The Issue Whether Petitioner Deborah Barrington, the surviving spouse of Ronald Mitchell Barrington, is entitled to a monthly benefit from Mr. Barrington’s Florida Retirement System (FRS) pension plan.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged under chapter 121, Florida Statutes, with administering the FRS. In 1986, Mr. Barrington began employment with the Department of Revenue (DOR). Mr. Barrington was a member of the FRS pension plan based on his employment with DOR. Ms. Barrington was the spouse of Mr. Barrington. Ms. Barrington testified that she was married to Mr. Barrington for 43 years. On June 6, 2007, Mr. Barrington contacted Respondent, via email, to inquire as to when he could enter the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) administered by Respondent. Respondent requested some additional information from Mr. Barrington, which he provided, including the identity of his spouse, Ms. Barrington. Respondent received, on January 11, 2011, a form entitled “Florida Retirement System Pension Plan, Notice of Election to Participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) and Resignation of Employment,” from Mr. Barrington. This form shows that Mr. Barrington intended to enter the DROP program on April 1, 2011, and that his termination and resignation date would be March 31, 2016. Mr. Barrington also completed a “Florida Retirement System Pension Plan, Application for Service Retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP)” form, which Respondent also received on January 11, 2011. This form, similar to the form described in paragraph 5 above, listed Mr. Barrington’s intended dates to enter the DROP program, and his intended termination and resignation dates, but also listed Ms. Barrington as his primary beneficiary. Respondent also received Form FRS-11o, entitled “Florida Retirement System Pension Plan Option Selection for FRS Members” (Option Selection Form), on January 14, 2011 (according to the facsimile header on this form). The Option Selection Form required Mr. Barrington to select one of four retirement benefit payment options. The Option Selection Form provided an explanation for each of the four options. The Option Selection Form reflects that Mr. Barrington initially selected to receive an Option 3 retirement benefit by checking the line next to the Option 3 benefit payment option. However, the Option Selection Form also reflects that Mr. Barrington struck through the checkmark next to the Option 3 benefit payment option, wrote his initials “RB,” and then checked the line next to the Option 1 benefit payment option, indicating he selected to receive the Option 1 retirement benefit. A significant difference exists between Options 1 and 3: Option 3 provides for a “reduced monthly benefit” during the member’s lifetime, and after death, the member’s joint annuitant would receive a lifetime monthly benefit in that same amount; while under Option 1, the member would receive the maximum benefit for the member’s life, with no continuing benefit to a joint annuitant after the member’s death. The Option Selection Form reflects that Deborah Holley notarized the signature of Mr. Barrington. Along with the Option Selection Form, Respondent received a form entitled “Florida Retirement System Pension Plan Spousal Acknowledgement Form,” (Spousal Acknowledgment Form) on January 14, 2011 (according to the facsimile header on this form). The Spousal Acknowledgment Form provides that if the member is married and has selected Option 1 or 2 on the Option Selection Form, the member’s spouse must complete “Box 2” on the Spousal Acknowledgment Form. The Spousal Acknowledgment Form reflects that Ms. Barrington completed “Box 2,” but in the portion that states that she “acknowledge[s] that the member has selected Option 1 or 2[,]” the Spousal Acknowledgment Form reflects that “1 or 2” is stricken through, and instead, the number “3” is hand written nearby. The Spousal Acknowledgment Form further reflects the signature of Ms. Barrington, dated September 10, 2010, and that Deborah Holley notarized the signatures of both Mr. and Ms. Barrington. Respondent introduced into evidence Ms. Holley’s public commission as a notary in the State of Florida, indicating that Ms. Holley was a duly licensed notary, and which was effective when Mr. and Ms. Barrington executed the Spousal Acknowledgment Form. On February 1, 2011, Respondent mailed Mr. Barrington an “Acknowledgment of DROP Application,” acknowledging: (a) receipt of Mr. Barrington’s Application for Service Retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP); (b) his selection of Option 1 as the benefit payment option; and (c) his DROP begin date of April 1, 2011, and this DROP end date of March 31, 2016. The Acknowledgment of DROP application expressly states, in bold, all-caps letters, the following: AFTER YOUR FIRST MONTH OF DROP PARTICIPATION (OR 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER IS MAILED, IF LATER) RETIREMENT IS FINAL. YOU CANNOT ADD SERVICE, CHANGE OPTIONS, CHANGE YOUR DROP BEGIN DATE, CHANGE YOUR TYPE OF RETIREMENT OR ELECT THE INVESTMENT PLAN. On May 10, 2011, Respondent mailed Mr. Barrington a “Final Notice of DROP Benefit,” which included his final benefit accrual calculation based on Option 1. Respondent received (according to the facsimile header on this form) on December 14, 2015, a “Florida Retirement System Pension Plan Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) Termination Notification,” from Mr. Barrington, which reflected that he would terminate his employment with an FRS employer on March 31, 2016. On January 11, 2017, Mr. Barrington passed away. On February 23, 2017, Respondent sent a survivor letter to Ms. Barrington informing her that “[t]he option selected by the member does not provide a continuing benefit beyond the month of death.” After Ms. Barrington contacted Respondent to inquire about receiving a monthly benefit, Respondent sent Ms. Barrington a letter, dated November 30, 2020, which constituted final agency action, and which informed Ms. Barrington that Respondent paid Mr. Barrington’s retirement benefits according to his retirement option selection—Option 1—and that denied Ms. Barrington’s request to receive a monthly benefit. Testimony of Ms. Barrington and Mr. Halley Ms. Barrington testified that she never signed the Spousal Acknowledgment Form, that Mr. Barrington mistakenly selected Option 1 on the Option Selection Form, and that Ms. Holley failed to properly notarize these documents. Ms. Barrington further testified that Mr. Barrington was ill and, according to her, must have been confused when he selected Option 1. Ms. Barrington testified that she was not with Mr. Barrington when he completed the Option Selection Form. Ms. Barrington did not present any medical or other evidence to establish that Mr. Barrington lacked mental capacity at the time he executed the Option Selection Form or the Spousal Acknowledgment Form. Ms. Barrington did not present any additional evidence, other than her own testimony, to establish that Ms. Holley failed to properly notarize the Option Selection Form or the Spousal Acknowledgment Form. Mr. Halley testified that when Respondent receives the forms for processing a FRS member’s application to enter the DROP program, it reviews the forms “to make sure they are not blank or any information that is necessary is not omitted[,]” and “for any irregularities on the forms and things of that nature[.]” He testified that at any given time, there are more than one million members in FRS. He testified that it is an “impossibility” for Respondent to reach out to each FRS member to confirm that their signature is authentic, or to call and confirm with each FRS member that they intended the particular option that they selected. Based on the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at the final hearing, Ms. Barrington failed to establish that Mr. Barrington lacked the mental capacity to select a retirement option at the time he completed the Option Selection Form. Based on the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at the final hearing, Ms. Barrington failed to establish that Ms. Holley improperly notarized the Option Section Form or the Spousal Acknowledgment Form.