The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to receive Florida Retirement System (FRS) benefits from her deceased spouse’s retirement account, pursuant to FRS Option 3 (lifetime monthly benefit to joint annuitant).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lettie Jones, is the wife of FRS member, James Jones, and a designated beneficiary of his FRS account. Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, is the state agency with the responsibility to administer the FRS. Background Findings Mr. Jones applied to the State of Florida for disability retirement on July 13, 1994. On his application, Mr. Jones noted that the “[m]uscles in [his] feet and legs [were] deteriorating.” In response to a question regarding any other physical impairments, Mr. Jones answered, “Losing strength in right hand.” The record does not reflect the effective date of Mr. Jones’ retirement. Mr. Jones suffered a stroke in April 1996. On January 27, 1997, Mr. Jones obtained from the state an “Estimate of Disability Retirement Benefits” listing the approximate monthly benefit payment amounts for all four FRS payment options. On that date, Mr. Jones also obtained Form 11o, the FRS retirement benefit election option form, and Form FST 12, the FRS beneficiary designation form. On March 18, 1997, Mr. Jones executed Form 11o, choosing Option 2 for payment of his monthly retirement benefits, and Form FST 12, designating Petitioner as primary beneficiary, and his daughter as contingent beneficiary, of his retirement account. Form 11o provides the following explanation of Option 2: A reduced monthly benefit payable for my lifetime. If I die before receiving 120 monthly payments, my designated beneficiary will receive a monthly benefit in the same amount as I was receiving until the monthly benefit payments to both of us equal 120 payments. No further benefits are then payable. Form 11o requires the spouse’s signature acknowledging the member’s election of Option 2. The spousal acknowledgment section appears in a box on Form 11o following the description of Options 1 and 2. The first line inside the box reads, in all capital letters, “THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED IF YOU SELECT OPTION 1 OR 2.” On March 18, 1997, Petitioner signed the box on Form 11o acknowledging her husband’s election of Option 2. Mr. Jones received more than 120 monthly retirement benefit payments prior to his death in 2013. Petitioner’s Challenge Petitioner alleges that Mr. Jones lacked the capacity to make an informed election of benefit payments on March 18, 1997, because he had reduced cognitive function. Both Petitioner and her daughter testified that they accompanied Mr. Jones to the FRS office on March 18, 1997, but were not allowed to “go back” with him when he met with an FRS employee to select his retirement option and execute Form 11o.2/ Petitioner admitted that she did sign the box on Form 11o, which acknowledges spousal election of Option 2, but testified that the form was blank at the time her husband presented it to her for signature. Petitioner signed the spousal acknowledgment on Form 11o the same day her husband executed the form. Petitioner introduced no evidence, other than the testimony of her daughter, that Mr. Jones suffered from reduced cognitive function on March 18, 1997. The fact that Mr. Jones suffered a stroke in 1996 is insufficient evidence to prove that he lacked the mental capacity to make an informed retirement option selection on the date in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying the relief requested in the Petition for Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 October, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Waltraud E. Paehler, was a classroom teacher in the Clay County public school system until 1993, and says she had a total of nineteen years of service. During that time period, she participated in the Florida Retirement System, which is administered by respondent, Division of Retirement (Division). In 1992, petitioner was suffering from a number of illnesses, including chronic kidney failure and congestive heart failure, which impaired her ability to continue working as a teacher. She also suffered from depression. These conditions continued into 1993. During this time period, she was hospitalized on at least two occasions. Because her work was very stressful, and tended to exacerbate her medical condition, petitioner accepted her physician's advice and decided to resign her teaching position effective April 14, 1993. On April 21, 1993, or a week later, she executed her application for retirement and opted to take early retirement effective May 1, 1993, when she was fifty-four years of age. Even though the local school board had periodically distributed information booklets to all teachers, including petitioner, concerning early, normal and disability types of retirement, and the various retirement options were discussed annually at each school's in-service training seminar, petitioner says she was still unaware of the disability retirement option. Thus, she elected to take early retirement on April 21, 1993. Because of her age, her retirement benefits were reduced by forty percent, or five percent for each year under the normal retirement age of sixty-two. Assuming she was qualified, had she elected to take disability retirement, there would have been no penalty because of her age. At or about the time petitioner decided to resign her teaching position, her daughter, who was assisting petitioner in her personal affairs, telephoned the local school board in an effort to ascertain potential retirement options for her mother. She spoke with an unknown individual in the school personnel office who the daughter says was not "very knowledgeable." The two discussed "in general what (her) mother could do" with respect to retirement, but the daughter says she received no specifics other than the fact that her mother would be "entitled to partial pay." She also requested that an application for service retirement form be mailed to her mother. The daughter then relayed this sketchy information to her mother. Because of financial constraints, and in order to receive her benefits immediately, petitioner decided to take early retirement rather than wait until normal retirement age. After selecting the option 1 benefit, which entitled her to benefits for her lifetime only, petitioner carried the form to her school's personnel office where she executed it on April 21, 1993, before the principal's secretary, a notary public. Although the secretary could not recall the specific event, she affirmed that she would not allow anyone to sign a document who did not appear to be competent. In selecting option 1, which gave the highest monthly benefits for early retirement, petitioner acknowledged she understood the ramifications of making that choice when she did so on April 21, 1993. Thus, on that date she possessed sufficient mental capacity to know that these benefits would last only during her lifetime, and her daughters would not receive any benefits after her death. At final hearing she confirmed that, prior to executing the form, she had reviewed the various options under early retirement and selected the first option since she "figure(d) (she had) done enough for them all (of her) life, they can take care of themselves." In June 1994, petitioner read an article in a teacher trade publication and learned that a number of states offered disability retirement as an option and did not penalize retirees for early retirement due to a disability. This article prompted petitioner the following month to write a letter to the Division. When petitioner made inquiry with the Division in July 1994 concerning a change from early (service) to disability retirement, she was told that under Rule 60S-4.