The Issue The issue in the case is as set forth in the Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits dated November 10, 2005, and issued by the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (Respondent), to Richard Brandenberger (Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners as a correctional officer at the county jail and participated in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). The Respondent is the state agency charged with administering the FRS. The applicable position description for employment by Orange County as a correctional officer included, in relevant part, the following description of the job duties: Supervises inmates to prevent altercations, intimidation, undesirable or illegal acts, intercedes when necessary, and to ensure the safety of the facility, other Correctional staff and the inmates. On or about October 29, 2003, a grand jury issued a one-count indictment against the Petitioner as follows: On or about July 3, 2003, in Orange County, Florida, defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed with intent to distribute and distributed Methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("MDMA") commonly known as "ecstasy", and marihuana, controlled substances listed in Schedule I of 21 U.S.C. Section 812, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 841(b)(1)(D). The Petitioner was subsequently arrested. He then retired from employment in December 2003 and began receiving benefits from the FRS the following January. On or about January 29, 2004, the Petitioner, represented by legal counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the indictment and executed a written plea agreement that stated in material part as follows: Count Pleading To The defendant shall enter a plea of guilty to Count One of the indictment. Count One charges the defendant with possession with intent to distribute and distribution of MDMA and marihuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1). * * * Elements of the Offense The defendant acknowledges understanding the nature and elements with which defendant has been charged and to which defendant is pleading guilty. The elements of Count One are: First: That defendant knowingly possessed or distributed MDMA or marihuana as charged; and Second: That defendant possessed the substance with the intent to distribute it. * * * Factual Basis Defendant is pleading guilty because defendant is in fact guilty. The defendant certifies that defendant does hereby admit that the facts set forth below are true, and were this case to go to trial, the United States would be able to prove those specific facts and others beyond a reasonable doubt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order stating that the Petitioner has forfeited his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey M. Christian, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Edward Gay, Esquire 1516 East Concord Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The central issues in this case are (1) whether Petitioner is eligible for membership in and retirement benefits from the Teachers' Retirement System; and (2) whether Petitioner is entitled to receive as a refund contributions paid by his employing agency and, if so, how much and at what interest rate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, currently sixty-six years old, was employed as a professor of economics and finance at the University of South Florida (USF), Tampa, Florida, from September 1965 through August 31, 1981, when he terminated employment. As a member of the teaching faculty, Petitioner automatically became a compulsory member of the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) and remained a member throughout his tenure at USE. When Petitioner originally enrolled in the TRS in September 1965, he signed an enrollment form entitled "Teachers' Retirement System of Florida, Enrollment Blank New Teachers." The form provided general information concerning the TRS, and included information about contributions, service credit, and service retirement benefits under the TRS. The enrollment form provided in part the following: I understand that the full amount of deductions from my compensation for annuity purposes with compound interest will be returned to me if I leave the service without a retirement benefit or will be paid to my beneficiary if I die in active service. At all times relevant hereto, the TRS required that members make contributions of six-quarter percent of their total salaries to their retirement accounts. Of this amount, six percent went into the TRS member's retirement account and the quarter percent was allocated to the Survivors' Benefits Fund. In addition to the contributions made by TRS members, employers were required to contribute matching funds to the TRS Retirement Fund. While employed at USF, the prescribed six quarter percent of Petitioner's salary was deducted, with six percent appropriately posted to his TRS retirement account. During the time Petitioner was employed at USF, the employer contribution paid by USF to match Petitioner's contribution was $23,846.06. Had Petitioner remained a member of TRS, he would have been eligible to begin receiving benefits in February 1993. While employed at USF, Petitioner was given the option to transfer from the TRS to the newly created Florida Retirement System on five different occasions: December 1970; June 1971; July 1972; January 1975; and January 1979. Through information disseminated by Respondent, TRS members were notified that by transferring to the "new" Florida Retirement System, they would become mandatory members of the federal Social Security System. Petitioner chose to remain in TRS rather than transfer to the Florida Retirement System, thereby foregoing membership in the federal Social Security System. In August 1981, prior to his normal age of retirement, Petitioner terminated his employment with USF and requested that Respondent refund Petitioner's retirement contributions. In making the request, Petitioner completed and signed a form entitled, "Request for Refund," FRS M81. Completion of this form is a requisite for receiving retirement refunds and applies to members of any of the Florida retirement systems. The Request for Refund states: I hereby make application for refund of my accumulated contributions in the Florida Retirement Systems. I do waive for myself, my heirs and assignees all rights, title and interest in the Florida Retirement Systems. On the reverse side of the Request for Refund card, is the following: Under