he had less than a year to live, he would have certainly chosen OPTION TWO. I would greatly appreciate it if you would review his case and determine whether it would be possible for me to receive his Retirement Benefit. Thank you for your consideration. By letter dated January 28, 1993, the Respondent denied Petitioner's request to change the option selected by Mr. Cofman. The letter asserted the position that the selection cannot be changed since the retirement checks were cashed and cited the following portion of Rule 60S-4.002(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code: After a retirement benefit payment has been cashed or deposited: * * * (b) The selection of an option may not be changed . . . Mrs. Cofman does not believe that her husband made a rational choice in selecting retirement Option 1. Mrs. Cofman believes that her husband would not accept the fact that he had cancer and that he was in a state of denial to the extent he refused to discuss his illness. The testimony of Mrs. Cofman and that of Mr. Gold established that Mr. Cofman's personality changed after he became ill. Prior to his illness, Mr. Cofman was a warm, extroverted person. After his illness, he became withdrawn, moody, depressed, and lifeless. The testimony of Mrs. Cofman and the testimony of Mr. Gold do not, however, establish that Mr. Cofman was incompetent at the time that he selected his retirement option or at the times he cashed his retirement checks. Mrs. Cofman attempted to talk to her husband about his condition and about family financial matters, but he would not talk to her. When Mr. Cofman executed his retirement option, the form did not require the consent or signature of the spouse. Since Mr. Cofman's death, the form has been changed to require that the spouse sign if the retiree selects Option 1. Mrs. Cofman testified that had she been informed as to Mr. Cofman's retirement options, she would have insisted that he select Option 2. Mr. Cofman executed FR-11 on February 16, 1990. The form appears to have been completed in type on February 15, 1990. The evidence in this matter does not establish that Mr. Cofman was incompetent to execute the FR-11 on February 15 or 16, 1990, or that there was any irregularity in the execution of this form or in its delivery to the personnel office of the City of Margate. Between March 1, 1990, and the date of his death, Mr. Cofman received and cashed seven retirement benefit checks. Mrs. Cofman testified that she would not have permitted those checks to have been cashed had she been informed as to Mr. Cofman's retirement options.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order which denies Petitioner's request to change the retirement option selected by Jules Cofman. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 29th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1507 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The argument contained in those paragraphs are rejected as findings of fact as being argument and as being, in part, contrary to the findings made and the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence or as being argument that is contrary to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, and 13 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. As reflected by Joint Exhibit 1, Mr. Cofman had additional hospital visits. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Stuart B. Klein , Esquire Klein & Klein, P.A. 1551 Forum Place, Suite 400B West Palm Beach, Florida 33445 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sylvan Strickland, Acting General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