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, she could not do so after cashing her first check. By then, petitioner had long since cashed the first retirement check mailed to her at the end of May 1993. That advice prompted her to eventually challenge the Division's rejection of her claim on the theory that she was "incapacitated" when she made her decision to take early retirement. In support of her contention that in 1993 she lacked the necessary mental capacity to make a reasoned decision concerning her retirement, petitioner presented the testimony of three health professionals from whom she was receiving care in 1993. Their deposition testimony is found in petitioner's exhibits 1-3 received in evidence. Dr. Hardin, a family physician, was petitioner's primary treating physician from February 1992 until April 1993. In the spring of 1993, he recalled petitioner as being "confused," "in an imbalanced state," suffering "mental duress," dependent on explicit instructions for appointments, and taking a variety of prescribed medications for tobacco cessation, chronic renal failure, congestive cardiac condition, high blood pressure, cardiomyopathy, tremors, anxiety and migraine headaches. Because of these conditions, Dr. Hardin found it difficult to believe that she could "handle" a more complicated matter such as choosing a retirement option. Dr. Hardin acknowledged, however, that during the spring of 1993, he had little chance "to follow her" since another physician, Dr. Stoneburner, was managing petitioner's most important illness, renal failure. Dr. Stoneburner, a nephrologist and internist who has treated petitioner for a kidney disease since 1985, felt that in the spring of 1993 she "was not in a very good position to make a competent decision based on her emotional state." Just prior to her retirement, he observed petitioner as having "significant depression" and "a lack of desire to work." She was also taking as many as six or seven medications at one time which could "possibly" cause "someone to be confused." Based on these circumstances, Dr. Stoneburner opined that petitioner was not competent to make a rational judgment. However, Dr. Stoneburner conceded that if petitioner had been given retirement options explained in layman's terms, and had someone to assist her in explaining the various options, she could have made an intelligent decision. Kristina Crenshaw, a licensed mental health counselor, met with petitioner on four occasions between February 18 and April 12, 1993. Ms. Crenshaw found petitioner to have "significant difficulty with depression," in an "agitated, very stressed, (and) overwhelmed" condition, and with a "strong sense of uncertainty about her future." While the witness believed that petitioner would have understood a pamphlet describing her retirement options, she would not have "necessarily understood all the implications to her own personal life." The witness agreed, however, that once petitioner made a decision to resign her job, she seemed more "upbeat" and "positive." Further, petitioner had told her by telephone on April 15, 1993, that she felt "much better" after retiring from her job. The counselor did not know if petitioner was mentally competent when she opted for early retirement a week later. Nothwithstanding the testimony of the health professionals, the findings in paragraph 7 are deemed to be more compelling on the critical issue of competency, and it is found that on April 21, 1993, petitioner understood the nature and consequences of her acts, and she was capable of binding herself by the retirement application. Therefore, her request to have rule 60S-4.002(4) waived, or to have her "contract" with the Division set aside, should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a Final Order determining that petitioner was mentally competent when she elected to take early retirement and that her request to have rule 60S-4.0002(4) waived so as to permit her to file a request for disability retirement be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4841 Petitioner: Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 4-5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 6-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 8-9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 10-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Covered in preliminary statement. 14-20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 21-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 25-31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 32-37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 38-39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 40. Covered in preliminary statement. 41-43. Rejected as being unnecessary. Respondent: Rejected since the evidence shows that petitioner was employed by the Clay County School Board and not the Duval County School Board. Also, the only evidence of record as to years of service is the testimony of petitioner that she had nineteen years of service. However, this fact is not necessary to resolve the dispute. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 6-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 8-9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 10-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Rejected as being unnecessary. Note - Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for the resolution of the issues, not supported by the evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark H. Levine, Esquire 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1263 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Division of Retirement 2639-C North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement 2639-C North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Heike Stoll (f/k/a Heike Bybee), has standing to assert a claim or right to any portion of her former husband’s Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) benefits as an “innocent spouse” pursuant to Article II, Section 8(d) of the Florida Constitution, and section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2017).1/
Findings Of Fact Mr. Bybee is a member of the FRS Investment Plan by virtue of his former employment as a deputy with the Sarasota County Sheriff, an FRS participating employer. On October 6, 2017, in Sarasota County Circuit Court Case Number 2017CF001018, Mr. Bybee was found guilty by jury verdict of the following felonies under Florida law: Kidnap- Commit or Facilitate Commission of Felony; Crimes Against Person-Exploitation Elderly or Disabled Adult $20,000 to $100,000 dollars; Fraudulent Use of Personal Identifying Information (8 counts); and Computer Crime to Defraud or Obtain Property (3 Counts) (referred to collectively as the “felony convictions”). On October 6, 2017, judgment was entered against Mr. Bybee adjudicating him guilty of the felony convictions. The SBA notified Mr. Bybee that his felony convictions required forfeiture of his FRS benefits under section 112.3173(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Mr. Bybee did not file a petition for hearing to challenge the Notice of Forfeiture or otherwise assert that his felony convictions did not warrant forfeiture of his FRS benefits under the forfeiture statute. Mr. Bybee’s interest in his FRS benefits is subject to forfeiture due to his commission of the crimes, and his felony convictions. Ms. Stoll was married to Mr. Bybee on August 27, 1994. On or about May 9, 2017, Ms. Stoll filed her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in Manatee County (Circuit Court Case Number 2017-DR-2067) asserting her interest in, inter alia, Mr. Bybee’s FRS benefits. On December 8, 2017, Ms. Stoll filed an “FRS Investment Plan Petition for Hearing” asserting her claim of entitlement to her spousal share of Mr. Bybee’s FRS benefits as an “innocent spouse.” On February 26, 2018, Mr. Bybee and Ms. Stoll executed a Marital Settlement Agreement. As to retirement accounts, Mr. Bybee and Ms. Stoll agreed to the following: Retirement Accounts/Pension. Wife shall receive as her sole property, and all equity and value therein, all retirement accounts and/or pensions in the Husband’s sole name, in the joint name of the parties, and/or in the Wife’s sole name, free and clear of any claims or interest which Husband may have thereto. Specifically, Husband has a pension and/or retirement account through the County of Sarasota Sheriff’s Department, State of Florida. Wife shall receive as her sole property, and all equity and value therein, in said pension and/or retirement account, free and clear of any claims or interest which Husband may have thereto. Further, Husband assigns, transfers, and relinquishes any legal or equitable claims, causes of action, or remedies of any nature against the pension and/or retirement account through the County of Sarasota Sheriff’s Department, State of Florida; and Husband shall fully cooperate with Wife in any and all respects as necessary for Wife to pursue any such legal or equitable claims, causes of action, or remedies related any manner said pension and/or retirement account. Ms. Stoll was not charged with or convicted of any crimes related to Mr. Bybee’s felony convictions. Ms. Stoll’s testimony was credible that she was unaware of Mr. Bybee’s crimes, and had not benefited from them in any fashion. On April 16, 2018, a Final Judgement of Dissolution of Marriage was entered in Manatee County Circuit Court Case Number 2017-DR-2067 that “approved, ratified and incorporated” the marital settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration issue a final order finding that Petitioner is not entitled to her former husband’s retirement benefits, because he was a public employee convicted of specified offenses; and pursuant to section 112.3173, he forfeited all of his rights and benefits in his Florida Retirement System Investment Plan account upon committing the crimes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2018.