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for a continuing monthly benefit from Mr. Barrington’s FRS pension plan. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2021. Deborah Barrington 44 Parkside Circle Crawfordville, Florida 32327-7413 William Chorba, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services Suite 160 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Gayla Grant, Esquire Department of Management Services Suite 160 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 David DiSalvo, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what amount?
Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. § 57.105(5), Fla. Stat.; and Order and Mandate in Case No. 1D04-4167, First District Court of Appeal. Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: (5) In administrative proceedings under chapter 120, an administrative law judge shall award a reasonable attorney's fee and damages to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and a losing party's attorney or qualified representative in the same manner and upon the same basis as provided in subsections (1)-(4). Such award shall be a final order subject to judicial review pursuant to s. 120.68. If the losing party is an agency as defined in s. 120.52(1), the award to the prevailing party shall be against and paid by the agency. A voluntary dismissal by a nonprevailing party does not divest the administrative law judge of jurisdiction to make the award described in this subsection. Subsection (5) of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, directs the undersigned to the preceding subsections which set forth standards to be applied in the analysis of entitlement to attorney’s fees. Subsection (1) provides that reasonable attorney’s fees shall be awarded to the prevailing party to be paid by the losing party where the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense, when initially presented to the administrative tribunal or at any time before the administrative hearing, “[w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense or [w]ould not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.” The standards set forth in Subsection (1) and incorporated by reference in Subsection (5) were the result of an amendment to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, in 1999. s. 4, Ch. 99-225, Laws of Florida. Prior to that amendment, the statute provided for the award of attorney’s fees when “there was a complete absence of justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint or defense of the losing party.” These new standards became applicable to administrative hearings in 2003 by s. 9, Ch. 2003-94, Laws of Florida, with an effective date of June 4, 2003. Petitioner filed his Petition for Administrative Hearing in September 2003. Accordingly, the newer standards of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, apply to this case. In the case of Wendy’s v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the court discussed the legislative changes to Section 57.105: [T]his statute was amended in 1999 as part of the 1999 Tort Reform Act in an effort to reduce frivolous litigation and thereby to decrease the cost imposed on the civil justice system by broadening the remedies that were previously available. See Ch. 99- 225, s. 4, Laws of Florida. Unlike its predecessor, the 1999 version of the statute no longer requires a party to show a complete absence of a justiciable issue of fact or law, but instead allows recovery of fees for any claims or defenses that are unsupported. (Citations omitted) However, this Court cautioned that section 57.105 must be applied carefully to ensure that it serves the purpose for which it was intended, which was to deter frivolous pleadings. (Citations omitted) In determining whether a party is entitled to statutory attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, frivolousness is determined when the claim or defense was initially filed; if the claim or defense is not initially frivolous, the court must then determine whether the claim or defense became frivolous after the suit was filed. (Citation omitted) In so doing, the court determines if the party or its counsel knew or should have known that the claim or defense asserted was not supported by the facts or an application of existing law.(Citation omitted) An award of fees is not always appropriate under section 57.105, even when the party seeking fees was successful in obtaining the dismissal of the action or summary judgment in an action. (Citation omitted) Wendy's v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 523. The court in Wendy’s recognized that the new standard is difficult to define and must be applied on a case-by-case basis: While the revised statute incorporates the ‘not supported by the material facts or would not be supported by application of then-existing law to those material facts’ standard instead of the ‘frivolous’ standard of the earlier statute, an all encompassing definition of the new standard defies us. It is clear that the bar for imposition of sanctions has been lowered, but just how far it has been lowered is an open question requiring a case by case analysis. Wendy’s v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 524 citing Mullins v. Kennelly, 847 So. 2d at 1155, n.4. (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). More recently, the First District Court of Appeal further described the legislative change: The 1999 version lowered the bar a party must overcome before becoming entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes . . . Significantly, the 1999 version of 57.105 ‘applies to any claim or defense, and does not require that the entire action be frivolous.’ Albritton v. Ferrera, 913 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), quoting Mullins v. Kennelly, supra. The Florida Supreme Court has noted that the 1999 amendments to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, “greatly expand the statute’s potential use.” Boca Burger, Inc. v. Richard Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 570, (Fla. 2005). The phrase “supported by the material facts” found in Section 57.105(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was defined by the court in Albritton to mean that the “party possesses admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact if accepted by the finder of fact.” Albritton, 913 So. 2d 5, at 7, n.1. Therefore, the first question is whether FAMU or its attorneys knew or should have known that its defense of Dr. Jain’s claim was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the defense when the case was initially filed or at any time before trial. That is, did FAMU possess admissible evidence sufficient to establish its defense. The parties filed a Pretrial Stipulation the day before the hearing. The Pretrial Stipulation characterized FAMU’s position as follows: It is the position of the University that Dr. Babu Jain retired at the close of business on May 30, 2003, pursuant to the provision of the DROP retirement program. Dr. Jain did not have the right, nor the authority, to unilaterally rescind his resignation and retirement date. In a letter dated May 5, 2003, the Division of Retirement informed Dr. Jain that it was providing him with the “DROP VOID” form that had to be signed by himself and the University, for his participation in DROP to be rescinded. No University official signed that form nor agreed to rescind his retirement. On May 30, 2003, Dr. Babu Jain knew that his retirement through DROP had not been voided and that he had in-fact retired. The University included the position that Dr. Jain occupied in its vacancy announcement in the ‘Chronicle of Higher Education.’ The University, through Dr. Larry Robinson notified Dr. Jain that his retirement rescission was not accepted. Dr. Jain did not work past May 30, 2003. Finally, there was never a ‘meeting of the minds’, nor any other agreement between the University and Dr. Jain to void his retirement commitment. It [is] the University’s position that Dr. Babu Jain retired from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University effective at the close of business on May 30, 2003. Pretrial Stipulation at 14-15. (emphasis in original) The material facts known by FAMU necessary to establish its defense against Petitioner's claim at the time the case was filed included: Petitioner’s initial Notice of Election to Participate in DROP and Resignation of Employment in which Dr. Jain resigned effective the date he terminated from DROP (designated as May 30, 2003); Dr. Robinson’s letter dated May 27, 2003, which asserted that the University was not in agreement with Dr. Jain's decision and that the decision to terminate from DROP is a mutual one; Dr. Robinson's letter of May 30, 2003, which informed Dr. Jain that the two summer semester employment contracts were issued to him in error and informing Dr. Jain that he would be paid through May 30, 2003, his designated DROP date; the refusal of anyone from FAMU to sign the DROP-VOID form provided to Dr. Jain by the Division of Retirement; the reassignment of another instructor to take over Dr. Jain’s classes the first Monday following the designated DROP termination date; and the Refund of Overpayment of Salary Form and resulting salary deduction from Dr. Jain’s sick leave payout. It is difficult to determine what, if any, additional facts FAMU learned through discovery. That is, whether deposition testimony of FAMU officials enlightened FAMU or its attorneys as to material facts not known at the time the case was filed by Dr. Jain, is not readily apparent. However, a review of the pre-trial depositions reveals material facts which supported FAMU’s defense that the summer contracts were issued in error and that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties regarding voiding Dr. Jain’s DROP participation. In particular, Dr. Robinson, Provost and Vice- President for Academic Affairs, testified in deposition that when he signed Dr. Jain’s summer employment contracts on May 20, 2003, he had no knowledge of Dr. Jain’s participation in the DROP program; that he first became aware that Dr. Jain was in DROP with a DROP termination date of May 30, 2003, upon receiving a May 21, 2003, memorandum from Nellie Woodruff, Director of the FAMU Personnel Office; and that Dean Larry Rivers did not have the authority to issue work assignments for any of his faculty beyond their DROP dates. Additionally, Dr. Henry Williams, Assistant Dean for Science and Technology, testified in deposition that when he signed the Recommendation for Summer Employment on May 5, 2003, which recommended Dr. Jain for teaching summer courses beginning May 12, 2003, he was unaware that there was a 30-day window during which a DROP participant could not be employed. Obviously, when the undersigned weighed all of the evidence, including evidence presented at hearing which is not part of this analysis, it was determined that the preponderance of the evidence was in favor of Dr. Jain’s position. However, that is not the standard to be applied here. The undersigned concludes that at the time the case was filed and prior to the commencement of the hearing, FAMU possessed admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact that it did not give written agreement to his decision to abandon DROP and resume employment if accepted by the finder of fact. While the finder of fact ultimately did not agree with FAMU, FAMU possessed the material facts necessary to establish the defense, i.e., admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact if accepted by the trier of fact, when the case was filed and prior to the final hearing. The second question is whether FAMU’s defense would not be supported by the application of then existing law to those material facts, when the case was initially filed or at any time before the final hearing. In the Pretrial Stipulation, the parties referenced Sections 121.091(13) and 121.021(39), Florida Statutes, as provisions of law relevant to the determination of the issues in the case.2/ These statutory provisions were also referenced by the undersigned in the Recommended Order as “two competing statutory provisions.” Recommended Order at 15. Subsection 121.091(13), Florida Statutes, establishing the DROP program, was created by s. 8, Ch. 97-180, Laws of Florida, with an effective date of January 1, 1999.3/ Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes (2003), read as follows: DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PROGRAM.--In general, and subject to the provisions of this section, the Deferred Retirement Option Program, hereinafter referred to as the DROP, is a program under which an eligible member of the Florida Retirement System may elect to participate, deferring receipt of retirement benefits while continuing employment with his or her Florida Retirement System employer. The deferred monthly benefits shall accrue in the System Trust Fund on behalf of the participant, plus interest compounded monthly, for the specified period of the DROP participation, as provided in paragraph (c). Upon termination of employment, the participant shall receive the total DROP benefits and begin to receive the previously determined normal retirement benefits. Participation in the DROP does not guarantee employment for the specified period of DROP. Participation in the DROP by an eligible member beyond the initial 60-month period as authorized in this subsection shall be on an annual contractual basis for all participants. Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), read as follows: 'Termination' for a member electing to participate under the Deferred Retirement Option Program occurs when the Deferred Retirement Option Program participant ceases all employment relationships with employers under this system in accordance with s. 121.091(13), but in the event the Deferred Retirement Option Program participant should be employed by any such employer within the next calendar month, termination will be deemed not to have occurred, except as provided in s. 121.091(13)(b)4.c. A leave of absence shall constitute a continuation of the employment relationship. Unlike the situation in Albritton, supra, the DROP program was relatively new and the statutes creating the same were not well established provisions of law. Dr. Jain was in the first “class” of DROP for FAMU. FAMU and its lawyers did not have the benefit of established case law that discussed DROP and its provisions when this case was filed or at any time before the hearing. While general contract law also came into play, it had to be considered in the context of the DROP program, which had no precedent of case law. FAMU argues in its Response to the Motion for Attorney's Fees that it interpreted the provision in Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes, that requires written approval of the employer to be either the DROP VOID form provided by the Division of Retirement or a written document, executed by the designated University official, specifically approving Petitioner's decision. "The University did not believe the employment contracts that were issued to Petitioner in error, would constitute written approval." FAMU's Response at 5. This argument is consistent with the position FAMU took in the Pretrial Statement quoted above, that there was never a meeting of the minds "or any other agreement" that Dr. Jain's retirement rescission was accepted. A critical conclusion in the Recommended Order is found in paragraph 38: "Moreover, while the FAMU administration did not sign the DROP-VOID form, the contracts issued to Dr. Jain constitute written approval of Dr. Jain's employer regarding modification of his termination date." FAMU also took the position in the Pretrial Stipulation that Dr. Jain did not work past May 30, 2003, based upon the material facts recited above. Under that reading of the facts, Dr. Jain did not work during the next calendar month after DROP, and, therefore terminated employment consistent with the definition of "termination" in Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes. Again, while the undersigned did not agree with FAMU's application of the material facts to the then-existing law, FAMU's interpretation was not completely without merit. See Mullins v. Kennerly, 847 So. 2d 1151, 1155. (Case completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by reasonable argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law is a guideline for determining if an action is frivolous.) Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that at the time the case was filed and prior to the commencement of the hearing, FAMU did not know and could not be expected to know that its defense would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to the material facts necessary to establish the defense. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is ORDERED: Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether James B. Anderson, a deceased retiree in the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan, selected Option 1 (maximum retiree’s monthly benefit without any spousal benefit after death of the retiree) or Option 3 (a reduced retiree’s monthly benefit with continued spousal benefit after death of the retiree).
Findings Of Fact On June 30, 2007, the named Petitioner, James B. Anderson, terminated his employment with the University of South Florida (USF) at the age of 69 years and 9 months. At the time, his tenure at USF spanned 27 years and entitled him to receive pension benefits under the Florida State Retirement System Pension Plan. Also on June 30, 2007, Mr. Anderson completed an application for retirement. By applying Mr. Anderson, who was USF’s Director of Insurance and Risk Management, acknowledged that he would not be able to add service, change options, change his type of retirement (regular, disability, and early) or elect the Investment Plan once his retirement became final, which would be when he cashed or deposited any benefit payment. Also on July 2, 2007, Mr. Anderson and his wife, Mitzi Anderson, executed a Statutory Official Form FRS 110 before a notary public. By doing so, they selected Option 1, which provides the maximum pension benefits to Mr. Anderson until his death and no pension benefits to his wife after his death. The form stated clearly, in bold print, that Option 1 did not provide a continuing benefit after Mr. Anderson’s death and that the selection of Option 1 would be final when Mr. Anderson cashed or deposited any benefit payment. The next day, Mr. Anderson faxed the executed form to the Division of Retirement, which mailed Mr. Anderson an acknowledgement of receipt of the executed form. The acknowledgement included a clear statement, in bold print, that Mr. Anderson would not be able to change his benefit option selection after retirement and that his retirement would become final when he cashed or deposited any benefit payment. Mr. Anderson had second thoughts about his benefit option selection and contacted Donna Pepper, a retirement specialist employed by USF, to discuss changing to Option 3, which would give him a reduced pension benefit that would continue and be paid to his wife after his death. On July 6, 2007, Ms. Pepper sent an email to Mr. Anderson stating: “Here is another option selection form so that you can change your option.” The email attached a blank Statutory Official Form FRS 110. Ms. Pepper’s email also stated: “As we discussed, you may want to indicate that this form should supersede the previously submitted form.” It also advised the Petitioner to keep a copy for his records and send the original to the Division of Retirement as soon as possible. On July 20, 2007, at 12:53 p.m., a comment was entered on the Integrated Retirement Information System (IRIS) telephone log, documenting that Mr. Anderson was considering changing his benefit option selection and would “either FAX a form with a change of option on it or call to let them know he would not make the change.” The comment also documented that Jan Steller in retirement payroll was asked to hold Mr. Anderson’s first check until “this is resolved.” Later the same day, at 2:30 p.m., another comment was added to document that Mr. Anderson had called back to say he had decided to stay with Option 1 and that Jan Steller had been called back and asked “to release his check.” On July 31, 2007, an initial pension check was sent to Mr. Anderson in the amount of $4,188.45, in accordance with his selection of benefit Option 1, which was about $1,200 more than it would be under Option 3. This check was not immediately cashed. On August 31, 2007, a second Option 1 pension check in the same amount was sent to Mr. Anderson. On September 4, 2007, Mr. Anderson deposited the first two benefit checks into his Bank of America account. He continued to receive and cash or deposit monthly Option 1 benefit checks through January 2015. Mr. Anderson died on February 14, 2015. His wife notified the Division of Retirement, which stopped benefit payments in accordance with Mr. Anderson’s Option 1 selection. In March 2015, Mrs. Anderson found among her husband’s