the provision of the Florida Statutes, a member MUST terminate employment before he can obtain a refund. * * * The refund process may be started upon receipt of this application. It may be necessary to issue a second refund after all payrolls on which a member's name appears are received and audited by the Retirement System Office. A member who has ten or more years of creditable service has a vested interest in retirement and may leave his contributions on deposit indefinitely and qualify for deferred retirement. Pursuant to Petitioner's request, the Division refunded $22,153.10 to Petitioner in October 1981. The refund, which was provided in three warrants, included all employee contributions and earned interest posted to Petitioner's retirement account as of the date of the refund. Petitioner's refund was provided in three separate warrants because the system in place, in 1981, was incapable of generating a single check for an amount in excess of $9,999.99. In late 1995 or early 1996, Petitioner called the Division of Retirement to inquire about his benefits under the TRS. Petitioner made after this call after he reviewed his Social Security wage earning history and learned that no contributions had been posted to his Social Security account during the sixteen years he had been employed at USF. Upon reviewing the Petitioner's request, Respondent discovered that $1,692.96 remained in Petitioner's TRS account. Of the amount remaining in Petitioner's account, $292.63 represented Petitioner's employee contributions, and $1,400.33 was earned interest. Respondent's failure to refund Petitioner's $292.63 and the interest earned thereon as soon as these moneys were posted to Petitioner's account was the result of an unintentional accounting error. Under the procedures used by the Division at that time, Petitioner's most recent employee contributions were not posted to his account until November or December 1981. The interest earned on Petitioner's employee contributions were not posted to Petitioner's account until the end of the 1981/1982 fiscal year. This matter is addressed in the Request for Refund which notified members that "it may be necessary to issue a second refund" after all payrolls on which the member's name appears have been posted. After discovering this inadvertent accounting error, Respondent initially agreed to refund Petitioner the outstanding $1,692.96. Subsequently, the Division of Retirement agreed to pay Petitioner $1,692.96 plus six a-half percent interest from October 1981, for a total amount of $4,088.31. The six and a- half percent interest rate is the current rate established by Respondent. Pursuant to Petitioner's request, Respondent has not yet refunded Petitioner's outstanding employee contributions and interest, pending the culmination of this proceeding. At the time Petitioner completed and signed the Request for Refund, it was his intention to obtain all of his contributions and interest. It was not until Petitioner's inquiry in 1995 or 1996 that he became aware that a small amount of his employee contributions and interest thereon had not been refunded. Petitioner believes that because Respondent did not refund all moneys due him, some $1,692.96, he retained membership in the TRS and is now able to retire from that system with a partial benefit. Alternatively, Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to receive as a refund, all contributions paid into his retirement fund, including the contributions paid by USF. According to Petitioner, his understanding and belief in this regard is based on an explanation provided to him by Dr. John Milliken, the Dean of the College of Business at USF. Petitioner's understanding in this regard was not correct. At some point prior to Petitioner's terminating his employment at USF, he reviewed a Summary Plan Description (SPD) which was issued by the Division of Retirement in 1980. One section of the SPD, Refund of Contributions, provides in relevant part: If a member terminates employment he may elect to receive a refund of all the contributions he has made to the retirement system, except those made to the Survivors' Benefit Trust Fund. Furthermore, the first paragraph of the Summary Plan Description states: This brochure contains basic information on the Teachers' Retirement System, established by Ch. 238, Florida Statutes. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the Teachers' Retirement System and should not be used in place of the law on questions of interpretation and appli-cation. Any question which are not answered by this brochure may be addressed to the Div. of Retirement, . . . . Based on Petitioner's reading of the provision of the SPD quoted in paragraph 20 above, it was his "judgment" and "impression" that any refund prior to retirement, would include both employee and employer contributions and the interest on these contributions. At no time did Petitioner verify his interpretation with the Division of Retirement or the USE Personnel Office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final order finding that Petitioner, John C. Deiter, is (1) ineligible for retirement benefits under the Teachers' Retirement System and (2) is not entitled to receive employer contributions and interest thereon. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELDK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Murray B. Silverstein, Esquire POWELL, CARNEY, HAYES and SILVERSTEIN, P.A. Barnett Tower One Progress Plaza, Suite 1210 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Stanley M. Danek, Senior Attorney Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether petitioner's employment from January 13, 1975 to January 24, 1977, was creditable service for purposes of calculating retirement benefits under applicable statutes and rules? Whether respondent is estopped to deny that this period of employment amounted to creditable service, where respondent's personnel twice advised petitioner it was, and petitioner continued working for Escambia County for some three years in reliance on this advice?