The Issue 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)
Findings Of Fact The Division of Retirement will make no Findings of Fact relating to whether Petitioner's disability was in-line-of-duty. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned previously, all findings contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8, of the recommended order are rejected. However, the Division accepts the remaining Findings of Fact contained in the recommended order. As taken from the order these findings are: Herman Williams was an employee of the Department of Transportation and a member of the Florida Retirement System. The Division of Retirement approved payment of regular disability benefits to Herman Williams. Herman Williams is currently receiving and accepting these benefits. Herman Williams is an illiterate Seminole Indian, 62 years of age. Williams' duties with the Department of Transportation were driving a mowing tractor and cleaning out roadside ditches. Williams worked for the Department of Transportation approximately 21 years 11 months prior to being placed on the retired roles [sic]. On May 1, 1975, Williams was driving his tractor in the course of his regular employment at the Department of Transportation when the power steering of the tractor malfunctioned causing the front wheels to swerve violently, wrenching the steering wheel in Williams' hands and nearly throwing him from the tractor. Repairs had to be made to Williams' tractor by a Department of Transportation mechanic because the tractor was inoperative. The mechanic discovered a loose nut in the power steering assembly when he exchanged the power steering unit in Williams' tractor with another from the maintenance yard. When the new unit was installed in Williams's tractor it functioned normally. When the power steering from Williams' tractor was installed in the other tractor, it also functioned normally. The mechanic stated that the loose nut which he had discovered could cause the tractor to swerve violently in the manner Williams' had described. On the afternoon of May 1, 1975, Williams reported this instant [sic] to his supervisor, David McQuaig. Mr. McQuaig inquired as to any injuries to Williams and the tractor. Williams reported to McQuaig that the tractor had not been harmed and that he was only sore and stiff. No report of injury was prepared by McQuaig whose duty it was to file such reports. Williams' condition did not materially improve after seeking medical treatment by Dr. Albritton. Williams remained on sick leave until August 11, 1975, when it was exhausted. Williams then took annual leave from August 12, 1975 until September 23, 19975, when his retirement became effective. When the Petitioner's sick leave was exhausted, he was contacted by his supervisor in the Department of Transportation. He suggested that Williams could retire on disability if two physicians would state that he was disabled. This letter was read to Williams by his son, Eddie, because Williams is illiterate. Retirement application forms were provided Williams by the Department of Transportation. The physician report forms were completed by Dr. Albritton and Dr. Wilkerson. The statement of disability by employer form was completed by Williams' supervisor, David A. Young, Maintenance Engineer, for the Department of Transportation. Young stated that he completed the Statement of Disability by Employer, indicating that the application was for regular disability benefits because he had determined that no workman's compensation claim had been made by Williams and because Dr. Wilkerson's medical report had stated that the injuries occurred at Williams's home. The determination that the application was for regular disability benefits was solely Young's. The Application for Disability Retirement signed by Williams was prepared by personnel at the Department of Transportation District Office. This form was signed by Herman Williams; however, this form does not make provision for the member to state the nature of the disability benefits sought. Eddie Williams, son of Herman Williams, took his father to sign the forms at the Department of Transportation office. These forms were not explained to Williams, nor did Eddie Williams read them. Herman Williams was also unaware that such a benefit existed. Herman Williams stated he sought disability benefits based upon his injury on the job. Disability retirement was not discussed between Herman Williams and David Young. Based upon the application submitted in his behalf, the Division of Retirement made a determination that Williams was entitled to regular disability benefits. Williams was unaware that he was not receiving the in-line-of-duty benefits until his son inquired as to how much money he was receiving. When he was advised, he told his father that it appeared to be too little money. At this point Eddie Williams discovered that the application had been for regular disability.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer RECOMMENDS: That the administrator permit the applicant to file an amended application for disability in-line-of-duty retirement, and, further, that said application be approved. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. W. Chalkley, III, Esquire Post Office Box 1793 Ocala, Florida 32670 Douglas Spangler, Jr., Esquire Asst. Division Attorney Division of Retirement 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF RETIREMENT DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION HERMAN H. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-982 STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. / FINAL AGENCY ORDER A petition for formal proceedings having been duly filed, and a request for hearing officer having been duly made, a hearing was held in the above-styled cause pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, before the Honorable Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, in Ocala, Florida, on September 15, 1977. The Petitioner requested relief from the Division's determination that Petitioner was not entitled to resubmit an application for disability retirement requesting in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits because he had previously applied for and accepted regular disability retirement. The purpose of the hearing was to determine the factual basis for Petitioner's claim that he should be allowed to apply for in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING: Eric E. Wagner, Esquire J. W. Chalkey, III, Esquire Law Offices of Eric E. Wagner, P.A. Post Office Box 1763 Ocala, Florida 32670 For the Petitioner E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., Esquire Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C-Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 For the Respondent The Hearing Officer entered his Recommended Order on December 8, 1977, in which he sustained Petitioner's assertion and concluded, on the basis of the findings made as a result of the hearing, that Petitioner should be entitled to resubmit his application and request in-line-of-duty disability benefits. In addition to this determination, the Hearing Officer found that Petitioner was in fact entitled to in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. In making this latter conclusion, both as a matter of fact and of law, the Hearing Officer went beyond his scope of authority. As will be developed more fully herein, the Hearing Officer was without jurisdiction to consider the issue of whether Petitioner was in fact entitled to the in-line-of-duty benefits. Therefore, so much of the recommended order as purports to address this issue is of no effect, being the result of a hearing that did not comply with the essential requirements of law.
