The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, Evelyn S. Day, is entitled to modify her type of retirement benefits from "early service retirement" to "disability retirement."
Findings Of Fact The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 1 are accepted. The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 2 are accepted. The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 3 are accepted. The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 4 are accepted. The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 5 are accepted in part. In that paragraph, the Hearing Officer found as follows: Her memory and thought processes had evidentially [sic] already begun deteriorating because Mrs. Day was unable to ask guestions concerning her retirement rights, responsibilities, and entitlements very well. Because of this condition, Ms. Hobby agreed to accompany her to the offices of the Division of Retirement in order to ascertain what her retirement rights, entitlements, and responsibilities might be preparatory to Mrs. Day electing to retire. The above-quoted findings are rejected as conclusory and not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 6 are rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence, except the finding that Mrs. Day retired and Ms. Hobby filled out her application for retirement. Additionally, the Hearing Officer's findings that petitioner was incompetent and suffering from Alzheimer's disease are rejected as being legal conclusions not supported by any judicial order or by any competent, substantial evidence in the record. The Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 7 are accepted. The Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 8 are accepted. The Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 9 are accepted. That portion of the Findings of Fact in paragraph 10 which concluded the petitioner was incompetent is rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The petitioner has never been declared incompetent or determined to be incompetent by a medical doctor. Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 11 are accepted in part and rejected in part. That portion of the Findings which states that the application for retirement was not filed by Ms. Day is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. In point of fact, the Division has a filed application signed by the petitioner. The portion of the paragraph finding the petitioner incompetent is rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. There has been no legal or medical determination that the Petitioner is incompetent. Additionally, there is no competent, substantial evidence that petitioner is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The Hearing officer's finding that the petitioner's application was filed in error is not supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, according the Petitioner, Evelyn Day, the opportunity to change the status of her retirement benefits from early retirement to disability retirement, effective as of the date her earlier retirement application was accepted by the agency. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 48B-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2085 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-8. Accepted. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted to the extent that the record establishes that the Petitioner signed the application. Accepted to the extent that it was established that Petitioner has received the retirement checks. It is not established that the Petitioner cashed or deposited those retirement checks by preponderant evidence of record. Accepted insofar as it recites the Respondent's position in this matter. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esq. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Mr. Joseph G. Stokes 911 "B" Street Crestview, Florida 32536 Larry D. Scott, Esq. Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 1639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional retirement benefits for her years of service between September 1966 and December 1974.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a retired member of the FRS. She began working for the Duval County Juvenile Detention Center (DCJDC) in August 1966. However, Petitioner's name was not placed on the payroll until September 1966 because of the time she was absent. As an employee of the DCJDC, Petitioner was a county employee but also a participant in the FRS. She made contributions in the amount of $1,850.78 to the FRS from September 1966 through December 1974. The FRS became non- contributory for all state and county employees in January 1975. Petitioner terminated her employment with Duval County on June 20, 1977. At that time, Petitioner requested a refund of her accumulated contributions to the FRS. Petitioner acknowledged in her request for refund that she waived her interest in FRS for the refunded service. On or about February 22, 1978, Respondent issued Voucher #273254 and Warrant #0364356 made payable to Petitioner in the amount of $1,850.78. Petitioner's testimony that she never received the refund is not credible. On or about October 16, 1981, Petitioner returned to work at DCJDC. After receiving several promotions, Petitioner transferred to a position at the Department of Health. Petitioner terminated her employment at the Department of Health on November 13, 1998. In August 2000, Petitioner filed an Application for Service Retirement. The application includes the following sworn statement: I understand I must terminate all employment with FRS employers to receive a retirement benefit under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. I also understand that I cannot add additional service, change options, or change my type of retirement (Regular, Disability, and Early) once my retirement becomes final. My retirement becomes final when any benefit payment is cashed or deposited. Respondent sent Petitioner an Acknowledgment of Service Retirement Application dated August 10, 2000. The acknowledgment indicated that Petitioner's retirement date was June 2000 and that she could purchase credit for refunded service from September 1966 through December 1974 by paying Respondent $7,918.46. The acknowledgment made it clear that Respondent required written notification if Petitioner did not intend to purchase this service. In March 2001, Petitioner executed an Option Selection for FRS Members. She selected Option 1, which provides her a monthly benefit for her lifetime. In a letter dated March 27, 2001, Petitioner advised Respondent that she did not intend to buy back any time. Additionally, she stated as follows: I would like for my retirement application to be accepted/processed as is. The rate quoted was at $517.00. However, if this amount is incorrect, I would like to know as soon as possible. Based upon Petitioner's statement in the letter, Respondent began paying and Petitioner began receiving her retirement benefits effective June 1, 2000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner is not entitled to any additional retirement benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 24th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Veronica P. Holt 230 East First Street, Apartment 1313 Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sarabeth Snuggs, Interim Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue Whether an employee who has retired on ordinary early retirement and cashed more than 30 retirement checks should be heard on a claim made some two years or more after he retired that he is entitled to disability retirement benefits?
Findings Of Fact On January 15, 1983, petitioner Tommy Gene Grantham left the Escambia County Sheriff's Department after more than 14 years as a deputy sheriff. Respondent gave petitioner notice on April 27, 1983, of its intention to deny his application for disability benefits, which he had made on grounds he was "unable to lift, stand, or perform any type of physical exertion." Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. Petitioner took appropriate steps to cause his application for disability benefits to be placed on the agenda of the State Retirement Commission for its December 13, 1983, meeting. On the following day, the Commission entered a final order dismissing cause, which had the effect of denying the application. Respondent received petitioner's application for service retirement on December 4, 1986. Petitioner made this application because he needed the money. He had only recently been released from the Pavilion, a mental ward at a hospital in Pensacola, where he had been confined in a padded cell from November 15 to December 1, 1966. On December 10, 1986, respondent acknowledged receipt of the application. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. The form acknowledgment said, "[O]nce you retire you can not add additional service nor change options. Retirement becomes final when the first benefit check is cashed." Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. By the time of the hearing in this matter, respondent had cashed more than 30 monthly retirement checks. Nancy Grantham has been married to the petitioner for 15 1/2 years although, between September 5, 1986, and February of 1987, she and her husband were legally separated. Over the years, according to Mrs. Grantham, her husband has suffered from serious mental problems. It was she who took him to the Pavilion on November 15, 1986, when, she recalls, he was "talking crazy," anxious, depressed, and apparently suicidal. At no time has any court adjudicated the petitioner incompetent. The respondent's policy is to honor elections made by retirement system members, even members seeking disability retirement on psychiatric grounds, in the absence of an adjudication of incompetency.