Findings Of Fact 12 In late 1974, Escambia County operated under the CETA program which was operated by the county under three separate programs known as Title I and Title II, and then later under Title VI. Title I was an on-the-job training program which provided training to individuals in jobs that were in addition to the regular employment positions already maintained by the County. Title II was an employment program for targeted groups of persons. At the beginning of the Title II program, the County paid retirement contributions on behalf of some of those participants. However, when it was advised that this was improper, it stopped such payments and refunded those contributions to some of the participants. Title VI was a program to employ as many people as possible. The positions were funded with Federal grant money and were considered public service employment positions for a limited tern. The County administered the program which eventually included about 300 participants. Payment of all CETA participants was made from a special sub-account (set up for this purpose) of the salary account. Mr. Wayne Peacock, currently Assistant County Administrator who was directly involved in the CETA program during its entire existence, testified that none of the participants who worked for the County occupied regularly established positions, or were in budgeted positions and none were paid from county budgeted salary funds. Mr. Little's employment file stated that he was hired in January, 1975, as a Title VI CETA participant and that no record showed payment of any retirement contributions on his behalf. Mr. Little testified that retirement contributions were deducted from his first four (4) paychecks, but thereafter stopped. Ruth Sansom, the Division representative, testified that the Division records as provided by the County reflected that the County began payment of retirement contributions on Mr. Little in January, 1977, and that there was no evidence or record that contributions had been paid from January, 1975, to January, 1977. Mr, Little submitted the Minutes of Escambia County for (inter alia) February 11, 1975, which showed numerous individuals hired as "manpower: laborers and four (4) men hired as "manpower planning aides". Included in that latter group was Mr. Little. Ms. Sansom testified that she checked the retirement records of several persons in the first group and all four (4) persons in the latter group. None of the persons had received creditable service for the employment, and the Division had no record of contributions having been paid. The evidence shows that Mr. Little was employed as a CETA participant and was not a county employee.
The Issue The general issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to modify her deceased husband's retirement benefit option by changing from "Option 1" to "Option 3". Embodied within that issue is the question of whether the Petitioner's deceased husband was competent to effect a change in his retirement option from service retirement "Option 3" to disability retirement "Option 1."
Findings Of Fact The decedent, Elijah B. Hutchinson, was a teacher of math and science for the Calhoun County school district for some 31 years. In the early 1980's, his health had deteriorated significantly due primarily to diabetes mellitus, which caused a number of associated complications necessitating several hospitalizations during the early 1980's. In consideration of his deteriorating health, the decedent elected to retire in the spring of 1983. He filed an application dated May 27, 1983, seeking regular retirement benefits from the Florida Retirement System. See Exhibit 1 in evidence. In response to his application, the decedent received information from the Division advising him of his retirement benefits under the different retirement options he was entitled to select. On or about June 24, 1983, the decedent elected retirement Option 3. Option 3 retirement benefits include the retiree's entitlement to a reduced monthly retirement benefit during his lifetime with the same monthly retirement benefit being paid, after his death, to his "joint annuitant", in this case, his surviving spouse, the Petitioner. Thereafter, and before he received any benefit check from his initially-selected Option 3 retirement, the decedent appeared at the Division's offices and requested to change his type of retirement or option. On August 12, 1983, therefore, the decedent requested to change his type of retirement benefit from regular retirement to disability retirement. On that date, he requested to change his option selection from Option 3 to Option 1. See Exhibit 4 in evidence. An explanation of the benefits to be provided and the differences in the two options as to his benefits was given to the decedent by an employee of the Division. See Exhibit 4 in evidence. The decedent thereupon changed his option selection from Option 3 to Option 1. In 1983, a retirement system member receiving retirement benefits as the result of a disability could only receive benefits in accordance with either Option 1 or Option 2, if he chose to elect disability retirement. On September 16, 1983, the decedent was mailed a letter from the Division advising him that his application for disability retirement benefits had been approved by the State Retirement Director and acknowledging that he had elected Option 1 for disability retirement. Thereafter, the decedent received and cashed a number of State warrants representing payment of those retirement benefits under Option 1. See Exhibit 10 in evidence. The decedent died on March 8, 1991. The Petitioner had been unaware that he had changed from Option 3 benefits to Option 1 benefits, as delineated above. Upon learning of this, after the decedent's death, the Petitioner, on April 30, 1991, requested the Division to modify the benefits option selected by the decedent to Option 3 benefits. Her basis for requesting this change was that the decedent had not been mentally or physically competent to make an informed selection at the time he changed his Option 3 retirement benefits election to Option 1 and that, therefore, she should be allowed to modify and reinstitute his retirement election to Option 3 benefits, which would provide her the death benefits permitted under the Option 3 election. This request was denied by the Division by its "final agency action letter" dated May 21, 1991, by which the Division advised the Petitioner that based upon its records, the decedent, who had requested Option 1 retirement benefits, was added to the retirement payroll in that category for September, 1983 and that he had received benefit payments and negotiated the checks, so that, under the provisions of Rule 22B-4.