The Issue Whether Petitioner, Heike Stoll (f/k/a Heike Bybee), has standing to assert a claim or right to any portion of her former husband’s Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) benefits as an “innocent spouse” pursuant to Article II, Section 8(d) of the Florida Constitution, and section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2017).1/
Findings Of Fact Mr. Bybee is a member of the FRS Investment Plan by virtue of his former employment as a deputy with the Sarasota County Sheriff, an FRS participating employer. On October 6, 2017, in Sarasota County Circuit Court Case Number 2017CF001018, Mr. Bybee was found guilty by jury verdict of the following felonies under Florida law: Kidnap- Commit or Facilitate Commission of Felony; Crimes Against Person-Exploitation Elderly or Disabled Adult $20,000 to $100,000 dollars; Fraudulent Use of Personal Identifying Information (8 counts); and Computer Crime to Defraud or Obtain Property (3 Counts) (referred to collectively as the “felony convictions”). On October 6, 2017, judgment was entered against Mr. Bybee adjudicating him guilty of the felony convictions. The SBA notified Mr. Bybee that his felony convictions required forfeiture of his FRS benefits under section 112.3173(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Mr. Bybee did not file a petition for hearing to challenge the Notice of Forfeiture or otherwise assert that his felony convictions did not warrant forfeiture of his FRS benefits under the forfeiture statute. Mr. Bybee’s interest in his FRS benefits is subject to forfeiture due to his commission of the crimes, and his felony convictions. Ms. Stoll was married to Mr. Bybee on August 27, 1994. On or about May 9, 2017, Ms. Stoll filed her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in Manatee County (Circuit Court Case Number 2017-DR-2067) asserting her interest in, inter alia, Mr. Bybee’s FRS benefits. On December 8, 2017, Ms. Stoll filed an “FRS Investment Plan Petition for Hearing” asserting her claim of entitlement to her spousal share of Mr. Bybee’s FRS benefits as an “innocent spouse.” On February 26, 2018, Mr. Bybee and Ms. Stoll executed a Marital Settlement Agreement. As to retirement accounts, Mr. Bybee and Ms. Stoll agreed to the following: Retirement Accounts/Pension. Wife shall receive as her sole property, and all equity and value therein, all retirement accounts and/or pensions in the Husband’s sole name, in the joint name of the parties, and/or in the Wife’s sole name, free and clear of any claims or interest which Husband may have thereto. Specifically, Husband has a pension and/or retirement account through the County of Sarasota Sheriff’s Department, State of Florida. Wife shall receive as her sole property, and all equity and value therein, in said pension and/or retirement account, free and clear of any claims or interest which Husband may have thereto. Further, Husband assigns, transfers, and relinquishes any legal or equitable claims, causes of action, or remedies of any nature against the pension and/or retirement account through the County of Sarasota Sheriff’s Department, State of Florida; and Husband shall fully cooperate with Wife in any and all respects as necessary for Wife to pursue any such legal or equitable claims, causes of action, or remedies related any manner said pension and/or retirement account. Ms. Stoll was not charged with or convicted of any crimes related to Mr. Bybee’s felony convictions. Ms. Stoll’s testimony was credible that she was unaware of Mr. Bybee’s crimes, and had not benefited from them in any fashion. On April 16, 2018, a Final Judgement of Dissolution of Marriage was entered in Manatee County Circuit Court Case Number 2017-DR-2067 that “approved, ratified and incorporated” the marital settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration issue a final order finding that Petitioner is not entitled to her former husband’s retirement benefits, because he was a public employee convicted of specified offenses; and pursuant to section 112.3173, he forfeited all of his rights and benefits in his Florida Retirement System Investment Plan account upon committing the crimes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Mr. Robert P. Hatcher, is eligible to retire under the Florida Retirement System rather than under the Teachers' Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed by the Hillsborough County School Board on August 25, 1959, and was enrolled in the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) at that time. The Petitioner worked for the Palm Beach County School Board for 27 years, from 1966 through May 15, 1992. The Petitioner worked with no breaks in service during all years in which the Legislature provided open enrollment periods for members of the TRS to transfer to the Florida Retirement System (FRS). The Petitioner was aware of the open enrollment periods, but declined all opportunities to transfer to the FRS. In this regard, the Petitioner specifically rejected membership in the FRS for the 1974 and 1978 open enrollment periods by signed ballots dated November 27, 1974, and November 2, 1978. Petitioner voluntarily terminated his employment with the Palm Beach County School Board on May 15, 1992. Following his termination with the Palm Beach County School Board, Petitioner began seeking employment with an agency that participated in the FRS in order to become eligible to transfer from the TRS to the FRS. The Petitioner's first contact with the Okeechobee County School Board (OCSB) was approximately two years ago when Dr. Mary Gray, Petitioner's acquaintance, introduced Petitioner to Mr. Owens. The Petitioner approached Mr. Owens in an attempt to obtain employment with the OCSB. The Petitioner sought employment with the OCSB for the sole purpose of obtaining entry into the FRS. Mr. Owens recruited and interviewed the Petitioner for the position of Custodian I at the OCSB. At the time the Petitioner was recruited and interviewed, Mr. Owens knew the Petitioner wanted to work for the OCSB for the sole purpose of establishing retirement eligibility. The Petitioner requested that he be hired to work only long enough to establish retirement eligibility by working for a state employer that was a member of the Florida Retirement System. Prior to the Petitioner's request, the OCSB had never had such a request before. The OCSB hired the Petitioner with the knowledge that he had health problems and believing that he would not be able to perform the duties of custodian for more than a short period of time. By letter dated June 23, 1993, the OCSB approved the Petitioner's employment as Custodian I for the OCSB effective June 30, 1993. The Custodian I position was classified as a regular position, not a short-term position. The Petitioner reported to work at the Okeechobee High School on June 30, 1993. He answered phones for several hours, performed some inventory work, then resigned that afternoon. The OCSB acknowledged receipt of the Petitioner's resignation letter, effective June 30, 1993, by letter dated August 2, 1993. The Petitioner submitted an application for membership in the FRS to the OCSB on June 30, 1993. Prior to his employment with the OCSB, the Petitioner investigated the possibility of transferring from the TRS to the FRS. The Petitioner was neither told nor did he receive any written communication by the DOR that he could transfer to the FRS based upon employment for one day. By letter dated August 16, 1993, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that he could not obtain entry into the FRS because his employment was not bona fide, but that he could retire under the TRS. If the Petitioner were to retire under the TRS, his Option 1 monthly benefit payment would be $2,571.64; his Option 3 monthly benefit payment would be $2,396.25. Under the FRS, Petitioner's Option 1 monthly benefit payment would be $3,054.91; his Option 3 monthly benefit payment would be $2,771.20.