papers a copy of an executed Form FRS 110 that selected Option 3. Notwithstanding the telephonic communications with the Division of Retirement on July 20, 2007, the executed form indicates that it was notarized on July 23, 2007. Included in handwriting at the bottom of the executed form was the language, as suggested by Ms. Pepper: “This option supersedes option dated 7-02-07.” Mrs. Anderson also found a copy of Donna Pepper’s e-mail dated July 6, 2007, with instructions on how to change the selection of pension payments. Mrs. Anderson sent copies to the Division of Retirement and requested Option 3 spousal benefit payments. The Division of Retirement denied Mrs. Anderson’s request because it did not receive an Option 3 benefit selection before the copy Mrs. Anderson sent in March 2015. There was no evidence that the form was sent to the Division of Retirement before then. This, together with the fact that Mr. Anderson received and cashed or deposited seven and a half years’ worth of monthly Option 1 benefit checks, which were each over $1,200 more than the Option 3 benefit would have been, support a finding that Mr. Anderson actually selected Option 1 and never switched to Option 3. It is not clear from the evidence why Mr. Anderson kept a copy of an executed change from Option 1 to Option 3 after deciding not to send it to the Division of Retirement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that Mr. Anderson selected benefit Option 1, finally and irrevocably and that Mrs. Anderson is not entitled to Option 3 spousal benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas E. Karatinos, Esquire Law Office of Karatinos Suite 101 18920 North Dale Mabry Highway Lutz, Florida 33540 (eServed) Joe Thompson, Esquire Department of Management Services Suite 160 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Dan Drake, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 (eServed) J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Ste. 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to the retirement benefits of her late husband, Frederick Griffith.
Findings Of Fact Frederick Griffith was employed with the Broward County School System from January 4, 1971, until his death on June 9, 1996. Frederick Griffith was enrolled with the State of Florida Retirement System at the time of his death. Frederick Griffith separated from his first wife, Ruth Griffith, in 1976, and they were divorced on October 25, 1989. Frederick Griffith and Petitioner, Joyce Griffith, were married on November 25, 1989, after having been together for approximately 12 years. Joyce and Frederick Griffith were married at the time of his death. Joyce Griffith applied for her husband's benefits as the surviving spouse. The Respondent, Division of Retirement (Division), denied Joyce Griffith benefits as surviving spouse, stating that the beneficiary of record was Ruth Griffith. The Division advised Joyce Griffith that they would recognize her as surviving spouse and pay her a monthly benefit if Ruth Griffith would disclaim her rights as the designated beneficiary. Ruth Griffith refused to disclaim her rights and applied for the benefits as the designated beneficiary. The Division paid her $4,373.94. Because Ruth Griffith was not dependent on Frederick Griffith at the time of his death, she was entitled only to the lump sum amount that Mr. Griffith had paid into the retirement system. On February 2, 1992, Mr. Griffith submitted Retirement Information Request, Form FR-9, to the Division for a calculation of total years of creditable service and the amount due to purchase his creditable military service. On June 15, 1995, the Division replied to the FR-9 request by issuing Form FRS-40, Estimate of Retirement Benefits. The information provided to Mr. Griffith was calculated based on the assumption that Mr. Griffith would retire with a retirement effective date of February, 1997. The Estimate of Retirement Benefits advised Mr. Griffith that there was an apparent discrepancy with the beneficiary listed on his FR-9 and his named beneficiary listed in the Division's official records. Specifically, Mr. Griffith was advised: The spouse listed on the Retirement Information Request, FR-9, and used for this estimate is not your primary beneficiary. If you intend to change your beneficiary designation, please complete a personal history record, FRS-M10, in your personnel office. Mr. Griffith did not file a revised FRS-M10 in response to the advice given by the Division in the June 15, 1995, FRS-40. After Mr. Griffith received the FRS-40, Joyce Griffith insisted that he call the Broward County School Board to verify that she was the designated beneficiary. Joyce Griffith gave her husband the number to call. The school board personnel assured Mr. Griffith that Joyce Griffith was his beneficiary. Apparently, Mr. Griffith called the department which dealt with life insurance benefits and not retirement benefits. Joyce Griffith was the beneficiary of her husband's employer-provided life insurance policy for $150,000. Mr. Griffith had designated her as his beneficiary on a change of beneficiary form dated August, 1990. Mr. Griffith had completed a form entitled Application for Service Retirement designating Joyce Griffith as his primary beneficiary. The form was notarized on November 25, 1995. Mr. Griffith did not indicate a retirement date on the form and never filed the form with either the Division or his employer. After Mr. Griffith's death, Joyce Griffith found an employee copy of a FRS-10 form among Mr. Griffith's military papers. The form was dated November 19, 1991, and signed by Mr. Griffith. The form was not filed with either the School Board of Broward County or the Division. Neither the school board nor the Division have any record of the form being filed. The form was not correctly completed. In the area of the form entitled Designation of Beneficiaries, the employee is supposed to complete only one of three sections. On the form signed by Mr. Griffith, the first section was checked, and the other two sections were filled out with the names of Joyce Griffith and the children of Mr. Griffith.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's request for the retirement benefits of Frederick T. Griffith. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Connie L. Hiaasen, Esquire Regina S. Bushkin, Esquire SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1997. 707 Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 2639-C North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's (Division of Retirement) denial of Petitioner's claim to buy for retirement credit purposes, service while she was a student nurse during the period August, 1941 through December, 1944 was proper.