The Issue Whether the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (“the Department”) should be equitably estopped from requiring Michael A. Fewless to return $541,780.03 of retirement benefits.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based on witness testimony, exhibits, and information subject to official recognition. FRS and the Termination Requirement FRS is a qualified plan under section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and has over 500,000 active pension plan members. The Department administers FRS so that it will maintain its status as a qualified pension plan under the Internal Revenue Code. Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes (2018),1/ describes the benefits available to FRS members through the “Deferred Retirement Option Program (“DROP”): In general, and subject to this section, the Deferred Retirement Option Program, hereinafter referred to as 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 Florida Retirement System on behalf of the member, plus interest compounded monthly, for the specified period of the DROP participation, as provided in paragraph (c). Upon termination of employment, the member shall receive the total DROP benefits and begin to receive the previously determined normal retirement benefits. Section 121.091 specifies that “[b]enefits may not be paid under this section unless the member has terminated employment as provided in s. 121.021(39)(a). ” Section 121.021(39)(a) generally provides that “termination” occurs when a member ceases all employment relationships with participating employers. However, “if a member is employed by any such employer within the next 6 calendar months, termination shall be deemed not to have occurred.” § 121.021(39)(a)2., Fla. Stat. Moreover, the employee and the re-employing FRS agency will be jointly and severally liable for reimbursing any retirement benefits paid to the employee. § 121.091(9)(c)3., Fla. Stat.2/ The termination requirement is essential to the FRS maintaining its status as a qualified plan under IRS regulations. As a qualified plan, taxes on FRS benefits are deferred.3/ The Department’s position is that after an entity becomes a participating employer, all new hires within covered categories are “compulsory members” of the FRS. If an entity has a local pension plan, then that entity must either close the plan before joining FRS or keep the plan open for members who exercise their right to remain in that plan. However, even if the entity chooses to keep the local plan open for current members, the local plan is closed to new members. The City of Fruitland Park, Florida (“Fruitland Park”), became an FRS employer on February 1, 2015. The mayor and commissioners of Fruitland Park passed a resolution on November 20, 2014, providing in pertinent part, that: It is hereby declared to be the policy and purpose of the City Commission of Fruitland Park, Florida that all of its General Employees and police officers, except those excluded by law, shall participate in the Florida Retirement System as authorized by Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. All General Employees and police officers shall be compulsory members of the Florida Retirement System as of the effective date of participation in the Florida Retirement System so stated therein. (emphasis added). The Department notified Fruitland Park during its enrollment into FRS that all new hires were compulsory members of FRS for covered groups. Facts Specific to the Instant Case After graduating from the Central Florida Police Academy in 1985, Mr. Fewless began working for the Orange County Sheriff’s Office (“OCSO”) as a deputy sheriff and patrolled what he describes as “the worst area of Orange County.”4/ After five years, Mr. Fewless transferred into the detective bureau in OCSO’s criminal investigations division. Mr. Fewless received a promotion to corporal two years later and returned to patrolling.5/ Mr. Fewless soon received a transfer to OCSO’s special investigation’s division and worked in the gang enforcement unit.6/ It was not long before he was promoted to sergeant and sent “back to the road.” After 10 months, OCSO asked Mr. Fewless to take over the gang enforcement unit where he was promoted to lieutenant and ultimately to captain.7/ During his tenure as a captain, Mr. Fewless was in charge of OCSO’s internal affairs unit for five or six years. Mr. Fewless concluded his nearly 30-year tenure with OCSO as the director of the Fusion Center and the Captain of the criminal intelligence section.8/ In sum, Mr. Fewless’s service with OCSO was exemplary, and he was never the subject of any disciplinary actions. Mr. Fewless entered the DROP program on June 1, 2011. As a result, he was scheduled to complete his DROP tenure and retire on May 31, 2016. On June 1, 2011, Mr. Fewless signed a standardized FRS document entitled “Notice of Election to Participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) and Resignation of Employment.” That document contained the following provisions: I elect to participate in the DROP in accordance with s. 121.091(13), Florida Statutes (F.S.), as indicated below, and resign my employment on the date I terminate from the DROP. I understand that the earliest date my participation in the DROP can begin is the first date I reach normal retirement date as determined by law and that my DROP participation cannot exceed a maximum of 60 months from the date I reach my normal retirement date, although I may elect to participate for less than 60 months. Participation in the DROP does not guarantee my employment for the DROP period. I understand that I must terminate all employment with FRS employers to receive a monthly retirement benefit and my DROP benefit under Chapter 121, F.S. Termination requirements for elected officers are different as specified in s. 121.091(13)(b)(4), F.S. I cannot add service, change options, change my type of retirement or elect the Investment Plan after my DROP begin date. I have read and understand the DROP Accrual and Distribution information provided with this form. Mr. Fewless realized by 2015 that he was not ready to leave law enforcement. However, he was scheduled to retire from OCSO by May 31, 2016. Mr. Fewless had several friends who left OCSO as captains and took police chief positions with municipalities in Florida. Therefore, in anticipation of a lengthy job search, he began looking for such a position in approximately March of 2015. Mr. Fewless applied to become Fruitland Park’s police chief on March 26, 2015, and was offered the job in June of 2015 by Fruitland Park’s city manager, Gary LaVenia. Mr. Fewless learned from Mr. LaVenia that Fruitland Park had joined FRS and told him that he could not work within the FRS system. Mr. LaVenia then erroneously told Mr. Fewless that he would not be violating any FRS conditions (and thus forfeiting his DROP payout) because Fruitland Park had a separate city pension plan into which Mr. Fewless could be enrolled. As noted above, Fruitland Park had passed a resolution mandating that “[a]ll General Employees and police officers shall be compulsory members of the Florida Retirement System as of the effective date of participation in the Florida Retirement System. ” While Mr. Fewless was pleased with what Mr. LaVenia told him, he called an FRS hotline on July 9, 2015, in order to verify that he would not be endangering his retirement benefits by accepting the police chief position with Fruitland Park. Mr. Fewless’s question was routed to David Kent, and Mr. Fewless described how he was going to work for Fruitland Park and that Fruitland Park was an FRS employer. Mr. Kent told Mr. Fewless that he could go to work for Fruitland Park immediately without violating any FRS requirements so long as he was not enrolled into the FRS system. Instead of being an FRS enrollee, Mr. Kent stated that Mr. Fewless could enroll into Fruitland Park’s pension plan or enter a third-party contract.9/ Mr. Fewless assumed that Mr. Kent was an FRS expert and remembers that Mr. Kent sounded very confident in the information he relayed over the telephone. On July 14, 2015, Mr. Fewless filled out and signed a form entitled “Florida Retirement Systems Pension Plan Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) Termination Notification.” The form indicates that Mr. Fewless would be ending his employment with OCSO on August 1, 2015. In addition, the form notified Mr. Fewless of the requirements associated with receiving his accumulated DROP and monthly benefits: According to our records, your DROP termination date is 08/01/2015. You must terminate all Florida Retirement System (FRS) employment to receive your accumulated DROP benefits and begin your monthly retirement benefits. You and your employer’s authorized representative must complete this form certifying your DROP employment termination. Termination Requirement: 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 noncovered 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. Reemployment Limitation: You may return to work for a participating FRS employer during the 7th – 12th calendar months following your DROP termination date, but your monthly retirement benefit will be suspended for those months you are employed. There are no reemployment limitations after the 12th calendar month following your DROP termination date. 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). If you void your retirement, your employer will be responsible for making retroactive retirement contributions and you will be awarded service credit for the period during which you were in DROP through your new employment termination date. You must apply to establish a future retirement date. Your eligibility for DROP participation will be determined by your future retirement date and you may lose your eligibility to participate in DROP.