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That respondent dismiss petitioner's application for disability retirement benefits. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 21st day of November, 1989. APPENDIX With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 6, the agency actions were not final at those times. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 4 and 5 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3, it is not clear when the application was mailed. COPIES FURNISHED: Tommy G. Grantham 2266 Berrydale Road Cantonment, FL 32533 William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 22399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for disability retirement benefits should be reinstated.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Edna Shepherd is a member of the Florida Retirement System. In September 2001, Ms. Shepherd submitted an application for disability retirement benefits to the Division of Retirement. The application was not complete and several documents were needed to process the application. By letter dated September 27, 2001, the Division wrote Ms. Shepherd acknowledging receipt of the disability application and requesting additional information. Enclosed with the letter were two blank FR-13b forms (Physician's Statement Forms), which were necessary to complete the application. Petitioner did not respond to the September 27, 2001, letter, so the Division mailed another request on October 29, 2001. Again two blank FR-13bs were included with the letter. On November 29, 2001, the Division mailed a third request for information to Petitioner. Blank forms were also included with this letter. By letter dated January 3, 2002, the Division mailed a fourth request to Ms. Shepherd again requesting information necessary to complete her application for disability retirement benefits. After the Division did not receive a response to its previous letters mailed to Petitioner, it sent a letter dated February 4, 2002, by certified mail to Ms. Shepherd advising her that she had 21 days from the date of the letter to submit the necessary information or her application would be cancelled. Finally, after more than six months since submission of her application, the Division sent a letter dated March 25, 2002, by certified mail to Ms. Shepherd notifying her that her disability application was cancelled and giving her 21 days to request a hearing. She did receive this letter and this timely appeal followed. Petitioner's attorney made two submissions to the Division dated September 14, 2001, and February 22, 2002; however, they did not contain the requested physician statements. As of the hearing, the requested physician statements still had not been supplied to the Division. The applicant is responsible for ensuring the Division receives the information necessary to process an application for disability retirement benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Retirement issue a Final Order denying the request of Petitioner Edna M. Shepherd to reinstate her disability retirement application. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon M. Boyajan, II, Esquire 2303 West Highway 44 Inverness, Florida 34453-3809 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Monesia Taylor Brown Deputy General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to change the type of her retirement benefits from early service retirement to disability retirement.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the Florida Retirement System (FRS). The FRS is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. Nearly 1,000 public employers participate in the FRS, including state agencies, local governments, and district school boards. There are more than 600,000 individual active members in the FRS. Petitioner was an employee of the Pasco County School Board until she submitted her resignation on February 28, 2011, in order to retire. By reason of her employment with the Pasco County School Board, Petitioner is a member of the FRS. After Petitioner resigned, she met with Michael Hudson, the director of Employee Benefits for the Pasco County District School Board, on March 4, 2011, to complete the paperwork for her retirement. At the March 4, 2011, meeting, Petitioner completed and signed the form application for service retirement. The information filled out on the form in Petitioner's clear handwriting included her name, position, address, telephone number, social security number, birth date, and service termination date. The following statement appears on the application form immediately above Petitioner's notarized signature: I understand I must terminate all employment with FRS employers to receive a retirement benefit under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. I also understand that I cannot add service, change options, change my type of retirement (Regular, Disability, and Early) or elect the Investment Plan once my retirement becomes final. My retirement becomes final when any benefit payment is cashed or deposited. (Bold in original). Petitioner also filled out the payment option selection form, selecting Option 1 as the option for how her retirement benefits are to be paid out. Immediately above Petitioner's signature on the option selection form is this statement: I understand I must terminate all employment with FRS employers to receive a retirement benefit under Chapter 121, Florida statutes. I also understand that I cannot add service, change options or change my type of retirement (Regular, Disability, and Early) once my retirement becomes final. My retirement becomes final when any benefit payment is cashed, deposited or when my Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) participation begins. (Bold in original). Petitioner was aware that she could seek to qualify for disability retirement benefits, but that in order to apply for disability retirement, she would have to submit certifications by two doctors that she was totally and permanently disabled, meaning that she was unable to work. Petitioner also knew that she could apply for early service retirement, which would not require proof of total, permanent disability. However, because Petitioner would be retiring early, her benefits would be discounted, so she would receive less. Petitioner understood, when she completed the application on March 4, 2011, that the type of retirement for which she applied was early service retirement. At retirement, she was 52 years and nine months old. In Petitioner's view, she was "forced" to retire. Petitioner had been employed as an adult education-health instructor at Marchman Technical Education Center, which she described as a stressful job. In 2010, she had to undergo three major abdominal and pelvic reconstructive surgeries. As she dealt with the challenges of complications and slow recoveries, she developed psychological issues that caused her to seek treatment from a psychiatrist. She was depressed and cried a lot, felt anxious and stressed, and experienced panic attacks. Petitioner took medication prescribed by her psychiatrist for her panic attacks and depression. She testified that the medication helped and that when she took her medication, she no longer cried all the time. However, she experienced side effects, including some drowsiness and difficulty processing information. By early 2011, Petitioner felt unable to return to her stressful job and had been attempting, without success, to find an appropriate job that she thought she could do with her limitations. She was worried and felt pressure, as a single mother who was supporting herself and her 17-year-old son, who lived with her. She was particularly concerned about ensuring a stream of income to pay for health insurance. Before Petitioner met with Mr. Hudson to apply for early service retirement, she discussed the different types of retirement with her good friend, Pat Beals. Ms. Beals had worked at Marchman Technical Education Center with Ms. Radicella. Both Petitioner and Ms. Beals testified that in discussing the different types of retirement, Petitioner believed at the time that she would not qualify for disability retirement. At the time in early 2011, Petitioner's belief was that she would be unable to obtain letters from two doctors who would render the opinion that Petitioner was unable to work. Ms. Beals apparently did not disagree with that opinion. Ms. Beals noted that Petitioner had been trying to get another job that she would be able to handle with her limitations. Ms. Beals said only that she thought Petitioner had tried to go back to work too soon, before she was fully healed. Petitioner went alone to her meeting with Mr. Hudson and did not ask any of her close friends or advisors, such as Ms. Beals or her neighbor, Mr. Edelman, to go with her. Petitioner testified that she had taken her medication to control her depression and her panic attacks that day. Petitioner was in good enough shape, mentally and physically, to safely drive herself to and from the school district administrative offices. Petitioner testified that Mr. Hudson explained Petitioner's choices to apply for early service retirement or to apply for disability retirement. Petitioner testified that Mr. Hudson explained that if she applied for disability retirement, two doctors would have to say she could never work again. This led Petitioner to choose early service retirement because, as she had discussed with Ms. Beals