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. The facts herein are virtually undisputed. From August, 1941, through December, 1944, Petitioner was a student nurse at Florida State Hospital (Hospital) at Chattahoochee, Florida. As a student nurse, Petitioner worked twelve (12) hours a day, six and one-half (6-1/2) days per week with one full day off each month. During the weekdays, Petitioner spent time in class, with the remainder of time spent in the wards at the Hospital. Petitioner averaged between thirty-nine (39) and forty-seven (47) hours of work per week at the Hospital. As a student nurse, Petitioner received a salary of $15.00 per month in addition to her room, board, uniform and various fringe benefits such as medical care and leave, much like other Hospital employees. Personnel problems were resolved through the personnel office as with other employees. Petitioner returned to work at the Hospital as a Registered Nurse in October, 1954, and has worked almost continually to the present time. During the period 1970 through early 1972, employees of Florida State Hospital were given the opportunity to participate in the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System (SCOERS). Petitioner participated in that retirement system. During the period 1970 through 1972, various state retirement systems, including SCOERS, merged and formed the present Florida Retirement System (FRS). Petitioner was given the option to transfer to FRS and in fact exercised that option by designating that election on a ballot provided by the personnel office at Florida State Hospital (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The effective date of that transfer to FRS is December 1, 1970. During the period 1970 through early 1972, Respondent permitted transferees of the SCOERS retirement system to transfer student nurse credits as part of the retirement credits in the same manner as "full-time work" for retirement credit purposes. In early 1972, Respondent changed its policy of allowing work as a student nurse to be credited toward retirement benefits. C. J. Brock has been the personnel manager at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee since approximately 1968. He was initially hired at the Hospital in 1955. As personnel manager, Mr. Brock is in charge of submitting employee claims for retirement credits for various types of employment service to FRS for retirement benefits.' Mr. Brock recalled Petitioner visiting his office pan various occasions between the periods 1963 through 1972 inquiring as to the manner for purchasing student time for retirement credit purposes. Mr. Brock advised Petitioner that he would research the wage statements to determine the exact amount of student time she had earned and would refer the matter to FRS for a decision, Mr. Brock is not authorized to act for or on behalf of Respondent. The interaction between the Hospital's personnel officer and Respondent is limited to the referral of claims and certification of wage and employment statements. As such, there is no agency relationship between the Hospital and Respondent. This referral was made by Mr. Brock on Petitioner's behalf on December 20, 1972, and the request was denied. Former student nurses who were members of SCOERS and transferred to FRS during the periods 1970 through early 1972 had been allowed to purchase retirement credit for their student nurse service. This practice ended in early 1972. In this regard, Mr. Brock has certified the payroll records for student nurses who purchased retirement credit for their student nurse time, Ruth Sampson, Assistant Bureau Chief for the Division of Retireent, has primarily been involved in reviewing retirement benefit calculations since approximately 1969. Mrs. Sampson is familiar with the merger of SCOERS and FRS. Mrs. Sampson affirmed that Respondent had a policy which allowed members of SCOERS who transferred to FRS to purchase retirement credit for student employment time and that such policy was followed from December 1, 1970 (the inception of FRS) to early 1972. This policy was also followed by the SCOERS administrator prior to December 1, 1970. This unwritten policy was changed, according to Mrs. Sampson for two primary reasons. First, Chapter 122, Florida Statutes, did not permit the purchase of student time. Secondly, with the combination of SCOERS and the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) into the combined FRS system, an inequity existed since TRS members, unlike student nurses, were not allowed to purchase student time. As stated, the letter from Mr. Brock certifying Petitioner's employment and wage statements for the period in question was dated December 20, 1972. Mrs. Sampson, by letter dated March 30, 1973, requested additional information respecting the salary paid Petitioner and the amount of time she actually spent working at the Hospital during the period in question. Mr. Brock replied by letter dated April 4, 1973, advising that during the period in question, Petitioner was a student nurse at the Hospital which paid a full-time salary of $15.00 per month. By letter dated May 14, 1973, Mrs. Sampson denied Petitioner's claim since Petitioner was primarily a student during the period that the prior service claim was submitted (Joint Exhibit No. 1). Mr. Robert L. Kennedy, Jr. , the former Director of FRS, appeared and related that the policy decision was made to discontinue the practice of allowing student time to be credited for retirement purposes since that practice was not contemplated by pertinent statutes. Former Director Kennedy disagreed with the Comptroller's policy decision which had previously allowed this practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's appeal of the State Retirement Director's decision denying her request to purchase prior service credit for her service as a student nurse be DENIED. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the decision of the State Retirement Director be SUSTAINED. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edward S. Stafman, Esquire Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire PATTERSON and TRAYNHAN Division of Retirement 1215 Thomasville Road Cedars Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32302 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C - Box .81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner retired from employment with the State of Florida effective January 1, 1976, and began drawing retirement benefits on that date. During 1979, she worked for the South Florida State Hospital, her former employer, on a temporary basis while continuing to receive retirement compensation of $235.46 monthly. At the request of the South Florida State Hospital, Petitioner worked from June 7 through August 10, and September 7 through December 6, 1979. On September 28, she reached five hundred hours of employment for the calendar year. Therefore, Petitioner exceeded five hundred hours of state employment during the months of September, October, November, and December, 1979. Respondent seeks return of retirement compensation for the last three days of September and for all of the months of October, November and December, plus ten percent annual interest. This amounts to $729.93 in retirement compensation plus $36.04 interest through April 30, 1980.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner be ordered to repay the State of Florida retirement compensation in the amount of $729.93 plus ten percent interest compounded annually. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-1777 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Sarah H. Hoyle 1201 S.W. 17th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire Division Attorney Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C - Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Christopher M. Rundle, Esquire South Florida State Hospital 1000 S.W. 84th Avenue Hollywood, Florida Mr. A. J. McMullian, III State Retirement Director Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Josephine K. Saunders, the designated beneficiary, is entitled to the benefits payable on the teacher's retirement account of William E. Saunders, deceased, or whether she contractually waived her right to such benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order denying the relief requested by petitioner and distributing the Teachers' Retirement System benefits of William E. Saunders to Josephine K. Saunders, the designated beneficiary. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1981.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Rina Richard DeMichael (“Petitioner”), the surviving spouse of David DeMichael, is entitled to change the Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) retirement benefits payment Option 1 selected by Mr. DeMichael.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged under chapter 121, Florida Statutes, with administering the FRS. In 1991, Mr. DeMichael began employment with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office (“BCSO”). Mr. DeMichael was a member of the FRS pension plan based on his employment with the BCSO as a deputy sheriff. Mr. DeMichael married Petitioner on November 19, 2011. On February 11, 2013, Mr. DeMichael retired from the BCSO. At that time, he signed the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan Application for Service Retirement form (“Application for Service Retirement Form”) designating Petitioner as his primary beneficiary. On February 11, 2013, Mr. DeMichael also signed the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan Option Selection for FRS Members form (Form FRS-110)(“Option Selection Form”). On the Option Selection Form, Mr. DeMichael was required to select one of four retirement benefit payment options. The Option Selection Form provided an explanation for each of the four options. Mr. DeMichael selected to receive an Option 1 retirement benefit by checking the line next to the Option 1 benefit payment option. Option 1 provides the maximum benefit for the life of the FRS member with no continuing benefit after the member’s death. On February 11, 2013, Petitioner signed the Spousal Acknowledgement Form (Form SA-1)(“Spousal Acknowledgement Form”) acknowledging that Mr. DeMichael “selected either Option 1 or 2.” The purpose of the Spousal Acknowledgement Form is to inform the spouse that he/she will not receive a lifetime benefit following the FRS member’s death. The Spousal Acknowledgement Form does not give a spouse control over which option the FRS member selects. That option selection decision is the sole choice of the member. The Spousal Acknowledgement Form provided an explanation of the four different retirement payment options available to FRS members. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged she signed the Spousal Acknowledgement Form. Ms. Tiffany Pieters was a duly licensed notary with the State of Florida and an employee of BCSO on February 11, 2013. Ms. Pieters notarized the Application for Service Retirement Form and Option Selection Form signed by Mr. DeMichael, and the Spousal Acknowledgement Form signed by Petitioner. The Division received Mr. DeMichael’s Application for Service Retirement Form, Option Selection Form, and Petitioner’s Spousal Acknowledgement Form on or about February 11, 2013. On February 20, 2013, Respondent mailed Mr. DeMichael an Acknowledgement of Service Retirement Application letter acknowledging Respondent’s receipt of Mr. DeMichael’s Application for Service Retirement Form; his selection of Option 1 as the benefit payment option; his employment termination date of February 11, 2013; and retirement date of March 1, 2013. The Acknowledgement of Service Retirement Application letter expressly provides that Mr. DeMichael cannot change the option he selected once his retirement becomes final, and that retirement benefits become final when any payment is cashed or deposited. Mr. DeMichael’s Application for Service Retirement Form and Option Selection Form also expressly provide that he cannot change the option he selected once his retirement becomes final, and that retirement benefits become final when any benefit payment is cashed or deposited. On February 20, 2013, Respondent also mailed Mr. DeMichael an Estimate of Retirement Benefit letter, which provides an estimate of the payment benefit for each of the four options. The letter also acknowledges that Mr. DeMichael selected Option 1, and that his option selection cannot be changed after any payment is cashed or deposited. On April 1, 2013, Respondent mailed a request for birth date verification to Mr. DeMichael. In response, on April 30, 2013, Respondent received Mr. DeMichael’s birth certificate. Based on his selection of Option 1, Mr. DeMichael received an initial retroactive payment of $7,809.76 on May 10, 2013; an initial regular retirement payment of $3,904.88 on May 31, 2013; and a subsequent retirement payment every month in 2013 in the monthly amount of $3,904.88. Mr. DeMichael received a retirement payment every month beginning May 2013 until he died on August 25, 2015. Mr. DeMichael received a total of 29 retirement payments for a total gross benefit amount of $119,832.92. Each retirement payment was cashed or deposited into Mr. DeMichael’s bank account. Respondent was notified of Mr. DeMichael’s death in August 2015. On or about October 6, 2015, Respondent notified Petitioner that Mr. DeMichael’s benefit had ended and that there would be no continuing benefit to her based on Mr. DeMichael’s Option 1 selection. In this proceeding, Petitioner claims she is entitled to change Mr. DeMichael’s Option 1 retirement benefit selection and receive a continuing monthly spousal benefit. In support of her position, Petitioner contends Mr. DeMichael’s selection of Option 1 is invalid because he lacked the mental capacity to make a retirement option at the time his Application for Service Retirement Form and Option Selection Form was submitted to Respondent. Based on the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing, Petitioner failed to establish that Mr. DeMichael lacked the mental capacity to make a retirement option at the time his Application for Service Retirement Form and Option Selection Form were submitted to Respondent. No medical evidence was presented establishing that Mr. DeMichael was mentally incapacitated at the time he executed the Application for Service Retirement Form and Option Selection Form on February 11, 2013. In fact, Mr. DeMichael was released from Sunrise Detoxification Center on February 11, 2013, following in-patient rehabilitative treatment for his alcoholism. Petitioner’s Exhibit 7 expressly states that Mr. DeMichael “was medically stable for discharge” at 8:00 a.m. that morning. Moreover, Petitioner and Mr. DeMichael ate breakfast together later that morning at the BCSO cafeteria. Subsequently, Petitioner was escorted to the BCSO Internal Affairs area where she was questioned about Mr. DeMichael’s alcoholism. After Petitioner refused to answer any questions, she was escorted to the BCSO rooftop terrace. After a while, Mr. DeMichael came to the rooftop terrace. According to Petitioner, Mr. DeMichael was smiling and they exchanged pleasantries. After February 11, 2013, Mr. DeMichael continued to manage his own financial affairs, including his bank account. On April 1, 