[10/] (emphasis in original). Mr. Fewless’s Reliance on the Representations Made to Him Mr. Fewless placed complete trust in the representations made during his July 9, 2015, phone call to the FRS hotline and during his discussions with Fruitland Park’s city manager. When he left OCSO and accepted the police chief position with Fruitland Park, Mr. Fewless took a $33,000.00 annual pay cut and stood to receive $70,000.00 less from his DROP payout. It is highly unlikely he would have accepted those circumstances if he did not have a good faith basis for believing he was utilizing an exception to the termination requirement. In the months preceding his departure from OCSO, Mr. Fewless’s wife was being treated for a brain tumor. Following her surgery in May of 2015 and subsequent radiation treatment, Ms. Fewless returned to work for a month or two. However, given that the retirement checks Mr. Fewless had begun to receive were roughly equivalent to what Ms. Fewless had been earning, she decided to retire in order to spend more time with their grandchildren. During this timeframe, Mr. and Ms. Fewless decided to build their “dream home,” and Ms. Fewless designed it. They used a $318,000.00 lump sum payment from FRS to significantly lower their monthly house payment. Those actions would not have been taken if Mr. Fewless had suspected that there was any uncertainty pertaining to his retirement benefits. The Department Discovers the Termination Violation In November of 2017, the Department’s Office of the Inspector General conducted an audit to assess Fruitland Park’s compliance with FRS requirements. This audit was conducted in the regular course of the Department’s business and was not initiated because of any suspicion of noncompliance. The resulting audit report contained the following findings: (a) Fruitland Park had failed to report part-time employees since joining FRS; (b) Fruitland Park had failed to report Mr. Fewless as an employee covered by FRS; (c) Mr. Fewless’s employment with Fruitland Park amounted to a violation of FRS’s reemployment provisions; and (d) Fruitland Park failed to correctly report retirees filling regularly established positions. Because he had failed to satisfy the termination requirement, the Department notified Mr. Fewless via a letter issued on August 15, 2018, that: (a) his DROP retirement had been voided; (b) his membership in FRS would be retroactively reestablished11/; and (c) he was required to repay $541,780.03 of benefits. Mr. Fewless’s Reaction to Learning That He Had Violated the Termination Requirement Mr. Fewless learned on June 25, 2018, of the Department’s determination that he was in violation of the termination requirement. He responded on July 5, 2018, by writing the following letter to the Department: On the evening of, June 25, 2018, I was notified by Mr. Gary LaVenia, the City Manager for Fruitland Park, that he was contacted by members of the State of Florida’s DMS Inspector General’s office regarding a problem with my current retirement plan. No additional information was shared during this initial telephone conversation and we scheduled a meeting for the following day. On June 26, 2018, I met with Mr. Gary LaVenia, Ms. Diane Kolcan, Human Resource Director and Ms. Jeannine Racine, the Finance Director regarding this matter. I was advised that members of the Department of the Florida Retirement System told them that I was in violation of receiving my current retirement benefits because I failed to take a six month break between my retirement with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office and joining the City of Fruitland Park. I explained to them that there must be some mistake because I am not currently enrolled in the Florida Retirement System through the City of Fruitland Park. The City enrolled me in their “City” pension plan. Mr. LaVenia agreed with me and we closed the meeting with me advising them I would do some additional research on the matter. * * * I then reached out to Mr. Chris Carmody, an attorney with the Gray/Robinson Firm, whom I worked with on legislative issues in the past. . . . I explained to him that according to the Inspector General’s report, I needed to have a six month separation between the Orange County Sheriff’s Office and the City of Fruitland Park, because both agencies participated in the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Carmody still did not feel that was a violation because I was not enrolled in the FRS Plan with the City of Fruitland Park, but rather their independent City pension plan. I felt the same way; however he wanted to continue to research the issue. A few hours later I received a telephone call from Mr. Carmody indicating the problem appears to be that the “City” participates in the FRS Pension Plan and even though I do not, I would be prohibited from working there for the six month period. After hearing this news, I immediately contacted Ms. Amy Mercer, the Executive Director of the Florida Police Chief’s Association. I explained the dilemma to her and just like the previously mentioned individuals she said “so what did you do wrong, that sounds ok to me. ” Ms. Mercer said she would reach out to the two attorneys that support the Florida Police Chief’s Association to get their opinion of the situation. The following morning, Ms. Mercer advised me that according to Attorney Leonard Dietzen my actions were in violation of the Florida Retirement Pension Plan Rules. Mr. Dietzen explained to her that I needed a six month separation from my employment with the Florida Retirement System and the City of Fruitland Park, because the City participated in the FRS Pension plan. Therefore, based on the above information [and] the realization that an innocent mistake had been made, please let me explain my actions: * * * In either June or July of 2015, I officially interviewed for the position of Police Chief for the City of Fruitland Park. . . . Approximately one week after the interviews, I was offered the position of Police Chief for the City of Fruitland Park. In July of 2015, I contacted the official FRS Hotline regarding my potential decision to join the Fruitland Park Police Department. I informed them that I was currently employed with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office and enrolled in DROP. I advised them that I was considering accepting the position of police chief with the City of Fruitland Park; however I wanted to confirm with them that I would have no issues with my retirement. I explained that the City of Fruitland Park was currently an FRS department; however they also had a separate “City” pension plan which I was going to be placed in. I wanted to confirm that this would not negatively impact my retirement benefits. I was advised that as long as I was enrolled in the “City” pension plan, I would be fine. The FRS employee also added that he heard other “new chiefs” were doing an “independent contract” with the City for a one year period, but he assured me either way would be fine. I concluded my telephone conversation and proceeded forward. I then began the employee benefits negotiations process with Mr. LaVenia. At the time of the negotiations, I realized I would be receiving my Florida Retirement check on a monthly basis and my wife was also employed as the vice-president of the Orlando Union Rescue Mission in Orlando, Florida. Therefore money was not my primary concern for this position and I surrendered my much larger salary with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office to become the Chief of Police for Fruitland Park for $70,000 per year. I officially accepted the position with the City of Fruitland Park, and informed Mr. LaVenia that I could not participate in the Florida Retirement System; however according to the FRS Hotline employee I could be placed in the city pension plan or sign a contract for a one year period. Mr. LaVenia recommended that I be placed in the city pension plan and had the appropriate paperwork completed. * * * It is important to recognize that I felt I took all the necessary steps to act within the guidelines of the Florida Retirement System. After all, I had worked for over thirty years with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office with an impeccable record and with the intent of securing a retirement package that would protect my wife and family for life. In conclusion, I feel I have been let down by the system in two very key areas regarding this matter: In July 2015, not only was I preparing for retirement and a new job; but my wife was experiencing serious medical issues that required surgery and radiation treatments for months at Shands Hospital. Although my mind was focused on her condition, I still felt it was extremely important to contact the FRS Hotline regarding my potential new position. My desire was to make sure I did not do anything that would jeopardize the retirement plan I worked for my entire career. The advice I was given by the FRS Hotline employee/professional