previously, she did not think two doctors would give the opinion that she was unable to work again. Moreover, at the time, Petitioner did not want to say that she would never work again. Petitioner found the meeting with Mr. Hudson to be very sad and embarrassing; she found the prospect of retirement itself to be very embarrassing, as she had always been independent and had always taken care of herself. Petitioner attempted to blame Mr. Hudson for the pressure she was feeling to make a choice and sign the paperwork presented to her, but Petitioner did not prove that Mr. Hudson was to blame for any pressure she felt. Petitioner failed to identify anything specific that Mr. Hudson said or did to create pressure, such as if he had told Petitioner she had to sign all of the paperwork then and there. Indeed, when asked if she felt pressured by Mr. Hudson, Petitioner's response was that "it was strictly business." Petitioner explained that she just "shut down," letting him give her papers, and she just signed them. Petitioner did not claim to misunderstand the different types of retirement benefits--early service retirement versus disability retirement--and indeed, expressed a very clear rationale for making the choice that she did. Petitioner had expressed that same rationale in conversations before March 4, 2011, with Ms. Beals. Petitioner testified that she did not understand the paperwork that Mr. Hudson presented her to sign and that she did not understand that she could not change the type of retirement from early service to disability retirement at a later date. Inconsistently, she testified that she understood that she would not be able to change her payment options after she cashed her first benefit check. That is part of the warning message appearing right above her signature. Petitioner did not credibly explain how she was able to understand that part of the warning message, while not understanding the other part of the warning message that she also could not "change my type of retirement (Regular, Disability, and Early)" after cashing her first benefit check. The notice appeared on both forms she signed that day in plain, clear language. Petitioner did not testify that she was given any misinformation or that she asked for explanations that were not forthcoming. Petitioner did not testify that she asked to delay signing the paperwork presented to her at the March 4, 2011, meeting, until she had had a chance to review it with one of her friends and advisors. Instead, Petitioner did not want to wait; she was in a hurry to sign the paperwork because the sooner she signed the paperwork, the sooner the payments would start. Petitioner attempted to disavow her March 4, 2011, early service retirement application on the theory that she lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of her actions that day. Petitioner offered no competent medical opinion testimony or medical records to support her claim. Petitioner's two friends tried to support her theory, but they lacked the medical expertise to offer an opinion that Petitioner did not understand the nature or consequences of her actions that day. To the contrary, their testimony tended to confirm that Petitioner not only understood what she did on March 4, 2011, but that she acted as she did for a very rational, logical reason. The evidence did not establish that Petitioner was impaired to any great extent because of her physical or mental conditions or because of her medication taken to control her conditions. Petitioner may lack confidence and doubt herself; she may seek out opinions of her close friends when making important decisions because she did not trust her own ability to make decisions. However, as she acknowledged and certainly exhibited at the hearing, she is intelligent and capable. Petitioner was capable of functioning independently, living alone with her 17-year-old son and taking care of him. Petitioner was able to drive alone and did so. Petitioner took care of her own paperwork, writing out checks, and paying her own bills. Petitioner was not hospitalized or adjudicated incompetent because of her mental condition, nor was there any suggestion that her psychiatrist or good friends thought such steps were necessary for Petitioner's competency to manage her own affairs. After Petitioner returned from her meeting with Mr. Hudson on March 4, 2011, she called Ms. Beals to tell her about the paperwork she completed in her meeting with Mr. Hudson. Ms. Beals testified that she could tell Petitioner was anxious, because she was talking very fast. Nonetheless, Petitioner understood the nature and consequences of her actions on March 4, 2011, well enough to tell Ms. Beals that she had applied for early service retirement benefits. Ms. Beals was concerned and said that she may have made a mistake by not applying for disability retirement. While Ms. Beals expressed surprise that Petitioner did not ask her to go with her on March 4, 2011, she admitted that they had talked about the retirement issue previously and that Petitioner's actions on March 4, 2011, were consistent with what they had previously discussed. Petitioner's neighbor, Alvin Ellenwood, also testified that Petitioner called him later on March 4, 2011, and reported to him that she had completed the paperwork for early service retirement benefits. Mr. Ellenwood testified that he, too, was concerned and told Ms. Radicella that she may have made a mistake by not applying for disability retirement. Despite the concerns of both Ms. Beals and Mr. Ellenwood, apparently no steps were taken in the days after March 4, 2011, to review the forms that Petitioner had signed or to seek out any information from the Division regarding whether Petitioner could try to change the type of retirement benefits from early service retirement to disability retirement. On March 9, 2011, the Division issued and transmitted to Petitioner the following documents related to her application: Acknowledgement of Service Retirement Application (Acknowledgement); Estimate of Retirement Benefits (Estimate); an information sheet entitled, "What Retirement Option Should You Choose" (Option); and a FRS booklet published by the Division entitled, "Preparing to Retire" (Booklet). The Acknowledgement document confirmed receipt of Petitioner's service retirement application and repeated a similar warning as those appearing above Petitioner's signature on the forms she signed on March 4, 2011; this time, the notice was in all capital letters and in all bold print: "ONCE YOU RETIRE, YOU CANNOT ADD SERVICE, CHANGE OPTIONS, CHANGE YOUR TYPE OF RETIREMENT OR ELECT THE INVESTMENT PLAN. RETIREMENT BECOMES FINAL WHEN ANY BENEFIT PAYMENT IS CASHED OR DEPOSITED." Detailed information was provided about FRS retirement in the 15-page Booklet. The Booklet's first four pages are devoted to information for contacting the Division, including how to access the Division's website, and how to contact individuals, via numerous toll-free telephone numbers and e-mail addresses, to ask questions. And yet another warning message appears on page 11 of the Booklet, set apart from the rest of the text by a bold text box: Remember, once you cash or deposit any benefit payment or after the first payment is credited during your DROP participation period, you cannot add service credit, change your retirement benefit option selection, change your type of retirement from early to normal or from service to disability retirement, transfer to the FRS Investment Plan or cancel your DROP participation. The two other documents sent on March 9, 2011, the Estimate and Option documents, specifically addressed the retirement payment option choice. These two documents warned that Petitioner had selected Option 1 and could not change that option after cashing or depositing her first benefit check. Petitioner did not say what she did upon receipt of March 9, 2011, package of materials, whether she reviewed the material or whether she asked her friends to review it. Had these documents been reviewed, it would have been clear that once Petitioner cashed or deposited the first benefit payment, she could no longer change the type of retirement from early service retirement to disability retirement.2/ At any point in time before Petitioner received and cashed or deposited her first retirement benefit check, she could have sought to change the type of retirement benefit from early service to disability retirement. However, no such steps were taken. As Petitioner testified and Ms. Beals acknowledged, Petitioner did not believe at that time that she would qualify for disability retirement. In any event, it would have taken longer to seek disability retirement benefits because of the need to obtain verification by two doctors that Petitioner was unable to work, and Petitioner did not want to wait. Petitioner received her first retirement benefit check at the end of March 2011, and the state warrant was paid (cashed or deposited) on April 8, 2011. As of the hearing date, Petitioner had received an additional nine monthly payments for her early service retirement benefit. For some reason, it was not until June 2011, after receiving and cashing or depositing three early service retirement benefit payments, that Petitioner decided to submit an application for disability retirement benefits. The parties stipulated that Petitioner's disability retirement application was mailed to the Division on June 14, 2011.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying the request to change from early service retirement benefits to disability retirement benefits submitted by Petitioner, Reneé Radicella. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 27th day of February, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, a surviving beneficiary, is entitled to change the Florida Retirement System retirement benefits 1 All references to chapter 120 are to the 2019 version. payment option selected by her now-deceased spouse, a member of the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, is the state agency charged under chapter 121, Florida Statutes (2002),2 with administering the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"). Petitioner is the spouse of James L. Williams, now deceased, who was employed by the School District of Palm Beach ("District) for 38 years, and was a member of the FRS. Williams retired from his employment with the District on August 23, 2002. At that time, he executed the Florida Retirement System Application for Service Retirement Form, Form FR-11. On Form FR-11, he designated Petitioner as his primary beneficiary and Jones as his contingent beneficiary. Williams signed this form, and his signature was notarized. Also on August 23, 2002, Williams executed the Florida Retirement System Option Selection for FRS Members Form, Form FRS-11o. On that form, he selected FRS retirement benefits payment Option 2, and designated that choice by writing an "X" on the line next to Option 2. Option 2 was described on Form FRS-11o as: A reduced monthly payment 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 monthly payments. No further benefits are then payable. 2 All references to chapter 121 are to the 2002 version of the Florida Statutes, which was in effect at the time that the retirement benefits application and option selection forms that have given rise to this proceeding were executed. Form FRS-11o contained a section, immediately below the description of Option 2, that was required to be completed by the spouse of a married FRS member who had selected Option 1 or Option 2. On August 23, 2002, Petitioner completed, signed, and dated that section, confirming that she was the legal spouse of Williams and acknowledging that she was informed that Williams had selected either Option 1 or Option 2. The purpose of that section on Form FRS-11o is to inform the spouse of the FRS member that, by the member's selection of either Option 1 or Option 2, the surviving spouse is not entitled to receive a continuing benefit for the rest of his or her life. The last sentence on Form FRS-11o, immediately above the space for the FRS member's signature, states in pertinent part: "[m]y retirement becomes final when any payment is cashed . . . [or] deposited." DeVonnia Jones was present with Williams at the time he was given Form FR-11 and Form FRS-11o to execute. Jones testified that when Williams arrived at the District office on August 23, 2002, Form FR-11 and Form FRS-11o already had been filled out by District staff, and were presented to him by his supervisor, who informed him that he needed to retire or he would be terminated. According to Jones, Williams did not wish to retire at that time. Jones asked District staff how much more Williams' monthly benefits would be if he did not retire for another year or two, and was told that Williams' benefits would be between $25 and $30 more per month. According to Jones, "my dad basically shed a couple tears. He was not comfortable, but he went ahead and signed it because I told him to, because they made it seem like he wasn't going to be eligible to get what he was supposed to get." Williams signed and dated Form FRS-11o on August 23, 2002, and his signature was notarized. On August 28, 2002, Respondent sent Williams a document titled "Acknowledgement of Service Retirement Application." This document stated, among other things, that Williams had selected FRS Option 2, and that his retirement was effective September 2002. At the bottom of this document was a standalone paragraph, in bold face type, that read: "ONCE YOU RETIRE, YOU CANNOT ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICE OR CHANGE OPTIONS. RETIREMENT BECOMES FINAL WHEN ANY BENEFIT PAYMENT IS CASHED OR DEPOSITED!" Also on August 28, 2002, Respondent sent Williams a document titled "Florida Division of Retirement Estimate of Retirement Benefit (Estimate only, subject to final verification of all factors)." This document provided information regarding the amount of the monthly benefits Williams would receive for the four options offered under the FRS. A statement in bold face type at the bottom of the document read: "Comments: You have chosen Option 2. Your option selection cannot be changed after you cash or deposit any benefit payment." Had Williams wished to change his retirement benefits payment option, he could have done so up to the time he cashed or deposited a retirement benefits payment. Williams began receiving his monthly FRS retirement benefits payments from Respondent on October 4, 2002. He cashed or deposited the first FRS benefits warrant (Warrant #0618275) that he received. Thereafter, Williams received monthly FRS retirement benefits payments until his death on April 26, 2010. Williams received a total of 92 monthly benefits payments before his death. All of the FRS retirement benefits payment warrants issued to Williams were deposited or cashed. On May 17, 2010, Respondent contacted Petitioner to inform her that she needed to complete a Florida Retirement System Pension Plan Application for Beneficiary of Monthly Retirement Benefits Form, Form FST- 11b, in order for her to receive monthly FRS retirement benefits payments as Williams' beneficiary. In the contact letter, Respondent informed Petitioner that "you will receive the same gross monthly benefits to which the member was entitled through August 31, 2012." Petitioner completed Form FST-11b on June 25, 2010, and began receiving FRS monthly benefits payments on June 30, 2010. Petitioner received a total of 28 FRS retirement monthly benefits payments. The last warrant issued to Petitioner (Warrant #0375196) was issued on August 31, 2012. All of the warrants issued to Petitioner were cashed or deposited. In sum, Williams and Petitioner collectively received a total of 120 FRS retirement monthly benefits payments, pursuant to Option 2. All of the warrants issued to Williams, and then to Petitioner, as his beneficiary, were deposited or cashed. Petitioner testified that beginning in 2003, she made numerous attempts, over a period of years, to contact the District and Respondent regarding changing the FRS retirement benefits payment option that Williams had selected on August 23, 2002. During this time, Williams and Petitioner continued to cash or deposit the benefits payment warrants they received from Respondent. In this proceeding, Petitioner does not claim that Williams accidentally selected Option 2, or that he intended to select another option, when he signed Form FRS-11o on August 23, 2002. Rather, she asserts that at the time Williams retired, he suffered from confusion and memory loss such that he did not understand the option he chose—effectively, that he lacked the mental capacity to have chosen Option 2 as his retirement benefits payment option. Alternatively, Petitioner contends that because Williams was forced to retire under threat of termination from his employment, he was under duress when he chose Option 2 on Form FRS-11o. On these grounds, Petitioner asserts that she should be permitted to change Williams' choice of retirement benefits payment option.3 3 Here, Petitioner, has requested that she be allowed to "change" Williams' choice of Option 2 on the FRS retirement option selection forms. She did not identify, or present evidence, Petitioner's impassioned testimony at the final hearing shows that she fervently believes her husband was wrongly treated by the District when it required him to retire in 2002, against his desire to continue to work.4 However, as was explained to Petitioner at the final hearing, the purpose of this proceeding was not to determine whether the District wrongly forced Williams out of his employment; rather, it is to determine whether there is any factual or legal basis for changing the retirement benefits option that Williams selected when he executed Form FRS-11o nearly 18 years ago. The evidence does not support Petitioner's argument that Williams lacked the mental capacity to adequately understand the option that he chose on Form FRS-11o. Although Petitioner testified that Williams had been treated by a neurologist, no direct medical evidence was presented establishing that Williams was mentally incapacitated at the time he executed Form FRS-11o. Additionally, at the time Williams signed the form, he was accompanied by his daughter, who, after speaking to District staff regarding his options, advised him to sign the form. Petitioner herself also was present at the District office and signed Form FRS-11o, expressly acknowledging that she understood Williams had chosen Option 2. Thus, to the extent that Williams may not, on his own, have fully appreciated his choice of options on Form FRS-11o—and there is no competent direct evidence showing that to be the case—both his daughter and wife were present with him when he executed Form FRS-11o, his daughter told him to sign the form, and his wife expressly acknowledged that she understood his choice of Option 2. These circumstances do not support a finding that Williams lacked the mental capacity to understand, or did not adequately regarding which specific option she would choose, if permitted to change Williams' selected FRS benefits option. 