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement issue a final order concluding that the Petitioner is not eligible for participation in the Florida Retirement System and denying Petitioner's application for transfer from the Teachers' Retirement System to the Florida Retirement System. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 6th day of January 1994. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs a and b: Accepted in substance. Paragraph c: Accepted in part and rejected in part; accepted that the Petitioner obtained the described employment, but rejected that the employment was bona fide. Paragraph d: Accepted in part and rejected in part. The conclusion that the one day was sufficient to qualify the Petitioner for transfer to FRS is rejected as incorrect and as not warranted by the evidence; the remainder of the facts in this paragraph are accepted. Paragraph e: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact; a conclusion which is, in any event, not warranted by the evidence in this case. Paragraph f: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact; a conclusion which is, in any event, not warranted by the evidence in this case. Findings submitted by Respondent: All of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent have been accepted in whole or in substance in the Findings of Fact made in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Jodi B. Jennings, Esquire Division of Retirement Building C Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Allan L. Hoffman, Esquire 1610 Southern Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 3406 J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sylvan Strickland, Acting General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Eldon Sadler, Taylor County Property Appraiser, (Petitioner) is required to enroll Connie LaValle in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) for all of her employment with the Taylor County Property Appraiser's Office from June 1993 until the present.
Findings Of Fact Connie LaValle has been employed in Petitioner's office as a permanent part-time employee since September 16, 1992, as a "mapper." Pursuant to a contract, she has also been performing additional mapping services for Petitioner since June 1993, for which no contributions have been made to FRS. Contributions have been made for LaValle's other part-time employment in the office. Prior to June 2, 1993, LaValle and Petitioner spoke regarding LaValle's performing services related to implementing a Geographic Information System (GIS) in the event that Taylor County decided to obtain such a system. As a consequence, LaValle sought and obtained placement of her name on the Department of Revenue's approved bidder's list. Placement on the list is a prerequisite to entering into a contract with Petitioner's office. On June 2, 1993, Petitioner's office and LaValle entered into a contract whereby LaValle would perform "mapping services to aid in assessment." While not detailed as such in the written contract, these services were related to the GIS mapping function and were in addition to LaValle's existing part-time employment in the office. The contract was renewed on May 30, 1996. LaValle was not given any training for the tasks for which she contracted, she was not required to follow daily or weekly routines or schedules established in Petitioner's office, she was given no instructions in the way that work was to be performed, and Petitioner could not change methods used by LaValle or otherwise direct her as to how to do the work. LaValle did the contractual work at her convenience and was not required to perform that work in the office or pursuant to any schedule. She was paid for the work product as she finished it. Payment under one contract resulted in a $60 per map payment from Petitioner when the product was completed. Under the renegotiated contract, she received $3 per parcel on computerized maps. She was not guaranteed a minimum payment, nor did she receive pension benefits, bonuses, paid vacation time, or sick pay. Earnings pursuant to the contract were reported by LaValle as self-employment income on form 1099. The contract provided that neither Petitioner nor LaValle could terminate the agreement absent 30 days notice to the other party. In addition to furnishing her own work location, work equipment, tables, engineering scales, computer and other necessary equipment, LaValle also paid all related expenses. LaValle performed all contract work in her home. Although not prohibited by terms of the contract, she did not work for other entities. Respondent, pursuant to an audit of retirement records of Petitioner's office, determined that LaValle was performing additional duties for Petitioner's office and receiving salary for which no retirement contributions were paid. Petitioner was notified by Respondent by letter dated August 10, 1999, that LaValle previously filling a part-time regularly established position, was now performing additional duties for the same employer and was now considered to be filling a regularly established position for her total employment. Petitioner was informed that salary earned by LaValle for the additional duties should have been reported and contributions paid to Respondent for retirement benefits. Petitioner maintains that LaValle is an independent contractor with regard to additional duties and no retirement contributions are due and payable. Respondent has determined LaValle is not an independent contractor. Respondent asserts that the additional duties are an extension of her normal duties in her part-time position and contributions for retirement benefits are due with regard to compensation paid to her by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that payments made to Connie LaValle for additional duties from Petitioner's office constitute salary for additional employment requiring payment of retirement contributions by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 30th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Levy E. Levy, Esquire 1828 Riggins Road Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Ron Poppell, Interim Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Chief Legal Counsel Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue in this case is whether James B. Anderson, a deceased retiree in the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan, selected Option 1 (maximum retiree’s monthly benefit without any spousal benefit after death of the retiree) or Option 3 (a reduced retiree’s monthly benefit with continued spousal benefit after death of the retiree).