apparently was terrible. Not only did he indicate I could go under the “City” pension plan, he further recommended that other chiefs have decided to do a “contract” with the city for a one year period to account for the separation from the FRS system. Clearly had this employee indicated by any means that the position with Fruitland Park would or possibly could jeopardize my retirement, I would have run away from this opportunity . . . * * * In July and August of 2015, while I was completing the hiring process with the City of Fruitland Park, management and/or staff should have cautioned me about the potential risk to my Florida Retirement Pension if I proceeded with the process. * * * Clearly, whoever made the decision to proceed with processing me was unaware of two things. (1) I would be violating the six month separation rule if I stopped my employment with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office on August 1, 2015 and began employment with Fruitland Park one day later on August 2, 2015. (2) The only pension plan available to new employees with the City of Fruitland Park had to be the Florida Retirement System. * * * I now understand from going through this procedure that there [was] an unintended error in how I officially retired from the Orange County Sheriff’s Office and began my employment with the Fruitland Park Police Department. It is important to mention that Sheriff Kevin Beary and Sheriff Jerry Demings chose me to command their Professional Standards Division on two separate occasions because they knew I was a man of integrity and would always “do the right thing.” I had no intent to skirt the system and/or do anything unethical. I can assure you nobody raised a red flag over this position prior to this incident; and I would have immediately stopped my efforts had I been aware of this rule. Mr. Fewless’s Current Situation While working as Fruitland Park’s police chief, Mr. Fewless’s salary and retirement benefits totaled $12,000.00 a month. In order to avoid accumulating more penalties, Mr. Fewless retired from his police chief position with Fruitland Park on August 31, 2018. Mr. Fewless has not received any FRS benefits since September 1, 2018. There was a three-month period when he was receiving no money. Mr. Fewless has been employed by the Groveland Police Department since March 4, 2019. Mr. Fewless describes his current financial situation as “dire” and says he and his wife are “wiped out.” They may need to sell their “dream house,” and they borrowed $30,000.00 from their daughter in order to litigate the instant case. In addition, the contractor who built the Fewless’s dream home failed to pay subcontractors for $93,000.00 of work. While the Department notes that Mr. Fewless stands to receive a higher monthly benefit, he disputes that he is somehow in a better position: No, I am not in a better position. The $542,000 that will be taken away from me because of what clearly could have been handled with one phone call from a representative of FRS – the difference in pay between my former retirement salary and my new retirement salary based on the recalculations will go from $6,000 to $7,000 a month. That means in order for me to recoup the $542,000 that the state was referring to, I would have to work 542 months. I don’t think I’ll live that much longer, No. 1. And No. 2, that doesn’t take into consideration interest and everything else that was part of that, if that makes sense. Mr. Fewless has filed a lawsuit against Fruitland Park. Ultimate Findings of Fact12/ Mr. Fewless’s testimony about his July 9, 2015, phone call to the FRS hotline is more credible than Mr. Kent’s. Mr. Fewless’s descriptions of that phone call are very consistent, and the Department has not directed the undersigned to any instances in which an account of that phone call by Mr. Fewless differed from his testimony or his July 5, 2018, letter to the Department.13/ This finding is also based on Mr. Fewless’s demeanor during the final hearing. Moreover, Mr. Fewless was not attempting to “game the system.” Given Mr. Fewless’s exceptional record of public service, it is very unlikely that he would knowingly and intentionally attempt to engage in “double dipping” by violating the termination requirement. It is equally unlikely that Mr. Kent can accurately remember what he told Mr. Fewless during a single phone call on July 9, 2015. Rather than questioning Mr. Kent’s veracity, the undersigned is simply questioning his ability to recall the content of a single phone call that appears to have been unremarkable.14/ It is also difficult to believe that Mr. Fewless would accept the police chief position with Fruitland Park and build an expensive “dream house” after being told by Mr. Kent that he would be violating the termination requirement.15/ Mr. Fewless’s reliance on Mr. Kent’s statement was entirely reasonable given that the arrangement described by Mr. LaVenia sounded like an imminently plausible exception to the termination requirement. Mr. Fewless’s subsequent actions in reliance of that statement were extremely detrimental to himself and his family. Finally, the circumstances of the instant case are analogous to other cases in which appellate courts have held that the enhanced requirements for estopping the government had been satisfied. In other words, Mr. Kent’s misrepresentation amounted to more than mere negligence, the Department’s proposed action would result in a serious injustice, and the public interest would not be unduly harmed by Mr. Fewless retaining the retirement benefits he earned through his public service with OCSO.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ryan Joshua Andrews, Esquire Brian O. Finnerty, Esquire Johana E. Nieves, Esquire The Law Offices of Steven R. Andrews, P.A. 822 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 For Respondent: Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Sean W. Gillis, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services Suite 160 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order rescinding its proposed action that Michael A. Fewless’s FRS DROP retirement be voided and that he be required to repay all retirement benefits as provided in Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S- 4.012. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 18th day of July, 2019.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw from the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) of the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a member of FRS. Petitioner is part of the "Regular" class for FRS retirement purposes. In April 2001, and until late August 2001, Petitioner understood the law to require that if he wanted to participate in DROP he must elect to do so within 12 months of his 30-year anniversary of employment or within 12 months of attaining 62 years of age, whichever date came first. This was, in fact, the law until July 1, 2001. (See Findings of Fact 11 and 25-27). In July of 2001, Petitioner would become eligible to participate in DROP by virtue of reaching thirty years of service teaching at the University of Florida (UF).1 Petitioner would become 62 years old on July 2, 2001. In preparation for entry into DROP, Petitioner requested, and in April 2001 received, from the Division, an Estimate of Benefits. In bold capital print the acknowledgement stated: 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. (P-2) Petitioner filed his application for DROP participation on April 12, 2001. His application selected payout Option 2 to provide benefits to his wife and specified a "begin date" of July 1, 2001, his normal retirement date. Respondent Division, by date of April 16, 2001, acknowledged receipt of Petitioner's DROP application, but required that he provide additional materials, stating: The following items must be received: Properly completed DROP application, DP-11. The notary public's stamp and/or commission expiration date was not shown. A notary public may not amend a notarial certification after the notarization is complete. Enclosed is another Form DP-11, Application for Service Retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) for you to complete and have properly notarized. Return the completed application to this office immediately. The Hospital Record you submitted as birthdate verification is acceptable as partial proof of age. Please read the enclosed Request for Proof of Age, BVR-1, for a list of documents we will accept to complete your proof of age. 