2013, Respondent sent a request to Mr. DeMichael to provide verification regarding his date of birth. In response, Mr. DeMichael sent his birth certificate to Respondent. Finally, at no time did Petitioner ever seek a guardianship or power of attorney over Mr. DeMichael, and at no time was Mr. DeMichael adjudicated incompetent by a court. Petitioner also claims that Mr. DeMichael’s selection of Option 1 is invalid and that she is entitled to a continuing benefit because she lacked the opportunity to read the Spousal Acknowledgement Form before signing it. Based on the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing, Petitioner failed to establish that she lacked the opportunity to read the Spousal Acknowledgement Form before signing it. In support of her position, Petitioner testified at one point in the hearing that she only saw the area of the form near where she signed it. However, in the area of the form near where Petitioner signed (Respondent’s Exhibit No. 6) is the express “acknowledgement that the member has selected either Option 1 or 2.” At another point in the hearing, Petitioner testified she saw the small writing below her signature at the bottom of the Spousal Acknowledgement Form, but she did not read any of the writing. The small writing below Petitioner’s signature at the bottom of the form provides an explanation of the four retirement benefit payment options. Notably, Petitioner did not testify that she asked Ms. Pieters for any explanation of the Spousal Acknowledgement Form. Further, Petitioner did not testify that she needed or asked for more time to read the Spousal Acknowledgement Form before signing it, or that Ms. Pieters refused to allow her to read the form. Petitioner could have asked Ms. Pieters for more time to read the Spousal Acknowledgement Form if she felt it was necessary, but she did not. At no time did Petitioner ever file a complaint against Ms. Pieters or complain about her handling of the Spousal Acknowledgement Form. Had Petitioner been concerned about the Spousal Acknowledgement form or Mr. DeMichael’s mental capacity on February 11, 2013, she also could have spoken to Judy Cowell, Mr. DeMichael’s supervisor at BCSO. Ms. Cowell greeted Petitioner and Mr. DeMichael at the front office when they arrived at BCSO on the morning of February 11, 2013, and Ms. Cowell escorted them to the cafeteria and rooftop terrace. At hearing, Petitioner testified that Ms. Cowell “was like a mom,” and that she had spoken to her on numerous occasions when Mr. DeMichael had problems with his employment. At hearing, the undersigned had the distinct opportunity to observe Petitioner’s testimony and her demeanor. Petitioner’s testimony regarding Mr. DeMichael’s alleged mental incapacity on February 11, 2013, and her not having the opportunity to read the Spousal Acknowledgement Form and the alleged invalidity of the Spousal Acknowledgement Form, Option Selection Form, and Application for Service Retirement Form, is not credited and is rejected as unpersuasive. In sum, Petitioner is not entitled to change Mr. DeMichael’s selection of Option 1 as his FRS retirement benefits payment option and she is not entitled to a continuing benefit.
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 Petitioner’s request to change the Florida Retirement System retirement benefits payment Option 1 selected by Mr. DeMichael and receive a continuing monthly spousal benefit. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Casey, Esquire Law Offices of Slesnick and Casey, LLP 2701 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Ladasiah Jackson Ford, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Nikita S. Parker, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) David DiSalvo, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 (eServed) Sean Gellis, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Linda Holston, violated the reemployment provisions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes (2005), and, if so, whether Petitioner is liable to repay the retirement benefits.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Linda Holston, is a member of FRS. She ended DROP and retired, effective January 31, 2006. Petitioner returned to work for the PCSB, for whom she had worked for 32 years on April 17, 2006, as a human resources clerk. With specific statutory exceptions, a FRS retiree is prohibited from returning to work for a FRS employer and receiving retirement benefits during the 12 months following their effective retirement date. As a clerical employee, Petitioner did not qualify for any of the specific statutory exceptions. Shortly after her retirement in 2006, Petitioner was contacted by PCSB regarding returning to work on a part-time basis. She indicated a willingness to return, but advised that she was concerned that her recent retirement would be an impediment to reemployment. Allen Ford, a PCSB employee, contacted Respondent and was advised that Petitioner "fell within the 780 hour maximum hourly requirement for reemployment and that she could work part-time." Mr. Ford did not record the name of Respondent's employee or the date of the conversation. He did not give Petitioner's name to Respondent's employee which would have resulted in the entry of a record of the phone conversation in Petitioner's record. Respondent has no record of Mr. Ford's phone call. Until July 1, 2003, repeal of the exception, certain school board employees could be employed within the first year of retirement for up to 780 hours without the suspension of retirement benefits. Petitioner was assured by PCSB that she could return to part-time work without impairing her retirement benefits. In fact, PCSB supplied, and Petitioner signed, a "District School Board of Pasco County Employment After Retirement Statement" that incorrectly stated that she may "be eligible for a reemployment exemption that limits my reemployment to 780 hours during the limitation period." This document also recorded the fact that Petitioner was a retired member of FRS, although PCSB was fully aware of this fact. However, Respondent was not made aware of Petitioner's reemployment because of her part-time status. After PCSB started reporting Petitioner's wages, Respondent made inquiry regarding her start date and discovered that Petitioner had been reemployed during the first 12 months of her retirement. That discovery initiated this case. In making her decision to return to work, Petitioner relied on the information provided by PCSB; she did not contact Respondent, nor did she review information available from Respondent regarding her status as a retired member of FRS. Petitioner returned to work on April 17, 2006. During the period of April 17, 2006, through January 31, 2007, Petitioner received $14,312.15 in retirement benefits and $1,500.00 in health insurance subsidy. Petitioner's earnings as a part-time clerical worker are insignificant relative to the amount of retirement benefits she is asked to forfeit. As a retired member of FRS, Petitioner is subject to the reemployment limitations in Section 121.091, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Linda Holston, violated the reemployment restrictions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Linda J. Holston 5841 10th Street Zephyrhills, Florida 33542 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