4 The evidence indicates that the District required Williams to retire because he began having difficulty with his job as a mail carrier. According to Petitioner, Williams had an accident in a District vehicle and did not report the accident to the District, and that when he was transferred to the mail room, he had difficulty remembering to do certain required tasks. understand, the consequence of choosing Option 2 when he executed Form FRS-11o. The evidence also does not support a finding that Williams' choice of Option 2 should be changed, due to duress. There is no direct evidence establishing that Williams was under duress when he chose Option 2. Although Jones testified, credibly, that her father was upset about being forced to retire when he wanted to continue working, her testimony that he was under duress was based on her subjective conclusion. Furthermore, even if Williams was emotionally distressed when he signed the FRS benefits options forms, there is no evidence showing that as result of such distress, he chose Option 2 instead of a different option. It also is noted that Form FR-11 and Form FRS-11o both expressly informed Williams that once his retirement became final—which would occur when any benefit payment was cashed or deposited—his retirement benefits option selection would become final and could not be changed. Further, Williams received two more pieces of correspondence from Respondent—both containing statements in bold face type—expressly informing him that once any FRS retirement benefits payments were cashed or deposited, his retirement benefits option choice could not be changed. As noted above, Williams could have changed his FRS benefits option at any time before he cashed or deposited a benefits payment; however, he did not do so. Thus, pursuant to the express terms of Form FR-11 and Form FRS-11o, when Williams cashed or deposited the first benefits payment, his selection of Option 2 became final and could not be changed. In sum, the evidence does not establish any factual basis for permitting Petitioner to change Williams' selection of Option 2 as his FRS retirement benefits payment option.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management Services, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to change the FRS retirement benefits payment option selected by her husband, an FRS member, when he retired. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 4th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ladasiah Jackson Ford, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Deloris Williams 1219 West Ninth Street Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 (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 Mangement Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 (eServed) Sean Gellis, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Mangement Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Timothy Green (Green), was born on April 19, 1941. Green was employed by Manatee County as a Highway Maintenance Technician on March 26, 1966. As a Highway Maintenance Technician, Green cleared ditches, brush and culverts. He also installed storm drainage pipe and operated chain saws and related tools. On September 24, 1984, Green was terminated from his job because of his inability to perform his assigned duties. Green referred to his termination as a "retirement." Having been promoted to Highway Maintenance Technician II, Green was earning $1,016.01 per month gross pay at the time he was terminated. He had accumulated 18.40 years of creditable service under the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Green is unable to read and has had no formal schooling other than the attendance of what he describes as "opportunity classes all his life." Green has not been found by any court to be incompetent to handle his personal affairs and generally paid his personal bills through money orders he purchased at convenience stores. However, Green's mental capabilities and ability to communicate are obviously quite limited, and his more complicated personal affairs were handled by his mother and sister. On September 28, 1984, Green sought out and met with Mr. A1 Chandler, Records Manager for Manatee County, at Chandler's office. Green thought that Manatee County already had "retired" him because of his disability and just wanted to get his retirement benefits. He did not understand the various optional benefits available to him as a member of the FRS. Green was able to communicate to Chandler only that he wanted to get all his money from retirement, or words to that effect. Chandler interpreted those words to mean that Green wanted to withdraw his contributions to the system. Based on his general familiarity with the FRS, Chandler discouraged Green from doing what he believed Green wanted to do (i.e.. withdraw his contributions from the system). Chandler believed intuitively that Green should not withdraw his contributions because he had accumulated 18.40 years of creditable service under the FRS. Chandler understood that Green's years of creditable service would entitle him to favorable benefits upon normal retirement at age 62. He therefore advised Green to wait and not to withdraw the contributions. Green, who never clearly understood the difference between getting his money (or benefits) out of the retirement system and withdrawing his contributions to the retirement system, decided that he did not want to wait as Chandler advised. Accordingly, Chandler gave Green a form to request a refund of his contributions to the FRS, and Green signed the form. The Request For Refund Form FRS-M81 Green signed contains the following information above his signature: TO THE DIVISION OF RETIREMENT: I hereby make application for refund of my accumulated contributions in the Florida Retirement Systems. I do hereby waive for myself, my heirs and assignees all rights, title and interest in the Florida Retirement Systems. However, Green could not read the refund language. He did not think there was any reason to ask Chandler to read it to him, and Chandler did not read it or explain it to him. Neither Chandler nor anyone else fully explained to Green what optional benefits he might be entitled to as a member of the Florida Retirement System other than to wait until normal retirement or withdraw his contributions. Specifically, neither Chandler nor anyone else explained to Green that his request for refund of his accumulated contributions would eliminate his right to apply for disability retirement benefits. In fact, on that same day, September 28, 1984, Green began completing an application for disability retirement benefits. On October 2, 1984, Green's Statement Of Disability By Employer was received by Manatee County's Personnel Office. The form was completed by Green's former immediate supervisors. On October 3, 1984, Green's Request For A Refund Form FRS-M81 was mailed to Respondent, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement (Division) by Manatee County. Sometime between October 18, 1984 and November 20, 1984, Green's completed Florida Retirement System Application For Disability Retirement, with his Statement Disability By Employer, was sent to and received by the Division. On October 29, 1984 the Division sent Green the refund of his accumulated contributions totaling $1,686.52. Until Green received the refund, he expected to receive monthly checks. When he received the refund, Green realized for the first time that he would not be receiving monthly checks and that his lump sum check would be in the amount of only $1,686.52. Green never had any actual intent to relinquish his right to apply for disability retirement benefits from the FRS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent Department of Administration, Division of Retirement: (1) enter a final order granting the Petition For Formal Proceedings in this case and determining that Petitioner, Timothy Green, has not waived his right to apply for disability retirement benefits: and (2) process the application of Petitioner, Timothy Green, for disability retirement benefits. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Office Division of Administrative Hearings 309 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1985.
The Issue The primary issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive an early retirement benefit pursuant to Sections 121.091(3)(b) and 121.091(7)(b), Florida Statutes, based on an effective retirement date of February 1, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Historical Facts When he passed away on January 26, 1996, at the age of 56, Roy Hoffman, Jr., was a fully vested participant in the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"), having worked as a professor at Florida Atlantic University for nearly 27 years. Professor Hoffman's named beneficiary and joint annuitant was his wife, Petitioner Jeanne Hoffman ("Hoffman"). As such, Hoffman became entitled, upon her husband's death, to receive a lifetime retirement benefit from the FRS. By letter dated March 8, 1996, Respondent Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement ("Division"), which administers the FRS, first notified Hoffman of her eligibility to receive a benefit. The letter provided in pertinent part as follows: As the designated beneficiary and joint annuitant, you are entitled to the Option 3 monthly retirement benefit. The Option 3 monthly benefit is payable for your lifetime and is estimated to be $1,812.58 effective February 1, 1996. To receive this benefit, you need to [submit an application and provide certain information.] If we may be of further assistance, please call us at (904)488-5207. After receiving this letter, Hoffman was uncertain about whether she should accept the benefit immediately or, alternatively, postpone the benefit commencement