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. A Final Salary Certification, FC-1 with current year salary and terminal leave payments (excluding sick leave payments) must be received from your employer. Your employer is aware of this requirement. (R-1) Petitioner provided the additional information, and on April 30, 2001, the Division notified Petitioner that the apparent birth certificate he had supplied did not constitute acceptable proof of age and that additional proof was required. That item stated: The following items must be received: The Medical Center record you submitted as birth date verification is acceptable as partial proof of age. Please read the enclosed Request for Proof of Age, BVR-1, for a list of documents we will accept to complete your proof of age. If you have a copy of your birth certificate that is registered with the State of New York, please send it to us. The document you submitted was not registered with the vital statistics office for New York. 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. (R-2) The Division's April 30, 2001, request for a valid birth certificate was the parties' last correspondence before August 22, 2001. (See Finding of Fact 25). Shortly after April 30, 2001, Petitioner caused the Federal Social Security Administration to send verification of his birthdate to the Division. The Division received this item but did not acknowledge to Petitioner that it had been received. During the 2001 session, the Florida Legislature amended Section 121.091(13)(a)5., Florida Statutes, to allow "instructional personnel" to participate in DROP at any time after they reach their normal retirement date. In other words, the option for instructional personnel to elect DROP was no longer limited to a 12-month period after their 30 years' creditable service retirement date or attainment of age 62. The parties stipulated that the foregoing amendment "became law" on May 16, 2001. However, Chapter 2001-47, Laws of Florida, Section 2., clearly specifies that the amendment "shall take effect July 1, 2001." Respondent Division never individually sought out and notified Petitioner, any other DROP applicant, or any FRS retiree of the legislative change. According to Mr. Hunnicutt, on behalf of the Division, the Division has no way to single out all the people (such as DROP applicants) who might be affected by a specific legislative amendment. However, the Division does try, on a yearly basis, each autumn, to notify all retirees and all employees in FRS and other state retirement programs of the current year's legislative changes. The Division also answers specific questions about such legislative amendments if retirees or employees take the initiative to ask the Division about them. Since Petitioner did not know about the amendment until after August 22, 2001, he did not ask about it or otherwise contact the Division until August 30, 2001. (See Finding of Fact 27.) On June 21, 2001, the Division sent Information Release 2001-73, to all FRS employers, including the UF Retirement Office. This Information Release noted the changes to DROP eligibility for instructional personnel. (R-6) The Division's June 21, 2001, Information Release addressed many types of retirement information that could be obtained at the Division's web site, but did not specifically link the web site and the new legislation. Petitioner's testimony that the Division's web site never announced the amendment effective July 1, 2001, is unrefuted. At no time did UF affirmatively and individually seek out Petitioner and notify him concerning the new legislation. UF also did not do a blanket notification of the new legislation to all FRS members working for UF until November 19, 2001. (P-2) Effective July 2001, Petitioner was honored by a special merit salary increase of $10,000.00 per year that would significantly raise his retirement benefits if he were not considered to have entered DROP, effective July 1, 2001. This award was not reasonably foreseeable at the time he applied for DROP on April 12, 2001. The only document Respondent Division sent Petitioner after April 30, 2001, was a "Final Notification of DROP Benefit," dated July 19, 2001, but post-marked August 20, 2001. It included the following: You should call the Retired Payroll Section at (850) 487-4856, immediately if you: Extend your DROP participation date (approval of employer required). Your participation in the DROP cannot exceed the 5 years (3 years for Special Risk members) which is the maximum allowed by law; (P-1) According to Mr. Hunnicutt, the Division cannot do the final benefit calculations for a DROP or regular retirement applicant until the Division receives all of the information from the employee (Petitioner) and direct employer (UF) because final retirement calculations use the final salary information. The July 19, 2001, date of the foregoing "Final Notification" would have been the date the Division's Benefits Specialist prepared the final calculations and falls within the 30 days the Division usually needs to make and mail the final benefit calculations. Mr. Hunnicutt's only explanation for the month's delay in mailing the foregoing "Final Notification" was that it takes approximately a month for the verification process to be completed and the calculations mailed out. He testified that, regardless of its content, the Final Notification would not have been sent to Petitioner unless the Division had considered Petitioner's DROP application to be complete. Mr. Hunnicutt testified that it is not Agency practice to send an "acceptance into DROP letter." In his opinion, an FRS member is supposed to know he is in DROP unless he is advised that he is not in DROP. The Division viewed Petitioner as automatically having entered DROP on his request date of July 1, 2001. The Division considered Petitioner's begin date of DROP participation to be July 1, 2001, as Petitioner had requested on April 12, 2001. Accordingly, the Division also considered Petitioner's first month of DROP participation to have ended on July 31, 2001. By "DROP participation date" the Agency means "begin DROP participation date." The Division allows members to change or amend their DROP applications during the first month of retirement or DROP participation because it takes approximately a month to make final benefit calculations, and the Division's aspirational goal is to provide the final calculations before the 30 days are up. Therefore, in the Division's view and practice, Petitioner's right to alter any of his retirement selections would have been July 31, 2001. On August 22, 2001, Petitioner received the "Final Notification," dated July 19, 2001, but mailed August 20, 2001. (P-1). It showed a final retirement calculation of benefits for Petitioner which was $6.15 less per month than the original estimate he had received in April 2001. Immediately thereafter, Petitioner went to the UF Retirement Office and discovered the opportunity afforded by the 2001 legislation. By an August 30, 2001, letter, Petitioner wrote Mr. Hunnicutt, requesting to make a change in his DROP participation begin date to either January 2002 or July 2002, dependent upon receiving and reviewing new estimated calculations of benefits based on each of those dates (P-2.) On September 13, 2001, the Division denied Petitioner's request, citing Subsections 121.091(13)(b)3. and (13)(c)1. and 3., Florida Statutes, and advised that: After your DROP begin date, you cannot cancel your DROP participation, change your DROP begin date, change your option selection, or claim additional creditable service period. The letter did not mention the 30 days' grace period for changes which previous correspondence had and which is the Division's acknowledged practice. It stated that it constituted final agency action. Petitioner continued to argue his case by correspondence, seeking an administrative hearing if necessary. Apparently, it was not clear to many members of the academic community that university instructional personnel, as well as K-9 teachers, were eligible under the 2001 extended DROP sign-up amendment. However, as of October 2001, the Division had accepted DROP applications for instructional personnel who previously had not joined DROP during their initial DROP window period and who, as a result, and but for the new statutory amendment, would never have been eligible for DROP. As of October 2001, the Division also had advised other instructional personnel, that due to the new amendment, they were newly exempt from the 12-month window and could apply for DROP at any time. 2 On October 5, 2001, the Division again denied Petitioner's request to withdraw from DROP. In this letter, the Division also provided greater detail as to the reasons for its denial, stated it was final agency action, and included more details advising Petitioner of his right to request a disputed- fact hearing. The 2001 legislative session enacted, in addition to the amendment affecting Petitioner, a number of other amendments which affected retirement benefits, The Division made no blanket mailing to all members of FRS concerning any 2001 retirement law amendments until its annual bulletin, discussing all of the amendments, was mailed for the Division to all FRS members on December 28, 2001, by a private company in New York.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Retirement enter a final order deeming Petitioner timely withdrawn from DROP in the month of July 2001, returning him to an FRS status of regular employment, earning regular retirement serviceable credit, and providing for a recalculation of his retirement credits as appropriate to his altered status. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2002, 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 16th day of May, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is who is entitled to payment of remaining retirement benefits due to James E. Brandon, deceased.