Findings Of Fact On June 30, 2007, the named Petitioner, James B. Anderson, terminated his employment with the University of South Florida (USF) at the age of 69 years and 9 months. At the time, his tenure at USF spanned 27 years and entitled him to receive pension benefits under the Florida State Retirement System Pension Plan. Also on June 30, 2007, Mr. Anderson completed an application for retirement. By applying Mr. Anderson, who was USF’s Director of Insurance and Risk Management, acknowledged that he would not be able to add service, change options, change his type of retirement (regular, disability, and early) or elect the Investment Plan once his retirement became final, which would be when he cashed or deposited any benefit payment. Also on July 2, 2007, Mr. Anderson and his wife, Mitzi Anderson, executed a Statutory Official Form FRS 110 before a notary public. By doing so, they selected Option 1, which provides the maximum pension benefits to Mr. Anderson until his death and no pension benefits to his wife after his death. The form stated clearly, in bold print, that Option 1 did not provide a continuing benefit after Mr. Anderson’s death and that the selection of Option 1 would be final when Mr. Anderson cashed or deposited any benefit payment. The next day, Mr. Anderson faxed the executed form to the Division of Retirement, which mailed Mr. Anderson an acknowledgement of receipt of the executed form. The acknowledgement included a clear statement, in bold print, that Mr. Anderson would not be able to change his benefit option selection after retirement and that his retirement would become final when he cashed or deposited any benefit payment. Mr. Anderson had second thoughts about his benefit option selection and contacted Donna Pepper, a retirement specialist employed by USF, to discuss changing to Option 3, which would give him a reduced pension benefit that would continue and be paid to his wife after his death. On July 6, 2007, Ms. Pepper sent an email to Mr. Anderson stating: “Here is another option selection form so that you can change your option.” The email attached a blank Statutory Official Form FRS 110. Ms. Pepper’s email also stated: “As we discussed, you may want to indicate that this form should supersede the previously submitted form.” It also advised the Petitioner to keep a copy for his records and send the original to the Division of Retirement as soon as possible. On July 20, 2007, at 12:53 p.m., a comment was entered on the Integrated Retirement Information System (IRIS) telephone log, documenting that Mr. Anderson was considering changing his benefit option selection and would “either FAX a form with a change of option on it or call to let them know he would not make the change.” The comment also documented that Jan Steller in retirement payroll was asked to hold Mr. Anderson’s first check until “this is resolved.” Later the same day, at 2:30 p.m., another comment was added to document that Mr. Anderson had called back to say he had decided to stay with Option 1 and that Jan Steller had been called back and asked “to release his check.” On July 31, 2007, an initial pension check was sent to Mr. Anderson in the amount of $4,188.45, in accordance with his selection of benefit Option 1, which was about $1,200 more than it would be under Option 3. This check was not immediately cashed. On August 31, 2007, a second Option 1 pension check in the same amount was sent to Mr. Anderson. On September 4, 2007, Mr. Anderson deposited the first two benefit checks into his Bank of America account. He continued to receive and cash or deposit monthly Option 1 benefit checks through January 2015. Mr. Anderson died on February 14, 2015. His wife notified the Division of Retirement, which stopped benefit payments in accordance with Mr. Anderson’s Option 1 selection. In March 2015, Mrs. Anderson found among her husband’s papers a copy of an executed Form FRS 110 that selected Option 3. Notwithstanding the telephonic communications with the Division of Retirement on July 20, 2007, the executed form indicates that it was notarized on July 23, 2007. Included in handwriting at the bottom of the executed form was the language, as suggested by Ms. Pepper: “This option supersedes option dated 7-02-07.” Mrs. Anderson also found a copy of Donna Pepper’s e-mail dated July 6, 2007, with instructions on how to change the selection of pension payments. Mrs. Anderson sent copies to the Division of Retirement and requested Option 3 spousal benefit payments. The Division of Retirement denied Mrs. Anderson’s request because it did not receive an Option 3 benefit selection before the copy Mrs. Anderson sent in March 2015. There was no evidence that the form was sent to the Division of Retirement before then. This, together with the fact that Mr. Anderson received and cashed or deposited seven and a half years’ worth of monthly Option 1 benefit checks, which were each over $1,200 more than the Option 3 benefit would have been, support a finding that Mr. Anderson actually selected Option 1 and never switched to Option 3. It is not clear from the evidence why Mr. Anderson kept a copy of an executed change from Option 1 to Option 3 after deciding not to send it to the Division of Retirement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that Mr. Anderson selected benefit Option 1, finally and irrevocably and that Mrs. Anderson is not entitled to Option 3 spousal benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas E. Karatinos, Esquire Law Office of Karatinos Suite 101 18920 North Dale Mabry Highway Lutz, Florida 33540 (eServed) Joe Thompson, Esquire Department of Management Services Suite 160 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Dan Drake, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 (eServed) J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Ste. 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Judith Richards, is eligible for the health insurance subsidy offered to Florida Retirement System retirees.