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, the selection of the option could no longer be altered. The Petitioner's testimony and that of Phillip H. Hutchinson indicates that sometime in 1983, the decedent suffered a cerebral-vascular incident or "stroke". This testimony is borne out by the medical records in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, which, however, does not indicate when the stroke occurred. The Petitioner and her son maintain in their testimony that the stroke resulted in a deterioration in the decedent's mental faculties such that he could no longer manage his business affairs, pay bills, and handle financial matters in general. They maintain that this was evidenced also by a marked personality change whereby the decedent became extravagant with money, as evidenced by impulsively ordering and purchasing items which he observed advertised on television, sending money to television evangelists, and otherwise being free with donations. This was entirely different from his character and personality before he suffered the stroke, whereby he was known to be miserly with the family funds and very careful about not spending money unnecessarily. As a result of his stroke, he was no longer able to handle his business affairs; and his spouse, the Petitioner, had to assume the duties of paying family bills and otherwise handling financial and business matters for the family. When the decedent first decided to retire, he had explained to the Petitioner that he would select a retirement option which would give her something after he "passed"; and he showed her the retirement system booklet of allowable retirement options in discussing the matter with her. He never mentioned to her that he decided to or did change his option to Option 1 disability retirement. Although the Petitioner may have established that due to the stroke he suffered, the decedent may have, indeed, had difficulty attending to financial matters and overseeing and managing the family finances, the Petitioner failed to establish that at the time he made the election to select Option 1 retirement benefit, he did not possess the mental capacity to make a knowing and intelligent selection of that option and to waive his previously-selected Option 3 benefits. The evidence shows that he appeared at the Division's offices and, after an explanation of the option he chose to select, he freely and voluntarily selected that option and signed the pertinent documents attesting to it. It has simply not been demonstrated by substantial evidence that at the time the decedent made the second retirement option election, he did not understand the nature and consequences of that election, especially since it was not established by the Petitioner when he actually suffered the stroke, other than that it occurred sometime in 1983. As found above, the decedent made the election to chose Option 1 retirement benefits in August, 1983. Consequently, due to insufficient evidence, it cannot be found that the Petitioner's decedent was incompetent to knowingly and intelligently elect to receive Option 1 retirement benefits at the time he made the election.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Division denying the request of the Petitioner to modify the retirement benefits elected by the decedent from Option 1 retirement benefits entitlement to Option 3 retirement benefits entitlement. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrativ Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24 day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-3870 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted, except that the evidence does not support that the stroke actually occurred in mid 1983. 3-4. Accepted. Rejected, as not being demonstrated by the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-14. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Phillip H. Hutchinson 4115 Tanglewood S., Apt. 570 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Larry D. Scott, Esq. Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was convicted of specified criminal offenses, requiring the forfeiture of all of her rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System, except for the return of accumulated contributions.
Findings Of Fact At the time of her arrest in March 2002 on criminal charges relating to the alleged acceptance of a bribe, Petitioner Martha G. Byrd ("Byrd") was employed as a clerk in the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser's Office. As a public employee, she became a member of the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"), which is administered by Respondent Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement ("Division"). All told, Byrd earned approximately 21 years of creditable service in the FRS. On March 8, 2004, Byrd pleaded nolo contendere in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, to three crimes, namely: solicitation or acceptance of unlawful compensation for an official act as proscribed in Section 838.016, Florida Statutes (2002); solicitation or acceptance of a bribe, as prohibited under Section 838.015, Florida Statutes (2002); and grand theft of the third degree, as proscribed in Section 812.014(c), Florida Statutes (2002). Based on the plea, the court found that Byrd had committed the crimes charged and sentenced her to probation with special conditions; adjudication of guilt was withheld, however, with regard to each charge. The Division learned about the criminal prosecution of Byrd upon receiving notice thereof from the Commission on Ethics. After reviewing the court file, the Division determined that Byrd had been convicted of "specified offenses" (a legal term that will be discussed below) and concluded that, consequently, she must forfeit all her rights and benefits as a member of the FRS. By letter dated August 22, 2007, the Division notified Byrd of its preliminary decision regarding the forfeiture of her retirement benefits and offered her an opportunity to request a formal administrative proceeding to contest the determination. Byrd timely requested a hearing. Byrd maintains her innocence of the crimes for which she was sentenced. She insists that she was a good employee who never took any money in exchange for a corrupt act. Byrd pleaded no contest to the criminal charges, she says, because she had no way of proving that the government's principal piece of evidence against her——a tape recording made by an undercover agent——had been altered; thus, she feared being convicted at trial, on the strength of the surreptitious recording, and sent to prison.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order determining that Ms. Byrd forfeited all her rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System, except for the return of any accumulated contributions, when she pleaded no contest to "specified offenses" committed prior to her retirement from public service. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted credit in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) for the period from September 1973 through September 1974.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a current employee of Miami-Dade County and a participant in the Deferred Retired Option Program (DROP). Petitioner has been an employee of Miami-Dade County since 1973. From 1970 until 1973, Petitioner was employed with the Florida Department of Transportation. Petitioner has 30 years of service credit in the FRS. From September 1973 through September 1974 Petitioner was employed in a position with Miami-Dade County which was funded under Budget Status Code 4. During this 13-month period, under Dade County Personnel Policy, Budget Status Code 4 denoted a "temporary or on call" position. In October of 1974, Petitioner was promoted into a full-time, regularly established position. In 2000, Petitioner was provided an estimate of benefits as he was in preparation to enter the DROP. As a result, Petitioner requested that the Division grant him credit for the September 1973 through September 1974 period. The Division denied this request and Petitioner filed a timely appeal. On March 6, 2001, Petitioner applied for and began participation in the DROP program effective April 1, 2001. Petitioner is now participating in the DROP. When Petitioner enrolled in the DROP program, two of the documents he signed included the following statement: "I cannot add additional service, change options, or change my type of retirement after my DROP begin date."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for retirement service credit for the period of his employment with Miami-Dade County from September 1973 through September 1974. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Victor Larger 4421 Southwest Third Street Miami, Florida 33134 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 3900 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3900 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Chief Legal Counsel Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue Whether Petitioner was overpaid $961.87 in 1975 when he received a refund of his retirement contributions, and, if so, whether Petitioner is required to refund that amount to the Division of Retirement before receiving any retirement benefits.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is a law enforcement officer employed by the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP). Petitioner was first hired by FHP in August 1968. He left FHP on October 15, 1975, to pursue a private venture. Petitioner rejoined FHP in July 1981, and he is currently a member of the troop that patrols the Florida Turnpike. Between September 1968 and December 1974, Petitioner made monthly contributions to the FHP pension fund which, at the time, was administered by FHP. In 1970, when the Florida Retirement System (FRS) was created, Respondent took over the administration of the FHP pension fund, and Petitioner elected to participate in the FRS. The FRS was, and still is, administered by Respondent pursuant to Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. Prior to January 1, 1975, the FHP pension fund and the FRS were "contributory," meaning that the employee was required to contribute a percentage of his or her salary to the fund, and contributions were also made by the employer. Starting on January 1, 1975, the FRS became "non-contributory," meaning that the employer made all of the contributions. Petitioner's contributions to his FHP pension fund account were recorded on a four-column ledger sheet which showed the old balance, date of contribution, amount of the contribution, and the total balance. The ledger sheet was not computerized. The entries were manually typed onto the ledger sheet. Petitioner's account showed a total balance of $4,656.71 on December 31, 1974, and because the FRS was "non- contributory" after that date, the account had the same balance on October 15, 1975, when Petitioner left FHP. The total balance shown for Petitioner's account was incorrect as a result of a calculation error made when Petitioner's December 1968 contribution was entered onto the ledger sheet. Prior to that contribution, the old balance reflected on the ledger sheet was $108.89. Petitioner's December 1968 contribution was $37.45, so the total balance should have been $146.34. However, a calculation error was made and the total balance entered on the ledger sheet was $1,108.21. The effect of this error was that the balance shown in Petitioner's account was $961.87 (i.e., $1,108.21 minus $146.34) more than Petitioner had actually contributed. The error was carried forward to the following month when $1,108.21 was entered as the old balance, and all subsequent entries to Petitioner's account reflected the error. As a result, Petitioner's actual contributions as of December 31, 1974 (and, hence October 15, 1975, when he left FHP) were $3,694.84, not $4,656.71. The error was not discovered in October 1975 when Petitioner left FHP and requested a refund of his contributions. Apparently, the account was not audited prior to payment of the refund to Petitioner. In October 1975, Petitioner signed a card requesting a refund of his contributions. The address listed on the card corresponded to Petitioner's address at that time. The pertinent information from the card (i.e., the payee and the amount) was provided to the Comptroller by Respondent when a warrant was requested. The Comptroller prepared a warrant in the requested amount and returned it to Respondent along with a computer- printed label that contained Petitioner's name and social security number, the refunded amount ($4,656.71), warrant number (173213), and the date of the warrant (November 4, 1975). The label was affixed to the refund request card, and the warrant was mailed to Petitioner. The Comptroller's records show that warrant number 173213 was paid on November 21, 1975. The records do not show the payee of the warrant. Nor do the records show whether the warrant was deposited into a bank account or cashed. The cancelled warrant no longer exists. Petitioner did not recall receiving a warrant in the amount of $4,656.71. Petitioner and his wife both testified that they recalled receiving only $2,500.00. Petitioner produced a deposit slip dated November 15, 1975, showing a $2,500.00 deposit as well as bank records which showed that deposit as the only large deposit into Petitioner's account between November 1975 and February 1976. The