Findings Of Fact James E. Brandon was employed by the Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation Department and was a participant in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Mr. Brandon had a long standing relationship with Dennis A. Barga. In February 1995, James E. Brandon applied for FRS disability benefits due to a medical condition. On the application for disability benefits, James E. Brandon designated Dennis A. Barga as his primary beneficiary. The application for disability benefits was approved in June 1995, with an effective retirement date of March 1, 1995. James E. Brandon elected to receive benefits under "Option 2" of the FRS, which provides for a lifetime benefit to the covered employee. Option 2 also provides that, if the covered employee does not survive for the ten years following retirement, payment is made to a designated beneficiary for the remainder of the ten year period. James E. Brandon died on August 28, 1995, of the condition which resulted in his disability. James E. Brandon did not personally receive any of his disability benefits. By letter dated September 29, 1995, the Division notified Mr. Barga that he was entitled to receive the remaining benefit payments for the ten year period. At the end of September, the Division sent two checks to the home of James E. Brandon. One check covered the initial benefits period from March 1995 through August 1995. The second check was for the September 1995 benefit. The checks were not returned to the Division and apparently were cashed or deposited. On October 10, 1995, the Division was notified by William Brandon that his brother, James E. Brandon, had completed a form amending his designation of beneficiary and that the form had been filed with the Division. The Division searched its files and located a form, FRS M-10, which was apparently filed on July 25, 1995, by James E. Brandon, and which amends his prior designation to identify sequential beneficiaries. The amended beneficiaries, in order, are William W. Brandon, III, Daniel A. Brandon, and Victoria Weaver Stevens. The Brandons are family members of the deceased. Ms. Stevens is a long-time family friend and was also employed by the Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation Department. FRS Form M-10 is the form adopted by the Division for use by a non-retired FRS participant in designating a beneficiary. Form M-10 does not require execution before a notary public. FRS Form FST-12 is the form adopted by the Division for use by a retired participant in designating a beneficiary. Form FST-12 requires execution before a notary public. The amendment of the beneficiaries should have been executed on a Form FST-12. The Form M-10, which was filed on July 25, 1995, was provided to James E. Brandon by the human resources office of the Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation Department. The form was obtained by Victoria Weaver Stevens apparently at the request of the deceased. The filing of the improper form was through no fault of James E. Brandon. The Petitioner suggests that the signature on the Form M-10 is a forgery. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. The evidence establishes that the deceased sometimes included his middle initial in his signature, and other times did not. The Petitioner suggests that during the last weeks of the deceased's life, he was overmedicated, was often unaware of his surroundings, and was likely manipulated into changing the designated beneficiaries. There is no credible evidence that James E. Brandon was mentally incapacitated and unable to understand the import of his decisions at the time the amendment was filed with the Division.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Retirement enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition of Dennis A. Barga. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 David T. Weisbrod, Esquire 601 North Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Stanley N. Danek, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Thomas Frost, Esquire 7901 Fourth Street North Suite 315 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
Findings Of Fact Having listened to the testimony and considered the exhibits presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Since 1964, Petitioner has been employed by the State of Florida, Department of Transportation. His duties consist of operating a tractor pulling a rotary mower which cuts grass on the rights of way of primary and interstate highways. Exhibits 2, 3 and 4. Prior to 1970, Petitioner was a member of the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System, under which he was not covered for in line of duty disability retirement benefits. In 1967, while employed by the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, Petitioner injured his lower back and left leg when a tractor fell off the back of a lowboy trailer. Exhibits 1, 3, 4 and 11. In 1970, Petitioner transferred from the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System to the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Exhibit 17. During his regular working hours in March of 1974, Petitioner again injured his back while moving road material. Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 8 and 13. On October 31, 1974, Petitioner applied for disability retirement on the basis of the March of 1974 injury. Exhibit 1. Mr. W. W. Ray, Engineer II with the Department of Transportation, completed a "Statement of Disability by Employer" form on October 21, 1974, answering affirmatively the question of whether petitioner was, prior to his alleged disability, able to perform all of the duties of his position fully and completely. It was further stated by Mr. Ray that petitioner "has been very good employee during his employment. Had worked up to lead worker in his mowing crew." Mr. Ray concluded that "most any job which we have would require a certain amount of working with hand tools and stooping over or standing for long periods of time which could be painful for persons with back problems." Exhibit 2. Two Florida licensed physicians submitted Florida Retirement System Physician's Reports. Form FR-13b. Dr. W. J. Newcomb stated that Petitioner "had strained his back and aggravated the degenerative arthritic condition that existed in his back." He had no "definite indication of proof that the original injury of 1966 [sic] or the subsequent injury of 1974 caused his degenerated condition." Dr. Newcomb felt "it was just probably aggravated by the related accidents." It was opined that Petitioner could do the duties of his occupation in a protected manner, but he would have chronic difficulty with his back. The performance of Petitioner's duties would produce pain because of his current illness or injury. Exhibit 3. Dr. Howard T. Currie opined that Petitioner was unable to, perform any of the duties of his occupation because of his current illness or injury. Exhibit 4. On June 5, 1975, a letter was sent to Petitioner by Administrator, Robert L. Kennedy, Jr., under the signature of David W. Ragsdale, Supervisor, Disability Determination Unit. This letter notified Petitioner that the State Retirement Director was unable to approve his application for in line of duty disability retirement benefits "[s]ince your injury is an aggravation of a preexisting condition and since your initial injury occurred prior to the Florida Retirement System..." However, it was determined that Petitioner did meet the requirements for regular disability retirement as described in F.S. 121.091(4)(b) Exhibit A. In accordance with F.S. Chapter 120, the Petitioner filed a petition requesting a hearing and the Respondent requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is my recommendation that Petitioner be awarded the greater benefits allowable for a member totally and permanently disabled in line of duty. Respectfully submitted and entered this 9th day of September, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George Ralph Miller, Esquire P.0. Box 112 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 L. Keith Pafford, Esquire Division of Retirement 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