Findings Of Fact In November 2011, Petitioner was hired by the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office to work as a crossing guard. The Osceola County Sheriff’s Office is an FRS-participating employer, and the position held by Petitioner was in the 2 It is well established that issues related to subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time during the pendency of a proceeding. 84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper, 656 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). “Regular Class” of FRS membership. In 2011, newly hired eligible employees (members) of the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office were required to participate in either the FRS pension plan or the investment plan. Petitioner elected to participate in the investment plan. Generally, the pension plan offers eligible employees a formulaic fixed monthly retirement benefit, whereas an employee’s investment plan benefits are “provided through member-directed investments.” Pursuant to section 112.363, Florida Statutes, retired members of any state-administered retirement system will receive an HIS benefit if certain eligibility requirements are satisfied. Section 112.363(1) provides that a monthly subsidy payment will be provided “to retired members of any state- administered retirement system in order to assist such retired members in paying the costs of health insurance.” Section 112.363(3)(e)2. provides that beginning July 1, 2002, each eligible member of the investment plan shall receive “a monthly retiree health insurance subsidy payment equal to the number of years of creditable service, as provided in this subparagraph, completed at the time of retirement, multiplied by $5; … [and] an eligible retiree or beneficiary may not receive a subsidy payment of more than $150 or less than $30.” On July 18, 2019, Petitioner’s employment with the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office ended, and at that time she had 7.77 years of FRS creditable service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying the application for retiree health insurance subsidy submitted by Mrs. Richards. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Gayla Grant, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 David DiSalvo, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 Judith Richards 2337 Louise Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741 William Chorba, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a refund of contributions made to the Florida State Officers and Employees Retirement System from October 1952 through January 1956.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Florida A & M Hospital, Tallahassee, Florida, from October 1952 through January 1956. During the course of this employment, contributions to SOERS were withheld from her monthly pay warrant. On February 23, 1956, Division records reflect that she had contributed a total of $455.04 into SOERS. During January 1956 she terminated her employment. On or about February 23, 1956, the sum of $455.04 was debited from Petitioner's account. This action was taken because the Florida law in effect in 1956, mandated the return of contributions made to SOERS to an employee upon termination of employment. However, evidence which might have demonstrated that a warrant was issued naming Petitioner as payee, is unavailable because cancelled warrants are only maintained on file by the Florida Comptroller for 20 years. Under applicable statutes and, pursuant to Division practice at times pertinent, if a warrant had been issued, but never negotiated, the amount would have been credited back to the trust fund under Petitioner's account. Petitioner's account at the Division does not reflect such a credit. If a warrant had been issued and negotiated pursuant to a forged endorsement, and such forgery was not detected, no entries subsequent to issuance would have been made to Petitioner's account. Petitioner, in January 1956, departed Tallahassee for Nuremburg, Germany, after marrying. She did not leave a forwarding address with her employer or with Respondent. Petitioner ultimately became a resident of Coram, New York, where she currently resides. Petitioner testified that she never received a warrant for $455.04 from the State of Florida. Her testimony was unrebutted and credible and is taken as a fact. Petitioner first became aware she was entitled to a payment of $455.04 from the Division when, in the year 2000, she made inquiries regarding her eligibility for social security. Petitioner has determined that the amount in question is not being held in the Unclaimed Property Bureau of the Florida Comptroller.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division cause to be issued to Petitioner a warrant in the amount of $455.04. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 23rd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lettie L. Echols No. 2 Gulf Lane Coram, New York 11727 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 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
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the joint stipulation of facts submitted by the parties, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner was elected to the office of tax assessor, Bay County, for successive regular terms in 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1972. He was commissioned for that office on January 6, 1953, January 8, 1957, January 3, 1961, January 5, 1965, January 7, 1969, and January 2, 1973. As tax assessor, petitioner was a member of the retirement system now known as the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System, Chapter 122, Florida Statutes. By two written ballots, petitioner rejected membership in the Florida Retirement System, Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, to be effective December 1, 1970, and January 1, 1975. The constitutional office of tax assessor was abolished and the constitutional office of property appraiser was created in its stead by amendment to Article 8, Section (1)(d) in 1974. The petitioner was elected to the office of property appraiser in 1976, and commissioned on January 4, 1977. The petitioner's duties as property appraiser were and are the same as they were when he was the tax assessor. Petitioner has been in office continually since January 6, 1953, either as tax assessor or property appraiser. He has not terminated his employment and received a refund of contributions; has not had a non-creditable leave of absence; nor was he off the payroll for at least one calendar month.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's demand for admittance into the Florida Retirement System as of January 4, 1977, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 20th of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Cooper, Jr., Esquire Davenport, Johnston, Harris, Gerde and Harrison 406 Magnolia Avenue Robert L. Kennedy, Jr. Panama City, Florida 32401 State Retirement Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Assistant Division Attorney Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207-C, Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Petitioners are entitled to, and should receive, survivor retirement benefits from the Florida Retirement System account of their deceased mother, Adrianna Davis, which are presently being paid to their sister, Earnese Davis?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Adrianna Davis was a public school teacher in Broward County for more than 35 years before her retirement in or about the end of January of 1991. She enrolled in the Teacher's Retirement System of Florida in 1955, when she started her teaching career. On the enrollment form that she filled out, she designated her father, Charles Williams, who is now deceased, as her beneficiary. Adrianna subsequently became a member of the Florida Retirement System. At the time of her death, Adrianna had two adult sons, Kevin and Eddie Davis, (the Petitioners in this case) and one adult daughter, Earnese Davis, (the Intervenor in this case), all three of whom lived with her in the house she and the children's aunt co-owned. Adrianna was the undisputed head of the household and its primary decision maker. Although Earnese lived under the same roof as her brothers, she did not have a good relationship with them. Shortly after the beginning of the 1990-91 school year, Adrianna was told by a physician that he suspected that she had cancer. In October or November, she underwent exploratory surgery. The surgery confirmed that she had cancer, which was determined to be inoperable. Following the exploratory surgery, Adrianna received chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Adrianna was admitted to Humana Hospital Bennett (now Westside Regional Medical Center and hereinafter referred to as "Humana") on December 6, 1990. She was brought to Humana by Earnese, who remained with her in the hospital during the entire period of her hospitalization. 