source of the $2,500.00 check is not shown on the deposit slip. The Comptroller's records show no FRS warrants in that amount during the period of November 15, 1975, through November 21, 1975, when such a warrant would likely have been paid. Moreover, Petitioner conceded that he may have had another bank account at the time, although he could not locate any records for such an account. Petitioner received a statement of account from Respondent in June 1974 showing the balance of his account to be $4,220.47 at that time. Despite having that information and despite his financial circumstances being "tight" at the time, Petitioner did not make any inquiry to Respondent as to why he received only $2,500.00. This suggests that the $2,500.00 check was not the FRS warrant. The overpayment was first discovered in 2000 when Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner's FRS account as part of its preparation of the member annual statement required by Section 121.136, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was first informed of the error and the 1975 overpayment in August 2001 when he received an unsolicited telephone call from Brenda Shiver, an employee of the Respondent, regarding his retirement plans and the cost of "buying back" his prior service with the FHP between 1968 and 1975. Petitioner has no current plans to retire. Nor does Petitioner have a current desire to "buy back" his prior service which would cost over $21,000, not including the amount at issue in this proceeding. The cost of the prior service is not at issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement issue a final order that increases the cost for Petitioner to "buy back" his prior service by $961.87 to reflect the 1975 refund overpayment, but eliminates the mandate that Petitioner pay that amount as a condition of receiving retirement benefits related to his current service. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Holland 17964 Lookout Hill Road Winter Garden, Florida 34787 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services 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, Acting General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue Whether the Division properly denied Petitioner's request to change Petitioner's retirement in the Florida Retirement System from an early retirement service benefit to disability retirement.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"). Petitioner worked for Miami Dade Transit from August 1990 to March 2004, and was a member of FRS while employed there. Afterwards, Petitioner went to work as an auditor with a private employer, Robert Half, in New York. In 2007, Petitioner sustained an injury while working for Robert Half. In 2008, the Division generated an Estimate of Retirement Benefits for Petitioner detailing what her benefit amounts would be if she decided to retire. In February or March 2009, Petitioner informed the Division by telephone that she could no longer work and wanted to retire. Subsequently, the Division mailed Petitioner a retirement application. On April 13, 2009, the Division received Petitioner's filled-out application for service retirement. Directly above Petitioner's signature, the application stated: 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. Petitioner's application was incomplete and could not be processed upon receipt. On or about April 17, 2009, the Division sent Petitioner an Acknowledgment of Service Retirement Application requesting that Petitioner send "birth date verification of your joint annuitant" if she chose Option 3 or 4 and "The Option Selection for FRS Members, Form FRS-11o" to finalize the application. The acknowledgment stated at the bottom: ONCE YOU RETIRE, YOU CANNOT ADD SERVICE CHANGE OPTIONS, CHANGE YOUR RETIREMENT DATE, CHANGE YOUR TYPE OF RETIREMENT OR ELECT THE INVESTMENT PLAN. RETIRMENT BECOMES FINAL WHEN ANY BENEFIT PAYMENT IS CASHED OR DEPOSITED. In April 2009, the Division generated a second Estimate of Benefits for Petitioner, which she received. On or about May 8, 2009, Petitioner completed her retirement application by providing the Division the option selection form, which notified the Division that she selected Option 2. Directly above Petitioner's signature, the selection form FRS-11o stated: 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. When Petitioner received the estimate and saw the early retirement benefit amount, she called the Division to question what she considered a small amount. It was explained to Petitioner that she lost a certain percentage because she was retiring early and that her retirement was either "being processed, or it was processed." Petitioner's application for retirement was approved by the Division and Petitioner was awarded the Option 2 retirement benefit she requested with the effective date of May 1, 2009. Petitioner's first retirement check was dated April 23, 2010, and was cashed by Petitioner on July 28, 2010. Petitioner's retirement status was final when she cashed her benefit payment. On June 6, 2011, Petitioner contacted the Secretary of Division of Management Services by email and requested that she receive disability retirement for the first time.1 On, June 23, 2011, the Division informed Petitioner by letter that her retirement status was final when she cashed or deposited a benefit payment and that the request to change her retirement from regular service retirement to disability retirement could not be honored. On or about July 19, 2011, Petitioner requested a hearing regarding the issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request to change her early service retirement benefit to disability retirement. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 9th day of February, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Jean E. Preus is a registered real estate broker and was so registered at all times here relevant. Tax Shelter Real Estate, Inc., and Tax Shelter Real Estate of America, Inc., are corporate brokers registered by the Florida Board of Real Estate and were so registered at all times here relevant. Tax Shelter Real Estate, Inc., and Tax Shelter Real Estate of America, Inc., are wholly owned subsidiaries of another corporation controlled by S. William Preus, the husband of Respondent. The family owns the majority, if not all, of the stock in this controlling corporation. S. William Preus is president of Corporate Financial Planning of Florida, whose business is primarily providing computer printouts and expertise to insurance agents setting up retirement plans for clients. Preus holds the degree of Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) although at present he sells no insurance, but deals primarily with the insurance companies in assisting their agents. On 28 October 1980 at the request of insurance agents, Edward LaGrave and Don Hansman, S. William Preus, enroute from a seminar in Daytona to his office in St. Petersburg, met with the owners of Peebles Tractor Company in Winter Haven, Florida, to present information on a Keogh Plan for employees of Peebles. Jean E. Preus accompanied her husband to this meeting. LaGrave and Hansman provided Preus with a list of employees of Peebles, their ages and salaries, from which it was determined that some $27,000 per year could be invested in an employee retirement plan such as a Keogh Plan. In the presentation Preus used prototype trust documents prepared by Lincoln Trust Company and, if the Peebles Tractor Company opted for the plan he presented, it was his intention to forward the application to Lincoln Trust to serve as trustee of the plan. Preus had purchased one or more time-sharing condominium units and was impressed with the appreciation he had noticed in the selling price of such units in the past two years. He was especially impressed with the Bahia Mar development at which he had purchased a unit and who had additional time-sharing units to sell. Time-sharing is those housing units sold to various individuals for one week out of the year as a vacation home with the capability of swapping usage with similar units in other places. At Bahia Mar the unit owner sold one- week usage per year on a 99-year lease with the property managed by the developer and rented if the owner does not want to occupy the unit during his week's ownership. Preus proposed time-sharing units as a suitable investment vehicle for the Peebles Tractor Company employees retirement fund and Jean E. Preus showed pictures of the condominium units they owned at Bahia Mar. Peebles was not interested in purchasing time-sharing units for their employees' retirement fund and no sales were made. Had Peebles bought any of the Bahia Mar units, Respondents would have received a ten percent commission. Preus had obtained the Lincoln Trust forms from Lincoln Trust Company at an earlier date by simply requesting the forms. He obtained additional forms from Flagship Bank in a similar fashion. William A. Preus, the adult son of Respondent who also works with his father, had called Lincoln Trust before the October 28 meeting and learned the fees had been changed since the forms he had on hand were printed. He amended the forms used by S. William Preus to reflect this change in the fees charged by Lincoln Trust Company when the presentation was made to Peebles Tractor Company. The day following the Peebles meeting Preus contacted Lincoln Trust Company and learned they would no longer accept financed real estate in an employee retirement plan for which they served as trustee. Specifically, they would not accept funds to invest in financed time-shared condominium units. Formerly, Lincoln Trust had accepted financed raw land at Sugarwood Mills (in Florida) in such a retirement plan (Exhibit 11). In order to protect employee benefit plans Congress enacted the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 USCS 1001, et seq. Tax advantages accrue to those plans complying with ERISA, the federal tax laws and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. All investments are not acceptable; however, the principal requirement is that funds placed in such accounts be prudently invested. Regulations have been promulgated disqualifying investments and certain personal property such as gold coins in ERISA plans, which type investment was formerly allowed. No regulations specifically authorize or bar ERISA investments in time-shared condominium units. Although trustees such as Lincoln Trust Company will not accept time-shared units in ERISA accounts, testimony was presented that Flagship Bank of Tampa would accept such investments in ERISA accounts. No evidence was presented that Jean E. Preus made any representations regarding the acceptability of time-shared units in an employee retirement account. According to her testimony she has no knowledge of ERISA plans and her participation in the October 28 1980, meeting was limited to showing pictures of and describing the time-shared unit she owned at Bahia Mar.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, as a surviving spouse, is entitled to the monthly benefits of his deceased wife pursuant to Chapter 121, Florida Statutes (1995). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1995) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Betty Thomas began participation in the Florida Retirement System ("FRS") on December 19, 1970, when the public school system that employed her as a teacher converted its retirement program from the Florida Teachers Retirement Program to the FRS. At the time, Mrs. Thomas had approximately six years of previous service for which she received credit in the FRS. The designated beneficiaries of Mrs. Thomas in 1970 were Mr. Johnny Brown, her husband at the time, and the couple's dependent children, Shauna Jackson, Peguena Brown, and Romina Brown. The three daughters were born, respectively, in 1961, 1962, and 1969. The FRS did not become noncontributory until 1975. By 1972, Mrs. Thomas had received $2,322.75 in three separate refunds representing part of the personal contributions and accrued interest that she made prior to 1975. Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Brown divorced in 1972. Mrs. Thomas met Petitioner sometime in 1975, and the two married in 1990. They remained together until Mrs. Thomas died on September 21, 1996. At the time of her death, Mrs. Thomas was actively employed as an assistant principal with 28.2 years of creditable service in the FRS. If her creditable service had not been reduced by previous refunds of personal contributions, Mrs. Thomas would have held 31.8 years of creditable service. On May 31, 1992, Mrs. Thomas changed her designated beneficiary. She deleted Mr. Johnny Brown, her former husband, and designated her three adult daughters as her beneficiaries using the From M-10 (the "M-10") required by Respondent for such purposes. Mrs. Thomas did not designate Petitioner as a beneficiary. From the time Mrs. Thomas executed the M-10 on May 31, 1992, and thereafter, none of the daughters of Mrs. Thomas qualified as a "joint annuitant" or a "dependent beneficiary" within the meaning of Section 121.021(28). None of the