date until nearer her own retirement, so she called the Division for assistance. Following a telephone conversation with an FRS counselor, Hoffman was left with the impression that she would be better off waiting until she reached the age of 59.5 years to begin receiving the monthly benefit, for the benefit, she believed, would then be higher.1 The Division sent a second letter to Hoffman, which was dated April 26, 1996, and provided: Please refer to our letter dated March 8, 1996. Before we can finalize [your] account, we need [to receive] the following [items and information from you.] Hoffman did not respond to this letter. Four months later, the Division sent a third letter to Hoffman regarding her benefit eligibility. Dated August 28, 1996, this letter provided in relevant part as follows: We have not received a response from our letters dated March 8, 1996 and April 26, 1996. If we have not heard from you within thirty days of the date of this letter, the file will be placed on inactive status. It will then be your responsibility to contact us to apply for a monthly benefit. The benefit will be effective the first of the month following contact from you. By this "warning letter," the Division intended to communicate its decision that, unless Hoffman submitted an application for benefits on or before September 27, 1996, she would forfeit the right to receive an "early retirement-death benefit"2 based on an effective date of retirement ("EDR") closely tied to her husband's date of death and be deemed to have elected a "deferred monthly benefit"3 based on a post-mortem EDR tied to the Division's receipt of her application for benefits. (EDR is a critical date because that is when the benefit accrues. See § 121.021(41), Fla. Stat.4) The parties dispute whether, in fact, the warning letter reasonably notified Hoffman of the Division's decision; the issue will be taken up below. Hoffman did not take the warning letter to mean what the Division had intended to convey. Thus she had no idea that she was in jeopardy of forfeiting the right to an early retirement-death benefit. Further, she did not deliberately elect to forego receipt of an early retirement-death benefit in favor of a deferred monthly benefit. Rather, being unfamiliar with the details regarding benefits payable under the FRS, Hoffman believed that, without any present action on her part, the benefit to which she was entitled had begun upon her husband's death to accrue for her use and benefit and would continue to accumulate until she was ready to begin receiving the benefit in monthly installments. Consequently, Hoffman made no reply to the warning letter, and at some point after September 27, 1996, the Division placed her file on inactive status. For the next eight-and-a-half years, nothing relevant to this case occurred. Then, in January 2005, Hoffman met with a financial planner for advice concerning her retirement. She was 57 at the time and told the planner about the benefit she expected to receive in a couple of years as her late husband's joint annuitant. The financial planner recommended that she contact the Division straightaway. On January 31, 2005, Hoffman called the Division and was informed that, having failed to apply for an early retirement-death benefit by September 27, 1996, in accordance with the warning letter dated August 28, 1996, she had forfeited nine years' worth of retirement income, and that her only remaining option was to request a deferred monthly benefit based on an EDR of February 1, 2005, at the earliest. The Division followed this telephone conversation with a letter dated February 16, 2005, which made clear that the only benefit for which Hoffman could apply would commence no earlier than February 1, 2005. Being given no choice, Hoffman applied as instructed, with the result that the FRS began paying Hoffman approximately $2,011 per month, which it was continuing to do as of the final hearing. Thereafter, by letter dated March 1, 2005, Hoffman petitioned the Division to pay her a retirement benefit "retroactive" to February 1, 1996, the date which, had she applied for an early retirement-death benefit on or before September 27, 1996, would have been her husband's EDR, without controversy.5 The Division denied Hoffman's request, by letter dated March 15, 2005. Relying on Section 121.091, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-4.0035, which will be examined below, the Division determined that it could not "pay benefits retroactive to 1996 because [Hoffman had] not compl[ied] with the Rule requiring that the application be filed timely." Hoffman requested a hearing on this determination, giving rise to DOAH Case No. 05-3200. Hoffman also petitioned the Division, pursuant to Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, to waive——or grant her a variance from——the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-4.0035(3)(c) upon which the Division intended to rely in rejecting her claim for an early retirement-death benefit. The Division denied Hoffman's petition for waiver or variance in an order dated August 15, 2005. Thereafter, Hoffman timely requested a hearing on the matter, which led to the commencement of DOAH Case No. 05-3679. Factual Analysis The parties sharply disagree about whether the Division reasonably notified Hoffman of the important decision (see paragraph 6, supra) that it made in late August 1996 respecting her eligibility to receive a benefit, which decision the Division intended to communicate to Hoffman via the warning letter. To recapitulate, the warning letter told Hoffman that if she failed to contact the Division by September 27, 1996, then (1) her file would become "inactive"; (2) it would be her responsibility to initiate further contact with the Division; and (3) her "benefit" would be "effective" starting the month after she contacted the Division. Yet, in fact, the Division had decided that if Hoffman did not contact the Division by September 27, 1996, then (1) she would forfeit the right to receive an early retirement-death benefit based on an EDR closely proximate to her husband's date of death; (2) the Division would treat her inaction as an affirmative election to receive a deferred monthly benefit; and (3) her benefit would be based on an EDR related to the Division's receipt of her application for benefits. It is striking, in reading the warning letter from the standpoint of a reasonable recipient, that no mention was made therein of the different types of benefits available to a surviving spouse, no explanation regarding the distinction between an early retirement-death benefit and a deferred monthly benefit was given, and no information concerning a beneficiary's right to elect the latter as an alternative to the former——much less why one might do so——was imparted. (The same can also be said of the two letters that preceded the warning letter.) It is striking, too, that neither the warning letter nor the two earlier ones mentioned EDR or its significance. Instead, the warning letter spoke of an effective date of "benefit," which, at least without more information than was contained in the letter, could be understood to refer to the date on which the benefit payments would commence as opposed to when benefits would start to accrue. The undersigned finds, therefore, that, as a matter of fact, the warning letter itself did not reasonably communicate that Hoffman was at risk of forfeiting the early retirement- death benefit and being deemed to have elected a deferred monthly benefit based on a future EDR to be determined. Put another way, although the warning letter clearly established a deadline (September 27, 1996) for making contact with the Division, its description of the consequences of letting the deadline pass without contacting the Division did not fairly match the consequences the Division actually had decided would follow such inaction. Of course, as the Division points out, the warning letter was not the only source of information about retirement benefits available to Hoffman. There were, in addition, the governing statutes and rules. Hoffman did not actually avail herself of these references, but, as the Division argues, she is presumed to know the contents of the applicable laws.6 Perhaps, armed with such knowledge, she would have——and hence should have——understood what the Division was trying to tell her in the warning letter. If Hoffman had consulted the relevant statutes, she would have learned that she was entitled to receive an early retirement benefit pursuant to Section 121.091(3), Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: EARLY RETIREMENT BENEFIT.--Upon retirement on his or her early retirement date, the member shall receive an immediate monthly benefit that shall begin to accrue on the first day of the month of the retirement date and be payable on the last day of that month and each month thereafter during his or her lifetime. Such benefit shall be calculated as follows: * * * (b) If the employment of a member is terminated by reason of death subsequent to the completion of 20 years of creditable service, the monthly benefit payable to the member's beneficiary shall be calculated in accordance with subsection (1), but shall be based on average monthly compensation and creditable service as of the date of death. The benefit so computed shall be reduced by five-twelfths of 1 percent for each complete month by which death precedes the normal retirement date specified above or the date on which the member would have attained 30 years of creditable service had he or she survived and continued his or her employment, whichever provides a higher benefit. There is no dispute that Hoffman was entitled to an early retirement benefit under Section 121.091(3)(b) when her husband's employment was terminated by reason of death after completing nearly 27 years of creditable service. The parties agree as well that, by the clear and unambiguous terms of the statute, the benefit would have been reduced by five percent per year for each of the approximately three years by which Professor Hoffman's death preceded the date on which he would have attained 30 years of creditable service. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 60S-4.005(2)(c)(describing benefits payable upon early retirement brought about by death). If Hoffman had read Section 121.091(7)(b), Florida Statutes, she would have learned the following: If the employment of an active member who may or may not have applied for retirement is terminated by reason of his or her death subsequent to becoming vested and prior to his or her effective date of retirement, if established, it shall be assumed that the member retired as of the date of death in accordance with subsection (1) if eligible for normal retirement benefits, subsection (2) if eligible for benefits payable for dual normal retirement, or subsection (3) if eligible for early retirement benefits. Benefits payable to the designated beneficiary shall be as follows: 1. For a beneficiary who qualifies as a joint annuitant, the optional form of payment provided in accordance with [option 3] shall be paid for the joint annuitant's lifetime. Clearly, under the plain language of Section 121.091(7)(b), Hoffman was entitled to receive death benefits in the form of an early retirement benefit, for which latter her husband was eligible at the time of his death. As just mentioned, however, Professor Hoffman satisfied the conditions set forth in Section 121.091(3)(b) for an early retirement benefit, payable to his beneficiary, without reference to Section 121.091(7)(b). Moreover, because Professor Hoffman was, at the time of his death, closer to attaining 30 years' service than reaching age 62, Hoffman's early retirement benefit would be highest if calculated under Section 121.091(3)(b). Nevertheless, as Section 121.091(7)(b) is not inconsistent with Section 121.091(3)(b), there is no reason to treat them as mutually exclusive. Thus, bowing to the interrelatedness of these statutes——Section 121.091(3)(b)(early retirement benefits upon termination of employment by death) and Section 121.091(7)(b)(death benefits)——the undersigned has chosen to use the term "early retirement-death benefit" to refer to that benefit, available thereunder, which is based on an EDR in close proximity to the member's death. As an alternative to the early retirement-death benefit, Section 121.091(7) makes available to beneficiaries such as Hoffman another option, namely the "deferred monthly benefit." Had Hoffman studied the statute, she would have discovered that [t]he designated beneficiary who is the surviving spouse or other dependent of a member whose employment is terminated by death subsequent to becoming vested, but prior to actual retirement, may elect to receive a deferred monthly benefit as if the member had lived and had elected a deferred monthly benefit, as provided in paragraph (5)(b), calculated on the basis of the average final compensation and creditable service of the member at his or her death and the age the member would have attained on the commencement date of the deferred benefit elected by the beneficiary, paid in accordance with option 3 of paragraph (6)(a). § 121.091(7)(h); see also Fla. Admin. Code. R. 60S-4.008(2)(b). The deferred monthly benefit allows a surviving spouse to postpone the deceased member's EDR, thereby reducing or eliminating the early retirement penalty of five percent per annum for each year the EDR precedes the member's normal retirement date.7 Postponing the EDR would make sense, most obviously, when, because of the number of years between the member's date of death and his or her normal retirement date, the survivor's early retirement-death benefit would be substantially consumed by the penalty. Because Professor Hoffman met the criteria for an early retirement benefit under Section 121.091(3)(b), however, his wife's benefit was subject to a relatively light penalty. Thus, it is unlikely that Hoffman intentionally would have made an election under Section 121.091(7)(h) for a deferred monthly benefit, had she been aware of the statute. The Division has promulgated a rule that specifies how the EDR will be determined in certain circumstances. Rule 60S- 4.0035(3)(c) was available to inform Hoffman as follows: For a member who dies prior to an effective retirement date established pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b), the effective retirement date shall be the first day of the month following the month in which the member died, provided the joint annuitant makes timely application for benefits; or, for a deferred monthly benefit, the first day of the month following the month in which the Division receives the joint annuitant's application for benefits, or the first day of a later month specified by the joint annuitant. Significantly, the Division has not established by rule a method of determining whether an application is "timely" for purposes of Rule 60S-4.0035(3)(c). Rather, it determines timeliness on a case-by-case basis. Had Hoffman been aware of Rule 60S-4.0035(3)(c), she might have surmised, upon reading the warning letter, that the Division had decided that her application for benefits would be "timely," for purposes of the Rule, only if received on or before September 27, 1996. She might also have reasoned that if her application were untimely, then the applicable EDR might not be February 1, 1996 (i.e. the first day of the month following the month in which her husband had died). At that point, she might have concluded that unless her application were received by September 27, 1996, she would forfeit the early retirement- death benefit, as the Division would deem her delay an election to receive a deferred monthly benefit. Maybe Hoffman would have connected all these dots. The undersigned finds, however, as a matter of fact, that a reasonable person could not have figured out what the Division had decided and what it intended to do, even if armed with the statutes and rules, because ascertaining the true nature of the Division's determination entails more analytical, indeed legal, reasoning than an ordinary layperson should be expected to employ. In fact, it is determined, the warning letter was inadequate to put even a well-informed person, cognizant of the applicable laws, on notice of the Division's decision regarding Hoffman's potential forfeiture of the early-retirement death benefit and "deemed election" of the deferred monthly benefit. While the warning letter was deficient in that it failed reasonably to tell Hoffman what the Division actually had determined with regard to her substantial interests, it was defective in yet another consequential way: the warning letter failed to notify Hoffman of her right to request a hearing to determine the substantial interests affected by the Division's establishment of an application deadline and the consequences of noncompliance therewith. The warning letter, in other words, did not afford Hoffman a clear point of entry into an adversarial proceeding, where the Division would be required to substantiate its determination with competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order determining that Hoffman shall receive an early retirement-death benefit based on an EDR of February 1, 1996, and establishing the form in which Hoffman shall be paid the benefits that have accrued, but not been paid, from the EDR to the present, as well as the benefit going forward.10 In the event that one or more factual disputes arise over the amount of the unpaid accrued benefits or the method of paying them, the amount or form of the benefit going forward, or some combination of these, then Hoffman should be afforded the right to request a hearing to determine the disputed issue(s).11 DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s husband’s selection of Option 1 for his pension plan benefits could be changed.