1/ After a medical history was taken and a physical examination was conducted, the following initial "assessment" was made of Adrianna's condition by the admitting physician: "Lung carcinoma with dehydration post chemotherapy." Approximately two days prior to her December 6, 1990, hospitalization, Adrianna had asked Earnese to go to the Broward County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board") offices to obtain a Florida Retirement System Application for Service Retirement form (hereinafter referred to as a "Form 11). Form 11 has four sections that need to be filled out. In the first section of Form 11 (hereinafter referred to as "Section 1"), the following information has to be provided: the applicant's name; the applicant's social security number; the applicant's job title; the applicant's birth date; the applicant's present or last employer; the applicant's home address and home and work phone numbers; and the date of termination of applicant's employment. In the second section of Form 11 (hereinafter referred to as "Section 2"), the following information has to be provided: the name of the beneficiary designated by the applicant; the beneficiary's social security number; the relationship of the beneficiary to the applicant; the beneficiary's home mailing address; and the "option" selected by the applicant. 2/ The following advisement is printed at the top of Section 2: "All previous beneficiary designations are null and void." The third section of Form 11 (hereinafter referred to as "Section 3") contains the following statement, underneath which the applicant has to place his or her signature "in [the] presence of [a] notary:" "I UNDERSTAND I MUST TERMINATE ALL EMPLOYMENT WITH FRS EMPLOYERS TO RECEIVE A RETIREMENT BENEFIT UNDER CHAPTER 121, FLORIDA STATUTES." It also has a certificate that has to be completed and signed by the notary public in whose presence the applicant signs this section of the form. The fourth and last section of Form 11 (hereinafter referred to as "Section 4") contains the following certification that has to be completed, signed and dated by an authorized representative of the applicant's employer, "if termination was within the last 2 years:" "This is to certify that was employed by this agency and will terminate or has terminated on / / , with the last day worked on / / ." As her mother had asked her to do, Earnese went to the to the School Board offices at 1320 Southwest 4th Street in Fort Lauderdale to pick up a Form There she met with Victoria Moten, a School Board retirement specialist. 3/ Earnese told Moten about her mother's situation. She explained that her mother was ill and it looked like she was "not going to make it." 4/ Moten obtained a blank Form 11. After typing in the information that needed to be provided in Section 1 of the form, Moten handed the partially completed form to Earnese and indicated what further steps needed to be taken in order to complete the application process. After her visit with Moten, Earnese returned home and gave her mother the partially completed Form 11 (with only Section 1 filled in) that Moten had provided Earnese with earlier that day (hereinafter referred to as the "Designation Form"). Adrianna kept the Designation Form in her possession and took it with her (in a knapsack, along with other papers) to the hospital on December 6, 1990. She explained to Earnese that she wanted to have the Designation Form filled out while she was in the hospital. It was Adrianna, not Earnese, who brought up the subject. On the morning of December 10, 1990, while Adrianna was still in the hospital, she told Earnese that she wanted to designate Earnese as the sole beneficiary of her retirement benefits so that Earnese would be able to get her "life together" and she asked Earnese to fill out Section 2 of the Designation Form accordingly. 5/ Adrianna also requested Earnese to obtain the services of a notary public to assist in filling out Section 3 of the Designation Form. Earnese thereupon left her mother's hospital room (without the Designation Form, which remained with Adrianna) to find a Florida notary public in the hospital. Her search was successful. She made contact with Elizabeth Sarkissian (now Gassew), a registered nurse and a Florida notary public, 6/ who agreed to help in filling out Section 3 of the Designation Form. Earnese returned to her mother's room with Sarkissian. Earnese filled out Section 2 of the Designation Form in accordance with her mother's previous instructions. Sarkissian, upon entering the room, engaged in conversation with Adrianna, who was sitting up in her hospital bed. Adrianna was alert and oriented. She spoke clearly and responded appropriately to questions Sarkissian asked her. By all appearances, she was in no way mentally incapacitated. After Earnese had finished filling out Section 2 of the Designation Form, Adrianna signed Section 3 of the form in Sarkissian's and Earnese's presence. 7/ Sarkissian then completed and signed the notary certificate underneath Adrianna's signature (in Section 3 of the Designation Form), 8/ after which the form (now with Sections 1, 2 and 3 filled in) was returned to the knapsack in which Adrianna kept the papers she had brought with her to the hospital. Her presence no longer needed, Sarkissian left Adrianna's hospital room. Sarkissian's visit lasted approximately five or ten minutes. Later that day (December 10, 1990), in the evening, Adrianna underwent a surgical procedure involving the insertion of a vascular access port. Adrianna was discharged from the hospital on December 12, 1991. She took the knapsack which contained the Designation Form home with her. Adrianna kept the Designation Form in her possession until January 3, 1991, when she gave it to Earnese, with instructions that Earnese deliver it to Moten for filing. Earnese followed her mother's instructions. Later that same day (January 3, 1991), she went to Moten's office (without her mother) and handed Moten the Designation Form. Moten thereupon completed Section 4 of the form. The now fully completed form was then filed for processing. In June of 1991, Adrianna went into a coma and eventually died. At the time of her death, the Designation Form (which, in Section 2, designated Earnese as the sole Option 2 beneficiary of Adrianna's retirement benefits) was the most recent designation of beneficiary form executed by Adrianna. At no time subsequent to signing the Designation Form did she express to Earnese a desire to make any changes to Section 2 of the form, nor were any such changes made. It has not been shown that Adrianna's designation of Earnese as the sole beneficiary of her retirement benefits was the product of any fraud, misrepresentation, trickery, coercion, undue influence, active procurement, or suggestion on Earnese's part or that it was anything other than a decision made freely, voluntarily and knowingly by a woman who, although terminally ill, was in all respects capable of making such a decision 9/ and fully understood the consequences her decision. On or about July 18, 1991, through the submission of a completed Application of Beneficiary for Retirement Benefits form, Earnese requested that the Division begin to pay her Adrianna's retirement benefits. On the form, Earnese designated her brothers, Eddie and Kevin, as the first and second contingent beneficiaries, respectively, of these benefits in the event of her death. Earnese has received monthly payments from her mother's retirement account since July of 1991. 10/ She currently receives a monthly payment of $1,986.30.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order refusing to grant Petitioners' request that it treat as a nullity Adrianna Davis' written designation of Earnese Davis as her sole beneficiary and, based upon such nullification, discontinue paying Adrianna's retirement benefits to Earnese Davis and instead pay them to Petitioners. 13/ DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of February, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 8th day of February, 1996.