daughters was under age 25, physically or mentally disabled or incapable of self-support, or otherwise financially dependent on Mrs. Thomas for at least one-half of their support. From the time Petitioner married Mrs. Thomas in 1990, Petitioner qualified as a "joint annuitant" within the meaning of Section 121.021(28)(a). He was the spouse of a member of the FRS and is now the surviving spouse. Shortly after the death of Mrs. Thomas on September 21, 1996, Petitioner requested the monthly benefits of his deceased wife. By letter dated November 1, 1996, Respondent advised Petitioner that the "only benefit" available was a refund of personal contributions. In relevant part, the letter stated: Unless one of the beneficiaries qualified as a joint annuitant of the member at the time of death . . ., a refund of retirement contributions is the only benefit payable from this account. (emphasis supplied) Each beneficiary is entitled to an equal portion of the $2,354.05 on deposit and should complete Form FST-11g, APPLICATION OF BENEFICIARY FOR REFUND. (emphasis not supplied) If all the designated beneficiaries wish to disclaim interest in this account, you, as the surviving spouse would qualify as a joint annuitant. You would be eligible to receive the Option 3 monthly retirement benefit. The monthly benefit would be payable for your lifetime and is estimated to be $1,617.95 effective October 1, 1996. (emphasis supplied) For you to receive this benefit, we need the following (emphasis supplied): Forms DIS-1 completed by Shauna B. Jackson, Peguena Brown, and Romina Brown. Disclaimer forms must be filed and recorded in Circuit Court within two years of the member's date of death. . . . The daughters of Mrs. Thomas did not disclaim their interest in the personal contributions that remained in the FRS account of their deceased mother. Rather, they applied for a refund. On December 9, 1997, Respondent refunded the remaining personal contributions of Mrs. Thomas to her three daughters. Petitioner continued his attempts to obtain the monthly benefits of his deceased wife. By letters dated January 30 and May 2, 1997, Respondent provided Petitioner with responses substantially the same as the response contained in the letter dated November 1, 1996. On July 17, 1998, Petitioner filed an Application of Beneficiary for Retirement Benefits. Respondent advised Petitioner that the "benefits" had already been paid to the three daughters of Mrs. Thomas, and Respondent requested an administrative hearing. The purpose of the M-10 signed by Mrs. Thomas was to designate beneficiaries of the retirement benefits earned by Mrs. Thomas during her years of service. The M-10 executed by Mrs. Thomas on May 31, 1992, stated, in relevant part: . . . I CHOOSE TO HAVE BENEFITS PAID . . . AS FOLLOWS . . . 3. . . . JOINTLY . . . BENEFITS SHALL BE DIVIDED AND PAYABLE AS INDICATED BELOW. . . . Shauna Brown Jackson Daughter 11/15/61 F Peguena Brown Daughter 12/10/61 F Romina Brown Daughter 3/9/69 F The term "benefits" is not defined in Section 121.021. However, Respondent's own rule, in relevant part, defines the term to mean a "monthly payment." Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-6.001(10). (Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.) After Mrs. Thomas died on September 21, 1996, Respondent did not pay "benefits" to anyone, as Respondent defines the term "benefit" in Rule 60S-6.001(10). On December 9, 1997, Respondent distributed three lump sum payments totaling $2,354.05, to the designated beneficiaries who were entitled to the personal contributions of Mrs. Thomas pursuant to Section 121.091(7)(b)2. Respondent distributed one lump sum payment of $784.69 to Ms. Romina Brown and two equal lump sum payments of $784.68 to Ms. Peguena Brown and Ms. Shauna Brown. Section 121.091(7)(b)2 authorizes Respondent to pay only the personal contributions of Mrs. Thomas to her designated beneficiaries who do not qualify as joint annuitants within the meaning of Section 121.021(28). However, nothing in Chapter 121 or the evidence of record requires Respondent to withhold monthly benefits from a surviving spouse who is entitled in Section 121.091(8) to receive retirement benefits. The attempt by Mrs. Thomas to designate beneficiaries on the M-10 was, in part, effective and, in part, ineffective. It was an effective attempt to designate the beneficiaries entitled to a refund of her personal contributions. However, it was an ineffective attempt to name a beneficiary entitled to the monthly benefits that accrued independently of any personal contributions. An ineffective attempt to designate a beneficiary who is entitled to monthly benefits fails to name a beneficiary entitled to those benefits. When no beneficiary is named, Petitioner, as the surviving spouse, is the beneficiary designated in Section 121.091(8) who is entitled to the monthly benefits. When Respondent refunded $2,322.75 in personal contributions to Mrs. Thomas in 1972, the refund reduced the monthly benefit from $1,617.95 to $1,279.54. The refund resulted in a reduction in monthly benefit of approximately $338.41. There is no evidence that a $2,354.05 refund of the remaining contributions in 1997 should have any different effect on the monthly benefit. In the absence of some legal reason not to do so, a refund of $2,354.05 in 1997 should reduce the monthly benefit in the same proportion that the previous refunds in 1972 reduced the monthly benefit. The $2,354.05 refund in 1997 should reduce the monthly benefit of $1,279.54, by $341.79, to $937.75. Sections 121.091(7)(e) and (f) authorize a surviving spouse to modify monthly benefits by repaying contributions refunded to the member. Petitioner can restore the monthly benefit either to $1,279.54 or to $1,617.95 by electing to pay either $2,354.05 or $4,676.05 in personal contributions previously refunded plus accrued interest at the statutorily prescribed rate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order awarding to Petitioner, for the remainder of his life, the monthly benefits earned by Mrs. Thomas during 31.8 years of service in an amount that may range from $937.75 to $1,617.95, depending on the amount of personal contributions repaid by Petitioner, and shall include a lump sum payment of all monthly benefits plus accrued interest from October 1, 1996, to the date of the first payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Button, Senior Attorney Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Granville E. Petrie, Esquire 1105 North Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