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Renaud, who is deaf, was married to Mr. Renaud for approximately 40 years. Mr. Renaud was employed by the State of Florida as a correctional officer at all times relevant hereto. He entered the State retirement program (in the pension plan) in November 1994. Mr. Renaud was in the “special risk” category of retirement class based on his position as a correctional officer. On October 24, 2013, Mr. Renaud signed and submitted a “Florida Retirement System Pension Plan Application for Service Retirement” form to the Department, indicating his intent to retire. The application was signed and notarized; it designated Mrs. Renaud as the sole beneficiary of his retirement benefits. On the same day, Mr. Renaud signed an “Option Selection” form, wherein he designated which of four payment options he wanted to utilize for payment of his retirement income. He selected Option 1, which states: A monthly benefit payable for my lifetime. Upon my death the monthly benefit will stop and my beneficiary will receive only a refund of any contributions I have paid which are in excess of the amount I have received in benefits. This option does not provide a continuing benefit to my beneficiary. The form also contains the following statement: “I understand that I must terminate all employment with FRS employers to receive a retirement benefit under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. I also understand that I cannot add service, change options or change my type of retirement . . . once my retirement becomes final. My retirement becomes final when any benefit payment is cashed, deposited or when my Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) participation begins.” The option selection form was signed by Mr. Renaud and notarized by a certified notary public. Inasmuch as Mr. Renaud selected Option 1, it was necessary that he and his designated beneficiary (Mrs. Renaud) also fill out form SA-1, the “Spousal Acknowledgement” form. On the acknowledgement form, Mr. Renaud indicated that he was married. Mrs. Renaud then signed the “spousal acknowledgement” portion of the form. The acknowledgement statement included this statement: “I, Vivian Renaud, being the spouse of the above named member [Mr. Renaud], acknowledge that the member has selected either Option 1 or 2.” Option 2 provides for continued benefits during the retiring person’s lifetime. However, benefits to the person’s spouse will continue for only a 10-year period. If the retiring person dies within the first 10 years of retirement, the spouse would only receive benefits for the balance of the 10-year period starting at the retirement date. The benefits under Option 2 are, therefore, limited in nature. The state retirement system requires a person selecting Option 1 or Option 2 to have their spouse acknowledge that selection choice because those benefits have finite ending dates, whereas retirement benefits under the other options continue as long as either the retiree or his/her beneficiary is living. By letter dated October 30, 2013, the Department acknowledged receipt of Mr. Renaud’s retirement application. The letter referenced the date the application was received (October 24, 2013) and the option Mr. Renaud had selected (Option 1). The letter was mailed to Mr. Renaud’s address of record, the same address he listed in his retirement application. The letter was sent to Mr. Renaud some 30 days before the first retirement benefit check was deposited in his account. Mrs. Renaud does not remember seeing the letter, but inasmuch as it was addressed to Mr. Renaud, her recollection of its receipt is not relevant. After Mr. Renaud’s death, his family found numerous un-opened letters in his car; the acknowledgement letter from the Department could well have been in that group. Mr. Renaud retired on November 1, 2013. His first payment of retirement benefits was transferred to his bank by way of electronic fund transfer, commonly referred to as direct deposit, on November 27, 2013. The gross amount of his monthly retirement benefit was $1,987.85; the net amount was $1,937.75 after $30.09 had been deducted for taxes. At that time, Mr. Renaud had not signed form W4P, the form which showed how many dependents the retiree was claiming for tax purposes. After later filling out that form (in which he indicated he would prefer to file as “single” for tax purposes), his monthly net benefit was reduced to about $1,735. Mr. Renaud received a direct deposit of retirement benefits on December 31, 2013; on January 31, 2014; and again on February 28, 2014. Mr. Renaud passed away on March 26, 2014, only five months after commencing his retirement. In accordance with the provisions of Option 1, Mr. Renaud’s retirement benefits ceased at that time. His beneficiary was entitled to payment for the entire month that he expired, but was not to be provided any further retirement benefits. Thus, a final payment was deposited in Mr. Renaud’s account on March 31, 2014. Mrs. Renaud was provided notice of the cessation of retirement benefits due to Mr. Renaud’s death. She timely filed a protest, seeking to have the payment of benefits reinstated. The Department denied her request, resulting in the instant matter. It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Renaud selected Option 1, Mrs. Renaud acknowledged that Mr. Renaud had selected either Option 1 or Option 2, and that retirement benefits were directly deposited to Mr. Renaud’s bank account for several months. Mr. and Mrs. Renaud’s signatures were duly notarized and have a presumption of legitimacy. Mrs. Renaud disagrees as to whether Mr. Renaud’s selection of Option 1 was legitimate, legal, or proper under the circumstances as she views them. First, Mrs. Renaud contends that Mr. Renaud was not mentally well at the time he signed the option selection form. The basis for her contention is that Mr. Renaud had experienced some seizure-related behavior during the year prior to signing the form. He had driven his car north on US Highway 301 one day in July 2012, “heading to work,” but ended up in Georgia without remembering why or how he got there. He later apparently lost his driver’s license because of the seizures (although the testimony on that issue was not clear).1/ Mr. Renaud worked for approximately 15 more months after his inexplicable drive to Georgia. Mrs. Renaud also argued that Mr. Renaud’s signatures on the three different forms he signed on October 24, 2013, were not similar to each other, indicating in her mind that he was having some sort of medical or psychological difficulty at that time. Inasmuch as there could have been any number of reasons the signatures were different (whether he was in a hurry, what base existed under the paperwork, etc.), there is insufficient evidence to determine why the signatures did not match. Mrs. Renaud’s testimony regarding the signatures is not persuasive. Ed Renaud said Mr. Renaud had been forced to retire due to his medical condition, i.e., that he had lost his driver’s license due to having seizures and the Department of Corrections would not let him work if he could not drive. However, Ed Renaud also said Mr. Renaud was able to continue working even when he was “forced” to retire. Again, the testimony on these facts was not clear. Mrs. Renaud said she should have been provided an interpreter on the day she signed the acknowledgement form. She did not state whether she requested an interpreter or whether the agency employee who provided her the form was aware of her disability.2/ Again, no one from Mr. Renaud’s employer, the Department of Corrections, testified at final hearing as to what happened on the day the forms were signed. Mrs. Renaud stated that she could read and write English, so she knew what she was signing.3/ She did claim to be confused as to whether her husband had selected Option 1 or Option 2, but candidly admitted that Mr. Renaud never told her one way or the other which option he had chosen. He only told her that he would “continue to provide for her in the future.” She believed the amount which was to be deposited in their account each month under Option 2 would be approximately $1900. The first check was in that approximate amount (due to the fact that Mr. Renaud had not established the amount of taxes to be deducted from his check at that time). The next five checks were in a lesser amount, approximately $1700. There is no evidence that Mrs. Renaud questioned the amount of the later checks. However, once the first check had been deposited in Mr. Renaud’s bank account, he would not have been allowed to change his option anyway. Lastly, Mrs. Renaud said her husband’s medical and mental condition was not conducive to making the option selection in October 2013. However, there was no competent evidence to support her claim. There was no direct testimony as to Mr. Renaud’s condition on the day he signed, nor as to whether he was or was not capable of understanding what he was signing. The only statement about his condition that day was that he wanted to park the car far enough away from the building that his co-workers could not see that Mrs. Renaud had driven the car. Ed Renaud also pointed out the issue of Mr. Renaud’s three signatures that day looking different from each other, but his lay opinion is not evidence upon which a finding of fact can be made as to Mr. Renaud’s mental condition. On October 24, 2013, Mr. Renaud had not been adjudged mentally incapacitated and no guardian had been appointed. Ed Renaud said that Mr. Renaud still believed he could perform his work assignments at that time and did not want to retire. But, other than his wife, no one provided any evidence that Mr. Renaud did not understand what he was signing. Mrs. Renaud, however, could not say which option he had selected because he never told her. Her subsequent presumption that Mr. Renaud did not intend to choose Option 1 is not persuasive. It should be noted that selection of Option 1 by Mr. Renaud set his average pre-tax monthly benefit at around $1,900.00; had he chosen Option 2, the benefit would have been around $1,700. Thus, there was incentive to “roll the dice” and select Option 1, hoping that he would survive long enough to provide for his wife. In this case, sadly, that gamble did not pay off. The facts of this case are sad in that Mr. Renaud had every intention of providing for his wife financially as long as she lived. However, he either made a mistake when he selected his payment option or he attempted to tempt fate and hope for the best. In either case, once he made his selection and began receiving benefits, the die was cast. Based upon the facts as presented, there is no basis for overturning the Department’s denial of Mrs. Renaud’s requested amendment of the payment option.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Management Services denying Petitioner's request for entitlement to her husband’s retirement benefits following his untimely death. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 24th day of June, 2015.
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.