The Issue Whether at the time of his father's death, Armando Martinez, Jr., was a "dependent beneficiary" of his father, a vested member of the Florida Retirement System, so as to be entitled to his father's retirement benefits?
Findings Of Fact Armando Martinez, Jr., was born on February 22, 1974, to Natalie M. Martinez and the late Armando Martinez, Sr. In 1992, when Armando, Jr., was eighteen years old, Mr. and Mrs. Martinez were divorced. The following year, 1993, less than two weeks after Armando, Jr.'s, nineteenth birthday, Armando Martinez, Sr., died. The cause of death was liver cancer, a disease from which Ms. Martinez presently suffers. At the time of his death on March 7, 1993, Mr. Martinez was a vested member of the Florida Retirement System. A municipal employee, he had been a bus operator. At some point close to commencement of his employment, slightly more than ten years prior to his death, Armando Martinez, Sr., had executed a Form M-10. The form named his wife, Natalie, as his primary beneficiary. Armando, Jr., the only child of Armando, Sr., and Natalie Martinez, was named as the sole contingency beneficiary. Following Mr. Martinez, Sr.'s death, Ms. Martinez disclaimed Florida Retirement System benefits. She did so in order for Armando, Jr., as the contingent beneficiary, to be able to receive the benefits. On February 17, 1997, the Division of Retirement denied Armando, Jr., survivor benefits. Had Mr. Martinez, Sr., died one-year and several weeks earlier, that is, prior to Armando, Jr.'s eighteenth birthday, the Division would have approved distribution of survivor benefits to him. But, although he was still a high school student, since he was older than nineteen by a few days at the time of his father's death, the Division required proof that Armando, Jr., had received half of his support from his father at the time of his father's death. No such proof was provided to the Division prior to or at the time of its preliminary denial. In fact, in his 1992 tax return, Mr. Martinez did not claim his son Armando, Jr., as a dependent. In this formal administrative proceeding, however, Armando Martinez, Jr., provided such proof, proof which was lacking until hearing. The year 1992 was very difficult for Armando Martinez, Jr., and his family. His parents separated, Armando, Jr., lived with his mother. Armando, Sr., lived elsewhere. Prior to his death, divorce proceedings were finalized. In the meantime, Ms. Martinez had lost her job. She remained unemployed for the entire year and in early 1993 as well. Armando, Jr., was still in high school at the time of his father's death. During the 1992-93 school year, to support himself and his mother, he obtained work part-time while he remained in school. Ms. Martinez paid the rent for their apartment at a rate of between $370 and $500 per month. The monthly phone bill of Ms. Martinez and Armando, Jr., was approximately $50; utility payments $70; groceries $300; gasoline $10, automobile insurance $100; and school supplies $40. There were other expenses, clothes, for example, that occurred from time-to-time. In addition to minimal government support to Ms. Martinez and Armando, Jr.'s, part-time employment income, Armando, Jr., was supported by cash payments provided by his father. Two or three times a month, Armando's father and a girl friend, Karen Jones, would drive to the front of the house. Because of his illness, Mr. Martinez remained in the car while Ms. Jones brought cash, usually between two and five hundred dollars in an envelope to the front door. On more than one of these occasions, Ms. Jones, the envelope, and the cash were observed by friends of the family at the moment of delivery. Ms. Martinez log of the estimates of these payments totals approximately $8,500, an amount in excess of Mr. Martinez's income reported in his 1992 tax return filed before his death in 1993 to be $6,389.00. But, Mr. Martinez, Sr. had access to other means of support and other monies including proceeds from insurance policies. The $8,500 provided to Armando, Jr., by Armando Martinez, Sr. constituted more than half of Armando, Jr.'s, support for the year 1992 and up until Mr. Martinez, Sr.'s, death in early 1993.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the Division of Retirement recognize Armando Martinez, Jr., to have been the dependent beneficiary of Armando Martinez, Sr., at the time of Mr. Martinez, Sr.'s, death, and therefore entitled to retirement benefits. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Button, Esquire Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Natalie Martinez Suite 3811 3801 Northgreen Avenue Tampa, Florida 33624 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what amount?
Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. § 57.105(5), Fla. Stat.; and Order and Mandate in Case No. 1D04-4167, First District Court of Appeal. Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: (5) In administrative proceedings under chapter 120, an administrative law judge shall award a reasonable attorney's fee and damages to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and a losing party's attorney or qualified representative in the same manner and upon the same basis as provided in subsections (1)-(4). Such award shall be a final order subject to judicial review pursuant to s. 120.68. If the losing party is an agency as defined in s. 120.52(1), the award to the prevailing party shall be against and paid by the agency. A voluntary dismissal by a nonprevailing party does not divest the administrative law judge of jurisdiction to make the award described in this subsection. Subsection (5) of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, directs the undersigned to the preceding subsections which set forth standards to be applied in the analysis of entitlement to attorney’s fees. Subsection (1) provides that reasonable attorney’s fees shall be awarded to the prevailing party to be paid by the losing party where the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense, when initially presented to the administrative tribunal or at any time before the administrative hearing, “[w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense or [w]ould not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.” The standards set forth in Subsection (1) and incorporated by reference in Subsection (5) were the result of an amendment to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, in 1999. s. 4, Ch. 99-225, Laws of Florida. Prior to that amendment, the statute provided for the award of attorney’s fees when “there was a complete absence of justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint or defense of the losing party.” These new standards became applicable to administrative hearings in 2003 by s. 9, Ch. 2003-94, Laws of Florida, with an effective date of June 4, 2003. Petitioner filed his Petition for Administrative Hearing in September 2003. Accordingly, the newer standards of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, apply to this case. In the case of Wendy’s v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the court discussed the legislative changes to Section 57.105: [T]his statute was amended in 1999 as part of the 1999 Tort Reform Act in an effort to reduce frivolous litigation and thereby to decrease the cost imposed on the civil justice system by broadening the remedies that were previously available. See Ch. 99- 225, s. 4, Laws of Florida. Unlike its predecessor, the 1999 version of the statute no longer requires a party to show a complete absence of a justiciable issue of fact or law, but instead allows recovery of fees for any claims or defenses that are unsupported. (Citations omitted) However, this Court cautioned that section 57.105 must be applied carefully to ensure that it serves the purpose for which it was intended, which was to deter frivolous pleadings. (Citations omitted) In determining whether a party is entitled to statutory attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, frivolousness is determined when the claim or defense was initially filed; if the claim or defense is not initially frivolous, the court must then determine whether the claim or defense became frivolous after the suit was filed. (Citation omitted) In so doing, the court determines if the party or its counsel knew or should have known that the claim or defense asserted was not supported by the facts or an application of existing law.(Citation omitted) An award of fees is not always appropriate under section 57.105, even when the party seeking fees was successful in obtaining the dismissal of the action or summary judgment in an action. (Citation omitted) Wendy's v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 523. The court in Wendy’s recognized that the new standard is difficult to define and must be applied on a case-by-case basis: While the revised statute incorporates the ‘not supported by the material facts or would not be supported by application of then-existing law to those material facts’ standard instead of the ‘frivolous’ standard of the earlier statute, an all encompassing definition of the new standard defies us. It is clear that the bar for imposition of sanctions has been lowered, but just how far it has been lowered is an open question requiring a case by case analysis. Wendy’s v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 524 citing Mullins v. Kennelly, 847 So. 2d at 1155, n.4. (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). More recently, the First District Court of Appeal further described the legislative change: The 1999 version lowered the bar a party must overcome before becoming entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes . . . Significantly, the 1999 version of 57.105 ‘applies to any claim or defense, and does not require that the entire action be frivolous.’ Albritton v. Ferrera, 913 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), quoting Mullins v. Kennelly, supra. The Florida Supreme Court has noted that the 1999 amendments to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, “greatly expand the statute’s potential use.” Boca Burger, Inc. v. Richard Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 570, (Fla. 2005). The phrase “supported by the material facts” found in Section 57.105(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was defined by the court in Albritton to mean that the “party possesses admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact if accepted by the finder of fact.” Albritton, 913 So. 2d 5, at 7, n.1. Therefore, the first question is whether FAMU or its attorneys knew or should have known that its defense of Dr. Jain’s claim was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the defense when the case was initially filed or at any time before trial. That is, did FAMU possess admissible evidence sufficient to establish its defense. The parties filed a Pretrial Stipulation the day before the hearing. The Pretrial Stipulation characterized FAMU’s position as follows: It is the position of the University that Dr. Babu Jain retired at the close of business on May 30, 2003, pursuant to the provision of the DROP retirement program. Dr. Jain did not have the right, nor the authority, to unilaterally rescind his resignation and retirement date. In a letter dated May 5, 2003, the Division of Retirement informed Dr. Jain that it was providing him with the “DROP VOID” form that had to be signed by himself and the University, for his participation in DROP to be rescinded. No University official signed that form nor agreed to rescind his retirement. On May 30, 2003, Dr. Babu Jain knew that his retirement through DROP had not been voided and that he had in-fact retired. The University included the position that Dr. Jain occupied in its vacancy announcement in the ‘Chronicle of Higher Education.’ The University, through Dr. Larry Robinson notified Dr. Jain that his retirement rescission was not accepted. Dr. Jain did not work past May 30, 2003. Finally, there was never a ‘meeting of the minds’, nor any other agreement between the University and Dr. Jain to void his retirement commitment. It [is] the University’s position that Dr. Babu Jain retired from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University effective at the close of business on May 30, 2003. Pretrial Stipulation at 14-15. (emphasis in original) The material facts known by FAMU necessary to establish its defense against Petitioner's claim at the time the case was filed included: Petitioner’s initial Notice of Election to Participate in DROP and Resignation of Employment in which Dr. Jain resigned effective the date he terminated from DROP (designated as May 30, 2003); Dr. Robinson’s letter dated May 27, 2003, which asserted that the University was not in agreement with Dr. Jain's decision and that the decision to terminate from DROP is a mutual one; Dr. Robinson's letter of May 30, 2003, which informed Dr. Jain that the two summer semester employment contracts were issued to him in error and informing Dr. Jain that he would be paid through May 30, 2003, his designated DROP date; the refusal of anyone from FAMU to sign the DROP-VOID form provided to Dr. Jain by the Division of Retirement; the reassignment of another instructor to take over Dr. Jain’s classes the first Monday following the designated DROP termination date; and the Refund of Overpayment of Salary Form and resulting salary deduction from Dr. Jain’s sick leave payout. It is difficult to determine what, if any, additional facts FAMU learned through discovery. That is, whether deposition testimony of FAMU officials enlightened FAMU or its attorneys as to material facts not known at the time the case was filed by Dr. Jain, is not readily apparent. However, a review of the pre-trial depositions reveals material facts which supported FAMU’s defense that the summer contracts were issued in error and that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties regarding voiding Dr. Jain’s DROP participation. In particular, Dr. Robinson, Provost and Vice- President for Academic Affairs, testified in deposition that when he signed Dr. Jain’s summer employment contracts on May 20, 2003, he had no knowledge of Dr. Jain’s participation in the DROP program; that he first became aware that Dr. Jain was in DROP with a DROP termination date of May 30, 2003, upon receiving a May 21, 2003, memorandum from Nellie Woodruff, Director of the FAMU Personnel Office; and that Dean Larry Rivers did not have the authority to issue work assignments for any of his faculty beyond their DROP dates. Additionally, Dr. Henry Williams, Assistant Dean for Science and Technology, testified in deposition that when he signed the Recommendation for Summer Employment on May 5, 2003, which recommended Dr. Jain for teaching summer courses beginning May 12, 2003, he was unaware that there was a 30-day window during which a DROP participant could not be employed. Obviously, when the undersigned weighed all of the evidence, including evidence presented at hearing which is not part of this analysis, it was determined that the preponderance of the evidence was in favor of Dr. Jain’s position. However, that is not the standard to be applied here. The undersigned concludes that at the time the case was filed and prior to the commencement of the hearing, FAMU possessed admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact that it did not give written agreement to his decision to abandon DROP and resume employment if accepted by the finder of fact. While the finder of fact ultimately did not agree with FAMU, FAMU possessed the material facts necessary to establish the defense, i.e., admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact if accepted by the trier of fact, when the case was filed and prior to the final hearing. The second question is whether FAMU’s defense would not be supported by the application of then existing law to those material facts, when the case was initially filed or at any time before the final hearing. In the Pretrial Stipulation, the parties referenced Sections 121.091(13) and 121.021(39), Florida Statutes, as provisions of law relevant to the determination of the issues in the case.2/ These statutory provisions were also referenced by the undersigned in the Recommended Order as “two competing statutory provisions.” Recommended Order at 15. Subsection 121.091(13), Florida Statutes, establishing the DROP program, was created by s. 8, Ch. 97-180, Laws of Florida, with an effective date of January 1, 1999.3/ Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes (2003), read as follows: DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PROGRAM.--In general, and subject to the provisions of this section, the Deferred Retirement Option Program, hereinafter referred to as the DROP, is a program under which an eligible member of the Florida Retirement System may elect to participate, deferring receipt of retirement benefits while continuing employment with his or her Florida Retirement System employer. The deferred monthly benefits shall accrue in the System Trust Fund on behalf of the participant, plus interest compounded monthly, for the specified period of the DROP participation, as provided in paragraph (c). Upon termination of employment, the participant shall receive the total DROP benefits and begin to receive the previously determined normal retirement benefits. Participation in the DROP does not guarantee employment for the specified period of DROP. Participation in the DROP by an eligible member beyond the initial 60-month period as authorized in this subsection shall be on an annual contractual basis for all participants. Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), read as follows: 'Termination' for a member electing to participate under the Deferred Retirement Option Program occurs when the Deferred Retirement Option Program participant ceases all employment relationships with employers under this system in accordance with s. 121.091(13), but in the event the Deferred Retirement Option Program participant should be employed by any such employer within the next calendar month, termination will be deemed not to have occurred, except as provided in s. 121.091(13)(b)4.c. A leave of absence shall constitute a continuation of the employment relationship. Unlike the situation in Albritton, supra, the DROP program was relatively new and the statutes creating the same were not well established provisions of law. Dr. Jain was in the first “class” of DROP for FAMU. FAMU and its lawyers did not have the benefit of established case law that discussed DROP and its provisions when this case was filed or at any time before the hearing. While general contract law also came into play, it had to be considered in the context of the DROP program, which had no precedent of case law. FAMU argues in its Response to the Motion for Attorney's Fees that it interpreted the provision in Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes, that requires written approval of the employer to be either the DROP VOID form provided by the Division of Retirement or a written document, executed by the designated University official, specifically approving Petitioner's decision. "The University did not believe the employment contracts that were issued to Petitioner in error, would constitute written approval." FAMU's Response at 5. This argument is consistent with the position FAMU took in the Pretrial Statement quoted above, that there was never a meeting of the minds "or any other agreement" that Dr. Jain's retirement rescission was accepted. A critical conclusion in the Recommended Order is found in paragraph 38: "Moreover, while the FAMU administration did not sign the DROP-VOID form, the contracts issued to Dr. Jain constitute written approval of Dr. Jain's employer regarding modification of his termination date." FAMU also took the position in the Pretrial Stipulation that Dr. Jain did not work past May 30, 2003, based upon the material facts recited above. Under that reading of the facts, Dr. Jain did not work during the next calendar month after DROP, and, therefore terminated employment consistent with the definition of "termination" in Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes. Again, while the undersigned did not agree with FAMU's application of the material facts to the then-existing law, FAMU's interpretation was not completely without merit. See Mullins v. Kennerly, 847 So. 2d 1151, 1155. (Case completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by reasonable argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law is a guideline for determining if an action is frivolous.) Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that at the time the case was filed and prior to the commencement of the hearing, FAMU did not know and could not be expected to know that its defense would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to the material facts necessary to establish the defense. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is ORDERED: Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 2006.
